Evaluation of New Opportunities for Quality Childcare (NOQC)

Transcription

1 Evaluation of New Opportunities for Quality Childcare (NOQC) 23 June 2008

2 Copyright: Big Lottery Fund 2008 Published by: Big Lottery Fund 1 Plough Place, London, EC4A 1DE Tel: Fax: e&r@biglotteryfund.org.uk Use of material in this report must be appropriately acknowledged. The Big Lottery Fund

3 Contents Executive Summary...1 1: Introduction and methodology...5 2: Literature and policy update : Programme overview and key findings : Improving the quality of new and existing childcare : Increasing access to childcare for disadvantaged groups : Demonstrating a holistic approach to care and learning : Capability Scotland: Play 4 All : Conclusions and lessons learned...63 Annex A: Survey questionnaire... A-1 Annex B: Case study information... B-1 Annex C: Assessing the quality of childcare: other research instruments... C-1 Annex D: Bibliography... D-1 Contact: Sheila Sim Tel: ssim@sqw.co.uk Approved by: Bruce Macdonald Date: 2306/08 Associate Director

4 Executive Summary Evaluation of New Opportunities for Quality Childcare (NOQC) Introduction and methodology 1. This is the final report of the findings from the evaluation of the New Opportunities for Quality Childcare Programme (NOQC), funded by the Big Lottery Fund (referred to henceforth as BIG). The evaluation has been undertaken by SQW Consulting and the University of Stirling over three years; it commenced in mid The 15.3 million NOQC programme aims to support the development of a vibrant, sustainable and good quality childcare sector by funding quality developments in new and existing childcare projects. The programme supports capital and revenue costs for provision to children aged from birth to 14 (16 with additional support needs). 3. The evaluation was required to investigate the impacts of the programme against its three outcomes and to focus on how each programme priority has contributed to these outcomes. The programme s three outcomes, each addressed through different priorities, are outlined in Table 1-1: Table 1-1 NOQC Outcomes and Priorities Outcome To improve the quality of new and existing childcare provision To increase access to childcare for disadvantaged groups To demonstrate a holistic approach by combining different activities in after school care Priorities Capital support for childcare projects (e.g. new build, expansion or refurbishment) Outdoor play support (e.g. play areas, purchase of furniture or vehicles) Workforce development (e.g. course fees, travel, temporary staff cover) Projects which support children with special needs (e.g. adaptations, specialist equipment, family liaison work, staff training) Projects which provide support to families (e.g. parenting classes, adult training, family support) Projects that combine out-of-school-hours childcare (OSHC) and out-of-school-hours learning (OSHL), with an emphasis on joint planning, development and co-location 4. Our approach to this three-year evaluation has comprised the following main elements: telephone interviews with Local Childcare Partnerships (LCPs) in year one of the evaluation review of NOQC data year one policy and literature review initially in year one, with an update in year three postal survey of all grant recipients commencing in year two, continuing into year three 1

5 12 case studies comprising visits in year two, with follow-up telephone consultations in year three. 5. In parallel to the main NOQC evaluation we have also undertaken a review of Capability Scotland s Play 4 All project in Inverclyde, a 750,000 national demonstration project funded under the NOQC programme. Main findings 6. From our policy and literature review we have established that there is no single, recognised definition of what is meant by quality in childcare. However, the use of observational techniques in previous research (discussed in Section 2 of this report) has identified the following as key indicators of quality: nurturing environment; qualifications of staff; link between quality and age range within a group; group size and staff ratio; and diversity. The majority of these indicators are relevant to the six strands of the NOQC programme and we refer to them throughout the report. 7. In terms of tangible outputs from the programme we can identify the following: 78 new-build and refurbished facilities the creation or enhancement of at least 48 outdoor play areas 5,700 training outputs 600 children with additional support needs assisted into mainstream settings. 8. Some of these outputs have been achieved more effectively than others. Some new-build and refurbishment projects, for example, have been completed at the cost of much stress and the souring of relations between providers and local authorities. 9. The beneficiaries of the programme have been varied: childcare providers have gained: a higher skilled and more confident workforce; a fitfor-purpose environment in which to work; increased capacity to include children with additional support needs (ASN); improved referral mechanisms and links with other agencies parents and families have gained: an improved environment for their children s care; parenting skills; respite that they would not otherwise have been given (for those with children with ASN); an increased choice of settings for those with children with ASN children have gained: a wider range of activities than they would otherwise have been offered; an improved indoor and outdoor environment in which to play and learn. Capital support 10. The success of capital support projects has been mixed, and several have been fraught with problems. In particular, voluntary sector providers have faced severe technical and logistical challenges (especially planning problems) for which they were not prepared. 2

