London Borough of Brent · London Borough of Brent Childcare sufficiency assessment 2016 4 Foreword Welcome to Brent Council’s local Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (2016-19)

London Borough of Brent Childcare sufficiency assessment 2016

1

London Borough of Brent

Childcare sufficiency assessment 2016


2

Contents

Foreword 4

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5

Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 6

Key findings ........................................................................................................................ 8

1. Factors affecting demand and supply of childcare ........................................................... 10

Current and future population .......................................................................................... 10

Total Number of Children................................................................................................. 12

Children aged 0-4 ........................................................................................................ 12

School aged children ................................................................................................... 12

Children with Additional Needs .................................................................................... 13

Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................... 14

Language ..................................................................................................................... 15

Employment and deprivation ........................................................................................... 16

Free School Meals (FSMs) .......................................................................................... 18

Early Years and Family Support Service borough wide strategies ................................... 18

2. Supply of childcare places ............................................................................................. 21

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 22

Number of places ............................................................................................................ 22

Location of Childcare ....................................................................................................... 25

Cost of Childcare ............................................................................................................. 27

Quality of Childcare ......................................................................................................... 28

Opening Hours ................................................................................................................ 31

Free Entitlement for 2, 3, and 4 Year Olds ....................................................................... 32

Providers’ views more generally on the childcare market................................................. 33

3. Parental views on childcare ............................................................................................. 34

Key reasons for using childcare ...................................................................................... 36

Making decisions about which childcare to use ............................................................... 38

Use of childcare .............................................................................................................. 42


3

Frequency of childcare used ........................................................................................... 44

Difficult times to access childcare .................................................................................... 45

Affordability of childcare .................................................................................................. 46

Perspectives on current childcare ................................................................................... 51

4. How parents find out about childcare ............................................................................ 54

How easy is it to find information about childcare in Brent ............................................... 54

How parents found about their current childcare? ........................................................... 55

Appendix One: Ethnicity profile for each locality .................................................................. 59

Appendix Two: Profile of families sharing perspectives through survey ............................... 62

Appendix Three: Parent focus groups and interviews.......................................................... 65


4

Foreword

Welcome to Brent Council’s local Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (2016-19). This document, which is based on the statutory requirements within the Childcare Act 2006, is intended to give an overview of the local childcare market in the borough, including supply and demand and the views of local childcare providers and parents. As a Local Authority, we champion the delivery of high quality services which truly reflect

local needs and in which the needs and best interests of the child are paramount. We are

committed to ensuring that all children have access to excellent early learning and care, that

provision is flexible and affordable for all families and that our childcare providers are

supported in delivering high quality, sustainable provision.

To this end, we have consulted with parents and carers and childcare providers in the

borough to hear their views on what is working, what they would like changed and new

developments that they would like to see happen. We have had very high response rates

and would like to thank all of those who gave us their feedback.

We aim to use the findings of this assessment to make the best use of resources, by

targeting support in identified areas where childcare is needed the most and identifying

areas where unmet need exists and where, therefore, market opportunities exist for potential

future development. We have created our new Action Plan and intend, against a background

of budget reductions and competing demands, to use existing resources in a creative and

innovative manner and to work with our partners in the childcare sector and wider

community, to ensure children in the borough have access to quality provision and the best

possible start in life.

Councillor Ruth Moher

Lead member for Children and Young People

March 2016


5

Introduction and methodology

Context Under the Childcare Act 2006 local authorities are obliged to:

Secure sufficient childcare, so far as is reasonably practicable, for working parents or

parents who are studying or training for employment, for children aged 0-19 (or up to

25 for disabled children); and

Secure sufficient free early education places1 for every eligible two year old and for

every three and four year old in their area from the relevant date.

Local authorities are also expected to report annually to Council Members on how they are

meeting their duty to secure sufficient childcare, and make this report available and

accessible to parents. Local authorities are responsible for determining the appropriate level

of detail in their report, geographical division and date of publication. This report contributes

to fulfilling that statutory duty.

The Brent Early Years and Family Support Service is the strategic lead for delivering on the

statutory obligation to secure childcare sufficiency in the London borough of Brent. Childcare

sufficiency is much more than having enough childcare places. Childcare sufficiency is about

having high quality, inclusive and affordable childcare that is accessible to, and flexible

enough to accommodate the needs of children and their families with diverse requirements

Research has proved that pre-school experience enhances all-round development in

children and disadvantaged children in particular benefit significantly from good quality early

education, especially where they are with a mixture of children from different social

backgrounds. Whilst not eliminating disadvantage, pre-school can help to ameliorate the

effects of social disadvantage and can provide children with a better start to school.

Therefore, investing in good quality pre-school provision can be seen as an effective means

of achieving targets concerning social exclusion and breaking cycles of disadvantage.

Sufficient childcare is also a key support for helping parents to gain and stay in employment.

A sufficient, sustainable, high quality childcare market is central to key ambitions for Brent

Council relevant to employment, early help for families that benefit from extra support to

build resilience, addressing poverty2 and addressing the impacts of Government reforms to

welfare and housing.

1 The Childcare Act 2006 Section 7 (as substituted by section 1 of the Education Act 2011) places a duty on

English local authorities to secure early years provision free of charge. Regulations pursuant to section 7A make provision about how local authorities should discharge their duty under section 7. 2 See especially Brent Employment, Skills and Enterprise Strategy 2015- 2020, Brent Early Help Strategy 2013-

2016 and Brent Child Poverty Strategy 2011- 2021


6

Methodology Early Years and Childcare Statutory Guidance (September 2014)3 makes clear that local

authorities should take into account what is ‘reasonably practicable’ when assessing what

sufficient childcare means in their area and:

The condition of the local childcare market, including the demand for specific types of

providers in a particular locality and the amount and type of supply that currently

exists;

The condition of the labour market;

The quality and capacity of childcare providers and childminders registered with a

childminder agency, including their funding, staff, premises, experience and

expertise;

Encourage schools in their area to offer out-of-hours childcare from 8.00am to

6.00pm; and

Encourage existing providers to expand their provision and new providers to enter

the local childcare market.

To support this, PCG Advisory Services is assisting Brent Early Years and Family Support

Services to better understand:

The population profile including labour market and its implications for childcare

demand.

Details about childcare supply in each locality. This includes in relation to quality,

cost and in providing choice for families.

Details about childcare demand across each locality, including specifically as it

concerns families with children that are disabled, of different ages, in families that are

in receipt of benefits and are more vulnerable.

Where there is sufficiency and what gaps there are.

A mixed method data collection methodology was agreed with the Operational Manager,

Early Years and Family Support Services. The methodology was implemented across

August- December 2015 and comprised:

Focus groups and short interviews with 65 parents across 6 consultations organised

by the Brent Children and Families Information Service at schools, children’s centres

and the Brent Parents Forum for parents with children with disabilities/ additional

needs.

Targeted face to face consultations with Head of Employment Services, 6 early years

settings and Operational Manager, Early Years and Family Support Services

Review and analysis of existing supply, quality and profile data held by Brent Early

Years and Family Support Services

Review of key strategic plans. Most particularly these are Brent Early Years

Childcare Strategy 2013-2016, Brent Employment, Skills and Enterprise Strategy

2015- 2020 and Brent Early Help Strategy 2013- 2016.

3 See Department for Education, Early Years and Childcare Statutory Guidance Part B, September 2014


7

Preparation, distribution and analysis of 827 surveys completed by parents of

children aged 0-18 years in Brent and 21 surveys completed by providers of early

years’ services.


8

Executive Summary

The Brent Early Years Childcare Strategy 2013-2016 guides Brent Council’s Early Years and

Family Support Service efforts to improve the quality of provision and the take up of funded

early education places (Nursery Education Grant- NEG 2, 3 and 4). This takes place within a

context where there is growing demand for childcare and especially where childcare is

affordable and convenient for families. We know this because:

Brent has a growing population and is experiencing even faster growth in the population

of children aged 0-19 years (particularly for 0-4 year olds) and especially so in Wembley

and Harlesden localities4.

Brent is the second most ethnically diverse local authority area in the UK5. Research

finds that some ethnic groups are generally much less likely to use registered childcare6.

Brent is in the top 15% most deprived local authorities (2015 IMD report) with Harlesden

locality the most deprived (particularly Stonebridge and Harlesden wards). Harlesden

has proportionately much higher numbers of lone parents, claimant parents and children

that are taking up free school meals. Other localities also have areas of deprivation.

While nationally there has been a reduction in the supply of childcare places for children in

the early years, in Brent there has been a 2% growth in childcare places between 2013 and

2015. That growth has been largely in places at school nurseries and childminders.

It is encouraging that the growth in places has been accompanied by greater quality. The

number of nurseries rated “inadequate” or “requires improvement” fell from 33 in 2013 to 5 in

2015 at the same time as an increase of 10 nurseries rated “good” or “outstanding”; and the

number of childminders rated “inadequate” or “requires improvement” fell from 62 in 2013 to

29 in 2015 at the same time as an increase of 11 childminders rated “good”. This accords

with the perspectives of parents too. Overall satisfaction (agreed/strongly agreed) is 95%

compared with 89% in 2013; perceptions of quality have improved significantly rising to 79%

from 61% in 2013; and perceptions about the ability to meet the additional needs of children

have improved significantly rising to 65% from 45%.

The most commonly used types of registered childcare are day nurseries, childminders,

school nurseries and out of school clubs. More than 4 in 5 of all families also augment their

use of registered childcare with informal care from family, friends and neighbours. While

there are different types of settings within Brent, playgroups/ pre-school (2.7%), childcare

within children’s centres (2.5%) and independent schools with under 5’s nurseries (2%)

constitute relatively low proportions of childcare places within Brent. This potentially points to

a lack of choice for families. Holiday times, weekends and evenings are also more

challenging for parents seeking childcare. This is especially so for families with disabled

children, for families where both parents are in full time employment and for lone parents.

In individual localities, there are considerable variations (see Chapter Two). Kilburn, for

example, has the least flexible childcare in terms of opening hours with limited availability

4 See Brent Diversity Profile (July 2014) 5 See School Census 2015 6 See Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Caring and Earning Among Low Income Caribbean, Pakistani and Somali families (2014)


9

before 8am and after 6pm and with no availability at weekends, while Wembley offers the

greatest flexibility in terms of opening hours and weekend provision.

Increasing the take-up of free early education places is a priority. There has been a

reduction from 92% to 86% of all children aged 3 and 4 years taking up their entitlement

since 2013. This is considerably lower than the England average of 96%. As at December

2015, 70% of all eligible children aged 2 years for the early education entitlement are taking

this up. This represents substantial growth throughout 2015..

Affordability remains a key priority for Brent, with 1 in 2 parents reporting that they do not

find childcare costs affordable. There has been some improvement in parents’ perceptions of

affordability with 50% agreeing/ strongly agreeing childcare is affordable as compared with

44% in 2013. Brent families pay on average 2.5% less than the London average for nursery

places. Families do pay 6.5% more than the London average for childminder places. Out of

school clubs, on the available data, have also become more expensive in Brent than the

London and England averages7.

Those parents most concerned about affordability are families where both parents are in full

time employment (with 2 in 3 parents disagreeing/strongly disagreeing with the statement

that their childcare costs are affordable). These same working parents are also the most

likely to identify that they use childcare so they can work. 2 in 5 of all parents also shared

specific consequences from a lack of affordable childcare. Wembley parents are identifying

the greatest impacts - half reported that they had not been able to take up a job because of

a lack of suitable, affordable childcare for example.

Overall, African, British, White and Pakistani parents were less satisfied with the childcare

offer than parents from other communities. Close to 40% of African, British, White and

Pakistani parents were satisfied with the affordability of childcare, approximately 85% of

parents from these communities were satisfied with the quality of childcare and

approximately 86% from these communities were satisfied with their childcare overall

As set out at Chapter 4, most parents do not find it difficult to source relevant information

and advice about their current childcare arrangements. However, parents with children with

disabilities/additional needs, Willesden parents and Pakistani, African and Irish parents were

those which find it more challenging. The primary source of information and advice about

current childcare arrangements is friends and relatives and even more so if both parents are

in full time employment and/or the family is Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Other Asian).

7 Primary schools will often provide out of school clubs for their own pupils. This data is not reported to, or comprehensively collected by the Council.


10

1. Factors affecting demand and supply of

childcare

Key findings

Current and future population

1. Brent is a fast growing local authority area. Brent is experiencing even faster growth in

the population of children aged 0-19 years. This is likely to result in demand for more

childcare places given a particularly fast growing population of children aged 0-4 years.

Wembley has the single largest population of families with 0-4 year old children;

accounting for 29% of all children aged 0-4 years residing in Brent. Moreover, growth in

numbers of children aged 0-4 years in Wembley is approximately 25% and accounts for

14% of the total growth in Brent. Alongside this growth in the general population of young

children, there are increasing numbers of children with additional needs in Wembley.

Harlesden is also fast growing at 11.4%. By contrast, there is much lower growth in the

population of children aged 0-4 years in Kilburn, Kingsbury and Willesden localities.

