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

6. Has the ELC expansion contributed to the high-level outcomes?

6.1 Measuring the high-level outcomes: the SSELC

As set out in the Methodology, the SSELC collected the main evaluation data on the high-level outcomes for children, parents, and families. The SSELC took a before-and-after approach, collecting data pre-expansion during 2018-2019 and post-expansion during 2023-2024 (see Section 3.1 for more detail). This chapter presents the key findings from the SSELC Final Report on child, parent, and family outcomes, and also draws on the 2025 ELC parent research where relevant.

As discussed in Section 3.3, the pandemic and cost-of-living crisis affected the wellbeing and income of many families in Scotland during the study period. Although the children on which the SSELC collected data post-expansion did not start funded ELC until after the COVID-19 measures had been lifted, the four- and five-year-old group (‘ELC Leavers’) were all born in 2019 or early 2020 and lived through the affected period. Also, as noted in Section 5.5, some families who would have paid for additional ELC in the absence of the expansion have instead used the additional hours of funded ELC. For these children, we may not expect to see any change in children’s outcomes due to the ELC expansion, as the overall amount of ELC they receive has not changed.

6.2 Children’s outcomes

Summary findings from the SSELC on children’s outcomes, including cognitive and language development and social, emotional, and behavioural development, are presented here. Results from both the SSELC parent surveys, and the separate ELC parent research mentioned previously, underline that the main advantages parents anticipate for using ELC relate to their child(ren)’s independence and development.

6.2.1 Cognitive and language development

The SSELC provides no evidence to date for progress on outcomes related to children’s cognitive and language development that the expansion of funded ELC was seeking to improve.

For children aged four and five who were eligible to begin Primary 1 the following term (‘ELC Leavers’), the proportion whose communication skills were identified as on schedule (i.e. of a level that might be expected for their age) was lower post-expansion (82%) than pre-expansion (88%).

The proportion of boys on schedule fell from 86% to 78% post-expansion, while the change for girls was smaller and not statistically significant (90% pre-expansion and 87% post-expansion) (see Figure 8 below).

Source: SSELC Final Report, Hinchliffe et al (2026)

The proportion on schedule for problem-solving did not change after the expansion (89% on schedule pre-expansion and 88% post-expansion). Girls were more likely than boys to be on schedule for problem-solving both pre- and post-expansion.

Fine motor skills refer to the ability to perform small movements using the muscles in our hands, fingers, lips, tongue, and eyes, controlled by the brain and nervous system. These are linked to language development as well as gross motor/physical development (Department for Education, 2025). The proportion of ELC Leavers on schedule for fine motor skills showed a very similar pattern to that seen for communication skills (82% on schedule pre-expansion and 77% post-expansion). Girls were more again likely than boys to be on schedule for fine motor skills both pre- and post-expansion.

For children eligible for funded ELC at age two (‘Eligible 2s’), communication skills were measured at both age two and age three, pre- and post-expansion. There was no statistically significant change in the difference seen in children after one year of ELC following the expansion – pre-expansion, 46% were on schedule at age two and 50% at age three, compared with 40% at age two and 48% at age three post-expansion. The gap between the communication skills of Eligible 2s at age three, and a nationally representative comparison sample of three-year-olds, most of whom were in their first term of funded ELC, was also of a similar size pre- and post-expansion.

The size of the improvement in problem-solving skills for Eligible 2s following a year of funded ELC also remained similar (18 percentage points higher after a year pre-expansion and 16 points higher post-expansion). There was also no closing or widening of the gap between the Eligible 2s and the comparison sample of three-year-olds. Measures of Eligible 2s’ fine motor skills also followed similar patterns.

6.2.2 Social, emotional, and behavioural development

The SSELC provides mixed evidence on social, behavioural, and emotional development. While there is no evidence of a positive change for ELC Leavers to date, there is a positive association between the expansion of funded ELC and the social, behavioural, and emotional development of eligible two-year-olds.

Social, emotional, and behavioural development for ELC Leavers shows similar patterns of change since the expansion to cognitive and language development. The proportion of ELC Leavers recorded as having few or no social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties has decreased since the expansion of funded ELC. Pre-expansion, 85% of ELC Leavers had few or no difficulties, compared with 78% post-expansion. The gap between girls and boys did not change post-expansion, with girls tending to demonstrate fewer difficulties at both phases.