6 Workforce development 11. NOQC has made a significant contribution to the development of the childcare workforce in Scotland. In addition to a range of accredited training, many hundreds of workers have been trained in: playwork or outdoor play; arts or creative activities; inclusion and disability awareness; and specialist training in disability issues. Our survey has identified at least 5,700 training outputs that would not have been achieved in the absence of NOQC. 12. In this respect the programme has made a valuable contribution to government policy: while full childcare qualifications (SVQs) have been funded by the Scottish Government, NOQC has provided the workforce with additional skills, confidence and expertise. There is no question that the NOQC programme has added significant value to the wider training activity that was already taking place, representing a very real contribution to workforce development. Outdoor play 13. Although the number of settings with a new or enhanced outdoor play area is a very small proportion of the total childcare settings across Scotland, we can be confident that this has been a valuable part of the programme. If we assume that each of those 48 settings reaches an average of 50 children per year, then the added value of NOQC is clear: nearly 2,500 children experience a better quality of outdoor play than they would otherwise have had access to. Children with additional support needs 14. Although this was just one of six strands of the NOQC programme, it has proven to be amongst the most demanding and interesting elements of the evaluation. There are complex issues here, which go beyond the scope of the NOQC programme and should be regarded as having national importance. These include: some mainstream childcare providers remain reluctant to accommodate children with ASN, for reasons associated with additional costs, or lack of confidence: this issue should be addressed at national level take-up of several projects has been much lower than expected, leading to questions about the market demand for these services transporting children with physical and/or learning disabilities to and from their childcare setting has always been, and remains, a cost that many projects cannot afford. 15. Despite these challenges, however, there have been some excellent NOQC projects both specialist and mainstream - for children with ASN. Family support 16. The original intention behind this priority, which was to provide activities such as parenting classes and adult training, has been diluted. While there are many good projects in existence which do meet the original aims of this strand, the majority of projects identifying themselves 3

7 under this strand believe that they are providing support to families simply by virtue of providing childcare. Combined care and learning 17. As with support to families, the original intention of this priority has been lost or misunderstood. There has been very little activity for the 11+ age group. However, this is partly due to a recognised low demand from this group. Nonetheless, we have seen some creative and imaginative projects for pre-school and primary children under this priority. Other issues Voluntary and statutory sectors: working together 18. It is clear that many voluntary sector providers have struggled to work effectively in partnership with their local authority. More could be done at national level to build the capacity of both sectors to understand each other s strengths and to encourage better partnership working. Links between childcare and health/recreation services 19. We have found very little evidence of links with health and recreation services, and we believe that this has been a missed opportunity for the programme. Closer links in this respect could have been particularly useful in cementing the importance of other policy drivers, such as the fight against childhood obesity. The application process 20. Were BIG to use a similar two-stage approach as used for this programme in future funding programmes, we would strongly recommend that area partnerships be required to prepare a strategy document outlining how they selected their preferred projects for funding and showing that they understood how those projects met the programme criteria. Sustainability 21. Our findings regarding the sustainability of projects are mixed. The feedback from our postal survey of projects was very encouraging: only 5% of projects reported that they would struggle to survive when NOQC ended. However, our case study consultations suggest that the picture is less rosy than the survey suggests. It is clear that voluntary sector providers, in particular, are still experiencing problems maintaining their viability in the wider childcare market. 4

8 1: Introduction and methodology Evaluation of New Opportunities for Quality Childcare (NOQC) 1.1 This is the final report of the findings from the evaluation of the New Opportunities for Quality Childcare Programme (NOQC), funded by the Big Lottery Fund (referred to henceforth as BIG). The evaluation has been undertaken by SQW Consulting and the University of Stirling over three years; it commenced in mid The 15.3 million NOQC programme aims to support the development of a vibrant, sustainable and good quality childcare sector by funding quality developments in new and existing childcare projects. The programme supports capital and revenue costs for provision to children aged from birth to 14 (16 with additional support needs). 1.3 The programme has three outcomes, each addressed by a number of priorities: Table 1-1 NOQC Outcomes and Priorities Outcomes To improve the quality of new and existing childcare provision To increase access to childcare for disadvantaged groups To demonstrate a holistic approach by combining different activities in after school care Priorities Capital support for childcare projects (e.g. new build, expansion or refurbishment) Outdoor play support (e.g. play areas, purchase of furniture or vehicles) Workforce development (e.g. course fees, travel, temporary staff cover) Projects which support children with special needs (e.g. adaptations, specialist equipment, family liaison work, staff training) Projects which provide support to families (e.g. parenting classes, adult training, family support) Projects that combine out-of-school-hours childcare (OSHC) and out-of-school-hours learning (OSHL), with an emphasis on joint planning, development and co-location 1.4 The three outcomes in NOQC come from policy directions set by the Scottish Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The priorities represent BIG s specific refinements to those outcomes. Evaluation aims 1.5 The evaluation was required to investigate the impacts of the programme against its three outcomes: to improve the quality of new and existing childcare provision; to increase access to childcare for disadvantaged groups; and to demonstrate a holistic approach by combining different activities in after school care. It was also expected to focus on how each programme priority has contributed to these outcomes. Specific issues that we were asked to address included: how successful capital or outdoor play support has been in improving the quality of provision how different types of projects have contributed to workforce development 5

