7   Oxfordshire Childcare Audit 2001

Final Report

1.	About the Audit

Purpose

This is the fourth annual Childcare Audit conducted in Oxfordshire to help plan and monitor the implementation of the National Childcare Strategy, launched by the Government in 1998.

The main purpose of the annual Childcare Audit is to give the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (EYDCP) the baseline information needed to monitor and review targets in the Oxfordshire EYDCP Strategic and Implementation Plans.

Data from the Audit 2001 has been transferred to the applicable Tables and Targets in the EYDCP Implementation Plan 2002-2003.

Uses

The Audit is submitted to the DfES for scrutiny and to aid in the compilation of the national picture of the status of the sector. This enables the DfES to review progress on the implementation of the National Childcare Strategy and other government initiatives.

Locally in Oxfordshire, the Audit helps develop the infrastructure for future data gathering and for consultation with parents, children and employers. It is also used for research purpose, to aid in bidding applications and to aid in monitoring related projects (e.g. Sure Start).

It is also a valuable tool in helping ensure the effective management of performance and principles of “Best Value” for the early years and childcare sector in Oxfordshire.

Scope

The Audit for 2001 has been a very large data collection and analysis exercise. The DfES specification for the Audit (issued in August 2001) covered 7 categories of information:

Section A	Demographic information
Section B	Employment profile
Section C	Early education and childcare places
Section D	Quality assurance
Section E	Foundation stage
Section F	Unmet demand – parents and employers
Section G	Preferences of children and young people
2.	
How it is compiled

Project Team

Marion Evans (Planning Officer, Early Years) is the Project Manager for the Childcare Audit 2001 project. Data collection, data entry and survey analysis was carried out by Tracey Roberts (Information Analyst, Early Years). Thanks to colleagues who assisted with the data entry!

Progress reports were made on a regular basis to the Early Education and Childcare Management Team (EECMT).

Colleagues and organisations that collated data or conducted surveys for certain sections are:

C.	Early education and childcare places Janine Foulkes-Williams (EY Section), Laura Robbins (OCIS), Yolanda Williams and Jo Roberts (Childcare Development Team)

D.	Quality assurance Julie Fisher (EY Adviser)

E.	Foundation stage Julie Fisher (EY Adviser), Val Legg (Sen. Educ. Psychologist)

F.	Parent’s surveys Bostok Marketing Group, Surestart project team

Employer’s surveys Steve Laurence (Work Life Balance Officer, the Oxford Swindon and Glos. Co-op. Society, employers in Wallingford)

G.	Consultation with children Barbara Bryant (Berinsfield Family Centre), Ianthe McClagan and Maria Cross (Children’s Rights Development Team)

David Noble (Audit Project Consultant from Kids Club Network) provided expert analytic support for the completion of the online DfES Audit tables.

In addition to that provided by members of the project team, quality assurance (particularly on survey content and design) was given by the convening officers of the relevant Task Groups (Jane Gallagher, Amanda Powell, Annie Davy).

Source data was contributed by Dave Spark (OCC Educ.Data Team), Elaine Parry (Special Needs Support System, Churchill Hospital), Elaine Chase (Teenage Parents Co-ordinator), Mike Holding (Asylum Seekers Unit), Lucy Beckett (Advisory Centre for the Education of Travellers).

Budget

A budget for the Audit of £20,000 was reserved in the Childcare Grant 2001/02 and was allocated as follows:

	software tools and training:			£2,000
	data entry for in-house surveys:		£2,000
	KCN consultancy				£5,000
	consulting with children			£4,000
	employer’s surveys				£7,000

Achievements

Between September 2001 and January 2002 the project team delivered the following items:

a)	Project plan
b)	Index to data collected
c)	Demographic data
d)	Data on children with additional needs
e)	Data on disadvantaged areas
f)	Non-registerable out of school childcare survey and analysis
g)	Employers’ surveys and analysis
h)	Parents’ surveys and analysis
i)	Consultation with children
j)	Childcare providers’ survey (includes workforce survey) and analysis
k)	Datastore of all relevant datasets
l)	22  online Audit tables (in the required DfES format)
m)	This final report

Disadvantaged areas

For Audit purposes, the DfES defines disadvantaged areas as “those wards which have been accepted for the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative”. Oxfordshire’s wards are:

Blackbird Leys and Littlemore 	(Oxford City)
Neithrop 				(Banbury)

and a detailed analysis of provision in these wards is given in Audit Table 9.

However, disadvantage is obviously not just confined to these wards and in Oxfordshire a fair amount of work has been undertaken to understand the patterns of relative deprivation within communities and to bid for extra Government resources for targeting disadvantage in more equitable ways.

Some examples of how this has been achieved are given below:

•	Part of the Nursery Education Grant for 3 year olds has been targeted county-wide at those children in families in receipt of Income Support or Job Seekers Allowance
•	Funds for the development of Out of School Clubs have been targeted at pockets of poverty (in addition to the wards above) in Barton, Caldecott, St Clements, Ruscote, Berinsfield, East Oxford
•	Enhanced Start-up Grants for Childminders have been targeted at the 10 wards in Oxfordshire with the highest rating on the Child Poverty Index (part of the DETR Index of Multiple Deprivation).

