Growing up in Scotland: a study following the lives of Scotland's children

Chapter 8: Childcare

8.1 Introduction

The expansion of childcare support and service provision has been an important component of several key government social policies, such as social inclusion, elimination of child poverty, welfare to work and work/life balance policies.

In Scotland, a blueprint for the government's broad childcare strategy was set out in 1998 in the Green Paper, Meeting the Childcare Challenge: A Childcare Strategy for Scotland. Its aim, is:

'... to ensure good quality, affordable childcare for children aged 0-14 in each neighbourhood.This includes formal childcare, such as playgroups, out of school clubs and childminders. And it includes support for informal childcare, for example relatives of friends looking after children. We will ensure that the quality of care is improved, more families are able to afford childcare [and] there are more childcare places and better information about what is available. We will achieve this by working with others.'

(Scottish Office, 1998:2)

A distributed strategy, in which childcare would expand in response to local demand, is being implemented by local authority area-based childcare partnerships of key local stakeholders. These were charged with producing Early Education and Childcare Plans that identified local need and developed proposals for services to meet those needs. Since 2002 these Plans have been included in Children's Services Plans. In the 2003 government plans for the current parliamentary session, A Partnership for a Better Scotland (2003c), the childcare commitment was made: 'alongside nursery school provision for 3 and 4 year olds we will aim to create flexible childcare provision accessible to all, expanding facilities, in the public, private and voluntary sectors and through co-operative arrangements.'

With government also committed to evidence based and joined-up policy making and the modernisation of public services, knowing 'what works' in policy and practice in public services is crucial. In relation to childcare, there is a need for a robust understanding of the childcare needs, uses, contexts, costs and barriers of all families with young children. The evidence base is developing with data from several ad-hoc and continuous cross-sectional surveys. In 1999, the National Centre for Social Research carried out the Parents' Demand for Childcare Survey, which was repeated in 2003/2004 (Scottish Executive, 2004b). Annual pre-school and childcare statistics are also published by the Scottish Executive. A childcare module was added to the Scottish Household Survey which is based on a representative cross section of the population of Scotland. A report of that module based on the 2003/2004 Scottish Household Survey ( TNS System Three Social Research, 2006) examines childcare arrangements, reasons for using childcare and satisfaction with childcare, and how these vary across households.

This chapter examines the use of childcare for both the baby and toddler cohorts, and how its cost, type, mix, duration, preferences and reasons for use vary according to parents' socio-economic circumstances and attitudes towards employment and childcare.

8.2 Use of childcare

Parents were asked a range of questions about their use of childcare for the cohort child. These included the types of childcare used, including both formal and informal providers, the number of hours and days per week that childcare was used and the age at which childcare was first used for the child. Information was also collected on the cost of childcare and the main reasons why parents were using childcare. Furthermore, parents were asked about the degree of choice they felt they had when arranging childcare for the child, and what preferences they had in terms of childcare provision.

8.2.1 Sample type and family characteristics

Overall, 65% of respondents were using childcare on a regular basis at the time of the interview. Parents of children in the toddler cohort were more likely than parents of babies to be using childcare (76% versus 60%).

Childcare use was higher in households where the cohort child was the first born than in households where there were older children. Indeed, childcare use fell considerably as the number of children in the household increased. There was little difference in overall childcare use between lone parent families and couple families (see Table 8.1).

Table 8.1 Current use of childcare by sample type and family characteristics

Sample type	All	% currently using childcare
		Lone parent	Couple family	First child	Other children
Baby	60.0	58.2	60.0	67.5	51.7
Toddler	76.2	71.9	77.0	81.0	70.7
All	65.0	63.6	65.8	72.2	58.5
Bases
Baby - Weighted	3301	1059	4158	2613	2604
Baby - Unweighted	4224	978	4239	2558	2659
Toddler - Weighted	3212	701	2157	1391	1467
Toddler - Unweighted	2289	655	2203	1340	1518

8.2.2 Household employment

Employment status of household adults had a clear and significant impact on whether or not regular childcare arrangements were in place (Figure 8-A). As the chart shows, almost three-quarters (73%) of households in the toddler sample where at least one parent was employed full-time had some form of childcare arrangement in place compared with 55% of those where no parent was employed. The proportions are even higher when the child's mother is working - in 92% of toddler households where the mother was employed full-time, some form of childcare provision was in place at the time of the interview.

Figure 8-A Use of childcare by parental employment

8.2.3 Household income and NS-SEC

Household income also affected the likelihood of whether a family was using childcare. Households in the highest income quartile were far more likely than households in the lowest income quartile to have childcare arrangements in place (including paid and unpaid childcare). Very nearly all of the toddler families (91%) in the highest income group had a regular arrangement in place compared with around two-thirds (65%) of toddler families in the lowest income group. The pattern was similar for baby families.