9 how projects have supported families and children with special needs and whether this has contributed to an increase in access to childcare how support for families has affected access to childcare how successful projects have been in combining different activities in after school care. 1.6 BIG was particularly interested in how the programme has impacted on parents, children and the childcare sector, and whether projects are likely to be sustainable. 1.7 Another evaluation requirement was to consider the effectiveness of the role given to childcare partnerships in putting together their area portfolios for the programme. In particular the evaluation was expected to explore: the extent to which the consultation undertaken by the childcare partnerships included representation from all interests, including parents, community groups, private and voluntary providers whether there was evidence of childcare partnerships working in an integrated way, for example by involving recreation services and linking in to other initiatives such as sport and play? any linkages that childcare partnerships made to other local strategies, for example Community Planning the effectiveness of the processes used by the childcare partnerships in assessing projects for inclusion in the portfolio. Methodology 1.8 Our approach to this three-year evaluation has comprised the following main elements: telephone interviews with Local Childcare Partnerships (LCPs) in year one of the evaluation review of NOQC data year one policy and literature review initially in year one, with an update in year three postal survey of all grant recipients commencing in year two, continuing into year three 12 case studies comprising visits in year two, with follow-up telephone interviews in year three. 6

10 Table 1-2 NOQC evaluation case studies Name of project Applicant Priority/Outcome Description Summer Playscheme Glasgow City Council Children with ASN / Support to families Music Specialist Castle Nursery Combined care and learning Summer playscheme for children with ASN Recruitment of peripatetic music specialist to deliver music activities to 14 nurseries Mobile Play in Action North Lanarkshire Council Support to families Mobile creche Children s Resource Workers Glasgow Women s Aid Support to families Recruitment of two workers to support families escaping domestic abuse Provision enhancement projects Central Leith After School Provision (CLASP) Combined care and learning Provision of four new activities Hard wired smoke alarms Scottish Childminding Association Workforce development / Support to families Support new and existing childminders by paying for hard wired smoke alarms Avenue Project North west Kilmarnock Lone Parent Resource Project Capital support / support to families Premises refurbishment Arts Play Theatre Hebrides Workforce development Training for artists and childcare workers to deliver arts activities in English and Gaelic Stranraer Playcare Galloway Childcare Company Capital support New build Parenting classes NCH Lochaber Support to families Parenting classes with creche All Together Now Capability Scotland Children with ASN Mainstream care for children with ASN Lighting upgrade Crail Children s Centre Trust Capital support Lighting upgrade 1.9 In parallel to the main NOQC evaluation we have also undertaken a review of Capability Scotland s Play 4 All project in Inverclyde, a 750,000 national demonstration project. This has involved: meetings with key personnel from the partner organisations: Capability Scotland and Inverclyde Council visits to all project sites discussions with team leaders informal discussions with play workers meeting with a mainstream childcare provider benefiting from Play 4 All desk based review of information relating to Play 4 All (evaluation feedback from parents, press articles, training schedules, minutes of Management Group meetings). 7

11 1.10 The findings from the Play 4 All review can be found in Section 7. Survey of projects 1.11 A large part of our report is based on the findings from our survey of projects, which merits further explanation. Our survey of projects was undertaken in the form of a postal questionnaire, which was sent to all 262 NOQC projects at the end of Returns continued to come in long after the original survey deadline, and it was decided to extend the survey into the final year of the evaluation in order to capture as much feedback as possible. The final response rate was 65% (almost two-thirds of all projects), which enables us to extrapolate our survey findings with confidence Designing a questionnaire that would suit all projects was very challenging: we recognised that there would be elements of comparability across all projects, but the structure of the programme in six priorities meant that projects would also have strikingly different aims and characteristics that would not lend themselves to comparative analysis The questionnaire comprised two sections: a set of core questions which all grant holders were required to complete, relating to: project design and delivery; partnership and networking; barriers and delays; project management; additionality, sustainability and performance monitoring a further section covering each of the programme priorities, requiring respondents to complete whichever sections were relevant to their project This final report builds upon our previous annual reports from years one and two of the evaluation, which can be found at yr2_report.pdf. These set out in more detail the background to the programme, the involvement of Local Childcare Partnerships, and detail about the twelve case study projects. Relevant findings from previous years have, however, been referenced throughout this final report. Report structure 1.15 This report takes the following structure: Section 2 provides a literature and policy review (updating the initial review conducted in year one of the evaluation) Section 3 gives an overview of the NOQC programme Section 4 highlights the findings relating to NOQC Outcome One (improving the quality of new and existing childcare) Section 5 presents the findings relating to NOQC Outcome Two (increasing access to childcare for disadvantaged groups) in Section 6 we look at NOQC Outcome Three (combining different activities in after school care) 8