2. Ethnic and language diversity is significant in Brent. Brent is the second most ethnically

diverse local authority area in the UK and close to 1 in 5 of all Brent parents have no

spoken or basic English language skills. This has significant implications for planning

childcare provision so that childcare is wholly accessible to all families. It will be more

important, for example, that childcare planning and education of parents about what is

available and why good quality childcare (especially in the early years) is beneficial to

child development takes account of different cultural requirements.

Childcare providers are innovative in engaging parents from diverse backgrounds and

with different languages in their children’s care and development (especially in early

years childcare).

3. Different localities will need to be especially attuned to the service requirements of

different ethnic communities. Most particularly Harlesden larger populations are

Somalian, Caribbean, White British and other Black African; Kilburn larger populations

are Caribbean and White British; Kingsbury larger populations are Indian, Caribbean,

Eastern European and Pakistani; Wembley larger populations are Indian, Somalian,

Caribbean, Pakistani, Eastern European and Sri Lankan Tamil; and Willesden larger

populations are Somalian, White British, Eastern European, Pakistani and Afghanistani.

Key factors affecting ability to pay

4. There is substantial deprivation in Brent. Brent is in the 15% most deprived local

authorities. The Harlesden locality shows very high levels of deprivation throughout most

of the locality; and most particularly Stonebridge and Harlesden wards. Harlesden has

proportionately much higher numbers of lone parents, claimant parents and children that


11

are taking up free school meals.

Other key areas of deprivation include Mapesbury and Kilburn wards in Kilburn locality, a

pocket of Barnhill ward in Kingsbury locality, pockets of high levels of deprivation in

Wembley Central, Sudbury, Alperton and Preston wards in Wembley locality and

Willesden Green and Dudden Hill wards and a pocket of Welsh Harp ward in Willesden.

Borough wide strategies to impact factors affecting demand and

supply of childcare

5. Within the overarching framework of the Brent Early Years Childcare Strategy 2013-2016

the Early Years and Family Support Service is progressing efforts particularly to improve

the quality of provision and the take up of funded early education entitlements (NEG 2, 3

and 4). This will be given even more focus with the Government ambition from

September 2017 that eligible working parents have access to 30 hours of funded (free)

early education for children aged 3 and 4 years. Key actions include:

a. Increasing the availability of flexible childcare in Brent.

b. Working with Brent Housing Department colleagues to pilot a 6-month local childcare

subsidy for families in receipt of Housing Benefit that are taking up employment of work

based training programmes. While the pilot is unable to be extended, 26 of 27 families in

2015 that accessed this subsidy remain employed and are using registered childcare for

their children.

c. Sustaining efforts to promote childcare and the value particularly of quality early years

education; and doing so in ways that are responsive to the requirements of parents from

diverse communities. This includes work with Brent CVS to develop peer advocacy.

d. Close work with multidisciplinary, multiagency partners to promote the Brent childcare

offer. This includes, for example, closer working between Children and Families

Information Service and Brent Employment Service to provide advice as part of a more

integrated co-located employment offer for out of work parents especially in Wembley

and Harlesden.

e. Quality improvement work has had a significant focus on how practitioners engage

and work with parents to improve outcomes for children; and on targeting quality

improvement with childcare settings that are rated ‘inadequate’ and ‘requires

improvement’.

f. Commencing a large consultation with childcare providers about requirements to

support the expansion of funded (free) early education for children aged 3 and 4 years

for eligible working parents from September 2017.

See CSA Action Plan 2016/17.


12

Total Number of Children

As the Brent Diversity Profile (July 2014) sets out the population of Brent grew by 18.1%

between 2001 and 2011 while the population of children and young people grows

significantly faster than this. Amongst 0-4 year olds for example the growth was 37.7%.

There are also significant differences between wards with some such as Wembley Central

having a more than 40% growth rate.

Children aged 0-4

The Early Years and Family Support Service uses data reported by London North West

Healthcare Trust8 for service planning. This data estimates 21,708 children aged 0-4 years

in 20149.

As Table One sets out, Wembley has the single largest population of families with 0-4 year

old children; accounting for 29% of all children aged 0-4 years residing in Brent. The main

growth areas for children aged 0-4 years are Wembley and Harlesden localities, while there

is far slower growth in Kilburn, Kingsbury and Willesden localities.

Table 1. Number of children aged 0-4 years old in Brent by locality and age, estimate

2016

Locality 0 year

olds

1 year

olds

2 year

olds

3 year

olds

4 year

olds

Grand

Total

Harlesden 802 905 850 809 849 4215

Kilburn 853 890 831 726 585 3885

Kingsbury 801 759 704 639 441 3344

Wembley 1483 1463 1395 1166 855 6362

Willesden 869 839 794 818 582 3902

Grand Total 4808 4856 4574 4158 3312 21708

School aged children

Data from the 2014 School Census shows that there are 46,599 school aged children10.

Table 2 sets out the total number of children and young people by school type and by

locality.

As with pre-school aged children, Wembley has the largest population of children aged 5-16

years. Wembley accounts for 25.6% of all children aged 5-16 years. Taken together with the

number of children aged 0-4 years and the 0-4 year age population growth rate, Wembley is

8 Data Source: London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, Community Services Brent, January 2014 9 This is less than the 2014 Round of Demographic projections which identifies 24,664 children aged

0-4 years in Brent in 2014 (projected to grow 0.11%, to 24,720 in 2016). See GLA Intelligence Unit 10 These are children aged 5- 16 years. This census excludes children that are not recorded as attending school.


13

expected to have significantly more children aged 5-16 years in future years than the rest of

the borough.

As with pre-school aged children, Harlesden is the second most populous locality for

children aged 5-16 years and is expected to also have significantly faster growing numbers

of children aged 6-16 years in the locality than the rest of the borough (with exception of

Wembley). This has implications for school and childcare planning in future years.

In most localities, children aged 5 years are at school. By contrast, Harlesden and Kilburn

have higher numbers of children aged 5 years that attend nursery.

Table 2. Children aged 5 years in Brent that attend nursery

Locality Nursery

Harlesden 167

Kilburn 138

Kingsbury 4

Wembley 6

Willesden 42

Out of Area 3

Grand Total 360

Children with Additional Needs

Table 3 shows that the overall number of children aged 0-4 with additional needs has

remained largely steady, decreasing by 0.6% (3 children). Though the overall population

remains steady, the Special Educational Needs Assessment Service (SENAS) records fewer

children with additional needs in Harlesden, Kilburn, and Kingsbury than in the previous

year. Wembley by contrast has 39% more children aged 0-4 years with additional needs (22

children). This suggests accessibility of childcare for families with children with additional

needs is likely of growing importance in Wembley.

Table 3. Number of children with additional needs, by age and locality, Q2 2014/15.11

Locality Under 1 Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 2015 Total 2013 Total

Harlesden 1 5 18 30 28 82 95

Kilburn 4 3 9 15 28 59 74

Kingsbury 1 2 9 14 34 60 82

Wembley 1 4 19 44 68 136 98

11 Data Source: Brent Local Authority, Special Educational Needs Assessment Service (SENAS), September 2014


14

Willesden 2 6 11 32 33 84 81

Out of Area 1 1 2 9 13 7

Grand

Total

9 21 67 137 200 434 437

Ethnicity

Brent has one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse populations in the country. The

2011 Census recorded that 64% of the total population of Brent is Black, Asian or Minority

Ethnic (BAME). This is the second highest proportion in England and Wales. However, the

headline figure for the total population masks the full extent to which children and young

people in Brent are BAME.

The 2014 School Census records 92.7% of school children as BAME, see Appendix One.

This reveals that while the largest ethnic populations are Indian, Somalian, Caribbean, White

British and Eastern European, these account for less than half of all children living in Brent.

Indian families with children aged 5-16 years are the ‘biggest’ population and the only

population that account for in excess of 10% of the total (14.9% of the total population of

children aged 5-16 years).

This has implications for planning childcare provision that is accessible to all families and

can meet their diverse requirements. This includes ensuring that there is ongoing dialogue

with parents about the value of childcare, especially for children in the early years, and

ensuring that childcare provision is sensitive to cultural needs. The Joseph Rowntree

Foundation found that attitudes towards childcare can vary significantly for different

communities:

Another key finding is that ethnic minority people do not have generic attitudes to ‘caring’.

This relates to the role of cultural or religious preferences in attitudes to caring, and in

particular to registered caring services. Among Pakistani and particularly Somali

respondents, these considerations were important in explaining the low use of registered

childcare services. This appears to be related to parental emphasis on transmitting cultural

values and practices to their children. Some parents would be satisfied if such care was

more culturally sensitive, or if some staff shared their cultural or religious values, though a

significant minority preferred to be the primary carer for their child at least until secondary

school12.

The School Census also makes clear that there are particular localities where families from

similar ethnic communities are more likely to reside. For example, Indian families are much

more likely to live in Wembley, while Somalian, Caribbean and Irish Traveller families are

much more likely to live in Harlesden. Appendix One13 shows that:

Harlesden largest ethnic groups are:

Somalian (18.5%)

Caribbean (14.0%)

12 See JFK, Caring and Earning Among Low Income Caribbean, Pakistani and Somali families (2014) 13 Using same application as previous CSA report (2014) of 400 or more children.


15

White British (6.8%)

Other Black African (6.5%)

Kilburn largest ethnic groups are:


Somalian (7.5%)

Caribbean (7.2%)

Kingsbury largest ethnic groups are:

Indian (21.0%)

Eastern European (10.3%)

Pakistani (6.8%)

Caribbean (6.2%

Wembley largest ethnic groups are:

Indian (31.7%)

Pakistani (7.9%)

Sri Lankan Tamil (7.8%)

Caribbean (7.4%)


Somalian (6.1%)

Willesden largest ethnic groups are:

Somalian (12.9%)

Pakistani (9.0%)



Afghanistani (5.4%)

Language The 2011 census found that 149 languages were spoken in Brent. The 2011 UK census

showed that English was the main language in 57% of Brent households. This was the 2nd

lowest rate for any borough in England and Wales and reinforces the findings of the previous

section about the extent of ethnic diversity. The proportion of households where the main

language was not English and who cannot speak English varied by ward and was highest in

Alperton and Wembley Central.14 This has implications for service planning so that childcare

provision is accessible to families where English is not spoken.

Table 4 shows the results of the 2011 census in spoken English proficiency, comparing

Brent to London, and England.

14 Brent Diversity Profile, July 2014.


16

Table 4. Spoken English Proficiency levels in Brent, London, and England.15

Spoken English Proficiency Brent London England

% Main language English 62.8% 77.9% 92.0%

% Main language not English who speak English very well

or well 29.2% 18.0% 6.3%

% Main language not English who cannot speak English well 6.7% 3.5% 1.4%

% Main language not English who cannot speak English 1.3% 0.6% 0.3%

Employment and deprivation

In 2015 Brent ranked 39th most deprived out of 326 local authority districts. This represents

improvement by 15 places from a rank of 24th in 2010. Nonetheless, amongst Brent’s 173

lower super output areas (LSOAs), 14 are ranked in the top 10% most deprived LSOAs in

the country). The majority of these LSOAs are found in the Harlesden locality with

Stonebridge and Harlesden wards amongst the most deprived wards in the country.

Other localities have a more mixed profile:

Areas of high deprivation in Kilburn locality are within Mapesbury and Kilburn wards.

Kingsbury locality is much less deprived than other localities, with only a pocket of

Barnhill ward characterised by very high levels of deprivation.

Wembley is generally relatively deprived, with small pockets of high levels of

deprivation in Wembley Central, Sudbury, Alperton and Preston wards.

Areas of high deprivation in Willesden locality are mainly Willesden Green and

Dudden Hill wards. There is a pocket of Welsh Harp with very high levels of

deprivation.

15 Data obtained from the 2011 Census proficiency in English data at: http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=3&b=6275032&c=Brent&d=13&e=61&g=6320108&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1390230695247&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2500&nsjs=true&nsck=false&nssvg=false&nswid=1366.

http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=3&b=6275032&c=Brent&d=13&e=61&g=6320108&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1390230695247&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2500&nsjs=true&nsck=false&nssvg=false&nswid=1366




17

Figure One: Indices of deprivation Brent 2015

The high level of deprivation found in Harlesden is reinforced in the count of claimant

households. There are much higher numbers of lone parents and out of work families in

Harlesden.16 See Table 5. This reinforces Brent’s priority to target raising skills and

employment in Harlesden and has service planning implications for childcare provision.

16 Harlesden is identified as a priority area for increasing employment in Brent. See Brent Employment, Skills and Enterprise Strategy 2015-2020.


18

Table 5. Claimant households

Locality No. of 0-4 year olds in

claimant households

No. of claimant families with

0-4 year olds

Households with a claimant

lone parent

Harlesden 814 605 492

Kilburn 545 421 350

Kingsbury 295 231 165

Wembley 553 417 303

Willesden 640 495 400

Out of Area 139 109 80

Grand Total 2986 2278 1,790

Free School Meals (FSMs) Table 6 shows that, in line with the indicators of deprivation, Harlesden has by far the most

children taking up FSMs17 representing 29% of the total. The number and percentage of

children receiving FSMs is down from 2012 (10,561 and 23.2%) though external factors may

play a role in this drop.

Table 6. Count and % of children receiving FSMs split by school type and locality.

