Download pdf - Opportunity for Childcare: The Impact of Government Initiatives in England upon Childcare Provision

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

,

Cowley Road, Oxford OX

JF, UK and

Main Street, Malden, MA

, USA

S

P

& A

0144–5596V

. 36, No. 5, O

2002,

. 482– 495

Blackwell Publishers LtdOxford, UKSPOLSocial Policy & Administration

144–5596© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001Octover 20023651000Original Article

Opportunity for Childcare: The Impact of Government Initiatives in England upon Childcare Provision

Simon Rahilly and Elaine Johnston

Abstract

This paper considers the impact of recent government initiatives upon childcare provision forchildren under the age of five. It is based upon interviews with parents and providers from twocontrasting wards in Liverpool. The aim of the research was to identify key issues and concernswith regard to childcare, and perceptions about the impact of developments within social securityand education provision. Government policies have concentrated on supporting working parentswho need to pay for formal childcare, and on providing an earlier start to the formal educationof young children. There is a fear that this focus may be failing to recognize and support thediversity of families and their childcare needs.

Keywords

Childcare; Social security; Welfare to work; Early years education

Introduction

In recent years government policies have begun to highlight the need foraffordable childcare to enable parents to access paid work as the primarymeans to maintain their children. It has been argued that the demise of the“husband as breadwinner” and “wife as carer” model, upon which the post-war welfare settlement was based, has required new policies to ensure themaintenance and care of children (Land

a; Lewis

). Changes infamily composition have increased the number of children in householdswith one parent, and higher female participation in the labour market hasincreased the number of children in households with two parents who areboth in paid work. The two types of household share common problems ofattempting to combine the care and the maintenance of their children, andthe fact that informal and unpaid childcare may no longer be available fromfriends and family means that it is now a subject that has to be consideredby policy-makers.

Address for correspondence:

Simon Rahilly, School of Law and Applied Social Studies, LiverpoolJohn Moores University,

Myrtle Street, Liverpool, L

DN. E-mail: [email protected].

SPOL_266.fm Page 482 Thursday, August 29, 2002 10:52 AM


While the need for childcare does not cease when the law requireschildren to attend school, this marks a significant stage and the end-point forthis study which set out to consider the impact of government initiativesupon childcare provision for children under the age of

. The aim was togauge the reactions of parents to recent government policy initiatives toextend the financial assistance available to working parents on low incomes,and to extend the provision of free nursery education to all

-year-oldsand many

-year-olds. The fieldwork was all carried out in Liverpool inthe summer of

, and was based in two contrasting wards of the city.Childcare for

-

-year-olds can be provided “informally” by parents, byfamily and friends. Alternatively, it can be provided “formally” by voluntaryand charitable organizations, by private sector (for-profit) organizations, orby the local authority social services or education departments, where nurseryeducation for

- and

-year-olds may be seen by parents as an importantsource of childcare.

Helen Penn (

) identifies three distinct strands which continue to leavetheir mark in terms of differing policy and practice in childcare and nurseryeducation. First, there is nursery education which is provided within schools,by qualified teachers and nursery nurses. This is available at no cost toparents, who may or may not be working, but is usually only provided on apart-time basis, and only for

- (and some

)-year-olds. Second, there ischildcare provision which is bought by working parents, often on a full-timebasis, for children over the whole age range

–

, from childminders and priv-ate and voluntary sector nurseries, where childcare is provided by nurserynurses and unqualified care staff. Third, there is what Penn calls “welfarecare”, provided for vulnerable children or children in need (or children livingin communities in need). This is provided by social services, or with grantaid by voluntary sector day nurseries and family centres, etc., to parents whomay or may not be working, at reduced or nil cost.

All three strands of provision for the under-

s have been subject toreforms. Local education authorities were required to ensure that a freeplace became available for all

-year-olds by April

, with targets toextend this provision to

-year-olds, while the social security Welfare-to-workprogramme has required the government to ensure that there is sufficientchildcare available, and that it is both affordable and accessible.