12 Section 7 reports on our discrete evaluation of the Play 4 All demonstration project in Section 8 we present our conclusions from the evaluation and consider some of the lessons learned Various annexes are also included to supplement the main body of the report. These are: the questionnaire used in our postal survey of projects more information on the 12 case study projects a note on some of the observational methods used by other researchers to assess quality in childcare and early years education bibliography. 9

13 2: Literature and policy update Evaluation of New Opportunities for Quality Childcare (NOQC) Key points There is no single, recognised definition of what is meant by quality in childcare. Minimum standards of childcare are guaranteed by Her Majesty s Inspectorate of Education and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, which encompass the physical aspects of provision (quality of premises and equipment, etc). Professional standards of childcare workers are now regulated by the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC). From existing research we know that the use of observational techniques has identified the following as key indicators of quality: nurturing environment; qualifications of staff; link between quality and age range within a group; group size and staff ratio; and diversity. Our interviews with Local Childcare Partnerships in year one of the evaluation did not deepen our understanding of the meaning of quality in childcare, or how NOQC might improve quality. There have been no major changes to the Scottish policy framework driving childcare provision since this evaluation began. The main developments in the area of childcare relate to workforce development (workers are now required to register with the SSSC). There are likely to be new developments in the near future to meet the Scottish Government s manifesto commitment to seek to extend high quality affordable and flexible childcare services which match children s needs and parents working patterns. By autumn 2008 there will be developments in the Early Years Framework through which policymakers will try to meet the needs of all children, while at the same time paying particularly attention to vulnerable children and their families. What do we mean by quality in childcare? 2.1 The subject of this evaluation is a programme that was given the name New Opportunities for Quality Childcare. But what do we mean by quality in the context of childcare? 2.2 Our literature review reveals a lack of research attempting to define exactly what is meant by quality in childcare. A Pricewaterhouse Coopers report in 2006 noted: it is difficult to assess quality of childcare provision as observers, governmental agencies and childcare providers cannot agree on common standards or definitions of quality Our survey of Local Childcare Partnerships (LCPs) in year one of the evaluation indicated that very few partnerships had made a specific effort to research their area s childcare needs from the point of view of quality: rather, they were concerned at a broader level with filling gaps in local provision. Our interviews with LCPs did not deepen our understanding of the meaning of quality in childcare, or how NOQC might improve quality. 1 The Childcare Market Pricewaterhouse Coopers for the DfES,

14 2.4 Nevertheless there are certain factors that we know will impinge upon quality in childcare. Below we look at the regulation of childcare in Scotland and at some of the research on what constitutes quality in childcare. Childcare standards and regulation in Scotland 2.5 Employers, workers and a number of organisations in Scotland are striving to raise the quality of early years and childcare services. This can be done in a number of ways by assessing everything from the physical premises of a centre to the qualifications of the workers. 2.6 Responsibility for assuring standards in Scotland rests with three key organisations: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education (HMIE): as well as inspecting primary and secondary schools, HMIE inspects establishments delivering pre-school education. Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (Care Commission): in order to operate an early years or childcare service (e.g. day nursery or childminder) in Scotland the provider must be registered with the Care Commission. The Care Commission carries out its own set of inspections every year ensuring that health, safety and quality standards expected are being met. Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC): from October 2006, staff working in the early years and childcare sector have been eligible to register with the SSSC. Registration is a phased programme, starting with managers from October 2006, practitioners from March 2007 and support workers from October To be on the register a member of staff needs to have, or be working towards, an appropriate qualification. 2.7 It is accepted that HMIE and Care Commission standards and regulations guarantee only the minimum levels of quality in childcare: that is, ensuring that premises meet safety requirements and are fit for purpose, etc. The move towards registration of childcare workers through the SSSC, however, builds upon this minimum threshold. 2.8 In Scotland successive Governments have placed high value upon the childcare workforce as a key influence on quality in childcare. In 2006 the ministerial view was that: there is ample evidence that high quality early education and childcare services improve children's development, learning and behaviour. We also know that a well qualified, professional workforce is by far the most important factor in delivering the quality of services that will give children the best possible start in life" (Peter Peacock, Minister for Education & Young People, September 2006 our emphasis). 2.9 A new government took over in 2007, demonstrating a similar approach: We have always known the early years of life are crucial to a child s development. That s why this government is making early intervention a hallmark of our approach and the quality of early education and childcare services plays a key role. It s vital that we ensure staff are well-qualified and confident if we are to give all of our children the best start in life (Adam Ingram, Minister for Children and Early Years, 2007 our emphasis). 11