This pattern is more likely to be explained by the parental employment status of higher income households rather than the affordability of childcare per se. Data in previous chapters have shown that those families in the highest income bracket are more likely to have both parents in employment than lower income households resulting in a greater need for childcare in those households. However, even when parental employment is controlled for, the data indicate that use of childcare is higher in higher income households than in lower income households suggesting that the cost of childcare and the availability of affordable childcare is also important for a significant number of families within the sample.

Use of childcare is inversely correlated with household social class. Examining the baby cohort, managerial and professional households were most likely to be using regular childcare (68%) whereas semi-routine and routine households (47%) and small employer/self-employed households were the least likely to be using childcare (44%).

8.2.4 Area urban/rural classification and neighbourhood deprivation

Geographic variation in the use of childcare was found across the six Scottish Executive urban-rural classifications. The main distinction in use lay between 'accessible' and 'remote' groups. The proportions of families in the baby cohort using childcare in small, remote towns and remote rural areas was lower than in all other areas (Figure 8-B). In contrast, the use of childcare by toddlers' families in small, remote towns and accessible rural areas was higher than elsewhere.

Figure 8-B Use of childcare by area urban/rural classification

The level of neighbourhood deprivation had an even stronger relationship with use of childcare. Around three-quarters (74%) of families in the least deprived areas indicated that they had a regular childcare arrangement in place, in the most deprived areas, by contrast, only 58% of families were using some form of childcare.

8.3 Types of childcare used

To examine more closely the different types of childcare being used by families, respondents were asked to indicate the category of provision for each childcare arrangement in place at the time of the interview. Choices were made from a list of 18 different provider types covering both formal and informal provision. The types of provider listed and their formal/
informal allocation are detailed in Figure 8-C.

Figure 8-C Types of childcare provision

Provider type	Formal or informal	Provider type	Formal or informal
The child's grandparent(s)	Informal	Private crèche or nursery	Formal
Another relative	Informal	Childminder	Formal
Ex-spouse or partner	Informal	Local authority playgroup or pre-school	Formal
The child(ren)'s older brother or sister	Informal	Local authority crèche or nursery	Formal
A friend or neighbour	Informal	Community/Voluntary playgroup or pre-school	Formal
Babysitter who came to our house	Informal	Private playgroup or pre-school	Formal
		Workplace crèche or nursery	Formal
		Family Centre	Formal
		Nursery class attached to primary school	Formal
		Daily nanny who came to our house	Formal
		Live-in nanny	Formal
		Child-carer (provided via agency)	Formal

8.3.1 Number of different providers/arrangements

Around two-thirds (69%) of families using childcare used one childcare arrangement, 28% used two providers and just 3% used three or more. Toddlers' families were more likely than babies' families to have multiple arrangements in place - 36% using two or more childcare providers compared with a quarter (26%) of babies' families.

There were no significant differences between lone parent and couple families in the number of arrangements in place but household employment did impact on this measure. Households where both parents were unemployed were more likely than households where at least one adult was employed to have just one arrangement in place. There was no significant difference between households where adults worked part-time or full-time.

Table 8.2 Number of childcare providers by household income

No. of childcare providers being used	Household income quartile (%)
	Up to £14,999	£15,000 - £25,999	£26,000 - £43,999	£44,000 and over
1	71.0	67.9	69.1	66.4
2	25.2	28.7	28.4	30.5
3 or more	3.8	3.4	2.5	3.1
Bases
Weighted	1221	1086	1432	1048
Unweighted	1151	1084	1474	1108

Higher income households were slightly more likely than lower income households to have multiple arrangements in place. Seventy-one percent of families in the lowest income quartile had only one childcare arrangement in place compared with 66% of families in the highest income quartile - a small but statistically significant difference.

8.3.2 Formal versus informal provision

The detailed childcare types identified in Figure 8-C were classified into 'formal' and 'informal' categories to allow an initial broad look at how types of provision differ across families. Overall, two-thirds of those with regular childcare arrangements had a least one informal arrangement in place. Baby families were more likely than toddler families to be using an informal arrangement (74% versus 59%).

Use of a formal childcare provider is less common; overall around 52% of childcare users had at least one formal arrangement in place. In this instance toddler families using childcare were far more likely than baby families to have a formal arrangement in place (69% versus 41%).

Across both cohorts, lone parents were more likely than couple families to be using informal care and less likely to be using formal care. In the baby sample, 82% of lone parent families who used childcare were using at least one informal arrangement compared with 73% of couple families. In contrast, 43% of couple families were using at least one formal provider compared with 26% of lone parents. Differences in the toddler cohort were less stark but remained significant. Use of formal and informal providers also differed by household income. Parents in lower income households were less likely than those in higher income households to be using formal provision and more likely to be using informal provision.