Government interdepartmental policy papers have attempted to ensurethat policies are coherent and that departments are working together. How-ever, the research by Helen Penn suggests that the reforms have been drivenby different departmental concerns, and that none has an “explicit philosophyof childhood”. It is also possible that changes in one “sector” will impactupon the others. Thus the growth in nursery education within schoolsmight be accompanied by a reduction in grant aid to, and provision by, thevoluntary sector. This fear was not allayed by the government’s discussionof early years provision within its Departmental Report (DfEE

). Chapter

(“Laying firm foundations”) discusses the need to sustain good-qualityvoluntary sector provision “during the period between . . . the introduction ofthe National Minimum Wage, . . . Working Families Tax Credit . . . andfunding for three-year-old places in all local authorities” (DfEE

:

).



The outcome could be a reduction in the choice available to parents withlow incomes. An additional concern is that the provision of childcare creditsmay merely result in increases in the charges made by childcare providers.

Ann Barlow and Simon Duncan have questioned the assumptions behindthe government’s welfare-to-work initiatives (Barlow and Duncan

).Providing additional cash for childcare costs as a means of removing abarrier to work assumes that parents’ decisions are driven by economic con-siderations. Barlow and Duncan argue that this ignores the importance ofmorals in decision-making—in this context parents’ socialized perceptions ofhow they should best care for their child. These initiatives may heighten thetensions between wanting to provide the best arrangements for both the careand the maintenance of children (Land

a; Driver and Martell

).

Recent Developments in Government Policy

The imperative to promote equal opportunities within education led to afocus on the importance of early years learning, while the availability ofaccessible childcare was seen as essential to enable parents to work and thusmove off benefit.

Education policy

Education was the incoming Labour government’s number one priority, andearly learning was seen as the key to ensuring that each child had the bestpossible start to their education. The government set a target for free nurseryeducation to be available for every

-year-old child whose parents wanted itby April

. Targets for nursery places for

-year-olds were soon to beset—

per cent by March

,

per cent by March

and a promiseof nursery provision for all

-year-olds by

. Funding was to be madeavailable to enable new nursery provision to be developed, especially in“deprived” areas. Alongside the expansion of nursery provision came devel-opments in the national curriculum with the introduction of Early LearningGoals. The Care Standards Act

transferred all early years regulatoryresponsibility in England from social services departments to the Office forStandards in Education (Ofsted).

Social security policy

In March

the government published

A New Contract for Welfare

, its GreenPaper on social security (DSS

). In his foreword the prime minister speltout his commitment to rebuild the social security system in such a way thatit would encourage people of working age to receive their income fromwages rather than benefits. The Green Paper attributed the increasing num-bers of children living in poverty to the growth of “workless” households, andhighlighted the growing numbers of lone parents who were out of work. Tosupport the government’s belief that paid work was the “surest route out ofpoverty”, policies had to help unemployed people find work, to removebarriers to work, and to make work pay.



The government’s aim is to increase the percentage of lone parents inemployment (currently about

per cent) up to the levels found in the USA(

per cent) (

Guardian

,

October

:

). All benefit claimants (includinglone parents) are now required to discuss work opportunities in an interviewwith a personal adviser. While the main focus of the New Deal for LoneParents was to be those with children of school age, it would also be availableto those with preschool children. Those lone parents who took up wagedwork and came off benefit were to have their benefit entitlement protectedfor a period of

weeks, enabling them to try work without fear of returningto reduced levels of benefit if the waged work was not sustainable.

Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), together with the introduction of aminimum wage, were to be the government’s main policy initiatives designedto make work pay. By comparison with Family Credit (FC) which it replaced,WFTC is more generous, with higher levels of maximum assistance, payableat higher levels of income, and a reduced rate at which benefit is withdrawn.