15 Assessment of quality through observational instruments 2.10 The Millennium Cohort Study has been operating since 2000 and is following the lives of nearly 19,000 babies born between 2000 and 2002 in the UK. The Quality of Childcare Settings in the Millennium Cohort Study (QCSMCS) was established to assess the quality of provision attended by a sample of the 10,000 Millennium children living in England Quality of provision in the QCSMCS was assessed using three observational instruments: the ECERS-R, the ECERS-E and the CIS [see Annex C for details]. The QCSMCS highlights certain elements of provision that are beneficial in terms of quality: settings generally provide a warm and nurturing environment for children, and support their developing social skills comparing quality scores by sector, the study found that the maintained (local authority) sector offered higher quality than the private and voluntary sectors, particularly with regard to the learning aspects of provision, while the quality of provision offered by the private and voluntary sectors was very similar the childcare qualifications of staff are an important predictor of provision quality. Findings suggest that improving the overall level of staff qualifications will have a beneficial effect on provision quality. This supports previous research in identifying the important contribution of staff training and qualifications to the provision of a challenging academic curriculum for pre-school children and, in particular, for encouraging children s developing communication and reasoning skills. Staff qualifications are most closely related to those aspects of provision that foster children s developing language, interactions and academic progress (the only area not associated with staff qualifications is the quality of personal care routines such as snack, toileting and hygiene practices). It concluded that the development of a well qualified childcare workforce is vital for improving quality and, in particular, for the provision of a challenging and appropriate educational environment for 3 and 4 year old children there is a link between quality and age range within a group: 3 and 4 year old children experience lower quality of provision in groups which also cater for children under the age of 3. This could be because the presence of younger children, and the staff time required to care for them, means that less time and resource is available to devote to challenging educational activities for the older children. In addition, the requirement to have a range of activities and materials appropriate for both older and younger children may lead to a dilution of the educational content required to challenge 3 and 4 year olds a positive impact of group size on provision quality was identified: the more children present, the higher the quality of language and reasoning, interaction, and overall curricular quality. Larger rooms may be able to provide a more interesting range of activities for children, and may also offer a larger staff team with a broader range of experiences, interests and expertise 12

16 an effect of ratio is identified: the more children per staff member, the lower the quality of personal care routines, language and reasoning, interactions, and diversity the study s findings on diversity were disappointing, even worrying. Provision for diversity is not of a good (or even minimal) quality. Settings are generally not providing activities that enable children of all abilities to participate in a satisfying and cognitively demanding way; promoting awareness and understanding of racial and cultural diversity; nor promoting gender equity by providing books, pictures and resources showing non-stereotyped images In analysing our NOQC research findings we refer to these elements of provision where relevant. Policy Developments 2.13 There have been no major changes to the policy framework driving childcare provision (which was set out in 1998 in Meeting the Childcare Challenge: A Childcare Strategy for Scotland) since this evaluation began. However, there are likely to be new developments in the near future to meet the Scottish Government s manifesto commitment to seek to extend high quality affordable and flexible childcare services which match children s needs and parents working patterns By autumn 2008 there will be developments in the Early Years Framework (formerly the Early Years Strategy) through which policymakers will try to meet the needs of all children, while at the same time paying particular attention to vulnerable children and their families. Working through early intervention strategies and early years services the Scottish Government plans to ensure that the youngest and most disadvantaged children will have access to provision that will foster the development of skills and social development as part of an education for life agenda (rather than preparation for school). There is likely to be increased engagement with children younger than three years old and with families that are reluctant or not able to engage with services The joint Scottish Government and COSLA policy statement published in March notes that: A child s world in the early years of life is largely defined by the family. We know that a child brought up in a stable and nurtured environment is better placed to succeed in life than a child from a less secure background. We therefore believe that the biggest gains in improved outcomes and reduced inequality will come from supporting parents to help them help themselves and by creating communities which are positive places to grow up This focus on providing support to parents and families has been foreshadowed by the family support strand of the NOQC programme More generally, the main developments in the area of childcare relate to workforce development. Investing in Children s Futures (National Review of the Early Years and 2 Early Years and Early Intervention A joint Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) policy statement, March