Locality /

School Type

Nursery Primary PRU Secondary Special Total

FSM

Total

Children

% FSM

Harlesden 79 1450 12 800 44 2385 8094 29%

Kilburn 58 691 1 261 30 1041 4671 22%

Kingsbury 2 607 5 416 28 1058 7359 14%

Wembley 2 960 2 642 37 1643 11942 14%

Willesden 19 1128 2 587 75 1811 8077 22%

Out of Area 1 316 1 406 10 734 6456 11%

Grand Total 161 5152 23 3112 224 8672 46599 19%

Early Years and Family Support Service borough wide strategies

The Brent Early Years Childcare Strategy 2013-2016 takes into account the context set out

in this chapter the opportunities and complexities that arise from rich cultural and linguistic

diversity; the challenges of deprivation; the impacts of fast growing populations of families

o 17 Eligibility for free school meals is determined by whether a child lives in a household where a parent

or carer is in receipt of particular benefits and have an annual income of £16,190 or less.


19

with very young children especially within Wembley and Harlesden localities; the

Government ambitions to extend early education entitlements for children aged 2 years; and

the impacts of Government changes to welfare.

To this end, the Early Years and Family Support Service is progressing efforts particularly to

improve the quality of provision and the take up of funded early education entitlements (NEG

2, 3 and 4). Key actions include:

Increasing the availability of flexible childcare in Brent in response to feedback from

Brent Employment Service, Jobcentre Plus and from families that identified a lack of

flexible childcare prevented parents from returning to work. Indeed, Brent Early Years

and Family Support Services went onto win the Innovation Award at the Local

Government Chronicle Awards in 2015 for establishing the country’s first flexible

childminding pool with Ofsted registered childminders offering short notice, out of

hours, overnight and weekend childcare care.

To address affordability, a local childcare subsidy funded from the Discretionary

Housing Payment (DHP) for families in receipt of Housing Benefit was piloted;

involving joint work between the Early Years and Family Support Service and the

Brent Housing Department. This enabled additional funded childcare for parents

taking up or returning to employment, or in work-based training programmes during

the first six months. While the pilot is unable to be extended, 26 of 27 families in 2015

that accessed this subsidy remain employed and are using registered childcare for

their children.

Sustaining efforts to promote childcare and the value particularly of quality early

years education; and doing so in ways that are responsive to the requirements of

parents from diverse communities. For example, several African mothers, in focus

groups and interviews as part of developing the CSA, expressed a view that largely

they preferred children to remain at home or with family members in advance of

starting school. Registered childcare was considered a secondary option to meet the

needs of working parents. This is consistent with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

research referenced at p.16.

Close work with multidisciplinary, multiagency partners to promote the Brent

childcare offer. This includes, for example, closer working between Children and

Families Information Service and Brent Employment Service:

o There are plans for the Children and Families Information Service to provide

advice surgeries as part of a more integrated co-located employment offer for

out of work parents focused on Wembley and Harlesden which are

characterised by faster growing populations and where there is more

deprivation.

o The Children and Families Information Service plans to deliver regular

awareness sessions for Employment Services staff about how families can

take up free nursery entitlements for 2, 3 and 4 year olds, as well as other

types of childcare.


20

Quality improvement work has had a significant focus on how practitioners engage

and work with parents to improve outcomes for children. In line with statutory

guidance, the Early Years and Family Support Service has also focused on

improving the quality of childcare in the borough, targeting support at settings which

are rated ‘inadequate’ and ‘requires improvement’ in particular. Childcare providers

have rated this assistance- especially the support provided by early years’ advisory

teachers- as especially useful to improving the quality of practice.

Close work with Brent CVS to extend the existing volunteer programme in children’s

centres and Brent’s Parent Champions project, involving community members

(volunteers and parents) as advocates for childcare, particularly in communities

which traditionally have shown preferences for informal childcare through family and

friends.

Commencing a wide-ranging consultation with all types of early years’ childcare

providers on the Government ambition to make 30 hours of funded (free) early

education available for all eligible families with children aged 3 and 4 years from

September 2017. The intention is that by early 2016/17 an agreed plan is in place

with Brent childcare providers to develop the childcare market to enable working

parents in Brent to have access to this entitlement in ways that meet their needs from

September 2017.


21

Supply of childcare places

Key findings

1. While nationally there has been a reduction in the supply of childcare places for children

in the early years, in Brent there has been a 2% growth in childcare places between

2013 and 2015. This growth is largely attributable to school nurseries and childminders.

While there are a range of different types of settings within Brent, playgroups/ pre-school

(3%), childcare within children’s centres (3%) and independent schools with under 5’s

nurseries (3%) constitute relatively low proportions of childcare places within Brent. This

potentially points to a lack of choice for families.

2. Brent families pay on average 2.5% less than the London average for nursery places

and 6.5% more for childminder places. Out of school clubs have become much more

expensive in Brent than the London and England averages, although it is important to

note that there is likely underreporting about out of school club places in this report given

many primary schools offer these clubs to their own pupils without this data being

reported to the Council.

3. There has been significant improvements in the quality of childcare provision within

Brent: the number of nurseries rated “inadequate” or “requires improvement” fell from 33

in 2013 to 5 in 2015 at the same time as an increase of 10 nurseries rated “good” or

“outstanding”; and the number of childminders rated “inadequate” or “requires

improvement” fell from 62 in 2013 to 29 in 2015 at the same time as an increase of 11

childminders rated “good”.

The focus group with childcare providers identified that early years’ advisory staff that

work with childcare providers had been key to driving improvements in quality. Childcare

providers were especially complementary about the value of this type of support for new

childminders and nurseries.

4. The characteristics of supply of childcare vary between localities:

a. In Harlesden, there has been a substantial expansion in childminder places since

2013 (197 to 368, an increase of 87% although numbers have remained broadly static

since March 2015) and holiday scheme places. There is also some childcare availability

before 8am, after 6pm and at weekends. Harlesden, however, has no playgroups or pre-

schools, and offers fewer after school clubs than other localities.

b. Kilburn has seen expansion of childcare places most particularly through day

nurseries and childminders, albeit between September 2014 and September 2015 the

number of childminders has reduced from 31 to 27. Kilburn has the least flexible

childcare provision in terms of opening hours with limited availability before 8am and

after 6pm and with no availability at weekends.


22

c. Kingsbury has the highest quality provision and the highest rates of families taking up

NEG entitlements (100% for 3 and 4 year olds and 69% for 2 year olds). While Barnhill

ward is less well served in the amount of, and types of childcare, Kingsbury locality has

had a significant increase in places through out of school clubs, day nurseries and play

groups/pre-schools from 2013 to 2015.

d. Wembley locality offers the greatest flexibility to parents by having more settings

opening earlier and staying open later, as well as having the majority of weekend

available places. With 29% of the total population of 0-4 year old children, 28% of all

childcare is in Wembley suggesting a good match between demand and supply.

Wembley offers fewer places at day nurseries and out of school clubs and no places at

independent schools with under 5 nurseries in 2015 compared with 2014, but many more

places have been made available at school nurseries, childminders and children’s

centres.

e. Willesden offers the fewest childcare places overall, with the greatest difference seen

with day care nursery provision, where Willesden represents 6% of all day care nursery

places in Brent. Willesden, like Wembley, does not offer under 5s nurseries at

independent school. Willesden has also seen a drop of 4 school nurseries (8%) but an

increase of 99 childminders (44%), albeit that between September 2013 and September

2015 the number of childminders has reduced from 51 to 42.

Introduction

Using data provided by the Council, we present an analysis of the supply of childcare in

London Borough of Brent. Where possible we have compared differences in supply between

2013 and 2015.

Number of places

Table 7 shows that Brent had a total of 9,663 childcare places in 2013. 38.3% of these

places were at day nurseries while 10.8% were at out of school clubs. Playgroups/pre-

schools (2.2%) and independent schools with under 5s nurseries (2.7%) made up relatively

low proportions of the places within Brent.

In 2015 the data available shows that Brent had a total of 9,869 childcare places – an

increase of 206 places since 2013 (2% growth). This contrasts to a 1% reduction in the

number of childcare places offered by early years’ providers in the five months to 31 August

201518. The structure of the overall type of known childcare available has not changed

significantly since 2013, although there have been notable expansions in the supply of

childminder places and holiday schemes.

The number of places at out of school clubs is likely to be higher than reported. This is

because schools will provide out of school places for their own pupils but data on the

number of places resulting from this provision is not always available to Brent Council.

18 See Roberts L, Early years providers leave childcare market, Nursery World 24 November 2015


23

Table 7. Number of places by type of provider.

Type of Childcare Number of Places 2013

% of total places 2013

Number of Places 2015

% of total places 2015

Out of School Club 1,042 10.8% 781 8%

Holiday Scheme 590 6.1% 475 5%

School Nursery Class 2,485 25.7% 2,555 26%

Childminder 1,020 10.6% 1,540 16%

Day Nursery 3,703 38.3% 3,597 36%

Playgroup/ Pre-School 211 2.2% 282

3%

Children’s Centre with Childcare

355 3.7% 332 3%

Independent School with Under 5s Nursery

257 2.7% 307

3%

Total 9,663 100% 9,869 100%

Table 8 shows the number of places by type of provider and locality in 2013 and 2015. All

localities have seen overall expansion, although how this occurs can vary significantly (see

Figure 2 to see the share of different types of provision for each locality). For example in:

Harlesden, there are fewer places available in out of school clubs and in children’s

centres, but substantially more places at holiday schemes and childminders.

Kilburn, there are many more places available from childminders and day nurseries.

Kingsbury has had a significant increase in available places through out of school

clubs, day nurseries and play groups/pre-schools.

Wembley has fewer places available at day nurseries and out of school clubs, but

many more places through school nurseries, childminders and children’s centres.

Willesden, there are fewer places available from school nurseries but many more

places available through childminders.


24

Table 8. Count of childcare places by provider type and locality.

Type of Provider Harlesden Kilburn Kingsbury Wembley Willesden Total 2013 2015 % of

total 2013 2015 % of

total 2013 2015 % of

total 2013 2015 % of

total 2013 2015 % of

total 2013 2015 % of

total

Day nursery 879 856 41% 618 709 41% 710 722 36% 1267 1081 39% 229 229 18% 3703 3597 36%

Playgroups 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 35 121 6% 130 115 4% 46 46 4% 211 282 3%

Children’s Centre

169 169 8% 85 65

4%

101 98 5% 0 0 0% 0 0 0%

355 332

3%

Independent 95 95 5% 30 30 2% 102 152 7% 30 30 1% 0 0 0% 257 307 3%

Childminders 197 368 18% 168 230 13% 178 217 11% 252 401 14% 225 324 26% 1020 1540 16%

Afterschool Care 135 54 3% 236 158 9% 125 117 6% 433 348 13% 113 104 8% 1042 781 8%

Holiday playscheme

30 30 1% 193 193

11%

102 72 4% 175 90 3% 90 90 7%

590 475

5%

School Nursery Class

489 500 24% 323 332

19%

558 534 26% 601 715 26% 514 474 37% 2,485 2,555 26%

Total 1994 2072 1653 1717 1911 2033 2888 2780 1217 1267 9663 9869


25

Location of Childcare

Figures 3 and 4 set out where childcare provision is located. These make clear that there is

wide-ranging provision across Brent, although Barnhill ward has less provision than other

wards. Barnhill and Dollis Hill wards also have much less choice in the types of provision for

families.

Figure 3, Day-care provision, by type, across Brent.


26

Figure 4. Childminders, flexible or set, across Brent


27

Cost of Childcare

Table 9 shows:

Average hourly rates for nursery fees for children aged 0-5 in Brent in 2013 and 2015

are 2.5% less than the London average but higher than the average for England.

Average hourly rates for childminders for children aged 0-5 in 2013 in Brent was

similar to the London average and greater than the England average. In 2015, the

average hourly rates for childminders for children aged 0-5 in Brent was 6.5% more

expensive than the London average and greater still than the England average.

The average hourly cost of out of school club provision in Brent was lower than the

averages for London and England in 2013. However, in 2015 the average hourly cost

of out of school provision in Brent rose to £6.14, nearly double the London and

England averages, at £3.58 and £3.19, respectively.19 There are caveats to this

finding. As set out previously, many primary schools offer out of school clubs to their

pupils without this being captured in records held by Brent Council.

Table 9, Average hourly cost of different types of childcare, Brent, London and

England

Location Nursery 2013 Nursery 2015 Childminder 2013 Childminder 2015 Out of

School

Club

2013

Out of

School

Club

2015

Age

Range

Under

2

2-5 Under

2

2-5 Under 2 2-5 Under 2 2-5

Brent £5.22 £4.85 £5.49 £5.18 £6.15 £2.76 £6.14

London £5.33 £4.99 £6.08 £5.63 £5.24 £5.13 £5.85 £5.77 £3.20 £3.58

England £4.34 £4.26 £4.69 £4.47 £3.96 £3.95 £4.21 £4.17 £3.31 £3.19

The increased costs of childcare for families was explored during a focus group with six

childcare providers in Brent. This was cited as a significant challenge by childcare providers

particularly in relation to making available funded places as part of Nursery Education Grant

(NEG) 2, 3 and 4 year entitlements. This might be expected to be an even bigger concern

into the future particularly given the Government plan to make available a 30 hour

entitlement for 3 and 4 year olds for working parents from September 2017. Providers

identified the following as elements increasing the costs of delivering good quality childcare:

Challenges of, and costs associated with staff recruitment and retention. Staff

recruitment and retention were cited as significant challenges for providers.