Caveats and assumptions

In an Audit of this nature, in order to produce the final report within the required timescale, certain planning assumptions need to be made. Also some definitions have changed from Audits in previous years and this needs to be borne in mind when making year on year comparisons:

a)	Population estimates, though well-founded, are based on 2001 projections from the 1991 Census data and may not fully reflect the fast-changing picture in Oxfordshire.

b)	The figure for the population of 14 and 15 year olds with special needs was derived from the proportion of school children with a statement of special educational needs (1.3%).

c)	The relevant population figure for childcare purposes in 2001 was totalled for 0-13 year olds (inclusive) plus 14,15 year olds with special needs, whereas that for 2000 was totalled for 0-14 year olds (inclusive) plus 15,16 year olds with special needs.

d)	Most figures for the numbers of childcare places were derived from the Registration and Inspection database (as at 31st August 2001). The definitions of different kinds of childcare places in this database do not match with the DfES-required definitions and judgements have had to be made to align these.

e)	The definition of a wraparound childcare place has changed. DfES guidance for 2001 includes only those places where sessions last at least 3.5 hours (whereas guidance in 2000 allowed for places lasting less time than this).

f)	The Registration and Inspection database only shows the number of pre-school places totalled for 0-5s, so estimates needed to be made to break these places down between 0-2s (30%) and 3-4s (70%).

g)	Only holiday playschemes lasting more than 3 weeks are included.

h)	The survey of out of school childcare provision at secondary and independent schools (21% response rate) mostly had nil responses and so figures for the non-registerable childcare provision in Oxfordshire (Audit Table 7) are low and may not  reflect the whole picture in the sector.

i)	The provider and workforce survey in 2001 did not cover creche provision (as advised by DfES letter in August 2001).

j)	For Neithrop ward, two providers of childcare were included although, strictly speaking, they are located across the boundary with the neighbouring ward of Ruscote, but are substantially used by residents of Neithrop ward. 

k)	Littlemore ward shows relatively high “penetration rates” for childcare. However, most provision is at 3 large day nurseries that serve particular populations primarily outside the ward - (one is associated with a Further Education College, one is located handily for the Oxford Science Park and all are well-placed near to the Ring Road).

l)	The workforce survey did not include questions on the qualification levels of volunteers in the workforce (thought to be negligable).

m)	The workforce survey (except for childminders) did not include questions specifically for recent recruits to the workforce, so the figures in Audit Table 19 are derived from estimates of gender, ethnicity, etc in the workforce as a whole.

n)	The question on whether or not providers have a written equal opportunites policy was omitted from the provider surveys, so the figures in Audit Table 20 are derived from professional judgement.

How it is accessed

The Childcare Audit tables, reports, maps and datastore form a large collection of data and information that has been accumulated over the last four years and has become a substantial resource to aid further planning. The Audit aims to show:

•	where the childcare provision is located
•	where more needs to be provided
•	what extra choice and diversity parents would like
•	what children themselves want
•	what employers currently provide for their staff
•	how childcare provision links up with early education provision
•	how the workforce is changing to meet what is needed.

Some of the maps, charts and tables describing the current extent of childcare and early years provision in Oxfordshire will shortly be available on the Education Department's Intranet.

The Audit 2001 Tables and Appendices are available on request from Tracey Roberts, Information Analyst: 01865 816253, tracey.roberts@oxfordshire.gov.uk

Uses to which the Audit information has been put this year include:

•	deriving a set of indicators to support funding bids for extra facilities in disadvantaged areas
•	analysing the sufficiency of early years provision (by ward, school partnership area and county-wide)
•	area-based planning for changes and new nursery developments (e.g in Harwell, Botley, Faringdon and Rose Hill)
•	analysing the number of childcare places available per 100 children (by type of provision, ward and county-wide).

4.	Major initiatives this year

Resources 

The appointment of the new Information Analyst and Audit Project Consultant has enabled most of the design, data entry and analysis of the major surveys to be done in-house this year.

Staff at the new CIS have been able to adopt a wider role in the Audit ( assistance with provider surveys, analysis of employers’ survey) than in previous years.

The acquisition of new software (SPSS and Mapinfo) has enabled more flexible analysis and presentation of data.
Surveys

The surveys undertaken are described in detail in the appendices. In total they reflect the large amount of analysis and consultation which is carried out to help ensure that the childcare and early years provision in Oxfordshire matches what is needed.

For the first time we are able to show:

•	qualification levels of the childcare workforce
•	size of waiting lists
•	occupancy rates for different types of provision
•	amount of support (e.g. SENCOs) available to Foundation Stage settings.