Figure 8-D Use of formal and informal childcare providers by sample and family type

Data above (in section 8.3.1) indicated that many of those families who reported using childcare were using more than one provider. The majority of families with more than one childcare arrangement were using a mix of formal and informal provision. Three-quarters of toddler families and 56% of baby families using more than one arrangement had a mix of both types of provision. Baby families using multiple providers were considerably more likely than toddler families to only be using informal care (41% versus 13%). Only a small proportion of users of multiple providers were using only formal provision although toddler families were a little more likely than baby families to be doing so (12% versus 3%).

Lone parent families using multiple childcare providers were much more likely than couple families to use only informal arrangements. In the baby cohort, almost two-thirds (65%) of lone parents who used more than one childcare provider used only informal provision compared with a third (34%) of couple families. The pattern was also evident in the toddler cohort although the differences were less stark. Thus although similar proportions of lone parents and couple families were using childcare, this demonstrates that the types of childcare packages that they use are quite distinct.

8.3.3 Detailed childcare type

To allow a more detailed examination of the type of childcare provision used by families in the study, the 19 provider types were grouped into seven summary categories: Grandparents, Nursery/crèche, Childminder, Playgroup, Family Centre, Other informal and Other providers.

Table 8.3 Detailed childcare type by cohort

Childcare type	% of childcare users
	Babies	Toddlers	All
Grandparents	65.6	49.8	59.1
Nursery/crèche	27.2	42.0	33.3
Childminder	10.7	10.3	10.5
Playgroup	1.7	19.4	9.0
Family Centre	0.3	1.0	0.6
Other informal	19.8	15.5	18.0
Other	2.4	2.4	2.4
Bases
Weighted	3110	2164	5274
Unweighted	3122	2177	5299

The table shows that the most common type of childcare provider used across the sample as a whole and individually for baby and toddler families, was the child's grandparents. Around two-thirds of baby families and half of toddler families using childcare reported some arrangement with the child's grandparents. Nurseries were the second most common provider type used. These were used more often by toddler families than baby families (42% versus 27%) as were playgroups (19% versus 2%) reflecting the different developmental stages of the children in each cohort and possibly also the supply and cost of nurseries.

The detailed analysis of childcare provider type allows a closer examination of the differences identified above in use of informal and formal provision across different subgroups. There was little difference between the actual types of provision used by lone parent and couple families although there was notable variation in the 'other informal' type which was significantly higher for lone parent families in both cohorts than couple families (29% versus 17% in the baby cohort, 25% versus 13% in the toddler cohort). Families where the cohort child was first born were more likely than families with other children to be using grandparents for childcare. This reflects a pattern noted earlier in this report which indicated a greater involvement of grandparents in the lives of first children in the household.

The rate of use of grandparents for informal childcare is highest in the most deprived neighbourhoods. In contrast, there is a significantly lower use of nurseries, playgroups and childminders in these areas. Although these patterns are evident in both cohorts, the differences are more acute within the baby cohort (Table 8.4).

Table 8.4 Detailed childcare type by area deprivation quintiles (baby cohort only)

Childcare type	% of childcare users in each area using each childcare type
	1 - Least deprived	2	3	4	5 - Most deprived
Grandparents	55.9	63.2	64.6	74.1	70.2
Nursery	39.9	27.3	25.6	23.1	20.3
Childminder	15.0	15.0	12.3	6.5	4.7
Playgroup	0.7	2.0	1.6	1.5	2.7
Family centre	0	<1	<1	<1	<1
Other informal	13.4	15.0	20.0	24.7	25.4
Other	3.2	3.4	1.4	1.8	2.1
Bases
Weighted	624	612	617	576	682
Unweighted	681	636	631	556	618

Use of playgroups and childminders is significantly higher in remote areas than in other areas - particularly among the toddler cohort in which 22% of families in small remote towns and 26% of families in remote rural areas had a childminding arrangement compared with just 6% of families in large urban areas. Furthermore, in remote rural areas, 39% of toddler families using childcare reported using playgroups compared with 12% in large urban and 19% in other urban areas. One possible explanation for this may be a lack of nursery provision in these areas due to small numbers of age-appropriate children within the surrounding locality. Playgroup and childminding provision, which can function on smaller numbers of children, may be more appropriate in these cases.

8.3.4 Main provider

To further examine a number of provider-specific issues, which will be discussed below, parents who were using more than one childcare provider were asked to select which they considered to be their 'main' provider. Combining this with the provider type information from those families using only one provider allows analysis of the main provider type among the various categories defined above. The results are detailed in Figure 8-E overleaf.