For Eligible 2s, there was a large improvement post-expansion in social, emotional, and behavioural development following a year of funded ELC, to the point that there was no difference between the Eligible 2s and a comparison sample of three-year-olds. Pre-expansion, the percentage of Eligible 2s with few or no difficulties increased from 44% to 58% after a year of funded ELC. Post-expansion, it increased from 41% to 62%. More detailed analysis – which took into account other factors – confirmed the improvement in Eligible 2s’ social, emotional, and behavioural outcomes after their first year of funded ELC (i.e. between age two and age three) was significantly greater post-expansion than pre-expansion.

6.2.3 The poverty-related development gap

The SSELC provides no evidence for a closing of the poverty-related gap in child development outcomes since the expansion of funded ELC, when measured by area deprivation or household income. For Eligible 2s, who are largely from low-income households, there was however a significant association between the expansion and an improvement in their social, emotional, and behavioural outcomes after their first year of funded ELC.

For the purposes of the SSELC, the poverty-related development gap was defined both in terms of:

• the difference between those living in the most deprived quintile (20% of areas) according to the SIMD and those in living in areas in the remaining four quintiles; and
• the difference between those with household incomes in the lowest equivalised quintile and those in the remaining four quintiles.

For the ELC Leavers, the gap was examined in relation to multiple outcomes measuring cognitive and language development and social, behavioural, and emotional development. While the gap appeared to widen on several of the measures, the changes in magnitude tended not to be statistically significant. The only statistically significant change was in relation to ‘hyperactivity / inattention’, which saw an increase in problems for children from low-income families compared with children from other households.

The eligibility criteria for children to receive funded ELC at age two means that the Eligible 2s are largely from low-income households. Discussion in other sections of differences between Eligible 2s at age three and the comparison group of three-year-olds can therefore also be taken as indicative of poverty-related differences for this age group. As discussed in Section 6.2.2 above, there was an improvement post-expansion in social, emotional, and behavioural development for Eligible 2s following a year of funded ELC, to the point that there was no difference between the Eligible 2s and a comparison sample of three-year-olds, suggesting a closing of the gap for this group.

6.3 Parental work, training and study

The SSELC provides evidence of an increase in the proportion of mothers of children receiving funded ELC who are in employment, training, or full-time education since the expansion of funded ELC. Employment rose for mothers across all income groups and the income-related gap in maternal employment closed slightly.

As with the previous section, this section draws on data from the SSELC that was collected pre-expansion during 2018-2019 and post-expansion during 2023-2024. Data on parental outcomes were collected in surveys completed by one of the child’s parents. Analysis of employment-related measures in the SSELC was limited to respondents who indicated that they were female in the parent questionnaires, because most parents who responded were female and information about the partner was not collected at the first three phases of the study. While the ELC expansion was not exclusively aimed at supporting women into employment, it is expected to have the greatest impact on women as they are, in general, the main caregiver and much more likely than men to work part-time. Female respondents could either be the study child’s mother or carer. From here on, ‘mothers’ is used to refer to mothers and female carers, for brevity.

For mothers of ELC Leavers, the proportion in employment, training, or full-time education increased from 76% pre-expansion to 84% post-expansion. The proportion in full-time employment also increased, from 29% to 37% of all mothers (or from 42% to 48% of those in employment). Part-time working, defined as working under 30 hours per week, did not change (40% of mothers of ELC Leavers were in part-time employment pre- and post-expansion). Average hours worked per week also did not change significantly post-expansion (27.4 hours compared with 26.9 hours pre-expansion).

The proportion of those in employment also increased for most subgroups of mothers of ELC Leavers examined. For example, the proportion of mothers with a long-term health condition who were in full-time or part-time work increased from 56% to 67%.

Employment rose for mothers across all income groups. For the lowest income group, the proportion in employment increased from 41% pre-expansion to 53% post-expansion – as shown in Figure 9. For higher income groups (the top 80% of equivalised household incomes), the proportion in employment remained similar. This means that the income-related gap in maternal employment closed slightly as the increase in employment was greater for low-income mothers. When looking at all mothers in the lowest income group there was an apparent increase observed in part-time working (from 30% pre-expansion to 39% post-expansion). For all mothers in the higher income groups there was an increase in the percentage who were in full-time employment (from 34% to 43% post-expansion).

