Access to Childcare Fund: phase 2 - evaluation report

4. Participation and reach

Summary:

• Projects were primarily aimed at families in the six target groups. However, projects included families from outwith these groups, either through a place-based approach or on a case-by-case basis.
• Families with a disabled adult or child and lone parents were the most highly represented groups. While projects had been well-attended, there is scope for greater representation among: non-working families; working families who require support; fathers; ethnic minority families and young mothers.
• Projects were primarily promoted via schools, other stakeholders such as social workers and wider advertising.
• Projects were mindful of the potential for stigma and used approaches to minimise this, including: making attendance less visible; and assuring confidentiality.

This chapter provides detail on: the projects’ target groups; attendance, the ways in which projects were communicated and promoted, and how projects minimised any stigma that families may feel in attending. This feeds into the assessment of the extent to which projects have been accessible to target families and the factors associated with accessible provision (Chapter 5).

Targeting and eligibility criteria

As described in Chapter 1, the Scottish Government specified that ACF funding was to be used to reach families in the six target groups. This was adhered to by projects, although there was some flexibility, and precise eligibility criteria varied.

Two projects (SupERkids and SHIP) were specifically aimed at children with ASN and their families, although families may also have been in other target groups. The remaining projects were aimed at families in the target groups more generally. While there was a view that those in need did tend to fall into one of the six target groups, some projects used their discretion to offer provision to families they considered to be in need but not in one of these groups. They described these families as the ‘working poor’.

One project noted they had seen a significant increase in families coming from wider referrals, rather than being already known to them, which they felt demonstrated there was a wider need in the community for their provision. Another project had taken the decision to subsidise families who were paying for the after-school club, first by 20% and then 25%, in recognition of the issues they knew these families were facing. In such cases, the target groups may have been used to prioritise but not as exclusive criteria:

“We kind of use the tackling poverty criteria as how to prioritise but, again, I think, kind of COVID and cost of living, has shown us that people from all different types of backgrounds, that might maybe previously [have been in] quite comfortable circumstances, might require either some temporary or more ongoing support…so we don't accept eligibility just in case that excludes someone that really needs it.” (Project lead)

Operating a more open eligibility policy was further reinforced by the fact that accessing any support was reported to be challenging for the ‘working poor’.

“The majority of our families do sit within that (target group) […] but we had so many families telling us they were having to jump through multiple hoops to access any kind of support and… children and young people were being impacted because of processes … If a family needs help, they need help for a reason and, unless it’s impossible or it's going to cause a problem with other children and families, then we wanted to make sure our service was as open as we could possibly make it.” (Project lead)

To ensure provision was accessible to all who needed it, one project situated in an area of multiple deprivation (AUFA) used a place-based approach to eligibility, making provision available to all families attending local schools.

Attendance

Attendance levels varied from projects operating waiting lists for some/all activities to those where attendance was more changeable and not at capacity. In some cases, there was variability within projects, with some elements having waiting lists and other elements being less well attended.

It was not possible to calculate the overall number of families who used each service as attendance data collated by Children in Scotland, and provided to the evaluation team, was presented in terms of the number of families falling into each target group rather than the overall number of families attending a particular service, meaning that individual families were counted more than once. These attendance figures for each target group are shown in Table 4.2. They show that lone parents and families where someone has a disability/ASN accounted for the greatest proportion of families attending the projects. Attendance was lower for families with a child under 1 (likely reflecting the focus on school-age childcare) and young mothers.

SupERkids and SHIP were targeted at families with a child/children with ASN only, which goes some way to explaining the high numbers represented in this group. However, other projects also included provision for children with ASN, with one noting they had a disproportionate number of children with ASN. Attendance was also particularly high among lone parent families.

