Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) – parents' views and use: research findings 2025

4 Use of funded ELC

This chapter further explores the choice and use of funded ELC for three- to five-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds. It covers hours of funded ELC used, reasons for using or not using funded ELC, and reasons why some parents do not use their full entitlement of funded ELC.

4.1 Choosing a funded ELC provider

In the survey, parents whose children^[13] were using funded ELC were asked how they decided upon their child’s ELC provider. Parents were presented with a list of 16 factors to choose from, as well as ‘other’, and could select as many as applied.

As Figure 4.1 shows, parents were most likely to consider the provider’s location (52%), whether they liked and trusted the staff (43%), continuity (being attached to their child’s future school) (43%), and the provider’s reputation (41%) when choosing an ELC provider. These were also the most cited factors in 2022.

Base: All eligible for funded ELC who answered this question, n=6,157. (Don’t knows and Prefer not to answers (PNTAs) excluded).

There were some notable differences by household characteristics in the reasons parents cited for choosing their child’s ELC provider (see Supplementary Tables C11a-c). Households in which two parents or one parent were in work were more likely to consider flexibility in hours offered when choosing an ELC provider (23% and 20% compared with 13% in which no parents were in work).

Reasons relating to accessibility were particularly considered by those living in remote areas (compared with accessible areas); the 20% most deprived areas (compared with the 80% least deprived areas), those who had a long-standing health condition (compared with those without a long-standing health condition), those with more than one child (compared with those with one child) and parents with a child (aged under six) with ASN (compared with those with no children aged under six with ASN). For example, those with a long-standing health condition that reduces their capacity a lot or a little were more likely to choose an ELC provider in a convenient location for home (60-63%, compared with 53% of those with no long-standing condition).

Those living in the most deprived areas and in remote areas appear to have had less choice of provider. For example, 19% of those living in remote areas said their ELC setting was the only one where they were offered a place (compared with 7% of those living in accessible areas).

Parents with a long-standing health condition or with a child with ASN were more likely to consider reasons relating to quality of the provider. For example, parents with a child with ASN were more likely to consider a setting with staff they liked/trusted (49% compared with 42% of parents without a child with ASN). Parents with a long-standing health condition which reduces their capacity a lot were more likely to consider settings which provide good outdoor experiences (41%, compared to 31% of those without a long-standing health condition).

Factors considered by parents in interviews and open text responses were similar to those reported in the survey. These included choosing providers based on their flexibility; accessibility (e.g. proximity to home, work or school); quality (e.g. of the staff and environment); and ability to meet children’s ASN.

Interview participants shared that they wanted a provider that fit with their work schedules as well as school timings for older children. When applying for an ELC placement, some were able to get their first choice of ELC setting, while others were offered a place that did not meet their family’s needs. Some participants stated that they had no choice in ELC providers or hours offered by settings. This was either due to a lack of ELC providers in the local area or lack of availability within ELC settings (see Chapters 8 and 10).

Along with challenges in getting a placement, participants said they had little choice in the types of ELC available. They highlighted that the most common ELC in their local area were private and LA nurseries. Similar to the survey’s findings, this was particularly highlighted by participants living in rural and remote areas, who reported having only one ELC provider in their local area.

Participants also highlighted the importance of the proximity of ELC providers to work, home or school to help with drop-off and pick-up times, transport and accommodating employment and school schedules for older children. There was also consideration of proximity to other types of childcare they used, such as choosing ELC settings in areas which were more accessible to family members and childminders.

Consistent with the survey’s findings and open text responses, interview participants discussed taking the following factors into consideration: Care Inspectorate reports; experiences and recommendations from friends, family, co-workers and health professionals; availability of outdoor spaces and opportunities for children to explore nature; ELC settings which align with their family’s religious beliefs; wanting their children to attend the same ELC setting; and schedules of settings that aligned with their family’s needs. In open text responses, parents reported that the quality of outdoor and meal provision were also key deciding factors. For example, some reported choosing completely outdoor settings or settings which offered healthy meals and accommodated dietary requirements.