The government recognized that the cost of childcare can represent areal barrier to work. This is especially true if there is only one parent andany work is likely to be low-paid (Land

). WFTC was to incorporatemore generous assistance towards the costs of childcare by means of theinclusion of a childcare tax credit of

per cent of eligible costs up to £

per week for one child and £

for more than one. The new limits weredesigned to reflect average childcare costs, and represented significantincreases from the maximum allowed within FC, while the fact that only

per cent of costs would be met was designed to provide an incentive toshop around. The fact that assistance was paid as a credit, as opposed to adisregard to be offset against earnings, ensured that parents on the lowest ofincomes were able to benefit. In June

, the limits for childcare costs wereraised from £

to £

and from £

to £

. The increased value ofthe benefit has been reflected in the growing number of claimants. Some

per cent of those claiming the childcare tax credit are lone parents (Land

).

Interdepartmental policy

In May

the government published

Meeting the Childcare Challenge

(DfEE

)

.

This was an interdepartmental Green Paper, and was presented toparliament by the secretaries of state for education and employment and forsocial security as well as by the minister for women. In his foreword theprime minister confirmed the importance of good-quality childcare in providingthe best possible start in life for children. It was argued that quality childcareenabled mothers to take up opportunities for work, education or training,and also provided a secure and happy environment for children in whichthey can be helped to prepare for their education. The Green Paperattempted to bring together two agendas into one coherent package, bysetting out two “tests of success”: first, “better outcomes for children, includinga readiness to learn by school age”, and second, “more parents with thechance to take up work, education or training because they have access todiverse, good quality childcare”.



The Green Paper set out the basis of a National Childcare Strategy as avital component in government’s support for families. The key underlyingprinciples were, first, that parents should have genuine choice as to whetherthey work and access their own childcare, and second, that childcare shouldbe of good quality so that it stimulates and motivates children. These principleswere to underpin the government’s aim that there should be “good qualityaffordable childcare for children aged

to

in every neighbourhood,including both formal childcare and support for informal arrangements”.

The government announced its intention to set up childcare partnershipswithin each local authority, to build upon the work undertaken by the existingEarly Years Development Partnerships to integrate childcare with early yearseducation. The new partnerships would be wider, to include a responsibilityfor local strategy and planning for childcare for children up to the age of

.To help them prepare for their annual plans the DfEE gave the newlycreated Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships planningguidance which set out key principles under the following headings: quality,affordability, diversity, accessibility and partnership.

Family policy

In November

the government’s Ministerial Group on the Family, whichhad been chaired by the home secretary, published its consultation document

Supporting Families

(Home Office

). The aim was to set out a series ofpractical measures that could be taken by government to support families,for example by improving family prosperity and providing a better balancebetween work and home.

The improvement of family prosperity was considered to be one of the keyareas in which government could make a difference. This meant tacklingchild poverty by amending the tax and benefit systems to take into accountthe cost of bringing up children, and developing policies which reduced thenumber of children (estimated to be

million) growing up in householdswithout an income from wages. To this end the government had significantlyuprated child benefit, as well as the allowances for younger children withinincome support (IS). The other significant developments aimed at improvingfamily prosperity and reducing child poverty were the introduction of theminimum wage, WFTC and the New Deal for Lone Parents. Although theseincreases have been driven by a commitment to reduce the numbers ofchildren growing up in poverty, as measured by household income comparedto the national average, the government has avoided any assessment as to theextent to which the scale rates within benefits are sufficient to meet basicneeds.

Besides reinforcing government initiatives to encourage people withchildren to take up work, the consultation paper also called for measures tohelp families balance work and home, so that it is “easier for parents tospend more time with their children”. The White Paper

Fairness at Work

(DTI

) had called for family-friendly employment policies such as more flexibleworking arrangements, with reasonable time off to deal with family emergencies,and increased parental rights.



Finally, the document promised measures to fill the gap between the sup-port provided at birth and the support provided at school. These initiativesincluded “Parentline”, a phone helpline for parents, and “Sure Start” whichwould promote partnerships to deliver integrated packages of childcare,healthcare, early learning and play to young children and their families inareas of greatest need.

