My doubts on 30 hours

The eagerly awaited Evaluation of Early Implementation of 30 Hours Free Childcare was published in July.

The first conclusion I drew from the evaluation is there are too many caveats to draw any firm conclusions. The authors point to uncertainties around the small-scale sample; the timing of the early implementation period (which took place during the autumn term, when demand is at its lowest); the fact that the participating eight authorities generally had a good track record of delivery, meaning we might be seeing positively skewed outcomes; and the additional support provided, including early innovator funding and other financial support.

Nevertheless, the authors conclude ‘there is no specific reason to believe that 30 hours free childcare will not be a success’. And, accepting the limitations of the evaluation, there are some positive findings, including increased parental working hours and improved household finances. But there are three worrying findings that the report seems to skirt around.

First, day nurseries and playgroups cited concerns about staff recruitment and retention. It’s therefore unclear whether there are enough qualified practitioners to deliver the 30 hours.

Second, almost 50 per cent of private providers, 40 per cent of voluntary providers and more than a third of childminders reported a decrease in profits, with potential consequences for the quality of future provision and possibly forcing providers to favour children eligible for 30 hours over those eligible only for 15.

Finally, more than a third of families who took up the offer earned between £32k and £52k. An additional 32 per cent of families earned more than £52k, while take-up for families earning less than £15.6k was lower than 10 per cent. Indeed, families earning more than £52k increased their use of childcare by around 38 per cent, but only around 18 per cent of mothers and around 7 per cent of fathers reported an increase in working hours. As predicted, this policy is benefiting higher earners the most and providing a transfer of cost from higher-income families to the tax-payer.

The Government must be more transparent about a policy which seems to be subsidising the wealthiest families and could potentially reduce services for the most disadvantaged.