Source: SSELC Final report, Hinchliffe et al (2026)

When looking specifically at mothers in employment, however, the proportion in the lowest income group who were employed full-time remained the same (27% both pre- and post-expansion). The proportion of those in employment in the higher income group who were in full-time employment rose from 43% to 51%.

All parents who answered the SSELC parent questionnaire (mostly mothers) were asked what they had been able to do since their child started ELC (Hinchliffe et al., 2022; 2025). Post-expansion in 2024, 68% of parents of ELC Leavers agreed that they had been able to work or look for work, compared with 59% pre-expansion. Meanwhile, 37% said they had been able to increase the number of hours they worked post-expansion (compared with 27% pre-expansion), and 37% said that they had been able to study or improve work-related skills (compared with 32% pre-expansion). Similarly, the most commonly reported impacts of funded ELC hours on respondents to the 2025 parents survey (again, mostly mothers) related to employment and future opportunities. Three-quarters of respondents agreed that they were able to work or look for work (75%) or consider future opportunities (74%), while 40% were able to increase the number of hours they worked. Opportunities to take up work were more likely to be reported by more affluent, couple households. Nevertheless, the majority of single parents and parents in lower income households also reported that ELC had helped them work or look for work.

Parents who were in employment were also asked in the SSELC parent questionnaire whether they, or their partner, had experienced any change in their employment since their child started funded ELC post-expansion (this question was only asked post-expansion) (Scottish Government, 2025d). Around half (51%) of parents of ELC Leavers said they had experienced some form of change in their situation, including 17% who had increased their usual hours, 17% seeing an increase in income/pay and 14% entering or re-entering employment. Smaller changes were reported for the (mainly male) parters.

Eligible 2s and their families took part in the SSELC at age two, when the child was at the beginning of their funded ELC journey, and then again at age three, after the child had been in receipt of funded ELC for around a year. The percentage of mothers of Eligible 2s in work, study or full-time education as a whole after their child had been in funded ELC for a year did not change significantly, post-expansion.

Source: SSELC Final Report, Hinchliffe et al (2026)

A significant change in full-time working was observed, however. The proportion of mothers of Eligible 2s at age three in full-time employment was three times as high post-expansion as it was pre-expansion – see Figure 10 (16%, compared with 5% pre-expansion, or 37% of those in employment, compared with 15% pre-expansion). No change in part-time employment or average weekly hours worked was observed. Post-expansion, mothers of Eligible 2s at age three remained less likely than mothers of the comparison sample of three-year-olds to be in any work, training or full-time education (40%, compared with 77%).

6.4 Parental and family wellbeing

The proportions of parents who are engaging with their child's ELC setting around their child's learning and progress or receiving wider support remain similar to before the expansion. While views are mixed, setting managers are more likely to agree than disagree that the ELC expansion has helped them to support families.

There is little evidence for an improvement in parental wellbeing or of progress in outcomes relating to parental confidence and capacity and family wellbeing since the expansion of funded ELC.

6.4.1 Overview of wellbeing and ELC provision

Wellbeing is a wide-ranging concept that is used in a range of contexts and fields; it is about feeling good and functioning well. The Scottish Government’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy defines mental wellbeing as “our internal positive view that we are coping well psychologically with the everyday stresses of life and can work productively and fruitfully. We feel happy and live our lives the way we choose.” The concept of ‘family wellbeing’ – the wellbeing and functioning of the family unit as a whole – is also broad, recognising that wellbeing is about all areas of life, including family, community, and society.

The sixth intermediate outcome – parental confidence and capacity e.g. in engaging with their child's learning and enhancing the home learning environment – is closely linked to parental and family wellbeing. Whether ELC can affect parental confidence and capacity, as well as wellbeing, is also somewhat dependent on the other intermediate outcomes being in place (e.g. that funded ELC is sufficiently accessible and flexible, and parents take up the offer). For that reason, parental confidence and capacity is covered in this section.

Funded ELC is only one of a very wide range of factors that will contribute to parental and family wellbeing, and many aspects of wellbeing are beyond the scope of ELC provision to influence. As set out in the logic model on parental outcomes, funded ELC may have an impact on parental wellbeing through, for example, making it easier to work, providing more time for other activities, or supporting children’s development. By increasing access to high quality funded ELC and encouraging settings to improve parental involvement in the life of the setting, the ELC expansion sought to further support parental confidence and capacity in engaging with their child’s learning, enhancing the home learning environment, and promoting their own wellbeing. The evaluation strategy and logic models also recognise that there is potential for ELC settings to provide support to parents and families, through high quality interactions between parents and ELC staff, identification of families that need support, and by offering a responsive and caring environment. The expansion in funded ELC hours may provide increased or earlier opportunities for ELC settings to do this.