The main provider analysis mirrors the patterns in provider use illustrated previously. For around two-fifths of childcare users, the child's grandparents were the main provider. However, this figure varied significantly by cohort - baby families were considerably more likely than toddler families to have grandparents as their child's main childcare provider. In contrast, toddlers' families using childcare were more likely than baby families to have a nursery as their main provider, although the difference is less pronounced.

Figure 8-E Main childcare provider type by sample type

8.4 Number of hours and days per week of childcare

Respondents were asked to specify how many hours, on average, the cohort child was in the care of each childcare provider in one week, and over how many days those hours were spread. On average, families using childcare did so for around 14 hours per week although this varied considerably. Half of all families using regular childcare had arrangements for between 17 and 40 hours per week. Around a quarter (23%) of families using childcare had arrangements for 8 hours or less per week, and a further one in five for between nine and 16 hours per week. A small proportion (8%) of families used childcare for over 40 hours per week. There were no significant differences between baby and toddler families.

While there were no significant differences between lone parents and couple families, the employment status of adults in the household did impact significantly on the duration of any childcare arrangements. Figure 8-F shows that the weekly duration of childcare arrangements in both lone parent and couple families was longest in situations where the child's main carer or carers were employed for more than 16 hours. Almost half of lone parent families where the parent worked more than 16 hours per week used childcare for more than 40 hours compared with 10% of lone parent families where the parent worked less than 16 hours. A related pattern is evident across household income groups - 63% of families in the highest income quartile used childcare for between 17 and 40 hours per week compared with 39% in the lowest quartile.

There was little significant variation in number of hours by urban/rural classification. However, families in remote rural locations were, on average, using childcare for a few hours less per week than families in urban or accessible areas (16 hours in remote rural areas against, for example, 21 hours in accessible rural and 23 hours in large urban).

Figure 8-F Number of hours per week child is in childcare by family type and household employment

Table 8.5 Number of days and hours per week child is looked after by main childcare provider

Number of days per week	Number of hours per week
	Less than 8	9 to 16	17 to 40	More than 40
1	43.9	5.8	2.2	0.7
2	30.2	50.3	12.9	12.6
3	14.2	20.9	36.1	6.7
4	2.9	8.0	17.0	9.1
5	4.1	10.9	29.0	57.2
6 or 7	4.7	4.0	2.8	13.7
Bases
Weighted	1509	1418	2283	204
Unweighted	1444	1374	2264	201

By looking solely at the main childcare provider, it is possible to explore not just the number of hours' per week but also the number of days over which the arrangement extends. The majority of families (52%) using childcare had an arrangement with their main provider which extended over two or three days, although, around one in five were using their main provider over five days. Table 8.5 provides more detail on the hours and days spread of main childcare cover. Families using childcare for a greater number of hours were also more likely to be using it over a greater number of days than those using childcare for fewer hours. For example, 46% of families with arrangements of between 17 and 40 hours per week spread this care over four or five days compared with 19% of families in the nine to 16 hours group. Despite this general pattern, the table illustrates a considerable mix of arrangements demonstrating the widespread variety of childcare requirements within the families interviewed. These range from parents who require a few hours of childcare on just one or two days to those who require full-time care for eight or more hours a day several days a week.

8.5 Age that child was first placed in a regular childcare arrangement

For each childcare arrangement, parents were asked the age of the child at the time they were first cared for by the provider. This information was also collected for any previous arrangements which were no longer in place at the time of the interview. Using this information we can examine details of the age at which families in the cohort first ever used childcare for the cohort child. The broad results are detailed in Table 8.6. It is necessary to split the results for this analysis by sample type given the wider age range available to the older toddler cohort.

The data in the table show that the majority of babies first received regular childcare between the ages of 6 and 12 months - a range which, drawing on data in Chapter 4 , ties in with a return to work or the end of maternity leave for a large number of mothers (see section 4.2). However, a significant proportion of babies first received childcare earlier than this, including 23% who were in a regular arrangement before they reached 3 months old.

As expected, there is a greater spread among the toddlers and many did not receive childcare until they were over a year old. However, even allowing for this, the largest proportion still entered childcare for the first time at between 6 and 12 months.

Table 8.6 Earliest age at which childcare was used for cohort child by sample type

Child's age	Sample type (%)
	Baby	Toddler
Under 3 months	22.9	16.8
Between 3 and 6 months	26.1	17.6
Between 6 and 12 months	50.9	31.2
Between 12 months and 2 years	-	22.2
Between 2 and 3 years	-	12.1
Bases
Weighted	2434	2991
Unweighted	3126	2170

The types of childcare provision being used differed by the age at which the child was first placed in the arrangement. For example, 87% of those families using regular childcare before the child was aged 3 months were using informal care. Indeed, two-thirds were using the child's grandparents. In contrast, where the child was not placed in regular care until they were aged between 2 and 3 years, 42% were using a playgroup and 31% a nursery.