5.	Future plans

Some budget has been reserved for carrying out further work with employers and consultation with children: 

•	How does the County Council itself promote Work-Life Balance for its employees?
•	What about older children? – researching the types of childcare needed for children aged 8-13.

These studies will be commissioned in early 2002 in order to inform future Implementation Plans.

Further enhancements planned include:

•	working with the CIS and Ofsted on gaining timely access to data on registered childcare provision
•	developing Mapinfo, a Geographical Information System, to map childcare provision and show visually where the current gaps in provision are.

6.	Index to the Tables

Table	Title	Description	Source	Date	Complete?	Issues	
1	Demographic information	No. of children in age groups	LEA Data Team	Projections for 2001	Yes	Data is based on 1998 projection	
2	Employment profile	a) No. of people employed by type of business	NOMIS		Yes		
		b) No. of people employed by area	NOMIS		Yes		
		c) Employment rate and take-up of CTC	NOMIS		No	Figures for take-up of CTC are not available	
3	Early education places	No. of places for 3 and 4 yos by age and sector	N.E.G. and LEA Counts 	Autumn 2001	Yes		
4	Wraparound places	No. of places for 3 and 4 yos by type of setting	R&I database
PLA	August 2001
May 2001	Yes		
5	Pre-school places	No. of places by type of setting	R&I database
PLA	August 2001
May 2001	Yes		
6	Out of school places	No. of places (on or off school premises) by type of setting	R&I database
Provider survey	August 2001
Autumn 2001	Yes		
7	Out of school places for children aged 8 and above	No. of settings and no. of places exclusively for children aged 8+	CIS
Provider survey	May 2001
Autumn 2001	No	Awaiting extra data from Extended Learning Coordinator	
8	Accessibility rates for childcare places	Rates for pre-school, wraparound and out of school places	Automatic calculation		Yes		
9	Childcare places and accessibility rates for in disadvantaged wards	All data from Tables 4 to 8 calculated for three most disadvantaged wards	As in Tables 4-8	As in Tables
 4-8	Yes		
10	Summary table of accessibility rates	Some of data from Tables 8 and 9 in summary form	Automatic calculation		Yes		

Table	Title	Description	Source	Date	Complete?	Issues	
11	“Childcare gap”	Difference between the accessibility rate in disadvantaged wards and the county rate	Automatic calculation		Yes		
12	Occupancy rates for childminder, other pre-school and other out of school provision	No. of FTE children on roll divided by no. of registered places	Provider survey 	Autumn 2001	Yes		
13	Waiting lists for childminder, other pre-school and other out of school provision	No. of children on waiting lists	Provider survey	Autumn 2001	Yes		
14	Price of childcare	Price per hour and price per week for provision county-wide and in most disadvantaged wards	Provider survey	Autumn 2001	Yes	Limited survey response in disadvantaged wards	
15	Children with additional needs	No. of childcare places occupied by children with additional needs	Provider survey	Autumn 2001	Yes		
16	Quality assured places	No. of settings and no. of places which are quality assured	OPA	Autumn 2001	Yes		
17	Workforce qualifications	No. of leaders (level 3+), staff (levels 2,3+), volunteers (levels 2,3+) by type of setting	Provider survey	Autumn 2001	Yes	Creches were not surveyed. Qualifs of volunteers not surveyed.	
18	Diversity of workforce	No. of staff by gender, ethnicity, disability, aged 40+	Provider survey	Autumn 2001	Yes		
19	Diversity of recent recruits to workforce	As above for staff recruited in the last year	Provider survey	Autumn 2001	Yes	Figures (except for childminders) are estimated	

Table	Title	Description	Source	Date	Complete?	Issues	
20	Equal opportunities	No. of settings with written equal opportunities policy	EY Adviser and OPA	Autumn 2001	No	Awaiting response re: OOS clubs	
21	Support to Foundation Stage	Rates of training days, SENCOs	EY Adviser, Sen. Ed. Psych.		No	Need to calculate total nos. of staff in all sectors	
22	Provider survey sample size	Rates of response to survey by type of setting	Provider surveys	Autumn 2001	Yes	Maintained nursery settings not surveyed	

7.	Audit Tables

Printed or electronic copies of the 22 Audit Tables and of the Appendices are available on demand (see contact details on Page 6).

Appendix 1:  Children with Additional Needs

Ethnic minorities
Traveller children
Homeless families
Refugees and asylum seekers
Lone parents
Children with disabilities
Children with SEN

Appendix 2:  Disadvantaged areas

Wards ranked according to Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000
Wards ranked by no. of teenage parents	

Appendix 3:  Employers’ Surveys

Oxford Swindon and Glos. Co-op. Society survey of employees’ childcare needs
Wallingford employers’ survey of employees’ childcare needs

Appendix 4:  Parents’ Surveys

Survey of parents’ views on Early Education provision in Oxfordshire
Community Childcare Audit of Sure Start area (Rose Hill/ Littlemore)

Appendix 5:  Consultation with Children and Young People

Report on dissemination of best practice in Oxfordshire
Children’s Rights Checklist