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

6. Draft regulatory models

Through engagement with a range of stakeholders, both in Scotland and the rest of the UK, the feasibility study team developed a range of draft regulatory models for a future system of SACC. In total seven models were produced. The team carried out a SWOT analysis for each of the models to assess the advantages and disadvantages of each model. In summary, the draft models were:

• No change: No changes to how the sector is currently regulated
• New definition for SACC: Create a new definition for SACC in the PSR Act
• New definition for SACC including sub-category for OCA: Create a new definition for SACC in the PSR Act and create sub-category within that for Organised Children’s Activities (OCA)
• New definitions for SACC and OCA: Create two new definitions in the PSR Act. One for SACC and one for OCA
• Extend regulation to holiday OCA: Amend the current exemption regulations to bring OCA which take place in the school holidays into the scope of the Day care of children definition
• Introduce new oversight process for OCA: Create a new system of independent oversight for OCA
• Deregulation of SACC services: Amend the definition of Day care of children to exclude services providing any type of activities to children of school age

Following further discussions, the team has narrowed the list down to three models which address a number of the main challenges which exist in the current system and could be explored further. Each of these models would need further scoping work to establish the full implications and costs. However from the evidence currently available, these models seem to be the most feasible to take forward.

• a) Creating a new specific definition for SACC
• b) Extending regulation to cover holiday activity provision
• c) Introducing a new oversight process for organised children’s activities

The models are discussed in more detail in the next section of the paper. Each chapter covers the key elements of each model; consideration of what we would expect the model to achieve; additional consideration of possible risks and challenges; and a summary of the next steps that would be required if the model was to be explored further. Full details about the models which were discounted and a summary of why the decision was taken not to recommend these for further consideration, can be found in Annex C.

Each of the models discussed in the next section could operate in isolation to address some of the issues raised by the SACC Sector and by families. But it is important to highlight that the models are complementary and it may be possible to achieve better outcomes by choosing more than one model and implementing them both together or by phasing them in at different times.