Further, it is likely that improvements in parental and family wellbeing could also, in turn, positively impact on the expansion’s primary aim of improving child outcomes. For example, Scottish Government’s Early Child Development Transformational Change Programme highlights that supporting caregivers' wellbeing and capacity to provide nurturing care is important for improved child development. This is based on strong evidence underlining the importance of parenting and the home environment for children’s development (e.g. Sylva et al., 2004; Bradshaw, 2011; Melhuish et al., 2020). Family wellbeing improvements may have a particularly positive impact on the development of children living in disadvantaged circumstances.

6.4.2 Support provided to parents and families by ELC settings

The SSELC asked both parents and ELC setting managers some questions about support provided to families by ELC settings, which provides useful context for considering parental and family wellbeing, confidence, and capacity. Parental “engagement and involvement in the life of the setting” is a criterion in the National Standard, which sets out what families can expect from their ELC experience. This includes open and regular communication with parents about the work of the setting; meaningfully involving families in influencing change to the service; and supporting parents to engage in their child’s learning and development.

Setting managers were asked what kind of support they offered to families in their setting (Hinchliffe et al., 2025). These questions were only asked post-expansion. A large majority of settings offered support for all parents on: parenting concerns (90%); to help their child's speech, language and communication development (88%); to help with their child's learning at home (84%); and to help their child with an ASN (82%). A lower proportion of settings offered other types of support such as provision of clothing for children (37%) or advice or information for parents to maximise benefits take-up (32%).

To measure perceptions of the ELC expansion's impact on the ability of settings to provide support to families, setting managers were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with three statements (see Figure 11 overleaf).

Around two-fifths (42%) of setting managers agreed that the expansion had ‘helped us to provide a broader range of support for families’. Just under half (48%) agreed that the expansion had ‘led us to work more closely with families for whom we provide support’, while 44% agreed that it ‘has led us to spend more time providing support to families’. However, a substantial minority (34-41%) neither agreed nor disagreed with each of the statements. The West Partnership (2024) evaluation also found mixed views among ELC practitioners on whether the expansion had improved parental engagement in their setting.

Source: SSELC Phase 5 report, Hinchliffe et al (2025)

Parent respondents were also asked questions in the SSELC about types of help and support offered to them by their ELC setting (Hinchliffe et al., 2022; 2025). Post-expansion, in 2024, almost all parents of ELC Leavers (96%) had discussed their child's progress with a member of staff. Just under seven in ten (69%) had stayed and played with their child and just over half (51%) had talked to someone about how to support their child's learning at home. These proportions were similar to pre-expansion in 2019, likely reflecting that these are core activities for settings. Much smaller proportions had received help with food or clothing (5%), learned a new skill such as cooking or parenting skills (4%), or received help with welfare rights or issues with benefits (3%).

6.4.3 Parental wellbeing

Standardised measures of life satisfaction and mental wellbeing were used to measure parental wellbeing in the SSELC. On average parents’ mental wellbeing was reported to decline slightly over the period from pre- to post-expansion (with average scores on the shortened Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale dropping slightly from 24.6 to 24.2). For the parents of ELC Leavers, self-reported life satisfaction did not change significantly post-expansion: the mean life satisfaction score (on a scale of 0 to 10) was 7.9 pre-expansion and 8.0 post-expansion.

For parents of the Eligible 2s and the comparison group of three-year-olds, there was no overall change since the expansion of funded ELC in mental wellbeing or life satisfaction. Parental wellbeing outcomes for Eligible 2s at age three were compared with a comparison group of three-year-olds to determine if the difference between Eligible 2s at age three and the national average outcomes had changed post-expansion. The differences between these two groups for mental wellbeing and life satisfaction did not change significantly post-expansion. Both pre- and post-expansion, parents of Eligible 2s at age three had lower mean mental wellbeing than parents of the comparison group of three-year-olds. For life satisfaction, there was no significant difference between these groups of parents at either stage.

