A dialogue with employers that informs and stimulates demand for daycare services in the Hampshire County Council area
4Children Fast Track report by
Ann Munday
October 2007
4
Acknowledgements
4Children would like to thank the following for their help in preparing this report:
Hampshire County Council
Tracey Messer / Strategic Manager, Childcare Development and Business SupportMary Hogg / Senior Development Officer North
Mandy Prentice / Senior Development Officer North East
Regina Ansah-Boateng / Senior Development Officer South East
Lindsay Osman / Senior Development Officer South West
Debra Mc Andrew / Senior Development Officer Central
Marina Stafford
/ Development Officer Childcare
Carey Owen
/ Senior Development Officer Parent Information
Heather Bevis
/ Admin Support Officer
Francis Stoke / Development Officer Economic Development
John Yarrien
Karen Narkiewicz
/ Information Analyst
Policy, Funding and Research Manager
Employers
Dave Stott / Staff Support Officer. British Army, Aldershot Garrison
Martin French / Community Support Officer. British Army, Aldershot Garrison
Rosie Wilcox / Childcare and carer co-ordinator Hampshire Partnership Trust
Aimee Reeves / Childcare and carer co-ordinator Portsmouth PCT
Ben Hughes / Workforce Analyst Portsmouth City PCT
Julie Fisher / Family Care and Diversity Officer Hampshire Police
Linda Rickman / Recruitment manager Asda Eastleigh
Employer Support
Gareth Pew / Advisor Business Link
Jill Mc Donagh
Susie Pipe / Chamber of Commerce North Hampshire
Job Centre Plus
Summary
Hampshire County Council (HCC) is reviewing methods of employer engagement, in line with the requirements of the Childcare Act 2006, to evaluate the nature and extent of the need for childcare for working parents in each local area.
HCC has surveyed local employer staff childcare support and childcare needs, and investigated employer support by other organisations. In doing so they have found that there does not appear to be a consistent approach across Hampshire to engaging employers or other employer supported organisations, e.g. Business Link, Planning Department, Economic Development office. Local employers were mainly unaware of the services of the Early Years and Childcare Department, but did, to some extent, know about the Children’s Information Services.
In order to engage local employers more effectively, it is recommended that HCC consider:
· An employer childcare needs strategy
· A strategic action plan for employer engagement to cover the whole area, with individual action plans incorporated within it to reflect the needs of each geographical area.
· Service Level Agreements with borough planning departments and the Economic Development Office
· A comprehensive reporting system between HCC and Job Centre Plus on barriers to work
· Use of a common framework and regular discussion within the Early Years Team, to help overcome the challenges of working across 11 boroughs and the diversification of their internal structures
· A dedicated, experienced worker to work proactively with employers is essential to the success of the project
· A rigorous monitoring system to log all enquiries and contacts with employers and mechanisms to report and analyse the need for employee childcare
· Case studies and good practice examples to demonstrate the impact to other employers
· Introduction of an “award scheme” for family friendly employers
· An Information Strategy
· Service Level Agreements with the council call centre
· Training for call centre staff
· Comprehensive information on which daycare providers, including childminders, offer flexible hours, days and emergency cover
· A publicity strategy for all early years information to reach employers, including information about the role of the development teams and the extended schools offer
· Enhanced promotion of Working Tax Credits, salary sacrifice and childcare vouchers to employers and employees.
4
Contents
/Page
Acknowledgements
/2
Summary and recommendations
/3
Background /5
1
/The Brief
/6
2
/Method
/6
3
/Background to Hampshire County Council
/7
3.1
/Population
/7
/3.2
/Population Projections to 2026
/7
/3.3
/Ethnic Origins
/8
/3.4
/Employers
/8
/3.5
/Unemployment
/9
/3.6
/Working Tax Credit
/9
4
/Summary of Employer Initial Questionnaires
/10
/4.1
/Summary
/11
/4.2
/Action Points
/11
5
/Employer Support Agencies
/12
/5.1
/Business Link
/12
/5.2
/Chamber of Commerce
/12
/5.3
/Job Centre Plus
/12
/5.4
/Economic Development Office
/13
6
/Hampshire Children’s Information Service
/14
/6.1
/The Childcare Act 2006
/14
/6.2
/Information on services for disabled children
/15
7
/Hampshire Early Years
/16
8
/Good Practice from Other Local Authorities
/18
/8.1
/Rochdale
/18
/8.1.1
/Employer Link Co-ordinator
/18
/8.1.2
/Systems Needed
/19
/8.1.3
/Learning Points
/19
/8.2
/Sheffield County Council
/19
/8.2.1
/The CMB Project
/19
/8.2.2
/Systems Needed
/20
/8.2.3
/Learning Points
/21
9
/Funding Models
/21
/9.1
/Salary Sacrifice
/21
/9.2
/Childcare Vouchers
/21
Appendix 1
/23
Appendix 2
/25
4
Background
Hampshire County Council is undertaking an assessment of the nature and extent of the need for, and supply of, childcare within each local area, in line with the requirements of the Childcare Act 2006.