The Research

The research was based in two predominantly working-class wards of Liver-pool—one on the outskirts and one near the city centre. Interviews withparents and providers were based on open-ended questions which weredevised taking into account the key principles set out by the DfEE in itsguidance to Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships: quality,affordability, diversity, accessibility and partnership.

A sample of parents was obtained from groups active in the two areas. Someadditional working parents with low incomes were accessed through childcareproviders in the areas. The aim was to ensure that the sample containedapproximately equal proportions of (

) parents neither working, nor in formaleducation, with no formal childcare arrangements; (

) parents working, or ineducation with commitments such that they have had to make childcarearrangements (other than by themselves or partner), where these arrangementswere informal; and (

) parents working with formal childcare arrangements.Interviews were carried out with parents all of whom had children

under the age of . All bar one of those interviewed were mothers. Thisreflects the continuing significance of gender to caring (Lewis ), andexplains why in most cases when we discuss the findings we will be referringto “mothers” rather than “parents”. Just over half were not living with anadult partner, and we refer to them as “lone mothers”. Some lived with otheradults, others did not. Some parents had several other children, others didnot. Some parents had children with special needs. Three parents describedthemselves as “Black British”.

Twelve childcare providers were interviewed. The sample was drawn upto ensure that a range of different types of provision within each area wasincluded, from private day nurseries, work-based nurseries, voluntary (grant-aided) nurseries, and playgroups, to childminders. No interviews were under-taken with schools which provided nursery education (although questionswere asked about the impact of this provision).

Finally, a focus group was convened comprising five people working withproviders and with parents with young children, who had knowledge of the twoareas in which the research was based. The group met after the findings hadbeen analysed and members were first encouraged to discuss their own views onthe subject matter of the research, and then invited to comment on the findings.

Findings

While it is evident that there is a continuing assumption that it is the job ofwomen and mothers to be responsible for care, various writers have drawn



attention to the fact that the obligation to (undertake paid) work has nowbecome paramount (e.g. McKie et al. ). Katherine Rake describes howthe “moral and financial imperative to work” has required the governmentto introduce measures to “make work pay” (Rake ). The interviews withparents (nearly all mothers) of young children highlighted the significance ofaffordable childcare in their decision as to whether to work, but also pointedto the complexity of their lives and concerns, and confirmed Ruth Lister’sargument that the interaction between the roles of mother and worker is acomplex one (Lister ).

The quality of the childcare

The quality of the childcare was clearly a critical factor in parents’ decision-making about possible childcare arrangements. Parents were concernedabout continuity and that their children’s experiences of care outside thehome should not be too different from those within the home. One particularconcern was about the potential for abuse when the childcare was providedby one individual—for example by a childminder. This concern was neverbased upon actual knowledge of incidents of abuse, but was clearly a stronglyheld perception that prevented several mothers from considering childmindersas an option. The recent emphasis on regulation and inspection may haveheightened parental anxiety. The providers were also keen that they shouldprovide a good-quality service for children and parents; while there wassupport for the harmonization of registration and inspection, there wasconcern that some of the positive features of social services inspection(support and continuity, expertise in the needs of early years children) mightbe lost. The focus group highlighted the need for more information andopenness around the regulatory process in order that parents might be muchbetter informed on issues of quality to enable them to make educated choicesabout childcare.

Those mothers with children in formal childcare tended to express theirsatisfaction in terms of the child’s happiness and security, and the relationshipswith staff. Staffing is one of the key factors in determining the quality of formalchildcare provision. The workforces tended to consist of a few long-standingmembers of staff, for whom this work was their vocation, together withothers who are likely to stay for a much shorter time. Providers talked ofdifficulties in recruiting more mature members of staff, and the resultantneed to recruit younger women who tend to move on relatively quickly and aremore difficult to retain long-term. Similarly, there was a difficulty in recruitingqualified staff, and concern about the adequacy of NVQ qualifications.

