Expansion of funded early learning and childcare to 1140 hours: 2018-2025 national outcomes evaluation

3. Evaluation approach and methodology

The primary focus of the evaluation of the ELC expansion was on measuring the high-level outcomes for children, parents, and families. It was based on the programme logic model set out in the Evaluation Strategy (Scottish Government, 2022c) (see Section 1.2), which makes links between the expansion and expected intermediate and high-level outcomes. The outcomes evaluation used a before-and-after study design drawing on data gathered from different cohorts of families. The main methods and data sources the evaluation used are summarised below and set out in more detail in the Evaluation Strategy and relevant reports.

3.1 Methods and data sources

Development of the evaluation approach was based on some key principles, including that the evaluation strategy should be proportionate – minimising duplication and costs, and utilising existing data as far as possible – and feasible to implement within reasonable timescales. Minimising the burden of information requests made of providers and local authorities was a key consideration in the evaluation design. The evaluation, therefore, drew on existing data where this was considered sufficient to measure identified indicators. Existing data were supplemented by specifically-commissioned research where data gaps were identified. After substantial scoping work, the SSELC was commissioned to collect essential data on child and parental outcomes.

As set out in Chapter 2, the ELC expansion to 1140 hours was phased in over the four years leading up to the statutory entitlement coming into force in August 2021. It was also expected that it may take some time for the policy to become well established and for impacts to be seen. The analysis for the evaluation covers three main time periods:

• 2016-17 to 2019-20: the ‘baseline’ or ‘pre-expansion’ period
• 2020-21 to 2021-22: the period of delivery of the expansion, recognising that a majority of local authorities were able to implement expanded hours as intended during 2020-21 despite the COVID-19 pandemic
• 2022-23 to 2024-25: the early ‘post-expansion’ period.

Where ‘baseline’ or ‘pre-expansion’ data are presented from after 2017, it is useful to bear in mind that some families were already receiving increased hours of funded ELC at this time.^[3] This is not the case for the SSELC whose design took account of this and only sampled settings that were not yet offering the expanded entitlement to relevant cohorts of children (see below).

3.1.1 Measuring the high-level outcomes

The SSELC collected the main evaluation data on the high-level outcomes for children and parents. The SSELC took a before-and-after approach, collecting data from children and parents across several phases from 2018 to 2024. This meant that it could compare outcomes for those who were entitled to 600 hours with those who were entitled to 1140 hours.

During 2018-19, Phases 1 to 3 of the SSELC collected ‘baseline’ or pre-expansion data on samples of children and their parents accessing up to 600 hours of funded ELC. During 2023-24, Phases 4 to 6 collected ‘post-expansion’ data on samples of children and their parents accessing up to 1140 hours of funded ELC. Participants were recruited via local authority, private and third sector group ELC settings across most local authorities.

The follow-up phases of the SSELC were originally planned for 2022-23 – beginning toward the end of the autumn term two years after the original statutory implementation date – to allow the expansion and related changes to the sector to bed in. Due to the delay to full statutory implementation of 1140 hours, Phases 4-6 were moved back one year in line with the change to the statutory implementation date. While the impacts of the pandemic were likely to still be being felt, this was considered to balance allowing some time for recovery and changes to bed in, with providing data on the expansion within reasonable timescales.

The SSELC collected data about three groups of children and their parents pre- and post-expansion.

1. Children who were eligible for funded ELC at age two (‘Eligible 2s’) were surveyed at both age two and age three (Phases 1, 3, 4 and 6). This allowed comparison of the change in outcomes after a year of funded ELC for those receiving 600 hours with those receiving 1140 hours. This longitudinal element aimed to provide evidence on the impact of one year of funded ELC on those children who need it most.

2. Data were also collected on a nationally representative sample of all three-year-olds (Phases 3 and 6), to enable comparison of Eligible 2s at age three with the general population of three-year-olds in funded ELC

3. Finally, data were collected on a nationally representative sample of four- and five-year-old children about to leave ELC (the ‘ELC Leavers’) (Phases 2 and 5). This was to measure outcomes near the end of receiving funded ELC.

The SSELC method involved three main linked components at each phase:

• an assessment of children’s development outcomes by ELC keyworkers
• a survey of parents and carers of the sampled children
• structured observations of the quality of experience within the ELC settings attended by sampled children, carried out by Care Inspectorate staff

A fourth component – a survey of heads or managers of settings attended by sampled children – was included in the SSELC post-expansion. This survey was to gather information about their experiences of the impact of the ELC expansion and was therefore not relevant pre-expansion.

The main outcomes of interest measured by the SSELC were:

• for the child: cognitive and language development; social, emotional, and behavioural development; physical health and development
• for the parent and family: participation in employment, training, or study; mental health and wellbeing; parental confidence and home environment; parental engagement in their child's learning and development

Data on children’s development outcomes were gathered using a combination of the Ages and Stages (ASQ) and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaires (SDQ), completed by ELC keyworkers. Data on parent and family outcomes were collected through the paper self-completion questionnaire.