The age at which a child was first placed in a regular childcare arrangement also varied by family type. Babies from lone parent families were considerably more likely than couple families to be getting regular care from someone other than a parent before they were 3 months old (41% versus 19%). This perhaps demonstrates a greater reliance among lone parents on other people to help them with care for their child from the very earliest stage.

Age at first use of childcare also varied significantly by income group. In the lowest income quartile, seven in ten families using childcare had started to do so before the cohort child was 6 months old compared with 36% in the highest income group. Given the dominance of lone parent families among the low income group (60% of families in this group are lone parents) it is evident that this finding and the earlier finding regarding lone parents are linked.

8.6 Reasons for using childcare

For each childcare arrangement used, respondents were asked to select up to three reasons for doing so.

Table 8.7 Reasons for using childcare by sample type

Reason	Sample type %
	Baby	Toddler	All
So that I can work	72.5	64.7	69.3
So that my husband/wife/partner can work	23.5	20.0	22.1
So that I can look for work	1.6	1.4	1.5
So that my husband/wife/partner can look for work	0.5	0.2	0.4
So that I can study	5.0	8.5	6.4
So that my husband/wife/partner can study	0.5	0.6	0.5
So that I can look after the home/other children	10.8	11.7	11.2
So that I can socialise/attend appointment/go shopping	34.6	28.8	32.2
For my child's educational development	12.4	37.7	22.8
Because my child likes spending time there	28.4	36.5	31.7
So that my child can take part in a leisure activity	5.2	17.3	10.2
For my child's social development	0.3	0.3	0.3
To give me/my partner a break	0.9	4.4	2.3
To allow other carer/relative to spend time with the child	0.6	0.9	0.7
Bases
Weighted	3110	2164	5274
Unweighted	3122	2177	5299

The dominant reason given for using childcare across both cohorts was so that the respondent (almost always the mother) could work. Other common reasons included allowing the respondent to socialise or attend an appointment, because the child likes spending time with, or at, the provider and so that the respondent's partner could work. Reasons given were generally similar among baby and toddler families. The key differences were largely age-related around benefits to the child's educational development and participation in a leisure activity, both of which were approximately three times more likely to be mentioned by the parents of toddlers than by parents of babies.

There are a number of significant differences between the reasons given by lone parent respondents and those from couple families. Lone parents using childcare were less likely to be doing so because of work - about half (51%) gave work as a reason compared with almost three-quarters of respondents in couple families (74%). In contrast, lone parents were more likely than couple parents to say they were using childcare so that they could socialise, attend an appointment or go shopping (47% versus 28%). Lone parents were also more likely than couple parents to be using childcare so that they could study (11% versus 5%).

8.7 Cost of childcare

Respondents using childcare were asked to estimate their childcare costs on a monthly or weekly basis. If they were not paying for childcare, they were asked to disclose whether childcare was free, i.e. that no-one paid for it, or whether it was paid for by someone else. All costs corresponded to childcare for the cohort child only.

In all, 52% of families were paying for the childcare that they were using. For the vast majority of the remainder, childcare was free. Only a small number of families were in a situation where someone else was paying for the care.

8.7.1 Average weekly cost

The average cost of childcare for the cohort child for a family using any form of childcare was £66 per week. This varied by sample type with the average cost for babies proving on the whole to be more expensive at £75 per week compared with £58 for toddlers. These amounts varied considerably among the sample reflecting the wide mix of providers and arrangements that have been illustrated above. The data are illustrated in Figure 8-G below.

Figure 8-G Average cost of childcare for cohort child per week by sample type

A third of toddler families and 14% of baby families were paying under £20 per week for the cohort child's childcare. Around one in four families in both cohorts were paying between £21 and £50 per week. Four in ten baby families had average costs of between £51 and £100 per week compared with slightly less than three in ten toddler families. A slightly higher proportion of baby families were paying over £100 per week than were paying £20 or less.

Some interesting variations in cost of childcare are apparent in areas of different urban/rural classification. Table 8.8 below details the average cost of childcare per week by area urban/
rural classification and sample type. Families living in urban areas pay more on average for childcare, for both babies or toddlers, than families in any other type of area. Families living in remote areas are likely to be paying the least for childcare. One possible explanation for this may be the higher use of nursery provision in urban areas compared with a greater reliance on less expensive formal care in the form of childminders and playgroups in remote areas. However, there is some indication that the differences in provision across the different areas does not fully explain the variations in expenditure and therefore that childcare is on the whole less expensive in remote or rural areas than in urban areas.