17 Childcare Workforce, Scottish Executive) was published in 2006 and sets out the Scottish Executive s policy plans to establish a framework of qualifications and professional development opportunities which will be ready for lead practitioners/managers of provision in 2008 and for all staff in As well as new qualifications (which the universities and colleges are now developing) there is an expectation that private and voluntary sector providers will work to recruit and retain qualified staff and offer clear career progression routes. The aim of these measures is to enhance the professional identity of practitioners in childcare and early education and improve the status and recognition of the workforce. Investing in Children s Futures makes it clear that the aim is to extend the number of settings offering high quality early years and childcare services and that well-trained staff teams are a crucial feature part of successful environments that can have lasting benefits for children s development (Sylva et al, 2004). But the document goes on to state that childcare for schoolage children is also vitally important to allow parents to continue to work or return to employment assure parents that their child is cared for, safe and involved in positive activities expand the economy In addition, as well as being of high quality, policymakers point out that childcare for schoolage children must be affordable, accessible and available at times that suit parents if it is to meet the policy objectives and the needs of working parents An important change in the way that the Scottish Government funds services at a local level was announced in November 2007, in the Concordat between the Scottish Government and local government. Under the new arrangement there will be a move to a Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) for every local authority. The SOA will be based on the agreed set of national outcomes 3 and, under a common framework, local outcomes to take account of local priorities. Significantly, the number of ring-fenced specific grants has been reduced and many grants including the Changing Children s Services Fund and the Early Years & Childcare Workforce Development Fund have been rolled up and transferred into the local government settlement. From March 2008 each local authority will make its own judgement about how much priority (and funding) to give to childcare and early years services. It remains to be seen what the implications of this will be in different parts of the country, but there are indications that childcare provision may suffer from the removal of ring-fenced funding. We refer to this again later. Evaluating the impact of childcare and after-school provision 2.20 Our earlier review of the policy and research literature aimed to support the design of the evaluation process, and the relevant research questions in particular, by drawing attention to the features of childcare provision that are important for children and parents. As the study draws to a close we turn again to the literature to consider more recent evidence about the outcomes of childcare and after-school provision in order to set our case studies in a broader 3 Scottish Budget Spending Review 2007 Scottish Government 14

18 context and to identify factors that earlier analyses suggest are important to explain the experiences of children and their families and the outcomes of policy initiatives In July 2007 the UK Government announced substantial funding for the extended school programme in England which offers breakfast clubs, after-school provision for sport, music and drama as well as additional tuition. A separate sum was given to ensure that disadvantaged children could have the benefit of extended school services which can be offered in collaboration with other schools or voluntary and community organisations. These moves followed a positive, small scale evaluation of extended services at schools (typically 8am until 6pm) by Ofsted in 2006 and the evaluation of the full service extended school initiative published in June 2007 (Ofsted, 2006; DfES, 2007) references). Although this has been an English initiative, some of the learning is germane to the NOQC programme in Scotland Both evaluations found that the extended provision offered was having a positive impact on the attainment of children, especially the most vulnerable. The Ofsted report concluded that extended services for adults and children at full service schools improved the children s confidence, helped them to develop better family relationships and enhanced dispositions towards learning. The report went on to acknowledge the contribution that effective leadership made to the success of the venture, along with an awareness of standards, value for money, affordability and log-term sustainability. The evaluation of the full service school initiative suggested that clarity about the purpose of the extended services was a key feature for the successful national extension of provision. However, the Institute for Public Policy Research issued a note of caution about the relative success of the extension of school provision, claiming that the most disadvantaged young people are the least likely to attend the purposeful activities on offer at full-service schools (Margo et al, 2006). Their explanation lies in a mix of local cultural norms and peer group expectations Two recent studies also suggest that cultural norms influence the decisions that mothers make about using childcare. In the Netherlands a study of maternal employment and involvement in caring for children suggested that cultural rather than economic or institutional factors were at the root of decision about using childcare (Van Wel et al, 2006). The authors argue that a culture of care is more dominant among women with poorer education who have lower rates of employment outside the home and prefer to work only part time. A study of fragile families in the USA found that the kind of childcare used different for varying ethnic groups. While there was a relationship between the kind of care chosen (e.g. relative care or out-of-home settings) and poverty and marital status both were contingent on ethnicity (Radey & Brewster, 2007) Morrow (2006) argues that practitioners need to take account of the diverse and contextspecific gender identities of the children for whom services are provided. She describes how girls and boys use physical space differently in after-school provision and how practitioners actions can contribute to stereotypical perspectives or encourage change. Theokas et al (2006) point to the way in which older children s individual profiles of participation in after-school activities change from year to year, a change familiar to leaders of community based provision who find that membership changes as children grow out of particular types of services or develop new interests. Theokas et al go on to argue that it is difficult or impossible 15