Family wellbeing was added as an aim for the expansion programme, and therefore the evaluation strategy, at a later stage to the other two high-level outcomes. This third aim was based on the premise that ELC can play a role in the overall wellbeing of families who use it and that the expansion to 1140 hours may provide greater opportunities for ELC settings to support parents and families, as well as more time for parents to care for and spend time with other children and pursue other activities. Data for the intermediate outcome ‘parental confidence and capacity’ were collected by the SSELC and overlap with those used to measure family wellbeing (see Section 6.4). A pragmatic approach to measuring these two outcomes was taken, focussing on data it was possible to gather in the SSELC parent surveys, and dimensions most relevant to ELC. It is therefore recognised that the evaluation does not include a comprehensive measure of family wellbeing.

Further detail on the methods and measures used in the SSELC can be found in the SSELC reports and the Evaluation Strategy. Descriptive analysis from each individual phase of the SSELC data collection was published as the study proceeded. The SSELC Final Report (Hinchliffe et al., 2026) presents findings from analysis of data from all six phases of the SSELC. The analysis makes comparisons between pre-expansion (2018-19) and post-expansion (2023-24) data to evaluate the impact of the expansion programme on outcomes for children, parents, and families. The SSELC Final Report was published alongside this overarching evaluation report, and forms the basis of Chapter 6 on outcomes for children, parents, and families.

3.1.2 Assessing changes in the childcare sector and intermediate outcomes

Alongside the data on outcomes for children, parents, and families gathered by the SSELC, a range of data sources were used to explore changes in the composition and capacity of the childcare sector and workforce, and in the intermediate outcomes.

Data from regular reporting processes

As set out above, the analysis of the childcare sector and intermediate outcomes used existing, regularly-collected data as far as possible. For this data, as far as data sources allow, the analysis considered patterns over the period from around 2016-17 – before phasing began – until the most recent year for which data are available (2024 or 2025). The main regular reporting processes and statistics drawn on in this report are:

• Care Inspectorate early learning and childcare statistics, including data on numbers of childcare services (including childminders), numbers of children registered with services, and inspection data on service quality.
• Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) workforce and registration data on the daycare of children and ELC workforce (excluding General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) registered teachers), including size of the workforce and qualifications against registration requirements.
• The Scottish Government’s ELC Census, which provides data on children registered for funded ELC. The census is completed by ELC settings that provide funded ELC, supplemented with data from, and quality assured by, local authorities. It provides aggregate rather than individual-level data, with only limited information on child characteristics. It does not collect information on how many hours for which children are registered. The ELC Census also collects key workforce data, including on graduates and GTCS registered teachers, at individual level.
• Improvement Service and Scottish Futures Trust (SFT) data on delivery progress across local authorities (available from 2018). This includes data on the number of eligible children of different age groups reported to be accessing funded ELC (e.g. places provided to children); and (from 2020) the range of hours being accessed (e.g. more than 600 or 1140 hours).^[4] SFT also collected data on the number of refurbishment, extension, and new build projects ‘complete’, ‘in construction’, or ‘in development’.

More detail on each data source, the data collected, as well as their limitations, can be found in the main output(s) from each of these sources.

Bespoke research with households/parents on use and views of ELC

To supplement the existing data sources above, new questions on childcare and funded ELC use and affordability were included in the annual Scottish Household Survey (SHS) from 2018 onwards. These provide annual, population-level data on the types of childcare used; hours used during term time and school holidays; satisfaction with funded ELC; and affordability of ELC. Breakdowns by certain characteristics are also possible where the sample size is large enough. While the SHS is a large scale population survey, the sub-sample of households with a child aged two to five and not in school who answer the questions on childcare is relatively small (approximately 500 to 700 respondents). More detail on the SHS methodology, childcare questions and limitations can be found in the full SHS Childcare reports.

As with other household surveys, the SHS data collection was disrupted by the pandemic and there is a break in the time series. Given this, analysis of SHS data for this report focused on comparing pre-expansion (2018 and 2019) with post-expansion (2022 to 2024).

A survey of parents with children aged under six (and not yet at school) was conducted pre-expansion in August to September 2017. The Parents’ views and use of ELC: report 2017 (Scottish Government, 2018b) provided baseline data on use of 600 hours of funded ELC and wider childcare. It also explored parents’ views on provision at the time and on the future 1140 hour entitlement. Two further parent surveys were undertaken in April to May 2022 and 2025 to provide data post-expansion (Scottish Government, 2022d; Biggs et al., 2025). This was intended both for comparison with the pre-expansion survey results and to provide more detailed information on parents’ use, views, and experiences of 1140 hours of funded ELC (and wider childcare).

Each of the three parent surveys achieved a large sample size (10,526 valid responses in 2017; 8,181 in 2022; 7,589 in 2025), which enabled analysis by a variety of participant characteristics. The survey samples broadly reflected the relevant age and geography profile of the population, and survey weighting was used to adjust for any bias identified. However, the ELC parent surveys took a non-probability sampling approach. This limits understanding of sample bias and representativeness. More detail on the methods and sample for each project can be found in the full parent research reports.