Managers considered the pay of childcare workers to be extremely inad-equate and pointed out that, at best, it is only half the pay of teachers. It isno wonder that many of the young workers view their time in childcare asvaluable experience which will act as a “stepping stone” for future careerdevelopment.

The interviews reflected the fact that this sector continues to be charac-terized by low pay and low status. The picture that emerged was one thatconfirmed what Linda McKie describes as a “gendered loop” (McKie et al.



), with mothers exchanging unpaid childcare work for low-paid work inorder to employ another woman on low wages to provide the childcare (seealso Land a). The focus group suggested that increased remunerationshould be accompanied by higher educational requirements for entry intochildcare training, together with a greater emphasis on suitability and vocation,in order to raise the status and the quality of childcare workers.

Affordability

Government strategies to help ensure that childcare is affordable includesubsidies to the provider, as well as subsidies to the parent within WFTC.Providers struggle to combine the need to survive as businesses whichprovide childcare as a market commodity, with an ethos of providing a serviceto children and their parents. This was evident in interviews in whichproviders talked of “our children” and “my parents”, of their need to ensurethat parents could afford the fees, and the understanding way in which theydiscussed their approach to parents with arrears.

All of the voluntary sector providers had received grant aid from socialservices which enabled them to offer places at relatively low rates. Over thelast two years there had been substantial cuts to their grants and this hadcontributed to a rise in fees. There is now no certainty that the grants willcontinue as they have in the past, and there is therefore an atmosphere ofuncertainty within the voluntary sector.

The only financial support available within the private sector is the grantto provide for free education places for - and -year-olds. The “free place”is often conditional on the parent purchasing additional day care. Sometimesthe grant is used to subsidize the provision as a whole, but more often it wasused to reduce the charges for the particular children for whom it was paid.

There were no childminders in one of the areas studied, and the numberhad sharply declined in the other. The cost of some of the improvementsrequired by inspections (particularly to external areas) may have contributedto the replacement of official, registered childminding with “unofficial”, anduninsured, arrangements. There is a fine line between supporting andsustaining standards in childcare and driving childminders into informaland unregistered arrangements. This tension between standards and costshas been a continuing feature of childcare (Daniel and Ivatts ), and acommitment to expanding childcare provision may require that considerationbe given to a system of capital grants to registered childminders.

Working Families Tax Credit. Lone mothers who were receiving the childcaretax credit within WFTC were in general extremely positive about this benefit.Several said that it would have been impossible to return to, or continue in,work without it. All those who had previously been claiming FC saw WFTCas a distinct improvement, principally because it is more generous. Mentionwas made of the fact that maintenance is now disregarded in the calculationof WFTC, in contrast to FC and IS.

Claimants were positive about the advice that was available, the estimateof likely benefit and the short period of time before benefit was actually paid.



With one exception, all expressed concern about the recent incorporation ofthe payment of WFTC within wages. Concerns centred around difficultieswith budgeting, since childcare needed to be paid for weekly and wages wereoften paid monthly, and with having to involve the employer. Among otherthings it was thought that this would make it more difficult to change jobs.Katherine Rake has highlighted the gender implications in what shedescribes as a “transfer from the purse to the wallet” (Rake ). For thelone mothers whom we interviewed who were receiving WFTC, the significanceof this change was seen in terms of a loss of control.

Some mothers complained that WFTC took no account of significantadditional expenditure incurred by some claimants—notably travel costs towork and to the place of childcare, and mortgage payments. Childcare costsare only eligible for lone parents, or where both parents are working, and thefact that the costs of childcare provided by family are ineligible for childcarecredits within WFTC was the main reason why mothers presently not inwork thought that the WFTC would be of little use to them. Others weredoubtful that they would be much better off when the reduction in housingbenefit (HB) was taken into account. Hilary Land has argued that WFTCmay serve to re-establish the male breadwinner model in low-income two-parent families: the effect of women returning to work is to reduce WFTC(which may well be paid with the man’s wages) and is therefore of onlymarginal overall financial benefit (Land a).