There are ongoing training requirements for new and existing staff which meant

additional staff were required to cover the cost of a staff member/s attending training.

19 Childcare Costs Survey 2015, Family and Childcare Trust.


28

The cost of some courses provided by Brent Council is costly and it is often cheaper

to source external trainers to train groups of staff.

There are increasing administrative costs in the provision of childcare. For example,

requirements to complete a CAF for families taking up NEG 2 entitlements and the

costs of participating in education, health and care planning for children with

additional needs.

Quality of Childcare

For 2015 the London Borough of Brent provided inspection data for nurseries and

childminders with childcare places.20

Table 10 provides a breakdown of the Ofsted ratings of day nurseries in each locality of

Brent. Table 11 provides the ratings for childminders in each locality.

These reveal that overall there has been a significant improvement in quality across Brent

with the number of nurseries rated “inadequate” or “requires improvement” dropping from 33

in 2013 to 5 in 2015. There has also been an increase of 10 nurseries that have been rated

“good” or “outstanding”.

The Ofsted data for childminders similarly identify significant improvement in quality. The

number of childminders rated “inadequate” or “requires improvement” fell from 62 in 2013 to

29 in 2015. There has also been an increase of 11 childminders rated “good”.

Given new entrants into the childcare market, there are a number of childcare providers for

whom Ofsted inspections have not yet taken place, although the numbers of providers for

whom there is no Ofsted data is recorded is less than in 2013.

The focus group with childcare providers also considered what was driving improving quality

in childcare provision in Brent. The strong view was that Brent’s early years advisory staff

which offer bespoke advice, guidance and support to childcare providers was excellent.

Childcare providers were especially complementary about the value of this type of support

for new childminders and nurseries.

20 Where Ofsted data wasn’t provided, the nursery or childminder was researched on the Ofsted website.


29

Table 10 Number of nurseries with childcare places in Brent, split by latest Ofsted rating and locality.

Locality Year Total Nurseries

No Ofsted Data

Outstanding Good Satisfactory Requires Improvement

Inadequate

Harlesden 2013 27 3 2 13 0 5 4

2015 22 3 1 17 1 0 0

Kilburn 2013 19 2 4 8 0 5 0

2015 20 1 4 13 1 1 0

Kingsbury 2013 24 1 1 14 0 6 2

2015 19 1 2 14 0 1 1

Wembley 2013 31 3 7 13 0 6 2

2015 23 0 5 16 1 1 0

Willesden 2013 11 2 0 6 0 2 1

2015 7 0 1 5 0 1 0

Total 2013 112 11 14 54 0 24 9

2015 91 5 13 65 3 4 1


30

Table 11. Number of Childminders with childcare places in Brent, split by latest Ofsted rating and locality.

Locality Year Total Childminders

No Ofsted Data

Outstanding Good Satisfactory Requires Improvement

Inadequate Met Not Met

Harlesden 2013 44 6 1 16 0 11 2 6 2

2015 44 4 2 25 1 2 0 6 4

Kilburn 2013 35 10 1 13 0 8 0 2 1

2015 31 10 1 15 1 1 1 0 2

Kingsbury 2013 35 6 2 12 0 11 1 2 1

2015 26 2 3 14 1 0 0 3 3

Wembley 2013 52 8 3 27 0 10 1 1 2

2015 45 7 1 24 0 4 3 4 2

Willesden 2013 46 11 4 15 0 10 0 4 2

2015 44 12 4 16 1 0 0 4 7

Total 2013 212 41 11 83 0 50 4 15 8

201521 190 35 11 94 4 7 4 17 18

21 As at August 2015, the number of childminders has reduced to 181.

Opening Hours

Figure 5 sets out the available times that childcare settings can be accessed in Brent. Figure 5

shows that:

Wembley locality offers the greatest flexibility to parents by having more settings opening

earlier and staying open later, as well as having the majority of weekend available places.

Kilburn is the opposite of Wembley with very few childcare settings open before 8 am or

after 6 pm, and no weekend availability.

Harlesden, Kingsbury, and Willesden offer some flexibility to parents with a good proportion

of settings opening earlier and staying open later, and having some availability on the

weekends.

During the focus group with childcare providers, availability of childcare was discussed. It was

noted that there are restrictions for many private, voluntary and independent sector nurseries

particularly to be open longer. Many settings are in mixed use buildings so options to negotiate

changes in leases are limited. Similarly, because they are lessees, the provider cannot make

physical changes to buildings to enable more supply.

Figure 5. Count of childcare places in Brent split by locality and opening times.

24

46

12

46

44

4

0

18

32

75

27

47

18

1314

34

5

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Before 8 am 8 am to 6 pm After 6 pm Weekends (childmindersonly)

Harlesden

Kilburn

Kingsbury

Wembley

Willesden

Brent Council

Childcare Sufficiency Assessment

32

Free Entitlement for 2, 3, and 4 Year Olds

The Government expanded eligibility for 2-year olds for a 15-hour funded early education

entitlement. Between 2013/14- 2014/15, the number of eligible 2 year olds rose from 749 children

to 2,342 children in Brent.

As at December 2015, there were 1,430 two year olds accessing the offer of free early education

and childcare. This represents an uptake of 70% among two year olds who are eligible for the offer

in Brent and represents steady growth throughout 2015 with across 12-months.

Table 12. NEG 2 take up

Year Count % of eligible

children

England

Average

As at January 2015 990 45% 58%

Apr-Jun 2015 1076 54%

Jul-Sep 2015 1096 55%

Oct- Dec 2015 1430 70%

As at January 2016, 86% of the three and four year olds resident in Brent are claiming their free

entitlement to early education and childcare22. This is down from last year when it was 92% and

much less than the England average of 96%.

Table 13. NEG 3 and 4 take up

Year Count % of eligible

children

England

Average

2010 6,690 84% 96%

2011 7,060 84% 95%

2012 7,390 85% 96%

2013 7,730 89% 96%

2014 8,070 92% 97%

2015 7,860 86% 96%

22 Early Years and Family Support data using DfE Provision for children under 5 years of age in England

Brent Council


33

Providers’ views more generally on the childcare market

In addition to the focus group with childcare providers, 21 childcare provider shared their views

confidentially as part of a survey. These included 11 childminders, 8 pre-school settings/nurseries

and 2 schools.

They all had provision for children eligible for free early years’ entitlements and most had a Healthy

Early Years status and for nurseries and schools, participated in the nursery school milk scheme.

More than one third also engaged with the Children’s Food Trust, ECERS, ICAN and the Change 4

Life scheme.

All providers rated their provision as either fairly/very good at meeting the needs of families on

lower incomes, seeking work and/or from more vulnerable groups such as refugees; and for

children with additional needs. However, 14 of 21 providers rated their provision for children with

additional needs as ‘fairly good’ and 2 of 21 rated their provision as ‘satisfactory’. This is broadly

consistent with the findings shared by providers at the focus group. Nurseries reported that they

were ill equipped to meet the needs of many more than 1 or 2 children with additional

needs/disabilities at any one time. One provider reported that they discouraged parents with

children with additional needs to attend their setting as they couldn’t adequately meet their needs23.

In the survey, most providers report that more funding should be provided to childcare settings so

they can better accommodate the needs of children with additional needs/disabilities.

As it relates to other high priority groups such as families on low incomes or from more vulnerable

groups, most providers reported that children should have access to more funded (‘free’ for

parents) hours. It was recognised this required extra funding/ subsidy by the Government.

On their own provision, half reported that they are planning to expand the number of places offered

through the next 18 months while most others did not have definite plans, but were interested. Most

also indicated they did not have plans to significantly increase fees or extend their opening hours.

Several are also looking to expand businesses in Brent while most are not even if they retain some

interest in finding out more. This largely mirrors what was found in the focus group.

Providers also set out their key support requirements:

For nurseries and schools, the main support needs identified relate to staff recruitment and

retention, staff training, advice on specific groups of children (e.g. travelers and children with

disabilities/additional needs and inspection and registration support and advice; and

For childminders, advice on specific groups of children (e.g. travelers and children with

disabilities/additional needs and inspection and registration support and advice.

23 Brent Council staff were in attendance also at this focus group and it was agreed subsequent to the focus group, a priority for the CSA Action Plan is reiterating the legal requirements to provide for all children and to make any reasonable adjustments.

Brent Council


34

3. Parental views on childcare

Key findings

1. Overall, parents report more satisfaction with the childcare offer than in 2013:

a. Overall satisfaction (agreed/strongly agreed) is 95% compared with 89% in 2013.

b. Perceptions of quality have improved significantly rising to 79% from 61% in 2013.

c. Perceptions about the ability to meet the additional needs of children have improved

significantly rising to 65% from 45%.

d. There has been some improvement in perceptions of affordability- rising to 50%

agree/strongly agree that childcare is affordable from 44%, although this does mean that there

remains 1 in every 2 families concerned about the affordability of their childcare.

2. Those parents most concerned about affordability are families where both parents are in full

time employment (with 2 in 3 parents disagreeing/strongly disagreeing with the statement that

their childcare costs are affordable). The parents least concerned about affordability are those

where no parents are in full time employment (26% disagree/strongly disagree that their

childcare costs are affordable). These same parents were more satisfied than other parents on

every criterion.

40% of all parents shared a perspective about the consequences of a lack of suitable,

affordable childcare, with Wembley parents identifying the greatest impacts- half reported that

they had not been able to take up a job because of a lack of suitable, affordable childcare.

Families in Kingsbury and Kilburn reported the least negative impacts on taking up a job,

studying or remaining in employment.

3. For parents with children with disabilities/ additional needs, they were generally as satisfied as

other parents except as it relates to having childcare available where and when they need it

(65% and 61% respectively agree/strongly agree that they have access to childcare where and

when they need it as compared to 72% and 70% for other parents). These results are mirrored

in households with disabled parents where 64% were satisfied that they have access to

childcare where and when they need it.

4. Generally speaking the lower the household income the more satisfied parents are with the

childcare offer. For example, more than 80% of households where annual income is less than

£20,000 were satisfied with the quality of childcare and the choice of childcare. In contrast, less

than 70% of households where annual income is greater than £50,000 were satisfied with the

quality of childcare and the choice of childcare.

Brent Council


35

5. Overall, African, British, White and Pakistani parents were less satisfied with the childcare offer

than other parents. Less than 2 in 5 parents from these communities were satisfied with the

affordability of childcare, less than 4 in 5 parents from these communities were satisfied with

the quality of childcare and less than 9 in 10 from these communities were satisfied with their

childcare overall.

6. The primary motivation for close to 2 in 5 parents using childcare is that this enables parents to

work. The primary motivation of using childcare to enable work is even greater for dual parent

households where both are in full time employment, households with an annual income

exceeding £40,000 and Pakistani parents. By contrast, it is less important for households where

one parent is in full time employment, households where no parent/carer is in full time

employment and for Irish, White, Other White and Other Asian parents.

7. For households where no parent/carer is in full time employment and for families with a

disabled child, 14% take up childcare to enable them respite/ a break.

8. For more than 19 in every 20 parents, the following are always important considerations in their

choice of childcare: quality of care; safety and security; the atmosphere of the setting; cost;

closeness to home; qualified staff; flexibility; quality and range of activities; opening times; and

recommendations from other parents

9. For families with a disabled child, it is more important that the childcare setting can address the

additional requirements of their child (93% compared with 84%) and is much less important

than whether childcare accommodates work patterns, is close to school or close to work.

10. In the survey, the parents most likely to have used registered childcare in the previous 12

months are households where both parents/ carers are in full time employment, households

where total income exceeds £40,000, families that identify as Caribbean, British, White and

Irish, lone parent households and households where at least one parent identifies as disabled.

11. In the survey, the parents less likely to have used registered childcare in the previous 12

months are households where one parent/carer is in full time employment and the other is not

in full time employment, households where no parent/carer is in full time employment,

households where total income is less than £40,000 per year, families that identify as Indian,

Pakistani, African and other Asian, dual parent households where one parent or neither

parent/carer is in full time employment and families with disabled children take up childcare

(only one third of these families report doing so).

12. Most families, irrespective of whether the parent or child has a disability/ additional need, were

aware that childcare providers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to enable access

for children with additional needs/disabilities. This is especially true for families where the

Brent Council


36

parent and/or child has a disability or additional need, although close to 1 in 3 parents where

they have a disabled child were unaware of this requirement.

13. The most commonly used types of registered childcare are day nurseries, childminders, school

nurseries and out of school clubs. More than 4 in 5 of all families also augment their use of

registered childcare with family, friends and neighbours.

14. The average number of days of registered childcare used by parents/carers was 2.6 days24.

This is slightly less than the 2.73 days average in 2013. Broadly consistent with (5),

households where both parents are in full time employment, lone parent households and

households with annual income exceeding £40,000 tended to use more days of registered

childcare than other families. For parents with children with disabilities/ additional needs, they

generally used registered childcare less days per week than other parents.