In addition, the 2017 and 2025 research also included qualitative data collection with specific groups of interest (Scottish Government, 2018b; Biggs et al., 2025). Separate qualitative research with parents was also undertaken during 2021-22 to explore parents’ decisions about and experiences of using expanded ELC in the first full year of the expansion, with a focus on family types at higher risk of experiencing child poverty (Wilson-Smith et al., 2022).

Analysis in this report of the parent research findings compares results from 2017 with 2022, where possible, to explore any changes in parents’ use and perceptions of funded ELC pre- and post-expansion. It also makes comparisons between 2022 and 2025 to consider any changes in parents’ experiences and perceptions of the quality, flexibility, accessibility, and affordability of funded ELC to help assess the extent to which the pre-requisite conditions for the expansion to be successful are in place.

3.2 Reporting

This report draws together and summarises data from all these strands of the evaluation. All figures from the analysis of regularly-collected data presented in Chapters 4 and 5 can be found in a set of Excel Supporting Tables in the Supporting documents for this report. Individual reports presenting detailed findings from two of the key data sources are published alongside this final evaluation report: the 2025 ELC parent research and the SSELC Final Report.

Percentages are reported to the nearest whole number. The report does not include routine comment on the statistical significance of findings, but this has been tested throughout where appropriate, depending on the type of data source (see Appendix C for more detail). Changes in figures derived from probability samples (e.g. SSELC, SHS, and other national surveys) are only included in this report when they have been tested as statistically significant.

3.3 Context and limitations of the evaluation methodology

3.3.1 Context of the evaluation

As recognised at the outset in the Evaluation Strategy, it is difficult to isolate the specific contribution of the ELC expansion on outcomes for children and families within a complex and fluid policy and wider social and economic context. ELC is only one of a range of factors that will influence young children’s development, family wellbeing and parental employment. For example, the home learning environment and relationship quality have been shown to be strongly linked to children’s development in the early years (e.g. National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2004; Sylva et al., 2004; Melhuish et al., 2020). While well-compensated parental leave, the type of work available in local labour markets, and the wider economic context are important determinants of parental labour market participation (Scobie et al., 2017). This challenge has been compounded by the timing and impacts of the pandemic – which occurred in the later stages of the delivery of the ELC expansion and mid-way through this evaluation work – and the cost-of-living crisis. As set out in Section 2.4, this provides a complex context both for the policy to achieve its aims and for evaluation of the high-level outcomes, as many studies have already observed negative impacts on these outcomes in the population over the same period, and attributed these to the pandemic.

3.3.2 Limitations of the evaluation

The evaluation does not consider the relative efficacy of the ELC expansion against other policy options, nor against the counterfactual of “do nothing”. ELC is only one of the factors contributing to the desired high-level outcomes and the evaluation cannot demonstrate what any changes in these outcomes would have been in the absence of the ELC expansion. The design of the SSELC means that any changes observed in the outcomes that the ELC expansion is seeking to improve cannot be directly attributed to this policy. Ethical and practical considerations meant that it was not possible to use other evaluation designs, such as a natural experiment. An experimental design would only have been possible if a ‘control’ group without access to the ELC expansion had been available. This was not possible as the expansion was universal for all eligible children and families. Finally, it has not been possible to disentangle the effects of the expansion of funded ELC from those of the pandemic and societal changes over the same period. The findings reported here, therefore, have to be seen as changes over time, from before the expansion to after the expansion, rather than necessarily impacts of the ELC expansion.

Another limitation in relation to the SSELC was that response rates for the Eligible 2s sample post-expansion (in 2023) were lower than predicted. This analysis in the SSELC Final Report is therefore based on a small number of individuals (e.g. analysis of the Eligible 2s at age three, post-expansion, is limited to data from 289 children). What this means in practice is that some changes in outcomes for the Eligible 2s may not have shown up as statistically significant in the SSELC data – i.e. the study cannot provide sufficient confidence that changes seen in the data reflect changes in the real world.

Key principles for the evaluation strategy included that: it should be possible to implement within reasonable timescales, so learning could feed into policy implementation and development; and that it should be proportionate, minimise duplication and costs, and use existing data as far as possible. This does mean that there are areas where there are data gaps or weaknesses in the data considered, for example, changes made to data collections during the evaluation period. This report draws together data from a range of sources and providers, sometimes using several sources to provide a picture where no definitive data source exists, which can mean results do not always align.

At the time of developing the evaluation strategy, plans were in place to introduce an individual child-level ELC census which would support the evaluation. This data collection would have replaced the current aggregate ELC census and would have provided a richer set of data on children accessing funded ELC. It would also enable data linkage to help understand the impact of funded ELC on child educational outcomes. Delays with the development of a new data management system to record the delivery of funded ELC provision and in turn the data required for the census have meant that it has not yet been possible to move to the new census process. Plans remain to move to an individual child-level ELC census in the future.