Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare: Phase 5 Report

Parent outcomes

Data relating to two of the three high level outcomes outlined in the Evaluation Strategy are considered in this chapter:

• Parents' opportunities to take up or sustain work, study or training increase
• Family wellbeing improves

The following intermediate outcome is also considered:

• Increased parental confidence and capacity.

At the time of the data collection, children would mostly have been receiving funded ELC for approximately two years, but in some cases longer if the children were eligible for funded ELC at age two. This chapter will examine parent's economic activity along with other measures such as time use and wellbeing. Other factors associated with family wellbeing are also examined, including parental confidence in their ability to cope, the home environment, and support from family and friends.

Economic activity

Respondents were provided with a list of economic activities and asked to select all those that applied to them in the previous seven days. Table 5.1 summarises this for both the respondent (most of whom were women) and, where relevant, their partner (most of whom were men). Around two in five (41%) respondents said they were working full-time (30 or more hours a week) and a further 38% said they were working part-time (fewer than 30 hours a week). Less than half (46%) of respondents said they were looking after the home or family. Almost nine in ten (88%) respondents said their partner was working full-time and further 7% were working part-time.

Base: All respondents (parent questionnaire, Phase 5, weighted)

Figure 5.1 summarises differences in whether households had parents in work, training or full-time education by family type and area deprivation. The vast majority (86%) of couple households said that both adults were both in work, training or full-time education with a further 13% having one adult undertaking these activities. Two-thirds (67%) of single parents were in work, training or full-time education. Those living in the most deprived areas were less likely to be doing any of these activities than those living in other areas. Nine in ten (90%) couple households in the most deprived areas had at least one adult in work, training or full-time education compared with almost all (99%) in other areas. A similar pattern was seen for single parents.

Figure 5.1: Economic activity of respondent and partner by family type and area deprivation

Base: All respondents (parent questionnaire, Phase 5, weighted)

Many parents described themselves as combining multiple roles. Of those who said they were looking after the home or family, two-thirds (67%) were also in employment, 10% said they were looking for work and 17% said that they were doing none of the other economic activities. Of those who were in part-time employment, just over half (52%) were also looking after home or family and 44% were not doing any other economic activity. Of those who were in full-time employment, a quarter (25%) were also looking after home or family while seven in ten (71%) did not report doing any other economic activity.

Parents were asked whether they, or their partner, had experienced any change in their employment since their child started funded ELC (Table 5.2). Around half (51%) had experienced some form of change in their situation since their child started receiving funded ELC, including 17% who had increased their usual hours, 17% seeing an increase in income/pay and 14% entering or re-entering employment. Only 28% of partners had experienced a change in their situation, but, as shown earlier, partners were already more likely to be in employment.

Base: All respondents (parent questionnaire, Phase 5, weighted)

Overall, 18% of respondents were not currently working. Looking at Figure 5.2, this was more common in single parent than couple households (36% compared with 14%). Female respondents were also more likely than male respondents to not be working (19% compared with 8%).

Respondents who were in employment worked an average of 28.4 hours per week. Over half (52%) normally worked 30+ hours a week, including paid or unpaid overtime and 37% normally worked 16 to less than 30 hours per week. Employed respondents in couple households tended to work longer hours than those in single parent households.

Figure 5.2: Banded working hours, including not currently working

Base: All respondents/respondents with a partner

Note: Figures shown above for men/women and single/couple parents are for respondents only

Almost three-quarters (74%) of respondents in work experienced some form of flexible or non-standard working pattern. The most common patterns mentioned were flexitime (34%), an annualised hours contract (22%) and term-time working (14%). Partners were less likely to have any of these working arrangements, though the majority (61%) did.

Respondents were asked whether they, and their partner if they had one, usually worked at home, somewhere else or both. Just under two thirds (62%) worked only somewhere else, 12% only worked at home and around a quarter (26%) worked both at home and somewhere else. A similar pattern was witnessed amongst partners, with 65% working somewhere else, 8% working only at home and 27% working both at home and somewhere else.

For those not currently in work, around three in ten (31%) said that if a job or training opportunity became available, they would be able to start within two weeks. These same parents were asked if a lack of affordable, convenient and good quality childcare was one of the main reasons they were not working at the moment. Twenty-nine percent either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement whilst just under half (48%) either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Effect of ELC on parental time use

Respondents were asked how much they agreed or disagreed that they had been able to do a number of things because their child was in ELC (Figure 5.3). The most common responses were that they had been able to work or look for work (68%), think about what they may do in the future (62%) or had more time for themselves (52%). Fewer said they were able to increase the number of hours they worked or study or improve work-related skills (each 37%).

Figure 5.3: Proportion agreeing that, because their child is in nursery…

Base: All respondents (parent questionnaire, Phase 5, weighted)

Parental general health and wellbeing

Almost two in five parents (39%) said their general health was very good with a further 45% saying it was good. Just 14% said their health was fair and only 3% reported it as bad or very bad. Those in the most deprived areas were less likely than those in other areas to say their health was good or very good (69% compared with 87%) and single parents were less likely than couple parents to report good or very good health (67% compared with 87%).

Just under one in five parents (19%) said they had a physical or mental health condition or illness lasting or expected to last 12 months or longer. This was less common amongst partners (10%). Just over a quarter (27%) of households had at least one person (other than the study child) with a long-term health condition. Parents living in the most deprived areas were more likely to have a long-term physical or mental health condition than those living in other areas (40% of households in the most deprived had at least one parent with a condition, compared with 20% in other areas). Of respondents who had a long-term health condition, 68% said it was limiting in some way – 19% "a lot" and 49% "a little".