The Childcare Act places duties on English local authorities to improve outcomes for young children and reduce inequalities between them, to secure sufficient childcare to enable parents to work; and to provide information to parents about childcare for children and young people aged 0-19 years and a wide range of other services that may be of benefit to them.
The Act expands and clarifies in legislation the role local authorities play as strategic leaders of childcare locally, first laid out in the Children Act 2004. Section 6 of the Act gives local authorities a new duty of securing as far as is reasonably practicable, sufficient childcare to meet the needs of working parents and parents making the transition to work in the local authority area.
Section 11 of the Act places a duty on local authorities to carry out an assessment of the sufficiency of childcare within their area as a first step to securing sufficient childcare. The aim of this process is to give local authorities the evidence and information they will need, working in partnership with childcare providers and others, to facilitate and shape a childcare market that is sufficient, flexible, sustainable and responsive to parents needs.
Sufficient childcare, in Section 6 of the 2006 Childcare Act, is defined as ‘sufficient to meet the requirements of parents in [the local authority’s] area who require childcare in order to enable them to take up, or remain in, work or to undertake education or training which could reasonably be expected to assist them to obtain work.
In determining whether provision of childcare is sufficient a local authority must have regard to the needs of parents in their area for the provision of childcare in respect of which the childcare element of the working tax credit is payable, and the provision of childcare which is suitable for disabled children’.
DCSF Guidance for Childcare Sufficiency Assessments requires the local authority to be proactive in seeking the views of parents, employers, providers and the wider community. Local authorities are advised to take account of the views of employers, through surveys or group discussions, to obtain a better understanding of employment patterns, which will affect demand for childcare.
In addition, the Guidance suggests that local authorities might find it helpful to engage in a dialogue with employers about how employer-provided childcare support, encouragement of the take-up of tax credits, more flexible working patterns, and assistance for employees with the costs of childcare through allowances or vouchers could help with recruitment, retention and motivation
1. Brief
Hampshire County Council commissioned consultancy support through the DCSF funded Fast Track programme to
· Review methods of employer engagement that were already underway in Hampshire
· Pilot a questionnaire for employers
· Reference examples of successful practice from other local authorities.
· Contact Business Link, other relevant employer organisations, a small number of key employers (e.g. NHS), and the local authority Senior Development Officers (Childcare) in Hampshire
2. Method
Phase one
· The 4Children consultant contacted Business Link, the CIS and 5 key employers in Hampshire to collate information about employer childcare support and staff needs.
· The consultant brought together information about employer childcare support and methods of employer engagement used by the development teams within each locality and borough, to establish a clear picture of the current situation.
· 4Children designed a questionnaire for employers and piloted this with five HR Directors in Hampshire, to establish levels of childcare support for staff (e.g. childcare vouchers, nurseries), and understanding of staff childcare needs and other sources of support (e.g. childcare element of Working Tax Credit and Children’s Information Service).
Phase two
· 4Children reviewed the findings of the employer questionnaire pilot, and revised accordingly
· The 4Children consultant referenced examples of successful practice from other local authorities (e.g. Rochdale) and identified how these could be applied in the Hampshire context to form a ‘Hampshire model’ for involving and consulting employers that could be used by the development teams.