Projects reflected on any differences in attendance across other groups (both target groups and other factors) and whether any had been more difficult to reach and engage. Those attending were all considered to be in need of the provision. However, that did not mean that projects necessarily felt they were reaching all those who would benefit. Groups noted as being more difficult to identify and/or reach included:

• Non-working families who did not feel they needed childcare (for projects where childcare is the only/main element). Further, SCMA noted that their main method of referral (offering funded places to families already using a childminder) had meant that, while they supported families who would benefit from the funding, they likely did not reach families not currently working.
• Working families who were in need of support but not in one of the target groups. As noted above, these families were recognised as requiring the support. However, challenges identifying them were noted:

  “You’ve got people who look like they should be able to afford it [but] childcare costs are huge, so it is finding a way to identify families who don't necessarily tick the boxes but are really struggling.” (Project lead)

• Fathers: one project stakeholder noted that it is mostly mothers who have taken up the family support. Furthermore, while we do not have attendance data by sex, only two fathers participated in the evaluation.
• Ethnic minority families: projects noted language and cultural barriers as reasons for not reaching more of these families.
• Young mothers: projects were unsure of the reasons for the very low uptake among this group. However, it is likely to be linked to the fact that the provision is for primary school age children and mothers under 25 are perhaps more likely to have a younger child. One project also noted that their past experience had been that younger mothers were less likely to be working, and therefore less likely to require childcare.

While projects felt their projects had been well-attended, with some operating waiting lists, and had reached families in the six target groups, there is scope for them to further widen their reach to include greater representation among the above groups.

How projects were promoted/communicated

Projects were predominantly based in schools and, regardless of the precise approach, schools played a key role in referral and communications. This could take the form of distributing universal communications to families via email or fliers (for AUFA, which was open to all in the school, and other projects with universal elements) or using their knowledge of families to target communications and refer them onto the project. Following this, projects took on the administration elements, minimising the burden on schools.

Other stakeholders (e.g., social work, health visitors) also identified families they felt would benefit and referred them to projects. This relied on effective partnership working with stakeholders, to ensure partners were aware of any eligibility criteria as well as what the project offered. The importance of relationships between projects/stakeholders and families was also highlighted as key to effective referral processes, both in terms of encouraging families to take up the offer and in the identification of families who would benefit but may not meet official eligibility criteria. Referral by schools or stakeholders was the only method used for some of the funded or subsidised elements of provision. In these cases, funded places were not advertised and referral was handled sensitively and discreetly to prevent stigma (discussed further below).

There were also examples of parents using the childcare element as a result of seeking other types of support through the project first:

“...whilst this funding is directed at supporting children and families requiring school-aged childcare, being part of the whole family support approach supports a much more significant return on investment...many families access the childcare element as a result of seeking support in other areas of family life, i.e. they did not necessarily come specifically looking for free or subsidised childcare” (Project lead)

Wider advertising, e.g., via social media, posters, and word of mouth had also led to referrals, with projects and partners noting that families had come to them having heard about the project. This wider advertising would typically focus on the project as a whole, rather than the availability of funded places, to minimise stigma, as noted above. One project highlighted the value of using posters as well as digital methods:

“When we started to think that digitally there may be a little fatigue, we decided to purchase huge banners and put out a lot of posters. So, we […] went around every shop, every lamppost, so that they could visually see it on their walk to school, on their way home […] we think has made a positive impact because our capacity, certainly in [school], is almost full”. (Project lead)

Some projects also held open days and taster sessions to give families an opportunity to find out more about the project before signing up while others were considering this as an approach.

Did projects minimise stigma?

Projects were very mindful of the potential for families to feel embarrassed about receiving support aimed at low-income families - and others knowing they were receiving this. They used carefully considered approaches, described below, to minimise this. Projects operating in smaller, more rural, communities felt that stigma was a particular issue for them. On the whole, however, stigma did not emerge as a significant barrier to participation among evaluation participants.

Stigma was not discussed with all families who took part in the evaluation due to the potential sensitivities of raising it. Where it was discussed, there were parents who did not view it as a concern due to the way in which it was handled by projects - treating them with respect and assuring them of confidentiality - and the fact they were grateful for the support:

“[They] treat everybody with that respect. There is no judgment, there is no shame, no matter what walk of life you are. What is at the heart of this is the children and that is the difference. They take time, focusing so much on the needs of the children and really looking at them…it didn't even come into it that the parents were feeling judged.” (Parent)

“I totally get that [some people may feel stigma] but I was quite grateful. I work and I own my house so I don’t get much support, that’s really nice.” (Parent)

However, stigma remains very difficult to eliminate completely when the projects, with the exception of the AUFA place-based approach, are targeted. Both parents and projects acknowledged this. Parents described concern about how they would respond if their children were questioned about attending. However, as the case below illustrates, this was overcome when parents recognised that the projects were there to support them and had seen the benefits for their family:

