Gone by Christmas? One in six nurseries and childminders may not survive the winter due to continued impact of Covid, shocking new Alliance survey reveals
|
The combined effect of continued low demand for places and patchy
government support could lead to mass childcare closures with the
most deprived areas in England set to be the worst hit, a new
survey by leading early years membership organisation the Early
Years Alliance has found. The survey of more than 2,000 nurseries,
pre-schools and childminders, carried out in October, found that:
One in six (17%) early years settings could close by Christmas if
their income...Request free trial
The combined effect of continued low demand for places and patchy government support could lead to mass childcare closures with the most deprived areas in England set to be the worst hit, a new survey by leading early years membership organisation the Early Years Alliance has found. The survey of more than 2,000 nurseries, pre-schools and childminders, carried out in October, found that:
The Alliance is calling for an emergency Early Years Sufficiency Fund targeted at those childcare providers at risk of closure to ensure that there are enough childcare and early education places to meet the needs of children and families across the country going forward. Based on analysis of responses to the survey, independent early years research analysts Ceeda estimate that around £240 million in total would be needed for the fund over the next six months. This recommendation is in addition to the Alliance's ongoing call on government to commit to reviewing and revising early years funding levels annually to ensure that funding rates reflect rising provider costs, particularly increases in the national living and minimum wages, in the long term. Impact of falling parental demand Early years providers across the country have been hit hard by a sustained fall in parental demand for childcare, with survey respondents reporting, on average, a 21% fall in occupancy levels compared to this time last year, despite being allowed to open to non-key worker / vulnerable children since June. The government has claimed that it is supporting the sector by ‘bulk buying’ early years places until the end of the year by funding councils based on last year’s childcare attendance figures. However, an Alliance Freedom of Information request investigation carried out in September found that in many cases, this money was not reaching the frontline, with one in six local authorities in England admitting that they were not adhering to government guidance on funding childcare providers based on last year’s numbers. In addition, the survey found that government funding rates for the early entitlement offers are currently less than the cost of delivering places for 60% of providers offering two-year-old places, and 80% of those providing three- and four-year-old places, meaning that even those early years providers being correctly funded based on latest year’s attendance figures are still likely to be facing a funding shortfall. The continuation of early entitlement funding also provides little support for providers who deliver a low number of funded places. For around four in 10 (38%) survey respondents, funded places account for less than half of overall childcare places offered, with 7% offering none at all (meaning they are solely reliant on private parental fees). Commenting, Neil Leitch, chief executive of the Early Years Alliance, said: “We are now a critical moment for the early years sector. With demand for places still significantly below what would typically be expected, and no sign of things returning to normal any time soon, many nurseries, pre-schools and childminders are reaching the point of no return. “Worse still, our survey shows that it is those early years settings providing vital care and education to families in the most deprived areas - who are already bearing the brunt of the impact of the pandemic – that are most at risk. “There is absolutely no excuse for the government’s continued indifference towards the early years sector. It claims that children’s access to education during the pandemic is a top priority, and yet it is apparently perfectly happy to see thousands of early education providers fall by the wayside. It argues that safeguarding the economy is critical to the country’s recovery, but chooses to ignore the fact that there can be no recovery without a functioning early years sector providing the quality care that parents and families need. “Quality early years provision is a central part of our social infrastructure, and should be treated as such. It’s not too late for the government to show that it recognises the value of the sector – both to the young children who benefit from quality early education, and the parents, and particularly mothers, who benefit from accessible care – and make the investment needed to safeguard the many thousands of providers in desperate need of support.” PROVIDER CASE STUDIES Ann Ross, a former childminder based in Dartford, said: “I have worked in childcare for 27 years and have been a