In open text responses, some parents said they considered culture and language when choosing a provider. They chose settings that had ‘ethnic diversity’ or supported Gaelic medium education. Choosing to remain with the same provider their child had attended prior to becoming eligible for funded ELC was mentioned by others.

The suitability of providers to meet their children’s ASN was also an important factor raised in interviews. Some participants reported that they chose smaller settings with fewer children, as they thought this would allow staff to offer more individualised support for their children. Another deciding factor was that settings were perceived to have the funding and resources, were receptive to accommodating ASN, and staff had the appropriate training, skills and qualifications. This sometimes meant choosing providers in locations that were less convenient.

We are very lucky that there is quite a lot of nurseries to choose from around here. I chose one that is a wee bit further away from where I live but that is for personal reasons because like the consensus was they were very good with children who have Additional Support Needs and two of my children are on the [Autistic] spectrum. So that’s why I chose that nursery. (Parent of a two-year-old and a three- to five-year-old)

Additionally, there were participants who highlighted that there was insufficient information on whether settings were equipped or trained to support children with ASN when applying for funded ELC.

It was common for participants to raise the need for routine and stability for their children with ASN. They discussed choosing not to have split placements with different ELC providers and picked nurseries that were attached to the primary schools that they intended their children would attend in the future. There were also participants who felt their current ELC setting did not meet their needs and were looking for an ELC provider which specialised in supporting children with ASN.

In interviews, parents also discussed their reasons for choosing different types of ELC. There was a perception that nursery settings would most benefit their children’s social development. They wanted their children to interact with other children of a similar age and in an environment similar to school. This was why some participants said they sent their child to a larger ELC setting such as a nursery, rather than a smaller ELC setting such as a childminder. This was also linked to ASN, as participants with children who had speech delay thought it would be beneficial for them to socialise with more children than would be the case receiving ELC from a childminder. They also chose local nurseries to ensure their children could make friends who lived in the local area.

Everybody is on first name basis because it’s so small so that’s the advantage of a small [nursery] school and that’s exactly why we wanted it. […] Everybody knows who [name of child] is, everybody knows how to treat him and what’s going on with him. But again that’s the reason we moved out here or one of the reasons we moved out here. It was for his benefit as well as ours. (Parent of a three- to five-year-old)

However, smaller ELC providers were often chosen by participants because they wanted their children to interact and play with other children but in a quieter, less busy environment. This was particularly the case for those with children with ASN who felt larger settings could be too noisy for their child and a smaller setting could better meet their child’s needs with more one-to-one time with ELC staff. One participant moved from an urban to a rural location to ensure their child with ASN would get more individual support in a quieter setting.

Finally, there was a preference among some participants to split their funded hours across different settings, but this was limited by their child’s ASN and the availability and flexibility of ELC providers in their local area. Additionally, there were participants who were unaware that they could apply to other ELC providers, such as childminders or playgroups, or that they could split their funded hours across different types of ELC settings.

4.2 Use of funded ELC

As noted in Chapter 3, almost all (95%) survey respondents with a three- to five-year-old and most (83%) with eligible two-year-olds were using funded ELC for their child at the time of the survey. These figures are shown in Supplementary Tables C1a and C1b. This is similar to the findings in 2022 (97% and 86% respectively).

While there were no differences in the use of funded ELC by subgroups for three- to five-year-olds, there were differences for two-year-olds. Respondents more likely to use funded ELC for their two-year olds were one-parent households (91%, compared with 74% of two-parent households) and households with no or one parent in work (89% and 88%, compared with 67% of households with two parents in work). These differences were also highlighted in 2022, and are likely to be linked to the eligibility criteria for funded ELC for two-year-olds (see Section 3.1.2).

In interviews, there was confusion among some participants regarding the eligibility criteria. For example, some parents of two-year-olds said they only became aware of funded ELC for their child when speaking to professionals, such as their health visitors, who supported them to apply for a placement. Participants also observed that the availability of funded ELC for two-year-olds varied by local authority (LA).