15. Generally speaking, holiday times, weekends and evenings can be more challenging for

parents to seek appropriate childcare for their needs. This is especially so for families with

disabled children (where 10% report they find difficulty for any time in the year to find childcare),

for families where both parents are in full time employment and for lone parents.

Key reasons for using childcare Figure 6 sets out the primary motivations of families using childcare by locality. The main reason

identified by 37% of parents is that childcare enables them to work; for Harlesden and Kingsbury

even more so (41% and 43% respectively). For nearly 1 in 5 parents, they also rated the

opportunities for child development and socialisation.

These findings were reinforced throughout focus groups and short interviews with parents (see

Appendix Three). The primary motivation for using childcare is to enable the parent to work and

non –working parents recognised they might need to use registered childcare when they were

entering or re-entering the workforce.

24 This is calculated using the regular days of registered childcare in a given week e.g. day nursery, school nursery, childminder, crèche, nanny/au pairs and out of school clubs.

Brent Council


37

Deeper analysis identifies that:

1. For households where all parent/s are in full time employment, 45% identify that take up of

childcare is to enable them to work. For households where one parent is in full time

employment and for those households where no parent/carer is in full time employment, this

reduces to 30% and 23% respectively.

a. For households where no parent/carer is in full time employment, 14% take up

childcare to enable them respite/ a break.

2. For families with a disabled child, 27% of parents identify that they access childcare to

enable them to work. They were more likely than other parents, however, to identify that

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Figure 6: Main reasons for using childcare

Harlesden Kilburn Kingsbury Wembley Willesden

Brent Council


38

childcare provides them respite/ a break (14% compared with 4%).

3. Generally speaking the greater the household income, the more likely the motivation for

using childcare is to enable the parent/s to work (40% for all households with an annual

income exceeding £40,000 compared with 27% for all households with an annual income

less than £40,000).

4. Lone parents are slightly more likely motivated by taking up childcare to enable them to

work compared with dual parent households (34% compared with 31%).

5. There are some differences in motivation for take up of childcare based on ethnicity:

a. 67% of Pakistani parents identify their primary motivation for take up of childcare is

so they can work and no Pakistani parents selected the reason of enabling their

child to play with other children.

b. British, Caribbean, African and Indian families were generally at the average (33% to

38%) in identifying that their primary motivation for take up of childcare is so they

can work. This increases to 45% for British, Caribbean, African and Indian

households where all parent/s are in full time employment (the average for

households where parents are in full time employment).

c. Irish, White, Other White and Other Asian families were generally below the average

(22% to 28%) in identifying that their primary motivation for take up of childcare is so

they can work. They were just as likely to indicate that they selected childcare

because it is good for their child. This increases to 37- 48% for White and Other

White households where all parent/s are in full time employment.

Making decisions about which childcare to use In focus groups and interviews with parents, questions about how decisions are made about which

childcare to use were explored in depth. Issues of ‘trust’ and ‘warmth’ featured most prominently

with all parents indicating that “you can just feel it” when a childcare provider has the kind of

environment they were looking for.

One parent of a 4 year old in choosing a nursery, reported reviewing the Ofsted report, visiting the

setting and meeting the staff. The parent reported that the staff were welcoming and

communication with parents was good, the nursery was newly opened so facilities were good and

she liked the range of activities offered. Another parent of four children (aged 14, 11, 4, 2) reported

Brent Council


39

‘checking inside’ the setting and that she liked the safety of the venue, the food provided for

children, and the information provided for parents.

Key aspects that emerge through the discussions with parents are (1) good communication both

with children and parents; (2) good hygiene; and (3) a structured environment.

In most focus groups and interviews there was a perception amongst those mums not using

registered childcare that nursery provision is ‘better’ than childminders. There was a general

agreement among the group that a nursery provided a better environment for childcare than a

childminder, providing a more structured environment with better opportunities for development of

social skills in the child. Parents also thought having their child attend nursery on-site and then go

to school would support the transition into school.

Some parents who had used childminders, however, were far more supportive of this type of

provision. This came out strongly in the session with parents with children with disabilities/

additional needs. One mum who has a very young child liked ‘the home away from home

experience’ and said she was impressed by the cleanliness, professionalism and warmth of the

childminder and her home. She also felt that the childminder went well beyond what a nursery

would provide in the way of 1:1 support and she liked that only when her child was very ill would

she be contacted as the childminder would mainly be able to help. She also felt that the childminder

provided excellent learning opportunities and liked that she kept herself abreast of new techniques

etc. through ongoing professional development.

Table 14 makes clear that parents consider multiple factors in making decisions about which

childcare to use for their children. For more than 19 in every 20 parents, the following are always

important considerations:

Quality of care

Safety and security

The atmosphere of the setting

Cost

Closeness to home

Qualified staff

Flexibility

Quality and range of activities

Opening times

Recommendations from other parents

For at least 17 in every 20 parents, ensuring childcare is close to school, can accommodate shift

patterns, Ofsted reports and the ability to meet any additional needs of a child are important. What

is least important is how close childcare is to the parents’ work. Deeper analysis identifies that:

Brent Council


40

1. Having childcare closer to work becomes more important for households where one or both

parents are not in full time employment. (80% compared with 60% for households where

both parents work full time).

2. For families with a disabled child, it is more important that the childcare setting can address

the requirements of their child (93% compared with 84%) and is much less important than

whether childcare accommodates work patterns, is close to school or close to work.

3. Disabled parents are more likely to prioritise the closeness of childcare to their workplace

than other parents (86% compared with 73%).

4. Generally speaking the more household income, the less important is closeness of the

setting to the parents’ workplace/s. (54% where annual household income is £40,000 or

more compared with 83% where annual household income is less than £40,000).

5. For families with 4 or more children, they are somewhat less likely to consider other parents

recommendations, Ofsted reports, the ability to accommodate work patterns, how flexible

childcare is and the ability of the childcare provider to meet their children’s additional needs.

6. There are some differences in what is important in selecting childcare based on ethnicity:

a. 100% of Pakistani parents identify as important the ability of childcare to

accommodate shift patterns and to be close to home and to school.

b. British, White and Other White parents identify as much less important that childcare

is close to their workplace than other parents (58- 61% compared with over 80% for

all other parents).

Table 14. Key factors in deciding upon particular childcare

Lo

ca

lity

Ca

ters

fo

r m

y s

hif

t w

ork

patt

ern

Clo

se

to

ho

me

Clo

se

to

wo

rk

Clo

se

to

sc

ho

ol

Ca

ters

fo

r m

y

ch

ild

's s

pe

cia

l

ne

ed

s

Atm

os

ph

ere

/ W

arm

an

d w

elc

om

e

Co

st

Sa

fety

/ s

ec

uri

ty

Qu

ali

fie

d s

taff

Ofs

ted

re

po

rt

Re

co

mm

en

dati

on

fro

m o

ther

pare

nts

Cu

ltu

ral d

ive

rsit

y

Op

en

ing

tim

es

Qu

ali

ty o

f ca

re

Qu

ali

ty a

nd

ra

ng

e

of

ac

tiv

itie

s

Fle

xib

ilit

y

Harlesden 91% 98% 67% 86% 84% 98% 97% 98% 98% 89% 97% 85% 93% 98% 98% 97%

Kilburn 84% 99% 46% 86% 77% 98% 97% 99% 98% 95% 96% 90% 97% 99% 99% 97%

Kingsbury 93% 100% 77% 96% 89% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 97% 96% 100% 100% 100%

Wembley 94% 97% 86% 91% 92% 98% 99% 100% 99% 97% 96% 93% 99% 100% 99% 99%

Willesden 98% 100% 76% 95% 91% 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% 98% 88% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Use of childcare The profile of families that shared their perspectives through the survey are set out at Appendix B.

In considering childcare use, the families that responded to the survey forming part of the

assessment most likely to have used registered childcare in the previous 12 months are:

Households where both parents/ carers are in full time employment.

Households where total income exceeds £40,000 (52% for £40,001- £50,000, 55% for

£50,0001- £60,000 and 72% for households earning above £60,000)

Families that identify as Caribbean, British, White and Irish.

Lone parent households.

For those families less likely to have used registered childcare in the previous 12 months:

Households where one parent/carer is in full time employment and the other is not in full

time employment.

One third of households where no parent/carer is in full time employment

Households where total income is less than £40,000 per year.

Families that identify as Indian, Pakistani, African and other Asian.

Dual parent households where one parent or neither parent/carer is in full time employment.

It appears slightly less likely that families with disabled children take up childcare with only one third

in this survey reporting doing so. In the focus group with parents with children with disabilities/

additional needs, they reported a lack of after school clubs at mainstream schools for children with

disabilities/ additional needs. They are available at the special schools. Those parents who had

asked for after school club access for their child reported that they had been told that their child’s

statement would not cover out of school hours’ support. The school would need someone to be

there to provide 1:1 support to each child who would have to be paid.

Parents with a disability they are more likely to report that they have used registered childcare in

the previous 12 months. Most families, irrespective of whether the parent or child has a disability/

additional need, were aware that childcare providers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments

to enable access for children with additional needs/disabilities. This is especially true for families

where the parent and/or child has a disability or additional need, although close to 1 in 3 parents

where they have a disabled child were unaware of this requirement.

Figure 7 sets out the childcare options that families identify taking up. This shows Kilburn parents

that shared perspectives as part of this survey were much more likely to have children attend day

and school nurseries and after school clubs or receive care from an au pair/nanny or family

members.

Brent Council


43


1. Day nurseries, school nurseries, after school clubs and holiday schemes are used by all

households irrespective of household income. Au pairs and nannies are used

overwhelmingly by households where family annual household income exceeds £50,000.

These higher income households are also more likely to use childminders.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Creche

Childminder

Day Nursery

School Nursery

Pre School / Playgroup

Breakfast club

After school club

Holiday club / play scheme

Family

Friends / neighbours

Nanny/au pair/ home carer

Other

Figure 7: Main types of childcare taken up

Willesden Wembley Kingsbury Kilburn Harlesden

Brent Council


44

2. Au pairs and nannies are preferred by households where both parents are in full time

employment and households where at least one parent is in full time employment. There

was also a much higher proportion of households where at least one parent is in full time

employment that have children attend day nurseries.

3. Disabled parents sharing perspectives for this assessment did not use au pairs and

nannies, with 1 in 4 using family or friends and neighbours to provide childcare.

4. Families with 4 or more children that shared perspectives for this assessment are much less

likely to use any childcare.

5. Lone parents are more likely to engage family and friends/neighbours in caring for their

children than dual parent households.

6. The only discernible difference based on ethnicity, is that British and White parents were

more likely than other ethnicities, to use nannies and au pairs and holiday schemes.

Frequency of childcare used The average number of days of registered childcare used by parents/carers was 2.6 days25. This is

slightly less than the 2.73 days average in 2013. Deeper analysis identifies that:

1. Households where both parents are in full time employment report using more childcare

than other parents (2.9 days per week). This tended to be supplemented with additional

help from families, friends and neighbours. Close to 7 in 10 households where both parents

are in full time employment report that they use childminders and/or day nurseries; and

typically they use this childcare between 3 and 5 days per week.

2. The parents least concerned about affordability are those where no parents are in full time

employment (26% disagree/strongly disagree that their childcare costs are affordable).

These same parents were more satisfied than other parents on every criterion.

3. For parents with children with disabilities/ additional needs, they generally used registered

childcare less days per week than other parents (2.2 days). They also tended to use day

nurseries and childminders less than other parents but were more likely to use crèche, play

groups and friends and neighbours. By contrast for those 65% of disabled parents that use

day nurseries and childminders, they do so more than other parents that use day nurseries

and childminders (3.6 days on average compared with 3.15 days).

25 This is calculated using the regular days of registered childcare in a given week e.g. day nursery, school nursery, childminder, crèche, nanny/au pairs and out of school clubs.

Brent Council


45

4. Generally speaking the higher the household income the more days of childcare used. For

example, more than 80% of households where annual income is greater than £50,000 used

childminders, day or school nurseries at least 3.4 days per week.

5. Lone parents tended to use more days of childcare per week than dual parent households

(2.8 compared to 2.5). For those lone parents which use school or day nurseries, most used

nurseries 4- 5 days per week on average.

6. Overall, Pakistani parents used registered childcare much less than other parents and none

in this assessment reported using childminders. For those Indian, Other Asian, White and

Other White families which use school nurseries, more than 70% use these between 3 and

5 days on average. For more than 70% of British, Irish and Other White which use day

nurseries, these are used between 3 and 5 days on average. British and Caribbean families

were more likely to use childminders than other communities and for those that did, they

used childminders 4 or more days per week on average.

Difficult times to access childcare Figure 8 sets out the times that parents identify it is most difficult to access childcare. This is

broadly consistent with findings from the previous assessment which find that holiday times,

weekends and evenings can be more challenging for parents.

This is accentuated for families with disabled children (where 10% report they find difficulty for any

time in the year to find childcare and in focus groups, a lack of evening childcare was particularly

highlighted for parents with children with disabilities/additional needs26), for families where both

parents are in full time employment and for lone parents. All holidays, but particularly the summer

holiday, was a key challenge for using childcare for more than 1 in 5 households where both

parents are in full time employment and for lone parents.

