School age childcare services - regulation review: feasibility study – final options appraisal

17. Annex C – Options which were ruled out from further consideration

17.1 Model 1 - No change

Proposal

Leave the regulation of SACC as it currently is, with no changes for the existing sector and no inclusion of a further range of services.

Key Elements

• No change to definition of daycare of children
• No change to existing requirements for current SACC providers
• No addition of organised children’s activities providers

Conclusion

Feedback gathered prior to the study through consultation with stakeholders, including parents, children and services, and during the study through focus group discussions, indicates that a change to the current regulatory framework is required to make the sector more sustainable. To do nothing, as set out within this model, would not respond to sector requests for a review of qualifications and access to funding to support sustainability. Nor would it meet the Scottish Government’s priorities of increasing access to SACC.

17.2 Model 2 - New definition for SACC including subcategory for organised children’s activities

Proposal

Amend the existing “day care of children” definition to apply to care for children under school age and introduce a new definition for SACC. Within that, a sub-category is added to the definition to include certain types of organised children’s activities (likely to be those with a significant element of care).

Key Elements

• New SACC definition contains the two types of provision within it, one for “traditional” school age childcare services and one for certain types of organised children’s activities services.
• New requirements for SACC would apply to both types of service provision.
• Minimal changes to CI registration and inspection procedures

Conclusion

There are administrative difficulties for the CI and SSSC in working with sub-categories of registration. For instance, it would be difficult to generate different job roles for sub categories or set different qualification requirements, and at the moment there is no mechanism for putting staff in a non-care service on the care services workforce register. There are also questions about how different the services would be in practice if they could be brought under the same definition and therefore would there be a justification for having different requirements?

From a regulation perspective, the CI only has a locus in regulating care services. Bringing a type of service into the PSR Act which doesn’t have care as its primary purpose would be difficult to do. If a service has care as its primary purpose then it would fall under the SACC definition but if it didn’t then why would it be regulated as a care service? It would also create another two-tier system between different types of activities services, with some still remaining outside of regulation.

Although this model could bring part of the organised children’s activities sector into the scope of regulation, and recognise some of the differences between SACC and activities providers. On balance, the Team considered that this Model posed too many administrative and regulatory challenges to be considered further.

17.3 Model 3 - New definitions for SACC and organised children’s activities

Proposal

Amend the existing “day care of children” definition to apply to care for children under school age and introduce two new definitions: one for school age childcare (currently regulated services) and another for certain types of organised children’s activities services (likely to be those with a significant element of care).

Key elements

• Two new definitions to include both SACC and organised children’s activities
• New requirements are created for each category, roughly equivalent but recognise the differences between categories and provision types.
• Brings a range of organised children’s activities into the scope of regulation

Conclusion

This Model addresses some of the issues raised in Model 2 in that organised children’s activities services would have a separate definition in the PSR Act so the issues around dealing with sub categories would be resolved. However, many of the other problems also apply to this model. Namely if organised children’s activities are different enough from SACC services to warrant their own definition, and this difference is that they are activity-based instead of care-based, then they cannot really be classed as a care service type within this piece of legislation. The regulatory framework which establishes the CI as a regulator and SSSC as the workforce regulator only extends to care services.

There would also still be a proportion of organised children’s activities services which would be unlikely to fall within the scope of the new definition, leading to another two-tier system and confusion for families. Again, it was considered that this Model posed too many administrative and regulatory challenges to be considered further.

17.4 Model 4 - Deregulation of SACC services

Proposal

Amend the definition of “Day care of children” to exclude services for children of school age.

Key elements

• Remove currently regulated SACC services from the regulatory landscape.
• Explore the potential to register these services, alongside organised children’s activities services, under an alternative oversight system.

Conclusion

The wider policy background and consultation with stakeholders suggests a desire for change. However, there has been no indication from the sector that they would want to be removed from regulation altogether, and indeed would affect perceptions of the professionalism of the sector. More significantly, there would be risks to children and families from this option by removing the level of quality, assurance and safeguarding expected of these services.

At 31 December 2023, 15% of SACC services registered with the CI were rated “weak, satisfactory or adequate” (Early Learning and childcare statistics 2023). These services are currently required to meet minimum standards and adhere to a quality framework, and the CI inspects and monitors compliance and requires improvements to be made where necessary. The CI investigates complaints for SACC services and removing these services from regulation, would mean there is no opportunity for families to raise concerns about a service formally. This could be detrimental to children and young people’s safety and wellbeing.

Finally, by removing SACC services from regulation, it means that this would prevent parents in Scotland from using UK childcare tax relief or benefits to support access to childcare options. This would be contrary to the Scottish Government’s priority of expanding access to affordable childcare.

17.5 Additional Model - Voluntary Registration Scheme for organised children’s activities

This scheme was discounted by the feasibility study team at a relatively early stage following discussions with Ofsted and with the CI legal team. The scheme in England allows a wide range of activities providers to voluntarily register with Ofsted (the English regulator). However, in Scotland the legislation is different and, as noted above, the CI has no locus in regulating non-care services. This would mean that another body would have to be found to operate any such register.

There are also concerns around risks to children. By giving a “regulated” badge to services this provides a level of assurance, but there are questions over whether the same standards would be required of services which have registered voluntarily, as opposed to those for whom it is compulsory to register. There is also the question of how to deal with operators in breach of standards. If services have no obligation to comply with the standards, then they can withdraw from the register and still continue to operate on an unregulated basis.