It’s not accessible and it’s not signposted enough and it’s limited spaces apparently and limited funds again. So that’s another thing that kind of puts you off, because will your child get it? (Parent of a two-year-old)

4.3 Reasons for using funded ELC

In the survey, parents were asked what their main reasons were for using funded ELC for their child (Figure 4.2).

Base: Parent respondents who are using funded ELC (unweighted base for three- to five-year-olds, n=6,084; unweighted base for two-year-olds, n=197)

For both two-year-olds and three- to five-year-olds, parents most commonly stated they enrolled them because:

• It will be good for their child’s social, emotional or behavioural development including mixing with other children (87% and 72%)
• It will be good for their child’s learning (e.g. speech and language skills, counting, creativity etc.) (77% and 67%)
• It will help build their child’s independence/confidence (75% and 65%)
• They could work or look for work (39% and 57%).

These were also the most common reasons given by parents in 2022.

There were some notable subgroup differences concerning the reasons for using funded ELC for three- to five-year-olds. For example, those most likely to report that they used funded ELC to help their child’s confidence/independence, learning, or social, emotional or behavioural development were households: with at least one child under six years old with ASN; with no or one parent in work; or with two or more children (see Supplementary Tables C3a-c).

However, those most likely to report that they used funded ELC to work or look for work were households: with two parents in work; earning £60,000 and over per annum; in the 80% least deprived areas; with no children under six-years-old with ASN; and with parents without long-standing health conditions. Single parents were more likely than two-parent households to report that they used funded ELC to study or improve work related skills.

In interviews and open-text survey responses, parents further discussed their reasons for using funded ELC. Participants reiterated that improving their child’s learning and development were key reasons why they chose to use ELC.

Improving children’s development was also discussed within the context of ASN. Some participants had professionals, such as health visitors, recommend placing their children in ELC settings to benefit their child’s development. For example, some children who were non-verbal or had language and communication difficulties were able to receive specialised or one-to-one support within ELC settings. See Chapter 10 for more detail on the perceived impact of ELC on children’s wellbeing.

School readiness and opportunities for learning were other reasons that participants used funded ELC for their child(ren). There was a desire among some for their children to start their learning journey from a young age and to prepare older nursery-aged children for primary school. Placing children in LA nurseries attached to schools was viewed as a way of ensuring children would have continuity in their schooling when transitioning from nursery to Primary 1 alongside the same peers. Additionally, participants shared that there was an expectation for their children to attend ELC. Some said that they wanted their child to fit in with the culture and community, while others thought it was mandatory for children to attend.

Another reason participants used funded ELC was to support their own mental and physical health. For example, disabled participants said that they were able to attend appointments, or have recovery time, while their child attended ELC. There were participants who said it allowed time for their caring responsibilities (see Chapter 10).

I am a carer for my disabled mum so the hours also help for me to provide this care. (Open text response)

Other reasons for using funded ELC that were shared in interviews and open text responses were the need for childcare whilst working and the lack of affordability of paid childcare. Both single-parents and households where both parents were in work, described challenges with navigating work schedules and managing childcare. This was particularly difficult for those who had no other support for childcare, such as family support. Therefore, funded ELC was valued because parents would have otherwise been unable to afford childcare for their children (more detail on impact on work/education in Chapter 10).

4.4 Reasons for not using funded ELC

Parents of three- to five-year-olds who were not using any funded ELC (n=203) were asked why they were not using funded ELC. They were given a list of 13 options (including other) to select all that applied to them^[16]. Among those who were eligible for funded ELC at the time of the research, the most common reasons for not using funded ELC (excluding ‘other’ reasons) were that they thought that their child was too young (43%), they wanted and were able to look after their child themselves most of the time (16%), and they were not aware of the availability of funded ELC (15%)^[17]. See Supplementary Tables C9a-C9c for the full findings.

In interviews and open text responses, it was common for parents whose three-year-old only had a place in an ELC setting from August to express frustration that their child could not receive funded ELC as soon as they turned three. They observed that start dates for ELC settings varied by LA with some children being able to start as soon as they turned three years old^[18].