Table 8.8 Average cost of childcare per week by urban/rural classification

Urban rural classification	Average cost of childcare per week (£)
	Baby	Toddler	All
Large urban	86.0	84.6	85.3
Other urban	71.6	43.2	56.7
Small, accessible towns	61.6	44.1	51.5
Small, remote towns	63.7	35.7	43.7
Accessible rural	66.8	48.7	56.8
Remote rural	49.4	32.0	39.1

8.7.2 Coping with childcare costs

Respondents who were paying for childcare were also asked how easy or difficult they found it to pay for their childcare arrangement. A little over four in ten respondents (43%) said they found it either easy or very easy to pay for their childcare, 30% found it neither easy nor difficult and around a quarter (27%) found it difficult or very difficult. Responses were generally similar from baby and toddler parents, although baby parents were significantly less likely to choose the 'very easy' option (13% versus 20%).

Lone parent families, whether employed or unemployed, were more likely to report difficulty with childcare costs - 12% of lone parent families found it very difficult to cover their childcare costs compared with 6% of couple families. A more pronounced contrast exists between income groups - 39% of families in the lowest income group found it difficult to pay for childcare compared with 17% of those in the highest income group.

Overall, irrespective of the subgroups considered, the greatest variation in response occurs in the 'very difficult' and, to a lesser extent, the 'neither' categories with the least variation in the proportion of people selecting 'very easy'.

Table 8.9 illustrates the responses by neighbourhood deprivation level where patterns are perhaps as expected. Families residing in areas of higher deprivation were more likely to report some difficulty with meeting childcare costs than those residing in areas of low deprivation.

Table 8.9 Ease or difficulty of paying for childcare by area deprivation quintiles

Ease or difficulty of paying	Area deprivation quintiles
	1 - Least deprived	2	3	4	5 - Most deprived
Very easy	15.1	17.9	17.1	15.4	16.6
Easy	26.8	25.6	26.3	28.1	23.1
Neither easy nor difficult	33.3	30.6	31.7	26.8	26.4
Difficult	20.3	19.5	18.6	21.5	22.9
Very difficult	4.4	6.3	6.3	8.3	10.7
Bases
Weighted	1089	1046	1073	911	1155
Unweighted	1175	1099	1104	871	1050

8.8 Degree of choice and childcare preferences

8.8.1 Degree of choice

Respondents were asked to think about the affordable and available options open to them at the time they were arranging childcare for the cohort child and to indicate how much choice they felt they had when they decided to use their main childcare provider. In all, around one in ten families using childcare felt that they had a 'great deal' of choice and a further 26% reported 'quite a lot of choice'. One-fifth felt they had 'no choice at all'. The most common response chosen was 'not very much' choice (40%).

There was little significant difference between baby and toddler families. Indeed, there was only limited variation across the various analysis subgroups with the majority of any distinctions restricted to those selecting the 'quite a lot' and 'none at all' responses. For example, families in higher income households or couple households were more likely to indicate that they had quite a lot of choice than lower income or lone parent households. In direct contrast, lower income and lone parent families were more likely to indicate they had no choice at all. There were no significant differences by income in the proportions selecting 'a great deal of choice' or 'not very much choice'.

Figure 8-H Perceived degree of choice by household income and family type

Some further distinctions exist within the different area urban/rural classifications. In particular, the degree of choice for families in remote rural areas was considerably lower than for families living in other area types. Around eight in ten (82%) families in remote rural areas using childcare believed they had little or no choice of childcare provider for the cohort child. The comparable figure for all other area types was around six in ten.

8.8.2 Childcare preferences

To further gauge parents' views on the availability and choice of childcare open to them, respondents were asked, whether they would use a different kind of childcare provider as their main childcare provider for the cohort child, if such a place were to be available and affordable. If the respondent answered 'Yes' they were then asked what type of provider they would prefer to be using.

Just under one in five respondents using childcare indicated that they would use a different main childcare provider to the one they were currently using. There were no significant differences between baby and toddler families on this question, though there were some significant variations between other groups. For example, a quarter of families using childcare in the lowest income group indicated a desire to change providers compared with just over one-tenth of families using childcare in the highest income group.

The type of provision currently in place for the child was also related to the responses to this question. Figure 8-I displays the proportion of families using childcare who indicated a wish to change provider by their type of current provision. Families using only informal provision were significantly more likely than families using only formal care or a mixture of both to indicate that they would prefer to be using a different main childcare provider. A quarter (26%) of toddler parents using only informal care indicated a desire for a different main provider compared with 13% using only formal care. Respondents using other relatives, the child's older siblings, an ex-spouse or partner, or a friend or neighbour as their main childcare provider were most likely to want a change.