19 to measure the impact of any programme or provision as each is only one part of the complex social, cultural and physical ecologies that might make a difference to young people s motivation and engagement The evidence described above of positive impacts on social and emotional development of time spent in childcare, or more accurately services targeted at children and their families beyond formal educational provision, is complemented by evidence of cognitive benefits too. Results from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) study of early childcare suggest that (controlling for child and family factors and prior attainment) consistent engagement in extra-curricular activities during kindergarten and first grade is positively related to higher test scores (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2004). However, there was no relationship between attending daily after-school provision and improving test scores, even for low income families. The study did not investigate the quality of the settings and the researchers suggest that this might have contributed to what they describe as surprising findings, particularly given the relatively small amounts of time that the children spend in extra-curricular activity and the fact that most of the activities were not explicitly academic in content A study by Vandell et al (2005) examined the relationship between cognitive outcomes for children attending formal after-school programmes during first grade and the level of staffchild conflict and the degree of authoritarianism in the practitioners views on child-rearing. They found a significant association between low levels of conflict between adults and children and higher reading and mathematics attainment and fewer behavioural problems and between less authoritarian child-rearing beliefs and higher mathematics scores. Vandell et al conclude that children s relationships with staff can positively or negatively support academic attainment and children s behaviour This review makes clear the complex and interactive nature of the relationship between the childcare experiences that children have and the other influences in their lives, a challenging perspective when engaged in evaluating the impact of particular types of provision. The evidence presented here suggests that the influence of childcare and after-school or holiday provision will be the result of the nature of the provision and its clarity of purpose and the interactions with a range of societal, setting and individual features: the quality of staff training and qualifications and setting quality values and norms of the local culture and peer groups in which children spend their time kind of provision made available and the extent to which it is seen as affordable and accessible and a good fit with family needs cultural, ethnic, gendered and developing expectations of parents and children the nature of the activities e.g. extra-curricular activities or a more general afterschool programme relationships between childcare or after-school care practitioners and children 16

20 childrearing views of practitioners 2.28 All of these factors will be present to some extent in the case study examples involved in this evaluation project. They suggest relevant lines of analysis in order to learn lessons for the design of settings, practice and the criteria by which success or the achievement of project goals can be evaluated in a way that takes account of the situated contexts in which childcare occurs. 17

21 3: Programme overview and key findings Key points The voluntary sector has been a major delivery vehicle for the NOQC programme. There is a good spread of activity across the six strands of the programme, with Family Support the most widely supported priority. However, the original aims of this priority have been diluted in practice (see Section 5). Where projects encountered barriers to implementation they often related to capital support projects facing planning or technical obstacles. Parents and children have been closely involved in developing many NOQC projects: parents were involved in designing nearly half of all projects and children had a say in the design of 37% of projects. In terms of joined-up working the involvement of local health boards and recreation & leisure services has been very small scale. This may have prevented opportunities for linking childcare with other policy drivers such as the childhood obesity agenda. Likewise, only a handful of secondary schools have been involved in the design or delivery of NOQC projects perhaps another missed opportunity for the programme in the context of combined care and learning. For projects designed to continue beyond the lifetime of NOQC, the prospects for sustainability look promising. 3.1 Our survey of NOQC projects was undertaken by postal survey. The questionnaire was originally sent to all projects in December 2006, and the findings fed into our second annual report. However, as questionnaires continued to be returned long after the original deadline it was clear there was merit in extending the survey into the final year of the evaluation. 3.2 At the time of our second annual report in 2007 we reported on the findings from 119 projects. In this final year of the evaluation we are able to present the findings from a total of 171 projects that is, 65% of all NOQC projects. This is a good return rate, which means that we can have confidence in the robustness of our findings. Profile of respondents 3.3 Table 3-1 summarises the survey response rate and the number of returns from private, public and voluntary sector projects: 18