Some participants with eligible two-year-olds were not using funded ELC because a place was not available and they were on a waiting list. For some, they reported this was because the deadlines for requesting a space were not clear. As stated in section 4.1, there was also a perceived lack of clarity on the eligibility criteria. While some parents did not know if their two-year-old was eligible, others understood the criteria but they felt it was unfair. They thought the eligibility criteria should not be based on low income given the high costs of childcare and the benefits ELC can have for younger children. Participants with eligible two-year-olds would like other parents to receive the benefits they have from funded ELC. Parents of two-year-olds with ASN who were not eligible for funded ELC felt their child would benefit from starting ELC sooner.

Finally, some parents of two-year-olds relied on family members, co-workers, health professionals and friends to inform them of their entitlement to funded ELC. Participants also discussed not being aware if they were eligible for funded ELC due to not having access to public funds. In these cases, there was a sense of confusion among parents about whether using funded ELC could impact their right to stay in the UK.

My husband and I weren’t so keen in accessing local spends because any time you go forward, go through all the processes in the end they will tell you ‘well you’re not eligible for public funds,’ so we just leave it. (Parent of a three- to five-year-old)

4.5 Use of full entitlement of funded ELC

Since August 2021, all eligible children have been entitled to 1140 hours of funded ELC. This equates to 30 hours per week during term time or 22 hours per week over the full year. In the survey, parents who used funded ELC for their children were asked if they use the full entitlement. The majority of parents of three- to five-year-olds (87%) and around three-quarters (73%) of parents of two-year-olds said that they use their full entitlement (Table 4.1). In 2022 these figures were 73% and 52%, suggesting an increase in parents using all their funded hours. In 2025, 11% of parents of three- to five-year-olds did not use their full entitlement, while in 2022 the figure was 19% and 8% said they don’t know.

Base: Parents who used funded ELC

Parents of three- to five-year-olds most likely to use their full entitlement of funded hours were in households:

• With one child (91%, compared with 86% of households with two children and 82% with three or more children).
• With at least one child with ASN (88%, compared with 82% without a child with ASN).
• In accessible areas (88%, compared with 76% in remote areas).

In the interviews, participants described their experiences and views of using the full entitlement of funded ELC. This included those who used all of the funded hours for some of their children but not others.

The main reason participants used their full entitlement of funded hours was because they needed them to meet their and their family’s needs. However, the extent to which the full entitlement of funded hours met these needs varied. While there were participants who viewed the full entitlement of funded hours as sufficient in meeting their needs in terms of work, caring responsibilities and child development, others said they needed more funded hours, or greater flexibility for using the hours, to better meet their needs. Some parents with children with ASN described the value of ELC for their children and would like more hours to further benefit their child.

Like the autism and things like that, nursery has actually made a massive impact on our family life. Like my little girl I’ve noticed so much improvement with her behaviour and things like that. I think the social aspect and the routine aspect and everything has completely been beneficial to her. (Parent of a two-year-old)

Whether participants were able to use their full entitlement of funded hours was often dependent on whether the hours offered by ELC settings accommodated school schedules of older children, work commitments and children’s ASN. To best meet their work commitments, some participants had to split their funded hours across two settings, such as a school nursery offering childcare 9am-3pm, and a childminder at the start and end of the day to provide wraparound care. One parent stated that the full entitlement only suited them because they were not currently in employment. See Chapter 8 for more detail on how flexibility affects parents’ use of their full entitlement of funded ELC.

Their [nursery’s] offer was that we could have two full days half past eight till half past four which was fine because […] we were quite happy to use the other days at the playgroup. (Parent of a three- to five-year-old)

4.6 Reasons for not using full entitlement

Parents who did not use the full entitlement of funded ELC (11%) were asked what their reasons were for this. Parents were provided with a list of 13 potential reasons to select from (and ‘other’) and asked to select all that applied to them.