Phase three
· A brief report
4
3. Hampshire County Council
3.1 Population
In population terms Hampshire is the third largest shire county in England, with a 2003 Mid Year Estimate population (produced by the Office for National statistics) of 1,251,000.[1]
Age Profiles, 200300-04 / 05-15 / 16-29 / 30-44 / 45-64 / 65-74 / 75-84 / 85+ / Population
(000's)
Hampshire / 5.5 / 14.1 / 15.6 / 22.5 / 25.7 / 8.6 / 5.9 / 2.0 / 1251.0
Basingstoke & Deane / 6.3 / 14.5 / 16.5 / 24.9 / 25.1 / 7.1 / 4.3 / 1.4 / 154.4
East Hampshire / 5.5 / 14.6 / 14.9 / 21.7 / 27.0 / 8.4 / 5.7 / 2.1 / 110.2
Eastleigh / 5.4 / 14.7 / 16.1 / 23.1 / 25.5 / 7.9 / 5.5 / 1.7 / 115.9
Fareham / 5.3 / 13.7 / 14.1 / 22.6 / 26.4 / 9.6 / 6.2 / 2.0 / 109.0
Gosport / 5.8 / 13.9 / 18.3 / 22.7 / 22.8 / 8.7 / 5.8 / 1.9 / 77.4
Hart / 6.1 / 14.2 / 16.0 / 24.4 / 26.3 / 7.4 / 4.3 / 1.4 / 85.7
Havant / 5.2 / 14.1 / 14.7 / 20.3 / 26.2 / 10.4 / 7.0 / 2.1 / 116.3
New Forest / 4.7 / 13.0 / 12.5 / 19.6 / 27.2 / 11.2 / 8.7 / 3.2 / 171.2
Rushmoor / 6.3 / 14.4 / 20.8 / 25.6 / 21.2 / 6.2 / 4.2 / 1.3 / 90.0
Test Valley / 5.6 / 14.9 / 14.3 / 23.4 / 26.5 / 8.2 / 5.4 / 1.9 / 111.3
Winchester / 5.1 / 13.6 / 17.1 / 21.3 / 25.8 / 8.6 / 6.2 / 2.4 / 109.6
The data are percentages of the total population
Source: Office for National Statistics, 2003 Mid-Year Estimates
3.2 Population Projections to 2026
The increase in population across the whole county for the period is expected to be around 105,000 people, or 8.4%, but there are wide percentage differences when looking at different age groups and individual districts.
One Hampshire district is expected to have lost population by 2026 compared to 2001 - Havant. This loss is expected to be 3,200 persons, or 2.8%. The range of increase throughout the other ten county authorities is from less than 1% in New Forest through to 21.2% in Basingstoke and Deane. The other authorities with expected large gains, all above 10%, are Test Valley, Winchester, Gosport and Hart.
The largest increases are expected to be in the older age groups, particularly the groups starting at 65 year olds. The largest percentage increase, by 2026, is projected to be in the 85 years and over group which is expected to have more than doubled its number since 2001, going from 25,300 to 51,000 persons.
In contrast, the population of school age is forecast to decline by 12.5 per cent. The population aged 30 to 44 years is also expected to decline between 2001 and 2026, by 7.8 per cent.
Households occupied by couples with dependent children account for every fourth household in Hampshire, which is in excess of 2% higher than the England and Wales figure. Within the county the proportions vary from New Forest (21.1%) through to Hart (28.1%). [2]
3.3 Ethnic Origin
Hampshire has a much smaller proportion of its population within ethnic minority population groups than England (7% less) and also has a lower rate than the South East Region (2.7% less). The proportion of Hampshire’s population within ethnic minority groups is uniformly low across the whole county, with only Rushmoor having more than four percent ethnic minority population. [3]
3.4 Employment
In 2003, the latest data available, there were just under 800 firms in Hampshire employing 100 or more people, representing 1.5% of all firms but providing work for 39% of all employees in the county. Nationally the equivalent figures are 1.7% of all firms and 42% of all employees.
The districts with the highest proportions of large firms (those with 100 or more employees) are Rushmoor with 2.4% and Basingstoke and Deane with 1.9%. The highest proportions of employees in large firms were also found in these two districts, 49% and 45% respectively, together with Winchester at 47%. By contrast the districts with lowest proportions of large firms are New Forest with 1.0% and East Hampshire with 0.7%. These two districts also have the smallest proportion of employees working for large firms, both with 28%. The contrast between the lower and upper end of this range is stark with East Hampshire and New Forest’s 28% of employees in large firms being less than three-fifths of Rushmoor’s 49%.
The district distribution of very small firms, those with less than five employees, is almost a mirror image of the large firm distribution although there are some differences. Hart has the highest proportion of very small firms in the local economy (79%), followed by East Hampshire (78%). East Hampshire has the highest proportion of employees in very small firms, with almost 20%, and Rushmoor the lowest with less than 9%; a factor of two separates the upper and lower end of this range. Gosport and Rushmoor both have the lowest proportion of very small firms, with 67%. [4]