For Kingsbury parents, close to half report no difficulties in accessing childcare. By contrast,

Harlesden parents reported the greatest difficulty and especially so for weekends and evenings.

This finding is reinforced for Caribbean and African parents (who also are more likely to reside in

Harlesden locality).

One focus group with parents highlighted particularly flexibility of childcare as a particular need for

workers on shift patterns. Two parents in the group were in medical professions with shift work

hours. One parent had, after struggling to find sufficiently flexible childcare, opted for a nanny for 3

days per week, which she could support working part time. The other had found it too difficult to find

appropriate childcare and continue working so was currently caring for her child full time. She

acknowledged that she would have been unable to do this without her partner’s salary. In

26 See Appendix Three

Brent Council


46

considering going back into work in the future she believed she would need to change career away

from shift work towards a more office based environment with more regular hours.

Affordability of childcare There has been some improvement in perceptions of affordability since the last CSA. 50% of

parents report that they agree/strongly agree that childcare is affordable up from 44% in 2013,

although this does mean that there remains 1 in every 2 families concerned about the affordability

of their childcare.

In the focus groups and interviews with parents, affordability rated as a significant concern. See

Appendix Three. For example:

Parents with disabled children/additional needs felt the cost for childcare was high, at

£12.50 - £12.60 per hour, sometimes higher at the nurseries with trained staff – e.g.

Peppermint Heights.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

All year Half-term time Christmasholiday

Summerholiday

Weekends Evenings Overnight No Difficulties

Figure 8: Times it is difficult to access childcare


Brent Council


47

In one focus group, parents estimated their current costs at around £1,600 per month, with

the mother using a nanny stating her cost at £1,700 per month, inclusive of tax and NICs.

This is far higher than the levels most parents report they spend on childcare in the survey.

There was general agreement across this focus group that costs were high, and parents

were adapting in order to make ends meet – e.g. by fitting a full week’s working hours into 3

days to enable the mother to care for children on the other 2 days per week, or by using

registered networks of support such as grandparents living close by to help with household

tasks and grocery shopping. One mother felt she had put a lot of work into earning her

degree and working on her career for the last 10 years, and she felt taking time out of the

work place for a few years would set her back in future. So while she believed she was no

better off at present working as well as paying for childcare, she believed it would stand her

in better stead in the future.

Figure 9 identifies the consequences of a lack of suitable, affordable childcare. 40% of all parents

shared a perspective about the consequences of a lack of suitable, affordable childcare, with

Wembley parents identifying the greatest impacts- half reported that they had not been able to take

up a job because of a lack of suitable, affordable childcare. Families in Kingsbury and Kilburn

reported the least negative impacts on taking up a job, studying or remaining in employment.

As with having more difficulty in relation to times to access childcare, this is accentuated for families

with disabled children (where 1 in 3 parents indicated they have not been able to take up a job

because of a lack of affordable, suitable childcare). In addition, Pakistani, Other Asian, Caribbean

and Other White parents were more likely than other parents to report that they have been

prevented from taking up a job because of a lack of suitable, affordable childcare. There is also

slightly more reporting by lone parents of not being able to remain in a job because of a lack of

affordable, suitable childcare.

Brent Council


48

Figure 10 shows that the most common amount paid for childcare costs in a given week is £100-

20027 (23%). This is similar to 2013 where 22% of parents reported spending £100- 200 per week

on childcare costs. There is some reduction from 2013 on the parents that report spending less

than £25 per week on childcare costs (down from 28% in 2013 to 21% in 2015). At the higher end,

there is a slight increase in the proportion of parents reporting spending more than £300 per week

on childcare (7% compared with 6% in 2013). Willesden parents were the more likely to spend

more than £300 per week (14%) followed by Kilburn (11%), while no Harlesden parents reported

spending more than £200 per week on childcare costs.


1. 15% of households where both parents are in full time employment report spending more

than £300 per week on childcare costs. By contrast, no households where parents are not

full time employment spending more than £300 per week.

2. Families with disabled children are likely to spend less on childcare than other families

every week. This is consistent with the lower percentage of these households having both

parents in full time employment and less use of childcare generally. More than half spend

less than £100 per week on childcare, although 5% of families report spending more than

£500 per week on childcare costs.

27 For the 15% of parents that report not knowing their weekly childcare costs, these are applied on an equally

proportionate basis to all other items.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Figure 9: Consequences of lack of affordability

Taking up a job Taking up training or studying Staying in employment Nothing

Brent Council


49

3. Spending on childcare rises with household income. No families with an annual household

income less than £40,000 spent more than £300 per week on childcare. By contrast, 26% of

families with an annual household income greater than £60,000 spend more than £300 per

week on childcare, with 7% of families reporting spending more than £500 per week on

childcare costs.

4. Spending on childcare rises with the number of children in a family. More than 10% of

families with 3 or 4 or more children spend £400 per week or more on childcare costs. By

contrast, 5% of families with 2 children spend £400 per week or more on childcare costs.

5. Lone parents generally spend less on childcare than dual parent households. No lone

parents report spending more than £300 per week on childcare. By contrast, 11% of dual

parent households report spending more than £300 per week on childcare.

6. Ethnicity trends suggest that Caribbean, Other Asian and Irish families typically pay less,

with none reporting spending more than £300 per week on childcare. By contrast, more

than 10% of White and British parents report spending more than £300 per week on

childcare.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

£0 - £25 £26 - £50 £51 - £100 £101 - £200 £201 - £300 £301 - £400 £401- £500 Over £500 Don’t know

Figure 10: Average costs

Harlesden Kilburn Kingsbury Wembley Willesden Brent average

Brent Council


50

To support paying for childcare, more than half of parents point to the NEG 3 and 4 funded places

helping with their overall access to childcare. Most parents also point to additional assistance from

families to help with their overall access to childcare, although this is much less so for Harlesden

families.

In relation to other sources of financial assistance, Child Tax Credit helps more than half of all

households and for close to 80% of Willesden parents. Families living in Kilburn were

disproportionately more likely to use childcare vouchers than other parts of the local authority with 1

in 4 parents using these to help with childcare costs.

Childcare vouchers were much more important to households where both parents are in full time

employment (49%) and progressively more important to households with higher incomes (59% of

families with household annual income greater than £40,000 per year). British families were more

likely to use childcare vouchers (35%).

By contrast, the childcare element of Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit were more important

to households that did not have both parent in full time employment, for households with less than

£40,000 per year and for lone parents. There are no distinguishing differences based on ethnicity,

with all communities relying on these sources of financial assistance to help with childcare costs.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Childcareelement of

Working taxcredit

ChildcareVouchers

Child taxcredit

DHP funding NEG2 NEG3/4 Studentfinance

Additional funding through

Under 5’s panel

Familycontribution

Figure 11: Sources of assistance


Brent Council


51

Perspectives on current childcare Figure 12 provides parents’ perspectives on the current childcare offer and compares this to the

Childcare Sufficiency Assessment prepared at end of 2013. This shows significant improvement in

parents’ perspectives about the childcare offer in Brent:

Overall satisfaction (agreed/strongly agreed) is 95% compared with 89% in 2013.

Perceptions of quality have improved significantly rising to 79% from 61% in 2013.

Perceptions about the ability to meet the additional needs of children have improved

significantly rising to 65% from 45%.

There has been some improvement in perceptions of affordability- rising to 50%

agree/strongly agree that childcare is affordable from 44%, although this does mean that

there remains 1 in every 2 families concerned about the affordability of their childcare.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

satisfied

good choice

good locally for my children's age

quality is high

available where I need it

available when I need it

affordable

prefer using family and friends

meets special needs of my child

Figure 12: Perspectives on childcare

Total 2014 Total 2015 Willesden Wembley Kingsbury Kilburn Harlesden

Brent Council


52


1. Households where both parents are in full time employment have the most concerns about

affordability of childcare. This is consistent with the higher costs of childcare for families that

access childcare in addition to any NEG entitlements. 74% disagree/strongly disagree that

their childcare costs are affordable as compared with other parents. These parents are also

less satisfied with the choice of childcare locally (60% agree/strongly that there is good local

choice), quality of childcare (63% agree/strongly agree that quality is high) and the

availability when they need it (63% agree/strongly agree that childcare is available when

they need it).

2. The parents least concerned about affordability are those where no parents are in full time

employment (26% disagree/strongly disagree that their childcare costs are affordable).

These same parents were more satisfied than other parents on every criterion.

3. For parents with children with disabilities/ additional needs, they were generally as satisfied

as other parents except as it relates to having childcare available where and when they

need it (65% and 61% respectively agree/strongly agree that they have access to childcare

where and when they need it as compared to 72% and 70% for other parents). These

results are mirrored in households with disabled parents where 64% were satisfied that they

have access to childcare where and when they need it.

4. Generally speaking the lower the household income the more satisfied parents are with the

childcare offer. For example, more than 80% of households where annual income is less

than £20,000 were satisfied with the quality of childcare and the choice of childcare. In

contrast, less than 70% of households where annual income is greater than £50,000 were

satisfied with the quality of childcare and the choice of childcare.

5. The number of children in a household was generally not a determinant about levels of

satisfaction, although families with 4 or more children were noticeably less satisfied with the

availability of childcare that meets the requirements of the children’s different ages (21%

disagree/strongly disagreed they were satisfied).

6. Like parents of disabled children, lone parents were generally as satisfied as other parents

except as it relates to having childcare available where and when they need it (67% and

64% respectively agree/strongly agree that they have access to childcare where and when

they need it as compared to 75% and 71% for other parents).

7. Overall, African, British, White and Pakistani parents were less satisfied with the childcare

offer than other parents. Less than 2 in 5 parents from these communities were satisfied

Brent Council


53

with the affordability of childcare, less than 4 in 5 parents from these communities were

satisfied with the quality of childcare and less than 9 in 10 from these communities were

satisfied with their childcare overall.

These findings are largely reinforced in focus groups and interviews with parents. None of the 13

parents that attended the Brent Parent Forum consultation were working, and felt that lack of

flexibility in childcare was preventing them from doing so. There were also concerns raised about

the availability of childcare with staff appropriately skilled to meet the needs of their child with

additional requirements.

At the same time, several parents with children with disabilities/ additional needs reported very

good experiences with childminders and one parent was especially complimentary about the very

good experience for her autistic son at their Children’s Centre. This was mainstream provision,

“with a proper teacher too”, but they provided her son with an individual plan and communicated

well with him (e.g. by learning words that he uses and recognises, and incorporating them into

activities) as well as with the mother.

Brent Council


54

4. How parents find out about childcare

Key findings

1. 82% of parents do not find it difficult to source relevant information and advice about their

current childcare arrangements, although parents with children with disabilities/additional

needs, Willesden parents and Pakistani, African and Irish parents were more likely to find it

more difficult.

2. Close to 3 in 10 (29%) parents used friends and relatives as the primary source of information

and advice about their current childcare arrangements and even more so if both parents are in

full time employment and/or the family is Asian (Indian, Pakistani, other Asian).

3. The other primary sources of information and advice for parents about their current childcare

arrangements are the Children and Families Information Service, the internet and schools and

for parents with very young children, children’s centres.

4. For parents that used the Children and Families Information Service for information and advice

relevant to their current arrangements, 60% found it easy/very easy, 37% found it neither easy

nor difficult and 3% found it difficult/very difficult. Wembley parents were the most likely to

report finding it easy/very easy, while families where both parents are in full time employment

were less likely to report finding it easy/very easy (although only 2% reported it was difficult/very

difficult).

How easy is it to find information about childcare in Brent Figure 13 sets out parents views about ‘When looking for childcare in Brent, how easy or difficult

did you find getting advice and information?’ These reveal that for more than 8 in 10 parents they

do not have difficulty accessing information and advice to help with their decision making about

childcare. The same proportion of parents as 2013 find it difficult/very difficult (18%).

In focus groups and interviews, many parents reported they were unaware of where to source

information and advice to help with their decision making about childcare. This was especially so

amongst Black and Minority Ethnic communities. The Children and Families Information Service

was not especially well known by these parents, although more so for White British parents.

Figure 13 shows Willesden parents are more likely to report it is difficult/very difficult, while

Wembley parents were those most likely to report it is easy/ very easy. In considering other family

characteristics, those parents that were less likely to find information and advice about childcare

easy to source are:

Brent Council


55

Parents with children with disabilities/additional needs (21% found difficult/very difficult

compared to 13% of other parents). This is consistent with 2013 findings;

Pakistani, African and Irish families, with more than 1 in 4 Pakistani and 1 in 4 African

families finding it difficult/very difficult.

How parents found about their current childcare? Figure 14 sets out how parents found about their current childcare arrangements. These reveal that

for close to 3 in 10 (29%) parents, friends and relatives provide the primary source of information

and advice about their current childcare, although much less so in Kingsbury where 1 in 5 do so).

This is much less so than in 2013 where 44% reported that a friend or relative was the primary

source of information and advice.

For 16% of parents they report that the Children and Families Information Service was their source

of advice and guidance (slightly down from 18% in 2013). Other key sources for parents about their

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Very Easy

Easy

Neither easy or difficult

Difficult

Very difficult

Figure 13: How easy to find information when looking for childcare in Brent


Brent Council


56

current childcare arrangements are the internet and schools and for parents with very young

children, children’s centres. By contrast, fewer than 1 in 20 parents found information relevant to

their current childcare arrangements through advertising from childcare providers, libraries, health

services (e.g. GP and health visitors) and Job Centres.


