Early Adopter Communities: Process Evaluation – Research Findings

Meeting the needs of families

EAC provision was intended to be designed in response to the needs of the priority families in the target communities. This section considers the extent to which this has been done, and to what extent services have successfully met families’ needs.

EACs had all done work to design provision based around the needs of local target families. This included co-design activities with families, which had been conducted in each community, although to varying extents. Where EACs were working with well-established childcare providers, there was less co-design of these services. However, all services were collecting ongoing feedback from families to ensure services continued to meet their needs.

While co-design activities in the first phase were more focused on consulting on family needs, the second phase involved more participatory activities such as parent focus groups and child wish lists. Staff generally felt co-design had enhanced provision. However, there was little recollection of co-design among parents interviewed. There were mixed views on the extent to which parents wanted to be involved.

Delivery of services to families was broadly happening as planned. EACs had progressed each activity in the local theory of change, including promoting provision, engaging and registering families, and delivering funded childcare (including food and transport) and family support. Overall, families interviewed were very positive about their experiences, indicating that EAC processes were generally meeting their needs.

Timings and locations were typically working well for families interviewed. Covering working hours was a key factor in this, and flexibility was appreciated by those with changing shift patterns. Parents also found it easier to have services located locally.

There was evidence that the activities at EAC childcare met children’s needs, with children interviewed saying that they enjoyed the activities and spending time with their friends. It was important to parents that their children enjoyed attending, with some citing this as a barrier to using previous childcare services. The importance of giving children a choice and providing a diverse offer was a strong theme in staff interviews, although catering for the needs of different age groups had been a challenge.

EAC funding had been used to remove or reduce childcare costs for parents, which was an important factor in enabling families (who took part in this study) to attend. However, cost was a barrier to some families who had partially-funded places using more days.

Friendly and knowledgeable staff were very important to parents using EAC services. However, staff recruitment and retention was a significant challenge for providers, particularly for roles supporting children with ASN.

From the perspective of families with children with ASN who took part in the evaluation, needs were being met. Partnership working with specialist ASN providers and access to training had helped mitigate some challenges to accommodating children with ASN.

In order to meet wider family needs, EACs provided or referred onto a range of further family support. Having dedicated staff (e.g. family support workers) was viewed positively. However, take up of family support had not always been as high as hoped. Staff were mindful of managing families’ expectations around what they could offer.