By far the most common area in which respondents and their partners were affected by a long-term condition was their mental health which was reported for 73% of respondents and 60% of partners who had a long-term condition (Figure 5.4). Just under a quarter (23%) of respondents said their condition affected their mobility and the same proportion said it affected their stamina or breathing or fatigue.

Figure 5.4: Way in which respondents and partners and affected by long-term condition

Base: All respondents/partners with a condition

Using SWEMWBS^[22] to assess mental wellbeing, around seven in ten respondents (71%) were recorded as having average mental wellbeing, 17% low mental wellbeing and 12% high mental wellbeing.

Figure 5.5 shows that mental wellbeing was higher among respondents in couple parent households than single-parent households and single parents were more likely than couple parents to have low mental wellbeing (34% compared with 14%). It was also higher in couple parent households if at least one of the parents was in work or full-time education than if neither parent was. Parents living in the most deprived areas were more likely to have low mental wellbeing than those in other areas (26% compared with 15%)

Parents were asked to score how satisfied they were with their life nowadays on a scale of 0 to 10. The mean life satisfaction score was 8, with over a third (34%) of parents scoring 9 or 10. Only 6% had a score of 5 or less. Those in couple households had a higher average life satisfaction score than those in single parent households (8.1 compared with 7.4).

Figure 5.5: Mean SWEMWBS score by family type and household economic activity

Base: All respondents (parent questionnaire, Phase 5, weighted)

Parental confidence and capacity and home environment

The Evaluation Strategy for the expansion of funded ELC identifies the improvement of family wellbeing as a key aim of the expansion. "Family wellbeing" is not as simple a concept to pin down as individual wellbeing discussed above. There are no direct measures of family wellbeing within the SSELC questionnaires. Instead, there are a number of measures of things known to be related to family wellbeing. These include how well a parent feels they are coping, the frequency of activities related to home learning, how calm the home environment is, the warmth of the bond between parent and child, and feelings about the level of support from friends and family.

Parents were asked on how many days in the last week their child did certain activities. Around six in ten parents (59%) said that their child looked at books or read stories every day in the last week. Half (51%) recited nursery rhymes or sung songs every day, 47% played at recognising letters, word, numbers or shapes and 29% did activities involving painting or drawing.

Girls were more likely than boys to complete these activities every day in the last week (Figure 5.6). For example, 61% of girls recited nursery rhymes or sang songs every day in the last week compared with 41% of boys.

Figure 5.6: Activities at home

Base: All respondents (parent questionnaire, Phase 5, weighted)

A home learning environment scale was created by summing the number of days on which each of the four activities had occurred in the last week. Households were divided into four roughly equal groups (quartiles) dependent on their score on the scale. Those in the top quartile carried out the greatest number of parent-child activities at the highest frequency.

Households in the most deprived areas were less likely than those in other areas to be in the top quartile for home learning environment (22% compared with 32%) and couple households were more likely than single parent households to be in the top quartile (32% compared with 21%). As discussed earlier, girls were more likely than boys to do these activities every day therefore it is unsurprising that households with girls were more likely than households with boys to have a home learning environment score in the top quartile (41% compared to 19%).

The Confusion, Hubbub and Order Scale^[23] consists of four questions designed to assess the level of calmness and order within the household. Looking at responses to these questions, the majority of households were fairly calm: 80% disagreed that "it's really disorganised in our home", 73% disagreed that "you can't really hear yourself think in our home", 71% agreed that "the atmosphere in our home is calm" and 92% agreed that "first thing in the day, we have a regular routine at home" (see Figure 5.7).

Figure 5.7: Confusion, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) items

Base: All respondents (parent questionnaire, Phase 5, weighted)

A scale was created by summing the responses across each of the four items. Households were then categorised into one of three groups (tertiles) according to their score on the scale. Comparisons by household income showed that over two in five households (44%) on the lowest incomes (< £17,600) were in the top tertile (the group most likely to report disorganisation in the home / least likely to report a regular routine), compared with 29% of households on the highest incomes (£59,300+). There was no clear pattern by area deprivation nor highest qualification of respondent.

The parent-child warmth scale used in the SSELC comprises the seven items that form the warmth dimension of the short form of the Mothers' Object Relations Scale (MORS-SF).^[24] See Appendix C for more information. Responses to items on the scale indicate that respondents were very positive about their relationship with their child. For six of the seven items, almost all (97-99%) respondents reported the action happening "often" or "all the time". When the items were summed to form a scale, 39% fell into the top category, responding "all of the time" to all seven statements, and a further 31% fell into the second category, responding "all of the time" to at least four of the statements. No notable variation was observed between subgroups.

Parents were asked how they felt they were coping as a parent. Seven in ten (70%) felt they were coping well most of the time or always. Only 1% of parents said they were not coping well most of the time or not coping well at all. The remainder (28%) felt that they were coping but sometimes things got on top of them.

Two thirds of respondents (67%) felt they got enough support with childcare from family or friends living outside of their household whilst a quarter (25%) felt they didn't get enough support or any support at all. Eight percent said they didn't need any support. Single parents were more likely than couple parents to feel they got enough support (71% vs 66%). While the pattern by income was not linear, overall those in the highest income group (73%) were more likely than those in the lowest (64%) to feel that they got enough support.