childminder for 18 years. I've built my business up, have always put the children and families first and have been rated outstanding by Ofsted. I was devastated when the Covid pandemic, something I could never have planned for, totally decimated and wiped out my business. I went from being full with no expected vacancies available till September 2021, to having no children on roll. “I have not earned any income since February 2020 and had to cash in my small pension to pay my bills. Sadly, with no income and very little help and no business forthcoming, I have had to look elsewhere for work.” Sharon Brayer, manager of Busy Bees, based in New Milton, Hampshire, said: “As a setting, we are very fearful for our future. Busy Bees has been running for 28 years and we do not know how much longer we will be open. “Poor funding is the main reason, and adding Covid into the mix has left us with serious financial difficulties. That in itself is soul-destroying, then you add in the worries everyday about the virus – it has left us worried, scared, stressed and not knowing how we can financially recover. “New children have not taken up their places - we lost money during lockdown and still are. Staff are suffering with mental health issues. If we had more financial support to sustain us, it would be one less thing to worry about. We are expected to remain open, which we have done through lockdown itself, but feel like we have been shafted by the powers that be. We are all very despondent." Michelle Angus of CheekieChops Childminding based in Sunderland, said: “I childmind children from six months old to 12 years old. “In March, I had 45 children on my books, but today I have 18. I have just done my accounts, and have lost three-quarters of income compared this time last year. I have had to end the employment of one assistant and reduce the hours of other assistants already. Samantha Ashton, director and manager of The Wittering's Village Pre-School in East Wittering, said: “I feel the early years has received no support through this pandemic. The only support we have seen is a grant from our county council which hardly covered the major losses we are experiencing as a business. “We have the welfare of all our staff and families to consider daily, and there is no financial support for the ongoing costs of PPE, uniforms and the extras we have to provide to keep our business safe and secure through this pandemic.” Yvonne Jacobs, an Ofsted-registered childminder based in St Albans, said: “The Covid pandemic has a direct impact on the number of children I look after, both early years and school age. My income has reduced to about a third of what it was in January. The reasons I have lost children vary: in some cases, parents have lost their jobs or are working from home and worrying about the stability of their income. In others, they’re now using wraparound care offered by their child’s school because they either feel that their children are better off staying in their school ‘bubble’ or that staying at school is simply more convenient. This has meant me losing children who have been with me for years.” June Deebank, owner and manager of St Oswald's Pre-school in Rickmansworth said: “We have been significantly impacted by the lack of extra financial help for all the cleaning resources we have had to buy, and the cost of paying staff for extra time needed to clean. “In addition, we are lower on numbers than previous years and so, are finding it hard to retain staff. At the moment, I am managing to do having to do so by not paying myself, but this is a situation that cannot continue. “ Editors’ notes
FULL SURVEY RESULTS How would you describe your provision? Please choose the closest option. Nursery: 24% Pre-school: 53% Childminder: 18% Maintained nursery school: 0% Primary school nursery class: 1% Out-of-hour club: 1% Specialist provision: 0% Other: 3% How many settings do you (or your organisation) operate? 1: 88% 2-5: 9% 6-10: 2% 11-15: 0% 16-20: 0% 21-50: 1% More than 50: 1% What is your setting's current Ofsted rating? Outstanding: 22% Good: 70% Requires improvement: 2% Inadequate: 0% N/A – I am not Ofsted-registered or have not been inspected yet: 6% How many places is your provision normally able to offer? Less than 10: 15% 11-20: 12% 21-40: 42% 41-60: 18% 61-80: 7% 81-100: 3% More than 100: 3% Do you currently offer any early entitlement funded places (i.e. 15 or 30 hour offers for two, three- and four-year-olds)? Yes: 93% No: 7% Roughly what proportion of your normal (pre-coronavirus) income came from early entitlement funding? Up to 10%: 4% 11-20%: 4% 21-30%: 8% 31-40%: 10% 41-50%: 10% 51-60%: 9% 61-70%: 11% 71-80%: 16% 81-90%: 18% 91-99%: 8% 100%: 2% N/A – didn’t offer funded places pre-coronavirus: 1% Do you currently offer any of the early entitlement offers for three- and four-year-olds? 30 hour offer for three- and four-year-olds from working families: 11% 15 hour offer for all three- and four-year-olds: 12% Yes, both: 76% No: 1% Is your current funding rate for three- and four-year-olds: Less than the cost of delivering a place: 79% The same as the cost of