When asked directly, however, a sizable minority of parents of ELC Leavers did perceive their child being in ELC to have had a positive effect on their wellbeing (Hinchliffe et al., 2022; 2025). Post-expansion, just under half (46%) agreed that they had been feeling less stressed because their child was in nursery (compared with 38% pre-expansion) and 43% that they had been feeling happier (compared with 35% pre-expansion). Similarly, approximately half of respondents to the 2025 parent survey agreed or strongly agreed that they felt happier (48%), less stressed (45%), and had more time for self-care (45%). Around 39% felt they could better care for other family members. In the qualitative interviews, parents said they valued the additional time for practical tasks, bonding with their other children, and personal relaxation.

6.4.4 Parental confidence and capacity and family wellbeing

As set out in the Evaluation Strategy, data on ‘parental confidence and capacity’ were collected by the SSELC and overlap with those used to measure family wellbeing. Key dimensions identified in relation to the expansion were: the parent/child relationship, parental support for their child's learning and enriching the home learning environment, and parents’ ability to promote their own wellbeing. As noted in Chapter 3, a pragmatic approach to measuring these outcomes was taken, focussing on data it was possible to gather in the SSELC parent surveys, and dimensions most relevant to ELC. What follows is, therefore, not a comprehensive measure of family wellbeing.

For the families of ELC Leavers:

• There was no change in the average home learning environment score pre- and post-expansion. The home learning environment score measures how often children carried out activities at home such as looking at books or painting and drawing, with a parent or someone else in the household.
• Parental assessments of the level of calmness and order within the home did not change significantly.
• There was also no change in a measure of bond between parent and child pre- and post-expansion.
• There was, however, a decrease post-expansion in the proportion of parents reporting that they were coping really well or pretty well most of the time (from 75% pre-expansion, to 70% post-expansion). This was coupled with an increase in the proportion reporting that they sometimes felt they were coping but sometimes things got on top of them (from 24% pre-expansion to 28% post-expansion).

For families of Eligible 2s, there were no changes found after one year of ELC, pre- and post-expansion, in average home learning environment score, coping ability, or average parent-child warmth score.

Although 'family wellbeing' is a multi-faceted and nuanced concept with no universally agreed definition, there were a number of questions asked in the SSELC that, when considered in combination with statistical techniques, can provide insight into the area. A statistical technique called Latent Class Analysis (LCA) modelling was used to help identify patterns of responses in data and to contribute to an understanding of what family wellbeing looks like for the families in the SSELC.^[20]

Questions asked in the SSELC that were considered most relevant to the concept of family wellbeing can broadly be split into three groups: parental health and wellbeing, home environment, and parent-child relationship. As set out above, analysis of SSELC data found little evidence for any changes in these aspects when considered individually. LCA modelling of the pattern of responses to relevant questions from the SSELC parent survey resulted in three “classes” or sub-groups into which parents could be categorised^[21]:

• 'High' Family Wellbeing group – this group had higher mental wellbeing, good general health, and higher life satisfaction. They were likely to be coping well most or all of the time, and most felt they got enough support with childcare.
• 'Medium' Family Wellbeing group – this group were more likely to have average mental wellbeing and good physical health, but less likely to feel they got enough support with childcare, and less likely to feel they were coping all of the time. They were also likely to have lower home learning environment scores.
• 'Low' Family Wellbeing group – a large proportion of this group had a long-term limiting health condition. This group were also more likely to have fair or bad health and lower mental wellbeing. They were less likely to feel they got enough support and were more likely to feel they were only sometimes coping or that they were not coping.

The proportion of ELC Leavers’ families allocated into each sub-group was 13% for the High Wellbeing Group, 59% for the Medium Wellbeing group and 28% for the Low Wellbeing Group. To explore whether there was any change since the expansion, the analysis looked at whether the proportion allocated to each of the three groups was different pre- and post-expansion. It found no significant change in the proportion allocated to each of the groups post-expansion in 2024 compared with pre-expansion in 2019. A separate analysis also found no indication of change between pre- and post-expansion for Eligible 2s’ families.

6.5 Summary: high-level outcomes

This evaluation has found limited evidence to date of progress on most of the key children’s outcomes that the expansion of funded ELC seeks to improve – with the exception of the social, emotional, and behavioural development of eligible two-year-olds. For parents, there was an increase in the proportion of mothers of children receiving funded ELC across all income groups who are in employment, training, or full-time education. The evaluation found little evidence of progress in outcomes relating to parental wellbeing, parental confidence and capacity, or family wellbeing – although the majority of parents do identify a range of positive impacts of funded ELC.