Analysis of the preferred provider type showed that private nurseries were by far the most popular alternative, being selected by almost half (47%) of baby families and 35% of toddler families who wanted a change (42% overall). The next most commonly selected alternative providers were childminders (15%) and local authority nurseries (16%). Local authority playgroups were also relatively popular among toddler families, being selected by one in ten of those who indicated a desire to change providers. The nature of the preferred providers and the characteristics of the existing provision among those most likely to want a change indicates an underlying desire to shift from informal to formal types of care suggesting a possible lack of affordable and available formal childcare. In this context, it is notable that 81% of those who reported that they would like to change provider felt that they had little or no choice when choosing their main childcare provider for the cohort child.

Figure 8-I Proportion indicating preference for a different main childcare provider by type of current provision

8.9 The childcare and employment balance

8.9.1 Attitudes towards employment and childcare

Given the important link between use of childcare and household and/or mother's employment, respondents were asked a series of questions to explore their attitudes towards working and caring for children. These questions consisted of a number of attitudinal statements to which respondents could indicate the extent they agreed or disagreed.

Over half of respondents (58%) working full-time and using childcare indicated that if they could afford it they would prefer to stay at home and look after their child(ren). Around three in ten (30%) said they would not. Almost three-quarters (72%) of those working full or part-time indicated that if they could afford it they would work fewer hours. Only around one in ten (12%) respondents working full or part-time reported that they would work more hours if they could afford good quality childcare which was reliable and convenient. Over half (55%) of unemployed respondents indicated they would prefer to work or study if they could afford good quality, reliable and convenient, childcare.

Table 8.10 Attitudes towards employment and childcare

Statement	Response					Bases
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Weighted	Unweighted
If I could afford to give up work (full-time), I would prefer to stay at home and look after my child/children*	30.1	27.5	12.7	26.5	3.1	1339	1368
If I could afford it, I would work fewer hours so I could spend more time looking after my child/children**	35.9	36.1	8.9	17.8	1.2	4462	4551
If I could afford good quality childcare which was reliable, convenient and affordable, I would work more hours**	2.3	10.0	7.0	55.4	25.3	4462	4551
If I could afford good quality childcare which was reliable, convenient and affordable, I would prefer to go out to work or do an education or training course***	18.0	35.9	11.6	25.3	8.9	3610	3521

*Asked only where respondent was working full-time
**Asked only where respondent was working full-time or part-time
***Asked only where respondent was not working

Attitudes towards employment and childcare varied by the respondent's socio-economic classification ( NS-SEC). Respondents in intermediate or lower supervisory and technical occupations were the most likely to indicate that they would prefer to stay at home and look after their children. Around 70% from each of those groups agreed with the statement compared with 51% of those in the higher managerial and professional group and 44% of small employers and own account workers. The proportions indicating that they would work fewer hours if possible did not vary significantly across most NS-SEC groupings with the exception of small employers and own account workers who were significantly less likely to indicate that they would work fewer hours to spend more time looking after their child or children.

8.9.2 Employers' family-friendly policies

To further explore the dynamic between employment and childcare we asked respondents who were employed (but not self-employed) and using childcare whether their employer provided any 'family-friendly' facilities or policies such as subsidised childcare, a workplace crèche or nursery, flexible working arrangements, or something else.

Among those respondents who were employed, 60% reported that their employer offered at least one family-friendly working arrangement. By far the most common family-friendly facility available was flexible working. A little over half (53%) mentioned this policy. Only one in ten respondents' employers offered subsidised childcare and even fewer (7%) had a workplace crèche or nursery available. Only 5% mentioned an additional family-friendly policy.

The extent and nature of family-friendly policies was examined by respondent NS-SEC. The results are displayed in Figure 8-J. The graph shows that parents in 'intermediate occupations' were most likely to have family-friendly facilities available from their employer. Those in semi-routine and routine occupations were least likely to have access to such facilities.

Respondents were also asked to rate their employer from 'very good' to 'very poor' in terms of allowing family-friendly working. Overall, 63% of employed respondents rated their employer as 'good' or 'very good'. Employer ratings were highest among respondents in intermediate occupations - 70% rated their employer as good or very good - and lowest among respondents in semi-routine and routine occupations - 59% rated their employer as good or very good.

Figure 8-J Availability of family-friendly facilities by respondent NS-SEC

8.9.3 Time spent with child(ren)

All respondents were asked how they felt about the amount of time they had to spend with their child(ren) selecting from four categories ranging from 'plenty of time' to 'nowhere near enough time'. Almost two-thirds (64%) of parents felt they had plenty of time to spend with their child with a further 16% answering 'just enough' time. One in five felt they did not have enough time to spend with their child.

Responses were compared across employment status and NS-SEC classifications. The analysis illustrated that, as might be expected, respondents who were employed full-time were less likely to feel they had enough time available to spend with their child than those employed part-time or unemployed (36% versus 80% and 97% respectively). At around two-thirds (68%), respondents in managerial and professional occupations were the group least likely to feel they had enough time to spend with their child. Respondents in semi-routine or routine occupations (90%) and those self-employed (85%) were considerably more likely to feel they had just enough or plenty of time with their child.