WFTC appears to have had a positive impact on the full-day care providers,with most able to identify parents claiming WFTC who might not otherwisehave been able to afford childcare places. The two recently opened privateday nurseries stated that per cent of their parents were claiming WFTC,and thought that its introduction had led to a significant increase in demandfor full-day care places. There was little evidence that the introduction ofWFTC had resulted in increased charges, indeed one provider commentedthey were disappointed that it had not enabled them to increase fees andsubsequently increase the staff salaries.

Katherine Rake highlights the limitations of WFTC—it only allows for per cent of childcare costs to be paid, and then only up to a limit (Rake). One recently opened provider charged well beyond the “limit” andcontained a high proportion of parents claiming WFTC. For - and -year-olds these charges could be offset by the education grant. Otherwise, itis possible that parents might be forced to access provision for only a part ofthe week, so that the cost remained within the limit. The consequence of sucha strategy would be that the parent would either have to reduce her hoursin work, or put together a package of childcare that included informal provision.

Several of the lone mothers who were interviewed had been to see a NewDeal personal adviser. Katherine Rake compares the various New Deals, andconcludes that those that are primarily aimed at unemployed men, whilecompulsory, contain a greater range of options and more generous funding(Rake ). The emphasis within the New Deal for Lone Parents has beenon work rather than on education and training (Land a). The views ofthe lone mothers who were interviewed were very varied; while some werepositive about the outcome, others complained about being pushed towards



waged work without having time to think about it and without any real gainin income.

Diversity and accessibility

The group of parents who were interviewed were very diverse, both in termsof factors such as income, family and household composition, and also interms of their views as to what would be the best arrangements for theirchild. Some highlighted the need to work, for increased income, while othersemphasized issues such as the quality of the care, often expressing areluctance to have anyone outside their family providing the childcare.Government policies and initiatives need to support a range of possible formsof childcare provision to enable parents to have genuine choices so that theirneeds can be met, but the research suggested that the diversity of provisionwas being reduced.

Hilary Land has shown that some types of childcare provision are indecline and that there are significant local variations (Land ). In thisstudy the voluntary sector, which has traditionally provided a unique serviceof community-based affordable childcare ranging from part-time playgroupprovision through to full-day care, was struggling with significant reductionsin grant. The only playgroup in one of the areas had recently closed, andthere was only one playgroup in the other area. There are several schoolsacross both areas which provide nursery education sessional places but noneprovided a package which included full-day care. There were practically nochildminders in either area.

Affordability, geographical location and opening hours were key factors indetermining the accessibility of childcare provision. It was common forparents who were interviewed to suggest that they had little effective choice.

Many mothers were extremely worried that changes in work could disrupttheir childcare arrangements, and make it difficult to find others. Shift workpresented particular difficulties. Mothers often had to assemble their ownpackages—combining, for example, family and nursery, or private nurseryand school nursery.

Government planning guidance for Early Years Development and ChildcarePartnerships discusses the need for childcare to provide an opportunity forparents to develop their skills. Others have pointed to the need for trainingopportunities as alternatives to low-paid work which may not only be belowthe potential of the mother (Gray ), but may also have longer-termeffects in terms of reduced wage progression (Bryson et al. ). Many ofthose mothers interviewed who were not in work used the time that theirchildren were young to undertake part-time education classes, and oftenthese related to child development, childcare, etc. (see also Land ).Examples included a classroom assistants course, a parenting course and anACCESS course provided by a local university. All were free and providedcrèche facilities. However, there was a sense that these opportunities for adulteducation with free crèche facilities were declining. Those mothers whohad attempted full-time courses while their children were under had allexperienced real difficulties because of the absence of free childcare and an



inability to pay. Completion of the course became dependent upon thefamily being able to provide free childcare.