22 Table 3-1 No. NOQC projects funded No. survey returns Private sector projects Public sector projects Voluntary sector projects Aberdeen City Council Aberdeenshire Council Angus Council Argyll and Bute Council City of Edinburgh Council Clackmannanshire Council Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Dumfries and Galloway Council Dundee City Council East Ayrshire Council East Dunbartonshire Council East Lothian Council East Renfrewshire Council Falkirk Council Fife Council Glasgow City Council Highland Council Inverclyde Council Midlothian Council Moray Council North Ayrshire Council North Lanarkshire Council Orkney Islands Council Perth and Kinross Council Renfrewshire Council Scottish Borders Council Shetland Islands Council South Ayrshire Council South Lanarkshire Council Stirling Council West Dunbartonshire Council West Lothian Council Grand Total 262* (9%) 57 (34%) 98 (58%) * 262 was the final number of projects in operation after a number of withdrawals 3.4 The Scottish Government reports 4 that in January 2007 there were 4,315 active registered childcare and pre-school education centres. Most centres are in the public and voluntary sectors (42.3 per cent and 32.4 per cent respectively), with around one quarter run privately. 3.5 Although only one third of Scotland s total childcare provision is delivered by the voluntary sector, we can see from Table 3-1 that it is this sector that has received the greater part of NOQC funding: our survey indicates that nearly 58% of all NOQC projects are in the 4 Pre-school and childcare statistics 2007 Scottish Government, September

23 voluntary sector. As we noted in our previous annual report, given that all NOQC projects were approved by their Local Childcare Partnership, this clearly indicates the value placed on voluntary sector provision at local level. Priorities 3.6 To gain an impression of the shape of the NOQC programme we asked projects to identify which of the programme strands they were supporting. Table 3-2 shows a fairly even spread of activity across the six programme outcomes. Table 3-2 Please indicate which NOQC priority/ies your project supports Private sector projects Public sector projects Voluntary sector projects ALL Projects Family support (48%) Workforce development (41%) Capital support (39%) Support for children with ASN (38%) Outdoor play (37%) Combined care and learning (33%) Source: n=171 (respondents could select more than one option) 3.7 The Family Support priority appears to be that supported by the greatest number of projects. (In Section 5 we examine the extent to which these projects address the original aims of the priority.) 3.8 It is interesting to note that in most strands of the programme the majority of projects are delivered by the voluntary sector. However, in the case of support for children with ASN the majority of activity is delivered almost equally between the voluntary and public sectors. We read this as an indication of the importance that the public sector places on the provision of such services. Support for children with ASN is an issue of national, not just local, importance, so it is perhaps not surprising to see the public sector taking a greater share of ownership of this strand of the programme. Quality provision 3.9 From our policy and literature review we know that, despite the lack of a single recognised definition of what constitutes quality in childcare, there are certain elements of provision that are beneficial in terms of quality. One of the most important of these is the skills and qualifications of staff. Others include: size of groups and age range within each group; warm and nurturing environment; staff:child ratio; and diversity The six priorities of NOQC and the availability of both capital and revenue funding meant that projects do not necessarily reflect those specific aspects of quality in a direct way. However, our evaluation identifies many indirect links between NOQC outcomes and the 20

24 research-based indicators of quality discussed earlier. For example, by funding the construction of a new building, providers are likely to gain accommodation that is more fit for purpose. One of our case studies, a new-build project, was designed in a modular way in order that spaces could be configured to suit the needs of particular age groups thus enabling them to address the issue of size of groups and age range within each group. Also, a warm and nurturing environment can be achieved through a combination of capital funding (new or improved premises) and revenue funding (workforce development) In our postal survey we attempted to capture the range of ways in which projects might improve the quality of childcare available. We included some elements that were not highlighted in our literature review: for example, improved joint working between childcare providers and other agencies, which our consultations suggested can be an important factor in the quality of provision Table 3-3 summarises the way in which projects have sought to improve the quality of provision they offer. Table 3-3 How does your project improve the quality of childcare? Method No. projects (%) By enhancing the experience that children have in existing settings 106 (63%) By upskilling the childcare workforce 82 (49%) By enhancing current/existing premises, facilities and/or equipment 80 (48%) By facilitating joint working between agencies, providers and others 72 (43%) By providing new premises, facilities or equipment 67 (40%) By enabling families/children to access different childcare settings 60 (36%) Other 11 (7%) n = 167 (respondents could select more than one option) 3.13 Of course, the methods identified above are not mutually exclusive, and some projects may have incorporated all of these elements As we can see, the great majority of respondents indicated that they are enhancing the experience that children have in existing settings. This is entirely consistent with the overall goal of NOQC, which was to improve the quality of existing childcare rather than focus on increasing the number of places available Almost half of all projects included an element of workforce development an indication of the importance of skills and qualifications in the childcare workforce. Problems and delays 3.16 It is always useful to look at whether projects experienced any problems or barriers in implementing their activities, and to look at the causes of any delays. As we can see from Figure 3-1, only one project has been implemented ahead of schedule, while most faced delays caused by a variety of circumstances. 21