delivering a place: 16% More than the cost of delivering a place: 5% Do you currently offer any two-year-old funded places? Yes: 84% No: 16% Is your current funding rate for two-year-olds: Less than the cost of delivering a place: 61% The same as the cost of delivering a place: 27% More than the cost of delivering a place: 12% Are you or your setting currently open? Yes, I am / we are currently open: 98% Yes, but only to key worker children and/or vulnerable children: 0% No, I / we had reopened but are now temporarily closed again: 1% No, I / we have been temporarily closed since lockdown: 1% No, I / we have closed our doors permanently: 0% [If temporarily closed] Why did your setting take the decision to close temporarily? Please select all that apply. Not financially viable to operate: 9% Not enough demand for places from parents: 0% Not enough staff due to sickness or self-isolation (for group settings) / unable to operate due to own sickness or self-isolation (for childminders): 73% Didn’t feel able to keep staff safe (for group settings) / myself safe (for childminders): 0% Didn’t feel able to keep children safe: 0% Other: 27% When do you expect your setting to reopen (even if this is not fully confirmed)? During the month of October: 82% During the month of November: 0% During the month of December: 0% During the month of January 2021: 9% During the month of February 2021: 0% During the month of March 2021: 0% April 2021 or later: 0% I/We will be closing permanently: 9% I/We have no idea yet: 0% There have been many reports about people finding it difficult to access Covid-19 tests. Have you / any staff at your setting (if applicable) had to self-isolate for longer than would otherwise have been necessary due to difficulties accessing Covid-19 tests or test results (including for any household members)? Yes, due to difficulties accessing Covid-19 tests: 15% Yes, due to delays in receiving Covid-19 test results: 5% Yes, both: 10% No, neither: 70% [If any yes option] What impact, if any, has this had? Please select any that apply. Existing staff had to work overtime to cover staff shortages: 73% Had to ask another childminder to provide cover: 1% Bank/agency/temporary staff had to be recruited to cover staff shortages: 17% Had to close part of the setting / provision temporarily (e.g. one of the rooms):n 7% Had to close the whole setting/provision temporarily: 6% None of the above: 10% Other: 7% Have any children attending your provision had to self-isolate for longer than would otherwise have been necessary due to difficulties accessing Covid-19 tests or test results (including for any members of their household)? Yes, due to difficulties accessing Covid-19 tests: 19% Yes, due to delays in receiving Covid-19 test results: 8% Yes, both: 11% No, neither: 62% [If any yes options] What impact, if any, has this had on your provision? Please select any that apply. Had to close part of the setting / provision temporarily (e.g. one of the rooms): 4% Had to close the whole setting/provision temporarily: 4% Neither of the above: 84% Other: 10% The government has instructed local authorities to fund early years providers ‘as if autumn 2020 were happening normally’, for example, by funding using autumn 2019 child numbers. Is your local authority funding you on this basis during the autumn term? Yes: 51% No: 16% Don’t know / not yet confirmed: 34% If you were required to close to all but key worker and vulnerable children again due to a local or national lockdown for a period of three months (from October 2020 to the end of the year), how likely is it that you could remain financially viable and reopen afterwards? Very likely: 8% Somewhat likely: 32% Somewhat unlikely: 30% Very unlikely: 31% Taking into account the winding down of the Job Retention Scheme at the end of October, if your current level of income and outgoings remain as they are now going forward, how many months do you anticipate being able to remain viable: Less than one month: 3% 1-3 months: 14% 4-6 months: 16% 7-9 months: 8% 10-12 months: 16% More than a year: 42% Which best describes the financial position of your provision during the following months in 2020?
To the best of your knowledge, what do you expect to happen in the coming months?
If the government introduced a grant (i.e. financial support that wouldn't need to be repaid) aimed specifically at helping struggling early years providers who would otherwise close to stay open over the next six months, would this be applicable to you / your setting? Yes: 51% No, I / we could remain open for the next six months without a grant: 48% No, I / we have already made the decision to close and wouldn't reconsider it: 1% Which of the following statements most matches your view on the level of support that government has provided to early year providers during the coronavirus pandemic so far? The government has provided more than enough financial support for early years providers: 3% The government has provided enough financial support for early years providers: 33% The government hasn’t provided enough financial support for early years providers: 65% |