Some parents saw part-time provision (such as playgroups) as beingimportant for the child while others saw the benefits for both children andtheir parents, and pointed to the support that this provision provides forparents, enabling them to socialize and make friends (see McKie et al. ).

School nursery provision. About half of the parents interviewed were not usingformal, paid childcare, and of these nearly all intended to take up a freenursery place within a school when their child reached the age of . Onlyone parent mentioned pressure from the school to apply, and by far the mostcommon reason given for taking up an offer of a place was that it was seenas the start of their child’s education. Only a few of the parents also saw thisas an opportunity to get help with childcare, and as providing an opportunityfor them to pursue their own education classes.

Katherine Rake discusses the limitations of nursery provision to free par-ents for other activities: provision is confined to three terms of weeks’duration, and for only . hours per day (Rake ). One of the mothersconsidered it to be almost a full-time job getting the child to and from anursery class of short duration.

The responses were slightly different from those mothers with full-daychildcare. While many saw the benefit in educational terms of their childattending a school nursery class when they reached the age of , they wereoften faced with having to make new childcare arrangements. Only a fewchildren were attending day nurseries that took children to a local schoolnursery and collected.

Childcare providers were very worried about the impact of nurseryeducation on their ability to fill places for - and -year-olds. The focusgroup also felt strongly that diversity is being threatened by the pressure tofill local authority nursery education places and it was suggested that anaudit of need is required in order to attempt to ensure that there is a matchbetween provision and need.

Conclusions

Although the government may be more explicit about the requirement towork (Lewis ), childcare and early years education have received signif-icantly more attention since Labour was elected in . Childcare is recog-nized as the necessary precondition for parents to be able to undertake paidwork which is to be the route out of poverty, while early years are consideredfundamental to ensuring greater equality of opportunity in education. As aresult they are closely connected to two of Labour’s key policy agendas:reducing welfare dependency by tackling barriers to paid work, and combat-ing inequality and social exclusion. But the primacy that government givesto the work agenda is reducing the other opportunities for childcare wherethe needs are not associated with full-time paid work.

This research suggests that parents see early years education as beneficialfor their children, but of limited use as a form of childcare to enable them



to undertake other activities. In spite of the fact that private and voluntarysector providers are now regulated by Ofsted and follow a common educa-tional curriculum which enables them to access the early years educationgrant, there remains a perception that education takes place within schools.This perception of the importance of school has been enhanced by policieswhich have highlighted early years learning. Childcare providers have realconcerns about the impact of the extension of school nursery education uponthe viability of their provision, yet it is clear that early years education doesnot remove the need for childcare. Nursery provision within schools needs tobe developed in conjunction with other childcare, so that full-day childcarepackages are available.

There was a mixed response to the reforms to in-work benefits which nowincorporate a more generous provision for childcare costs. For some this wasthe policy development that made waged work possible. For others it hasonly increased the pressure to work. Some parents stressed the significanceof the quality of childcare, thus providing some evidence to support a critiqueof policies which are based upon assumptions that we act as rational economicbeings (Barlow and Duncan ). But there was also an emphasis on issueslike affordability and being better-off, suggesting that financial considerationsare important. This is not surprising, given that all the parents in this studyhad low incomes. In most cases it was not a case of one concern or the other,but rather that both considerations were significant. Ruth Lister calls forpolicies “for the time being” which “enable lone mothers to bring theirchildren up free of poverty and make it possible to combine paid work withtheir family responsibilities with minimal stress” (Lister : ). This sug-gests a pragmatic approach which “enables” and “makes it possible”—inother words one that provides a meaningful choice.

Despite new and potentially significant initiatives, most mothers (bothin and out of waged work) did not feel that they had any choice as totheir childcare arrangements. The limited incorporation of childcare costswithin WFTC excludes those who are not in full-time work, and those whosechildcare is provided informally, thus continuing to devalue this importantwork.