Similarly to 2022, parents of three- to five-year-olds who did not use their full entitlement primarily did so out of choice. The most common reasons were: that they did not need to use childcare for so many hours (35%), that they did not want childcare for so many hours (22%), and that they felt children should not be in nursery for that long (27%). However, 15% said they could not get the days or hours they wanted at the setting of their choice. Three in ten (30%) chose ‘other’, and the most common reasons provided were:

• They were building up their child’s hours gradually – because their child was too tired from full days or they felt their child was too young for all the hours
• Their child attended extracurricular activities during nursery hours
• They did not work, worked part-time, or were on maternity leave so they could look after their child the rest of the time
• They wanted to spend time with their child before they start primary school
• The hours that they used worked around parents’ working hours

Parents gave similar reasons for not using their full entitlement for eligible 2-year-olds. The most common reasons related to not needing childcare for so many hours (23%) and that their child wouldn’t like to be separated from them for so many hours (21%). Among those who selected ‘Other’ (45%) most of the responses were also related to either of these same reasons. The full breakdown of reasons cited can be seen in Supplementary Tables C7a-C7c for 3-5 year olds and C8a-C8c for eligible 2-year-olds.

In interviews and open text responses parents also shared their reasons for not using their full entitlement of funded ELC. Similarly to the survey, there were participants who stated that they did not use the full entitlement because they did not need them. There were, however, participants who expressed a desire to use more of their funded hours in the future as their child adapts to being in ELC.

It was common for participants with eligible two-year-olds to report they did not use their full entitlement because their ELC provider did not offer enough hours or days to enable them to do so. Those parents were not able to split their funded hours across ELC providers, either because there were no other providers available locally, or other providers did not meet their or their child’s needs. Parents in both interviews and open text responses shared that they had no other choice but to accept the hours offered to them with limited availability. Participants attributed being offered fewer hours either to limited funding for ELC settings or they believed that the entitlement for two-year-olds was less than for three- to five-year-olds. In these cases, participants expressed a desire to use the full entitlement of funded ELC once their child turns three years old.

Having children with ASN also affected whether some participants used the full entitlement of funded ELC for their children. They were concerned about how their children would cope if they used their full entitlement, highlighting the time taken to settle their child and have them adjust to a new environment. As a result, some participants opted to gradually increase their children’s attendance with the support of the ELC setting (see Chapter 8 on flexibility).

One of the things about him with being on the [autism] spectrum is that he thrives on routine [...] he was just obviously a bit overwhelmed with it and so what we’ve had to do is, we’ve had to kind of build up the amount of time that he spends at nursery in a day and we’re still working on that. He’s only there at the moment for 2 hours a day, but that started off being 15 minutes that he was able to do. (Parent of a three- to five-year-old)

Other reasons participants were not using their full entitlement included a lack of flexibility and awareness of childcare options and hours available, a lack of childcare options, particularly in more rural areas, and a preference to have children at home or looked after by family members. Furthermore, some participants had negative experiences with their ELC setting which resulted in them not using all of their funded hours.

4.7 Profile of funded ELC use

4.7.1 Types of funded ELC

All survey respondents who had eligible two- and three- to five-year-olds were asked what types of funded ELC their children had attended since August 2024 (Figure 4.3).

For those who used funded ELC, a local authority nursery was the most common setting used for both two-year-olds (71%) and three- to five-year-olds (66%). Private nursery was the next most common type of funded ELC for both three- to five-year-olds (26%) and two-year-olds (16%). This is similar to the 2022 findings. In 2025 the proportion of parents of three- to five-year-olds using childminders and community nurseries was 8% for each and in 2022 was 3% and 2%.

Base: parents who use funded ELC for their child (unweighted base, n=6,804 three- to five-year-olds, n=197 two-year-olds)

Consistent with 2022 findings, households with three- to five-year-olds more likely to use funded hours at a local authority nursery were:

• Single-parents (73%, compared with 67% of two-parent households).
• Those with no parents in work (80%, compared with 71% of households with one parent in work and 65% of households with two parents in work).
• Those with child(ren) aged under 6 with ASN (75%, compared with 64% of those without children aged under 6 with ASN).
• Living in remote areas (84%, compared with 65% living in accessible areas).