“I never really thought too much into it because, at the end of the day, it was a benefit for me and my children… However, I do often think, ‘Oh God, like what if the children in the class ask my children how can they go and they don't get an invite?’ But I'm quite fortunate that, so far, nothing like that has came about, because … I don't know how I would approach that.” (Parent)

Projects reflected these types of concerns and felt that stigma had been a barrier for some families:

“There have been applications where people have enquired and then decided upon themselves that they are not eligible, even though we personally would disagree, and I honestly can only presume it is through embarrassment that, you know, they would be subsidised, and that they would not use the service at all rather than take a subsidised place.” (Project lead)

A separate, but related, concern raised by a parent was a sense of guilt about taking up the support and a feeling that others may be more in need of it. Again, in the case below, the project had been able to reassure the parent that they were eligible for the support. However, there may be other parents who hold similar views, particularly if they are eligible on the basis of being in one of the target groups but not being low-income.

“I didn't want to take advantage, and sometimes I feel as if I'm taking something that could be used for someone else. But I was assured that, I'm not and that this place was good for [my son] and it was there to support both [him] and myself. And I can only thank [Project] enough, because it's helped me in the long run. […] It's not stigma, it's mainly my conscience.” (Parent)

Approaches used to minimise stigma

As described above, parents primarily attributed the lack of stigma experienced to being treated with dignity and respect. Projects described further ways in which they felt their set-up and processes had helped to minimise any stigma families could feel by alleviating concerns they may have about others knowing they were receiving support aimed at low-income families.

Features of projects that make targeting less visible

First, they had set up provision to ensure that families would not have to worry that being seen attending would let others know that they fell into one of the six target groups. There were two main ways of doing this, the first of which was to widen access to families outwith the six target groups. This could be achieved either through operating a place-based approach, or on a case-by-case basis for families in need:

“People would know you fall into one of those six [groups] if you attend, so we managed to get the government to say we could go with some families that weren’t under the criteria and that helped [with stigma] as well.” (Project lead)

The second way of making attendance less visible was to make the funded/subsidised elements part of something more universal rather than a separate service, such as having funded childcare provision within a service that is generally a paid service. In such cases, the minimisation of stigma was further supported by communicating funded or subsidised provision via direct referral rather than wider advertising as well as retaining a nominal fee/donation rather than offering free provision. This was thought to retain a level of professionalism and make families feel more comfortable with their relationship to the service.

“That is why we introduced the [nominal fee] because that removes the feeling of being different… They don’t actually have to pay it, it is a donation we say, but it enables a level of respect and I felt equality between them where they felt ‘okay, I am paying for a service, I still fill in all the same forms, you know, I still have to follow all the same boundaries, I still have the same contract’, the only difference is the amount.” (Project lead)

Physically lo cating the project in a building with other services, so that families can attend without it being obvious which service they are there to visit, was also seen to minimise stigma.

Assuring confidentiality

In registering families, projects assured them of confidentiality and maintained this throughout their time at the project. Where families were offered funded places, projects made efforts to ensure that they kept the detail required in referral forms to a minimum and that no one was aware of who had a funded place. This included staff working at the service, something viewed as particularly important in smaller communities:

“What I liked about this Access to Childcare was it actually removed the stigma slightly because [project lead] had made it very clear that she didn’t want to know why we were referring these families. […] So not even the staff would actually know that they were on that funded place. And the two families that I had referred…I think they actually took that up because I was able to say to them ‘no stigma here, you know, nobody’s going to know.” (Project stakeholder)

“If people know you’re not going to emblazon it on the wall or put it on a sheet of paper - it’s about knowing people, it’s all about reassuring them that it will be kept confidential.” (Project stakeholder)

Positive initial communications

Projects also considered the possibility of stigma in the language used to describe their project to parents. Projects and stakeholders talked about promoting the provision positively and focusing on the benefits when discussing it with parents initially, for example as a ‘health academy’ for children and as childcare/wider support for parents.

Ensuring that conversations and referrals were handled sensitively and, ideally, done by those with an existing relationship with the family was also seen to help minimise the risk of causing offence when offering support and, in turn, make families feel more comfortable about accepting it.

"… trying to approach families and let them know if they are eligible, you have to form that relationship first […] with the family to not cause offence." (Project lead)

One project also reflected more generally on stigma and noted that wider changes in their school community were perceived to have helped to minimise stigma more generally, for example fundraising for school trips so that everyone could attend without having to worry about paying for them.