Labour’s policies seem designed to attempt to ensure that there is onewage per household. Thus the thrust of social security policy is that for lonemothers the duty to access paid work should take precedence over any dutyto care. Yet this research confirms Kay Standing’s conclusion that the issuesfor lone mothers are not just economic ones (Standing ). For all the talkof “joined-up thinking”, policies continue to reinforce false dichotomiesbetween education and care (Land b, ) and between work and care(Lewis ). As Jane Lewis comments, we are still a long way from the fullyindividualized adult worker model. Paid and unpaid work remain genderedconcepts, mothers with young children continue to be both workers andcarers, and policies must be flexible enough to support a range of differingneeds of parents and of their children.

In family policy, children often become hidden within their families andhence invisible (Daniel and Ivatts ). There is often an implicit assumptionthat children will benefit from developments in family policy. The phenomenon



is common across Europe and has been referred to as the “familializationof children” (Qvortrup ). Children are viewed as an extension of theirparents and their needs are subjugated by a policy agenda which centreson welfare to work and education as an investment for the future. Thesignificance of children is in terms of the problems and difficulties thatfamilies have to overcome to secure childcare, so that parents can work.The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requires us tolisten to children and to accommodate their participation in all matters thatimpact upon their lives. This is consistent with Fiona Williams’s call for thedemocratization of welfare by ensuring that everyone has a voice (Williams). Her equal worth principles highlight interdependence as opposed todependence and independence, and thereby stress the values of caring.The adoption of Williams’s principles requires policies to consider parentsand children as active participants with genuine choices as to how care isprovided.

ReferencesBarlow, A. and Duncan, S. (), New Labour’s communitarianism; supporting

families and the rationality mistake part I, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law,, : –.

Bryson, A., Ford, R. and White, M. (), Making Work Pay: Lone Mothers, Employmentand Wellbeing, Family Policy Studies/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Daniel, P. and Ivatts, J. (), Children and Social Policy, Basingstoke: Macmillan.DfEE (), Meeting the Childcare Challenge, Cm , London: Stationery

Office.DfEE (), Departmental Report, the Government’s Expenditure Plans - to -,

Cm , London: Stationery Office.Driver, S. and Martell, M. (), New Labour, work and the family, Social Policy and

Administration, , : –.DSS (), A New Contract for Welfare, Cm , London: Stationery Office.DTI (), Fairness at work, London: Stationery Office.Gray, A. (), Making work pay: devising the best strategy for lone parents in

Britain, Journal of Social Policy, , : –.Home Office (), Supporting Families, Cm , London: Stationery Office.Land, H. (a), New Labour, new families. In H. Dean and R. Woods, Social Policy

Review , Luton: Social Policy Association.Land, H. (b), Changing worlds of work and families. In S. Watson and L. Doyal,

Engendering Social Policy, Buckingham: Open University Press.Land, H. (), Meeting the Child Poverty Challenge: Why Universal Childcare is the Key to

Ending Child Poverty, London: Daycare Trust.Lewis, J. (), Work and care. In H. Dean, R. Sykes and R. Woods, Social Policy

Review , Newcastle: Social Policy Association.Lister, R. (), Reforming welfare around the work ethic: new gendered and ethi-

cal perspectives on work and care, Policy and Politics, , : –.McKie, L., Bowlby, S. and Gregory, S. (), Gender, caring and employment in

Britain, Journal of Social Policy, , : –.Penn, H. (), Policy and practice in childcare and nursery education, Journal of

Social Policy, : –.Qvortrup, J. (), Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics, Aldershot:

Avebury.



Rake, K. (), Gender and New Labour’s social policies, Journal of Social Policy, ,: –.

Standing, K. (), Lone mothers and parental involvement: a contradiction inpolicy, Journal of Social Policy, : –.

Williams, F. (), Good-enough principles for welfare, Journal of Social Policy, :–.