4.7.2 Year-round and term-time use of funded ELC

Survey respondents were also asked how the funded ELC hours that they used were spread over the year. They could select during term-time only, year-round, other or don’t know. For three- to five-year-olds, an equal proportion of respondents used funded ELC year-round, including school holidays (49%) or school term time only (49%). This differs from 2022 results in which a higher proportion used funded ELC term time only (57%, compared with 41%).

Respondents with three- to five-year-olds more likely to have used funded ELC year-round in 2025 lived in two-parent households (48%, compared with 38% of single-parent households) and households with two parents in work (51%, compared with 39% with one and 31% with no parent in work).

Parents of two-year olds were more likely to use funded ELC during term-time only (52%, compared with 40% who used funded ELC year-round). In 2022 49% made use of funded ELC during term-time only and 47% did so year-round. Those more likely to have used funded ELC term-time only in 2025 were households with no children with ASN (59%, compared with 43% of respondents with at least one child with ASN)^[19] and those with two or more children (55-58% compared with 44% with one child)^[20].

In interviews, parents explained their reasons for using year-round or term-time only ELC. It was common for participants to report that they did not actively choose the ELC hours they used for their child, and that instead it was what was available at their preferred setting or the setting which had space for their child.

For those who opted for year-round ELC hours, this helped them to work or increase their hours at work; helped children, particularly those with ASN, to keep a routine; it helped prepare children for the routine of school hours in the summer before starting school; and it provided parents with time for themselves or to spend more time with other children in their household on a one-to-one basis year-round (see Chapter 10 for more details on the impact of funded ELC).

[Year-round ELC]: I think it’s a lot more beneficial […] when she is off nursery it can be quite challenging because she does like that set routine and her set days and she loves nursery. (Parent of a two-year-old)

Interview participants who opted for term-time only ELC did so primarily because they did not need ELC year-round. Often these were parents who had older children at school who were able to use school holidays for family holidays and/or it was more affordable to have younger children at home during these periods too.

Other participants used term-time only childcare because they did not have any other choice. For some, this was because the ELC offered to them was term-time only or they did not have enough funded hours to cover year-round provision and could not afford to pay for additional hours. There were participants who worked part-time to enable them to fit this around ELC. Additionally, there were participants with a child with ASN who reported only using term-time ELC because their provider did not offer holiday hours and they could not find alternative ELC which met their child’s needs.

Over the six weeks summer holidays we don’t have any kind of nursery provider or anything like that and it would be completely inappropriate to place him with a short-term childminder due to his needs. He needs to be somewhere where they know him, if there was going to be any kind of assistance it would have to be in his regular placement. (Parent of a three- to five-year-old)

4.7.3 Hours spent at funded ELC during term time and school holidays

Respondents were also asked, in a typical week, roughly how many hours their child spent at funded ELC. Overall, three- to five-year-olds spent longer in funded ELC during term-time compared with two-year-olds (26.2 and 22.2 hours per week respectively). Three- to five-year-olds also spent longer than two-year-olds in funded ELC during the school holidays (13.0 and 7.4 hours per week respectively).

Households with two parents in work used more hours of funded ELC per week compared with households with either one or no parent in work both during term time (26.5 hours compared with 24.5 and 24.8 hours) and during school holidays (13.6 hours compared with 8.3 and 5.6 hours).

Figure 4.4 illustrates the hours spent in funded ELC across the year. In 2025, three- to five-year-olds spent longer in funded ELC than two-year-olds. For example, 80% of three- to five-year-olds attended funded ELC for more than 20 hours per week during term time, compared with 56% of two-year-olds. Differences by subgroup can be found in Supplementary Tables C24a-C29c and C36a-C41b.

Base: parents who used funded ELC (unweighted base, n=6,084 three- to five-year-olds, n=197 two-year-olds)