Those parents who indicated that they did not have enough time to spend with their child were asked why they felt that way. By far the most common reason given was due to working long hours, mentioned by two-thirds (68%) of parents. The demands of housework were mentioned by 30% of parents. The demands of other children and parental health were also important, each mentioned by around a quarter of respondents.

8.10 Reasons for not using childcare

Parents who were not using any childcare at the time of the interview were asked to say why. The most common reason, given by two-thirds of parents not using childcare, was that they preferred to look after the child themselves. Many others did not feel that childcare was necessary because they themselves rarely needed to be away from the child.

8.11 Key points

• Overall, 65% of respondents were getting help with childcare at the time of the interview. Parents of children in the toddler cohort were more likely to be using childcare than parents of babies (76% compared with 60%).
• Use of childcare was intrinsically linked to employment status of household adults. The proportion of families using childcare was higher in cases where at least one of the child's carers was employed and particularly high when the child's mother was working. Respondents' employment was also the most common reason given for using childcare.
• Characteristics of childcare use varied by area urban/rural classifications. Families living in remote areas were less likely to be using childcare and there were key differences in the types of provision used in these areas with higher playgroup and childminder use. Childcare was also found to be less expensive in remote and rural areas.
• Overall, informal childcare provision was found to be more commonly used than formal provision, particularly among families in the baby cohort. Lone parent and lower income households were most likely to be using informal provision.
• The child's grandparents were the single most common type of childcare provider being used. Two-thirds of baby families and 50% of toddler families were using the child's grandparents for regular childcare.
• A quarter (27%) of respondents reported some difficulty in coping with the costs of childcare. Unsurprisingly, level of household income clearly affected the ease at which families coped with childcare costs so that those with lower incomes found childcare costs hardest to meet.
• Few families felt they had a 'great deal of choice' when arranging childcare provision although many reported having 'quite a lot' of choice. Only one in five respondents indicated a desire to change their childcare provider.

8.12 Conclusion

Most parents used childcare of some kind on a regular basis for their babies or toddlers: for three out of five babies and just over three-quarters of toddlers. The likelihood of using childcare was similar for lone parent and couple families but was considerably higher when the cohort child was the first born than where there were other children. Childcare use was clearly linked to mothers' labour market participation being much higher in families where mothers were in paid work. Indeed, when respondents were asked to give their main reason for using childcare, over two-thirds said that it was so that they could work.

The likelihood of childcare use also increased with household income. For example, the vast majority of toddlers in families in the highest income quartile, compared with
two-thirds in the lowest income quartile, had regular childcare arrangements in place. While household income is related to parental employment status, this finding persists even when parental employment is controlled for.

Two factors that may explain at least some of this difference are the cost and availability of affordable childcare. Just over half of families paid for the childcare they used; and for almost all the remainder it was free. The average sum paid for babies' childcare was higher than for toddlers. Higher income households also paid much more than lower income households. About a quarter of parents reported that paying for childcare was either difficult or very difficult, with lone parents twice as likely to say it was very difficult than partnered parents. Parents in the lowest income group were around twice as likely to find it difficult to pay for their childcare as those in the highest income group.

The type of childcare used, and the mix of providers also varied according to families' circumstances. Informal childcare is central to almost all families' childcare arrangements but particularly so for families in more economically deprived circumstances. It is used by two-thirds of families who have a childcare arrangement in place, and is even more commonly used by babies' families and by lone-parent families. Just over half of childcare users have some formal arrangement in place, with slightly higher use of formal providers among toddler families. About two-thirds of families who use childcare report that they use one type of provision. Of those parents who use a mix of childcare providers, lower income households, families living in the most deprived areas and lone parent families were more likely than their counterparts to use only informal arrangements. Four-fifths of the highest income households and three-quarters of families in the least deprived areas use a mix of formal and informal childcare providers. Grandparents are the most common childcare providers, used by about half of toddlers' families and two-thirds of babies' families. Grandparent care is even more prevalent in the most deprived areas.

Despite the considerable expansion in the supply of formal childcare under the Scottish Childcare Strategy, most parents did not think they had much choice of childcare providers. About one in five thought they had no choice at all, with higher proportions of families on low incomes or lone parents expressing this view. Only a minority (about one-fifth) of childcare users thought they would use a different form of childcare if it were available and affordable, mainly a formal type of childcare, and of these, the most popular alternative choice by far was a private nursery. These views did not vary according to whether the cohort child was a baby or toddler and suggest that the demand for affordable and available formal childcare has not yet been met.