1. Households where both parents are, or at least one parent is in full time employment are

more likely to have used friends or relatives for information relevant to their current childcare

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Brent Children & Families Information Service

Friend/ relative

Internet

Job Centre

Library

School

Children's Centre

Doctor's Surgery, health clinic or health visitor

Advert from Childcare provider

Other

Figure 14: How parents found about current childcare


Brent Council


57

arrangements (32% and 34% respectively as compared with households where no parent is

in full time employment at 23%).

2. Households where both parents are in full time employment are also more likely to have

used the internet (20%) and schools (16%) for information and advice (compared with 14%

and 11% for other households).

3. Parents with children with disabilities/additional needs were more likely to have used

schools for information relevant to their current childcare arrangements (20% as compared

with 10%). This is mirrored where parents have a disability with 18% having used schools

for information relevant to their current childcare arrangements compared with 10% of other

parents.

4. The lower the household income the more likely to have used the Brent Children and

Families Information Service for information relevant to their current childcare arrangements

(22% for families with an annual household income less than £40,000 as compared with

15% for families with an annual household income greater than £40,000). By contrast,

families with an annual household income greater than £40,000 were more likely to use the

internet (22%) than families with an annual household income less than £40,000 (12%) for

information relevant to their current childcare arrangements.

5. All Asian families were more likely to use friends and relatives for information relevant to

their current childcare arrangements than all other families (35%) compared with 28% for

families from other communities. Pakistani and White parents were also more likely to have

used children’s centres (11% compared with 7% for other parents).

6. Lone parents were more likely to have used schools for information relevant to their current

childcare arrangements (16% as compared with 10%).

Figure 16 sets out how easy parents found the Children and Families Information Service for

information relevant to their current childcare arrangements: 60% found it easy/very easy, 37%

found it neither easy nor difficult and 3% found it difficult/very difficult. Wembley parents were

the most likely to report finding it easy/very easy.

Deeper analysis does not elicit much in the way of differences between types of families,

although those households where both parents are in full time employment were less likely to

report is easy/very easy (53% compared with 73% for other parents).

Brent Council


58

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Very Easy

Easy

Neither easy or difficult

Difficult

Very difficult

Figure 15: How easy it was using CFIS for relevant information


Brent Council


59

Appendix One: Ethnicity profile for each locality

Count of school children by locality and ethnicity.

Ethnicity Harlesden Kilburn Kingsbury Wembley Willesden Out

of

Area

Grand

Total

Indian 206 141 1542 3782 445 510 6626

Somalian 1494 348 320 731 974 178 4045

Caribbean 1135 335 457 887 660 323 3797

White British 551 776 309 233 546 1008 3423

Eastern

European

360 131 761 822 704 324 3102

Unknown 249 257 179 181 141 2035 3042

Pakistani 269 242 501 946 728 118 2804

Other ethnicity 277 266 284 330 371 206 1734

Other Black

African

529 202 238 221 285 147 1622

Afghanistani 175 64 396 391 435 95 1556

Sri Lankan

Tamil

115 21 254 936 97 125 1548

Other Asian 311 163 228 293 306 135 1436

Other Mixed 235 246 230 266 290 152 1419

Other White 256 261 130 125 250 240 1262

Iraqi 76 92 370 231 211 85 1065

Other Black 295 149 119 199 214 75 1051

Nigerian 185 70 110 135 156 57 713

Brent Council


60

White & Black

Caribbean

189 127 86 126 118 63 709

Portuguese 229 84 45 103 178 67 706

Ghanaian 218 55 78 123 102 45 621

White & Black

African

152 89 52 46 77 50 466

Irish 85 53 94 36 148 36 452

Western

European

88 86 40 35 77 82 408

Bangladeshi 42 24 78 113 69 40 366

White & Other

Asian

47 70 46 59 57 30 309

Nepalese 2 1 25 216 15 44 303

Albanian 52 29 41 47 57 19 245

Kosovan 30 32 27 50 58 14 211

Sri Lankan

Sinhalese

8 5 62 58 37 30 200

Iranian 10 30 48 27 40 24 179

Asian African 26 45 23 22 46 10 172

Refused/

Withheld

25 33 35 19 27 19 158

Italian 32 40 10 15 43 13 153

Chinese 11 24 32 31 19 10 127

White & Indian 19 23 19 22 26 12 121

White &

Pakistani

3 16 28 16 19 4 86

Brent Council


61

Irish Traveller 52 4 5 6 3 1 71

Kurdish 13 9 10 12 10 12 66

Greek Cypriot 5 4 13 15 7 4 48

Turkish 8 7 12 13 2 5

47

Greek 2 3 15 11 5 1 37

Gypsy/Roma 13 1 2 4 3 2 25

Bosnian 8 2 1 6 17

Serbian 1 5 1 1 5 2 15

Japanese 3 2 2 2 2 1 12

Thai 3 2 1 3 3 12

Croatian 1 5 6

Turkish Cypriot 1 1 1 3 6

Grand Total 8094 4671 7359 11942 8077 6456 46599

Source: Brent school census 2014.

Brent Council


62

Appendix Two: Profile of families sharing

perspectives through survey

Throughout October- December 2015, parents were invited through children’s centres, childcare

settings, the Brent Council staff newsletter and the Children and Families Information Service to

share their perspectives about their experiences of using childcare in Brent. This appendix sets out

the profile of those 827 families.

Where families live

Locality Children’s Centre catchment area Number of families

Harlesden Fawood Children's Centre 23

Curzon Crescent Children's Centre 29

Harmony Children's Centre 4

St Raphael's Community and Children's Centre 6

Kilburn Granville Plus Children's Centre 37

Three Trees and Hope Children's Centres 94

Kingsbury Church Lane Children's Centre 74

The Willow Children's Centre 33

Wembley Alperton Children's Centre 59

Welcome Children's Centre 147

Wembley Primary Children's Centre and Preston 80

Willesden Wykeham and Treetops Children's Centre 87

#N/A 154

Grand Total 827

What we know about these families?

Locality Children’s Centre catchment area Number of families

Disability Number with children with additional needs/ disability 71

Brent Council


63

Number of parents with additional needs/ disability 20

Employment status

Two Parents/Carers in Full-Time Employment 133

One Parent/Carer in Full-Time Employment, Other not in Full-Time Employment 418

Other 276

Household income

£0 to £10,000 119

£10,001 to £20,000 161

£20,001 to £30,000 134

£30,001 to £40,000 67

£40,001 to £50,000 64

£50,001 to £60,000 53

£60,000 and over 75

Dual parent or lone parent household

Lone parent 121

Dual parent 625

Number of children

0 43

1 374

2 289

3 83

4+ 38

Ethnicity Indian 205

Other Asian 78

White 74

Other White 69

British 68

Caribbean 34

African 31

Pakistani 24

Irish 21

Brent Council


64

Other Mixed 13

Other 11

White and Asian 10

White and Black Caribbean 8

Other Romanian 7

Chinese 5

Bangladeshi 5

White and Black African 5

Other Black 4

Other Polish 3

Other Arab 3

Other Afghanistan 2

Other Srilankan 2

Other Sri Lankan 2

Other European 2

Other Filipino 2

Other British African 1

Other Eastern European 1

Other Iranian 1

Other Italian 1

Other Filipine 1

Other Latin American 1

Other German 1

Other Latvian 1

Other Eastern Europe 1

Brent Council


65

Appendix Three: Parent focus groups and

interviews

FOCUS GROUP ONE, 12 OCTOBER 2015

7 mums, 1 registered childminder, 1 parent support worker, 1 CFIS staff member

All mums and the registered childminder (8 parents/carers) were from Black and minority

ethnic communities. 2 mums indicated they interacted with Children’s Social Care- it is

unclear whether this forms part of a CIN or CP Plan.

Between the 8 parents/carers, they had 29 children aged 1- 23 with 4 children in early

years, 23 children attending school and 2 children having left school. One mum had 8

children aged 8-23 years.

All mums and the childminder used registered childcare (mainly family members, friends or

neighbours), with only two using registered childcare. Primarily, the reasons for the lack of take

up of registered childcare are (1) not knowing how to access/ what is available to meet their

needs; (2) issues of trust; and (3) the cost of childcare. Even for those with children attending

the school, they didn’t take up afterschool clubs as the £7/ afternoon session for registered parents

was prohibitive.

The primary motivation for using childcare is to enable the mum to work and even amongst

mums who were not yet working, they recognised they might need to use registered childcare when

they were entering or re-entering the workforce. In this context, key drivers of the type of childcare

that would be accessed are (1) trusting the childcare provider; (2) cost of childcare; and (3) the

flexibility of the childcare as it relates to their jobs.

There is a general perception amongst those mums not using registered childcare that nursery

provision is ‘better’ than childminders. This was grounded in a belief that a nursery environment

better helps with children’s social and communication development. They also thought having their

child attend nursery on-site and then go to school would support the transition into school.

Nonetheless, one mum who has a very young child and uses a registered childminder was

especially positive about this experience. She liked ‘the home away from home experience’ and

said she was impressed by the cleanliness, professionalism and warmth of the childminder and her

home. She also felt that the childminder went well beyond what a nursery would provide in the way

of 1:1 support and she liked that only when her child was very ill would she be contacted as the

childminder would mainly be able to help. She also felt that the childminder provided excellent

Brent Council


66

learning opportunities and liked that she kept herself abreast of new techniques etc. through

ongoing professional development.

When it was framed in this way, other mums were open to the idea of childminding and indeed

expressed interest in learning more about what might be involved to be a childminder as a potential

form of self-employment that could work well with having children. They thought that if an

information session could be offered at the school they would attend.

FOCUS GROUP TWO, 13 OCTOBER 2015

11 parents, (10 mums, 1 father), 2 CFIS members

10 out of 11 parents were from Black and minority ethnic communities. One parent

mentioned that one of her children had special needs.

Between the 11 parents, they had 24 children.

The group used a mix of registered childcare, childminders, and parental care. One family (with

twins under 3, and an older child) used a nanny. For those families that did not use registered

childcare, the primary reasons for this were (1) issues of trust and (2) the cost of childcare.

Where families had taken up registered childcare, the primary reason was to enable the mum to

work. Secondary benefits included helping their children to learn social skills. The key drivers of

choice of childcare provider again were (1) trust in quality of child’s experience; (2) flexibility

around parent’s schedules and (3) cost of childcare.

Indicators of a provider they could trust were discussed in depth. All parents indicated that “you can

just feel it” when a provider has the kind of environment they were looking for, but three particular

factors emerged: (1) good communication both with children and parents; (2) good hygiene; and (3)

a structured environment. There was a general agreement among the group that a nursery

provided a better environment for childcare than a childminder, providing a more structured

environment with better opportunities for development of social skills in the child.

Flexibility of childcare was identified as a particular need for workers on shift patterns. Two parents

in the group were in medical professions with shift work hours. One parent had, after struggling to

find sufficiently flexible childcare, opted for a nanny for 3 days per week, which she could support

working part time. The other had found it too difficult to find appropriate childcare and continue

working so was currently caring for her child full time. She acknowledged that she would have been

unable to do this without her partner’s salary. In considering going back into work in the future she

believed she would need to change career away from shift work towards a more office based

environment with more regular hours.

The father in attendance had given up his job and was trying to study while looking after his

children, but was finding this difficult. He found it hard to find a childcare provider who would be

Brent Council


67

flexible to meet the needs of his study timetable. Some suggestions were made around day

nurseries by other members of the group.

Some parents recognised that childcare providers equally had their own lives, and they did not

expect full flexibility to set their own hours for childcare. However, if additional hours for Saturday

could be provided, that would be appreciated.

On affordability, those using nurseries estimated their current costs at around £1,600 per month,

with the mother using a nanny stating her cost at £1,700 per month, inclusive of tax and NICs.

There was general agreement across the group that costs were high, and parents were adapting in

order to make ends meet – e.g. by fitting a full week’s working hours into 3 days to enable the

mother to care for children on the other 2 days per week, or by using registered networks of support

such as grandparents living close by to help with household tasks and grocery shopping. One

mother felt she had put a lot of work into earning her degree and working on her career for the last

10 years, and she felt taking time out of the work place for a few years would set her back in future.

So while she believed she was no better off at present working as well as paying for childcare, she

believed it would stand her in better stead in the future.

One mother, whose partner earns minimum wage, and where the family also receive benefits, had

identified that if she were to go to work, the family would lose their benefits and would also have to

pay for childcare. The family were not currently receiving NEG2, and had identified that while it

provides 15 hours of free childcare, it is provided in 5 installments of 3 hours. Employers were not

always as flexible in allowing people to work for only 3 hours each day, so the family felt they would

still need to find additional funding for hours of care that fell outside this timetable.

FOCUS GROUP THREE, 15 OCTOBER 2015

8 1:1 conversations with parents or carers.

Family one

Godparent of child attending group providing support for child's mum who is giving birth in a

couple of days. She along with grandma and great aunt are providing care to support mum

who is unable to lift / care for child. Godparent said that registered childcare not needed

as family support. It was the same for her own child (now 16) - she wanted to be at home

so did not work.

Family 2

Nanny caring for 11 month old. Nanny from Brazil (qualified pharmacist) and wanting to

improve her English. The motivation of the family in engaging a nanny is so they can

work. Father of child she is nannying works quite frequently in Brazil. This is her first

nannying job - her mother in law met the family and a suggestion was made that she could

support by nannying and learn Eng at the same time.

Brent Council


68

Family 3

Mum Polish and child 25 months but was born 11 weeks premature so actual age different.

Little one has hearing loss and global delay. They access speech support and teacher of

the deaf support.

Interested in nurseries and childminders as options (but not nanny as Mum was a nanny).

Has visited four nurseries but good ones are full (one Montessori she was not happy with as

quite dirty). She values one to one support for child and the right atmosphere (she was

keen to tune in to her child's response when in the nursery (whether he was reluctant to

leave her / uncomfortable or settled quickly.) Distance wasn't an issue (a couple of the

nurseries she looked at were 30 mins walk). For childminders she had specifically looked for

Polish speaking childminders (using the CFIS list to identify names) but none had

vacancies. She was aware that the CFIS had a list of childminders with SEND experience

and would be keen to receive this.

Family 4

Nanny caring for 2 year old and would soon be caring for a sibling baby as well. Nanny from

Netherlands and she ensures the child attends a range of local activities so the child has

access to other children and different learning and play opportunities. The motivation of

the family in engaging a nanny is so they can work. They do sometimes use

childminders in the evenings, weekends etc. because these are convenient but report they

are not as satisfied with the quality. They have looked at registered nursery care but

consider this too expensive.

Family 5

Mum with 1 x nearly 2 year old. Moved into area in August from USA and keen to take up

part time work and so would look to have access to a childminder. Prefers the ‘home away

from home’ concept as distinct from nursery provision and has used childminding services

in USA. Has been looking on the CFIS website at what options are available.

Family 6

Dad with 1 x 2 year old. Mum gave up her job to have her child and has begun some

occasional Saturday work. Dad travels extensively with his role. They feel that it is too

early for their son to take up regular childcare, but they do use flexible childminding

provision about once every couple weeks. They also access a number of local play groups

and like the structured approach that these use. The reasons for more use of childcare

are to support the child’s development and so mum can work. The choice will largely

be determined by trusting the environment they visit- the friendliness, experience of staff

etc. and the cost.

Family 7

Brent Council


69

A childminder caring for a 2 year old four days per week with the fifth day being provided

by a nanny share involving two children with two sets of parents. The childminding provision

is 1:1 and the primary motivation is so parents can work and the primary reasons for

using her services is convenience (lives close by and able to work flexibly in terms of

time) and because they know and trust her.

Family 8

A nanny (trained teacher) from Spain caring for 2 girls as part of a nanny share- 19 and 17

months. The nanny ensures the children have access to a range of local play and

development opportunities including play group, dance classes and a Spanish music class.

Parents were keen that their children had a Spanish speaking nanny (although

parents are not Spanish). The primary motivation is so parents can work.

FOCUS GROUP FOUR, 16 OCTOBER 2015

9 1:1 conversations with parents or carers and 1 small focus group with 5 mums. All parents

were from Black and minority ethnic communities.

Family one

Mum with 2 children accessing Children’s Centre nursery 5 days per week, 9- 3. Primary

motivation was so children had opportunities for development and to learn, develop

their communication etc. Mum thought the ‘quality is perfect.’

Family 2

Dad with 1 x 2 year old. The only childcare accessed was registered through friends and

neighbours. He was not aware that there was childcare provision for 2 year olds and was

open to learning more about how this might be taken up. Information was provided about

contacts for the CFIS.

Family 3

Mum with 1 x 21 month old. The only childcare accessed was registered through friends,

but she is aware of the potential availability of a flexible entitlement for 2 year olds and is

seeking information through Children’s Centre as she is keen to access the childcare so

she can study.

Family 4

Mum with 1 x 14 month old. While presently not accessing any other childcare- registered or

in registered- she would when child is older to support child development. She would only

consider using nursery places as she wants opportunities for her child to socialise with and

learn/ develop with other children. She will access information from the Children’s Centre.

Brent Council


70

Family 5

Mum with 1 x 2 year old and 1 8 week old baby. Her mother has provided registered

childcare to enable mum to work. She will however take up the 2 year old entitlement while

mum cares for baby so mum can return to work. Key motivation for choice of childcare is

convenience and main purpose is to enable return to work. Affordability is a key

concern about childcare.

Family 6

Mum with 3 children aged 5, 4 and 2. The 4 and 5 year old attend school and she takes the

2 year old to 2 x weekly playgroups to support child development and provide her with

opportunities for peer support too. She was not aware that there was childcare provision

for 2 year olds and was open to learning more about how this might be taken up as

she is keen to return to work. Information was provided about contacts for the CFIS. She

is strongly of the view that she would opt for nursery provision and not childminders.

Family 7

Mum with 2 children aged 3 and 5. The 5 year old attends school and the 3 year old attends

nursery 3 days per week using the NEG 3 entitlement. The choice of nursery was based

on convenience, her older child had attended this nursery so she knew what to

expect and trusts the staff and the environment to provide a safe ‘homely

environment. She is returning to work and so will be increasing by 2 hours for each of the 3

days and intending to access vouchers to assist with the cost of this provision.

Family 8

A mum with 3 children aged 7, 6 and 2. The two older children attend afterschool clubs at

their school which is £20/ child/ term. She likes the affordability and likes the additional

opportunities that access to afterschool clubs provide for her children e.g. football, additional

maths tuition. She has sought NEG2 placement but finds that nurseries make it ‘deliberately

hard to claim the entitlement’ pointing to responses from nursery providers indicating they

can only make the place available if the mum is willing to buy additional provision. This

makes it very challenging and she ‘wants help from a professional so I can get this

childcare.’ Information was provided about contacts for the CFIS.

Mum also indicated her 2 year old has additional needs and so the quality of this childcare

was essential- staff that were confident and skilled in providing support to children with

additional needs, as well as the premises being clean and convenient to her home.

Families 9- 13

All mums used registered childcare (mainly family members of friends), with only two using

registered childcare.

Brent Council


71

Primarily, the reasons for the lack of take up of registered childcare are (1) not

knowing how to access/ what is available to meet their needs; and (2) issues of trust.

For the 2 mums using childcare (NEG2 15 hour entitlement), the motivation was to enable

children access to learning and development opportunities, especially connected to

socialisation.

The main reasons for choice of childcare was they trusted the staff and the

environment.

For other mums, the issue of trust was a primary reason for not taking up registered

childcare. The second main reason related to perceptions of its cost, although only one said

she knew how much childcare cost.

FOCUS GROUP FIVE, 20 OCTOBER 2015

9 1:1 conversations with families, all but one were from Black and minority ethnic

communities. The nursery actively advertise the free childcare NEG2 for children over the

age of 2 on their banner outside the nursery.

All but one family were using the NEG2 support.

Family 1

Mum with one child, aged 2. Has only been using the nursery for one month so far. Is happy

with the quality, feels “the nursery communicate well” with her. Is using the NEG2 grant, so

child is here for 16 hours per week.

Family 2

Mum with one child, turning 4 in February. She is using the NEG2 grant, child attends for 15

hours per week. In terms of quality, she tried a few places before choosing this nursery, and

felt that “the best sign [of quality] is happy children”. She also used the Ofsted reports as a

guide to quality. The flexibility of the hours worked well for her – she is not currently

working.

Family 3 – a childminder

Mum with two children aged 6 and 16 months, and a childminder to one other child who

was being picked up from the nursery.

Family 4

Mum with one child aged 4. She is not using any other forms of childcare at present. In

choosing the nursery originally, she looked at the Ofsted report, went round the facilities and

met the staff. She found the people welcoming and communication with parents was good.

The nursery was newly opened so facilities were good and she liked the range of activities

offered. Her primary driver was the experience for her daughter, who she said had

Brent Council


72

flourished socially since being there, and has done so well that they have turned down a

place at the school nursery even though it was offered. The mother is not currently working

and the childcare is NEG2 funded. Flexibility she felt was good – she recently changed her

hours so that 2 days a week her daughter would have lunch at the nursery, and so learn to

feed herself.

Family 5 - only White family

Mum with two children aged 9 and 3. Not using any other forms of childcare. In choosing

this nursery, she had the choice of 2 nurseries but chose this one. Her eldest child came

here and liked it, so she “knew the set up” and felt comfortable with the facilities. She is

pleased with the quality – her 3 year old comes here for 4 hours, 4 days per week (16 hours

in total, as pointed out by her 9 yr old!). She is not working, and pays for childcare through

NEG2.

Family 6

Mum with four children (aged 14, 11, 4, 2) using no other childcare settings. In choosing this

nursery she checked inside, liked the safety of the venue, as well as the food provided for

children, and the information provided for parents. A particular driver for her was that her

son should learn to speak English, and she is pleased that he has learned very quickly,

quicker than his older brother, which she attributes to the nursery. Her son attends for 15

hours per week, using NEG2. She is not currently working.

Family 7

Sister collecting brother on behalf of family. Children in family are aged 18, 17 (the sister), 9

and 3. Two of the children (not including the sister) have hearing difficulties. The 3 year old

has been coming here since he was 2. They are not using any other childcare, partly

because of lack of information. The family are happy with the quality of care here, but the

main reason they wanted the 3 year old to come to nursery was to learn to English. It is

hard for him because of his deafness. She is not sure what additional care the nursery

provide to her brother, though she knows that sometimes someone comes to check on how

he is doing from the Council.

Family 8 – only family not using NEG2

Mum with one child aged 4. She is not using any other forms of childcare. Her child attends

this nursery for 24 hours each week. She works, and worked before he started here when

she used registered childcare in the form of her Brazilian neighbour. She said that worked

brilliantly, and she loved that her son was learning Brazilian, but her neighbour moved so

she had to find a more permanent solution.

Her initial reasons for choosing this nursery were that classes were small (<10 children), it

was local and convenient for her, prices were reasonable and it offered good classes and

Brent Council


73

interaction. She liked the SEND coordinator at the nursery, and while her son does not have

special educational needs, she liked the idea that there would be children around who did,

and that it would be a mixed and healthy environment for her son to experience – she didn’t

want him “growing up thinking it’s ok to take the mick out of someone who’s different”.

Flexibility – at present her son is at the nursery from 8am-4pm 3 days per week. Her

employers would like her to be able to work until 7pm or even 8.30pm. She is already

relying heavily on friends and family to support her on the other days of the week – she is

not open to using childminders. As a result, she has turned down work requests from her

employer, and is concerned that at some point they will tell her she isn’t doing enough hours

to continue working there.

Family 9

Mum with two children (2, 14). Her 2 year old attends for 16 hours per week, funded by

NEG2. She is not working. She was initially attracted to the nursery for the same reasons as

the mum in Family 8 (they are friends and were listening to each other). So far she is happy

with the quality.

BRENT PARENT CARER FORUM, 9 NOVEMBER 2015

13 parents attending, all with at least one child with Special Educational Needs or a

Disability.

Limited time, as previous speaker overran, so focused on experience of childcare relating

specifically to their child with SEND

The group used a mix of registered childcare, childminders and nurseries.

They felt that after school clubs do not exist for SEND children. They are available at the special

schools but not at mainstream schools. Those parents who had asked for after school club access

for their SEND child had been told that their child’s statement would not cover out of school hours

support. The school would need someone to be there to provide 1:1 support to each SEND child

who would have to be paid.

A number of parents reported very good experiences with childminders. One mother had a

childminder who had provided a detailed report of the child’s activities each day, whatever he did

and ate, any behaviour issues, which she had found very helpful. Another parent had an excellent

childminder, who had experience of children with autism, and who had taken the child to do

activities that the mother would normally have been too nervous to try e.g. take son on a bus, or

take son to the river.

None of the parents were working, and felt that lack of flexibility in childcare was preventing them

from doing so. Two parents had accessed the NEG2 grant, but found that only two nurseries

provided for SEND children in the area and these were very hard to get into. Evening support was

felt to be particularly needed and lacking e.g. for respite to allow parents a night away. Parents

Brent Council


74

found it very hard to find weekend support, and holiday schemes with social activities often refused

to take SEND children.

One parent was having a very good experience for her autistic son at a Children’s Centre nursery,

who shared a specialist with the adjoining Children’s Centre. This was mainstream provision, “with

a proper teacher too”, but they provided her son with an individual plan and communicated well with

him (e.g. by learning words that he uses and recognises, and incorporating them into activities) as

well as with the mother.

All parents felt that there was a lack of education in child care providers on the needs of SEND

children. As a result, knowing the person is qualified to look after SEND children was a key

indicator of quality that parents looked for in child care settings.

Parents felt the cost for childcare was high, at £12.50 - £12.60 per hour, sometimes higher at the

nurseries with trained staff – e.g. Peppermint Heights.

Documents

London Borough of Brent · London Borough of Brent Childcare sufficiency assessment 2016 4 Foreword Welcome to Brent Council’s local Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (2016-19)