Preliminary findings of ECCE Capacity Research

Conducted by City/County Childcare Committees

via CCI

CONFIDENTIAL

– NOT SUITABLE FOR GENERAL PUBLICATION OR DISEMMINATION

1

Context

Budget 2016 announced the expansion of the ECCE scheme. This expansion creates eligibility for additional children 60,000 children,

bringing the total to c. 130,000 an increase of 50%.

History of calls from majority of Voluntary Childcare Organisations (VCOs) for expansion of the scheme.

Decision around capacity expansion based on existing data from POBAL, based on annual survey model.

Announcement widely welcomed by parents.

Positive effect of the expansion of ECCE on the average school starting age. If all children avail of their full entitlement under the terms

of the scheme the minimum school starting age will rise to 4 years and 9 months and as high as 5 years and 8 months for some

children. Weight of international evidence supports later school starting age.

Budget announcement causes initial confusion and concern from early years services, particularly around the effect of lowering the

entry age and the creation of three entry points to the scheme throughout the year. Upsurge in calls to CCCs seeking support at local

level to these issues, leading to responsive support via information workshops, peer meetings and 1:1 support.

2

The current context (May 2016)

Increasing number of media articles regarding availability of places. However, no real trend of parents calling with problems as yet.

Concern raised by CCCs that those parents who are not prepared due to other pressures (such as marginalised communities) may not

be securing places as yet and therefore may lose out if they live in an area with a shortage of ECCE capacity.

VCOs voice concern about readiness of sector for expanded scheme.

No official data available to verify capacity as POBAL Annual Survey not yet complete and not suitable for measurement of this issue.

Supports being offered at local level by CCCs level around increasing capacity and related challenges to this, i.e. advice, information and

guidance on expansion of services and related issues such as planning, regulation and related policies such as enrolment policy etc.

DCYA requests that CCCs take on additional task of verifying capacity based on above and in recognition that CCCs are well placed to

quickly collect such data due to national coverage and trusted relationships built up with early years service over a decade. Wicklow

CCC takes lead on initiative on behalf of CCI.

All CCCs have submitted complete data for their counties, the majority of which are at 100% response rate, with the exception of some

of the larger city based CCCs due to a lack of resources.

3

CCI raises related concern regarding the possible knock on effect of expanded ECCE scheme on primary school classes in 2017 and 2018

and asks that clarification be sought by DCYA from DES regarding plans to address this issue, which often has an effect on early years

services also.

Limitations of the data

Research carried out quickly at request of the department, despite resource intensive work unscheduled in CCC work plans.

Not possible to get 100% response rate in some counties (due to resource constraints) but the vast majority of the counties have

achieved 100% response rate (>80%).

The data is a ‘Snapshot’ in time, therefore requires updating to be considered live.

Services were asked what their capacity for ECCE was due to be in September 2016. Most respondents did not factor in potential new

capacity based on expanded rooms or additional sessions; however we are aware that some did.

The macro level (county) data often masks geographical pockets where there are significant pressure points on ECCE capacity.

Due to a range of issues (see Factors for Consideration below) the data in this iteration is not suitable to inform the outcome of

individual Early Years Capital 2016 applications.

4

As the data is not ‘live’ in terms of accuracy, there does not appear to be an official method available to utilise the data to direct

parents towards services who have not yet reached full capacity, such as the system utilised in Northern Ireland. There are also

considerations around competition in such a model, given that the Irish early years sector is primarily constituted by private companies.

Factors for consideration

Below is a non-exhaustive list of factors for consideration when analysing the data. The issues surrounding ECCE expansion are varied and

complex and must be treated sensitively as there is a large level of interdependency between certain drivers. As an example, there is a direct

correlation between levels of ECCE expansion and capacity for full day care provision in some services.

‘Reported’ capacity – The figures provided are those provided by the early years service and are unverified by any agency. Such a task

is possible but requires considerable human resources.

Geographic Pressures – As mentioned above, although county capacity may display a surplus, certain geographical areas may

experience a deficit. For example, Tipperary are reporting a surplus of places for the September enrolment, however urban areas such

as Nenagh are reporting a deficit in capacity at this moment.

Parental choice – Even where there is sufficient capacity, the issue of parental choice is likely to be a contentious one. Perception that

all places are full (even when not the case) is likely to cause anxiety among parents as well as inability not to secure provision that is

first preference in terms of location, placement of peers, price (if accompanied by full day care/other siblings outside of ECCE) and

ethos of service.

5

AM/PM Provision – Many services that have indicated expansion of provision are doing so by replicating their morning provision in the

afternoon. It remains to be seen whether this will be a large issue for parents when attempting to secure an ECCE place.

Trans-Border Factors – The data is provided on a county basis. However, many towns are located on borders with other counties

meaning that the data for those areas are difficult to consider in isolation. A good example of this is Athlone, which is dissected by the

county borders of Roscommon and Westmeath.

Commuting – The data relates to the amount of children eligible for the expanded ECCE scheme in relation to the level of ‘reported

capacity’ by providers in each county. However, it does not and cannot take account of the numbers of children who are transported

from their home counties to early years settings en route or close to the place of work of the parent. It is expected that such children

will exacerbate pressures in areas such as Dublin City, South County Dublin, Fingal, DLR and Co. Kildare.

Housing Development – The data cannot account for forthcoming additional children who may be moving into new developments

which have begun to arise throughout the country but in particular in the satellite counties of the capital.

New Services/Closing Services – The data do not yet take account of the capacity which will be created by new services opening in

each county. Conversely, the data does not yet take account of the decrease in capacity due to services closing permanently. The

relatively static nature of the total number of early years settings over recent years would suggest that the latter negates the former

but this trend may change this year or require stimulation going forward.

Early Years Capital 2016 – The data was compiled prior to the application and effect of the government’s EYC 2016 campaign. It

therefore does not account for potential expansion as a result of this measure.

6

Displacement – The data has not analysed the effect on full day care and other types of provision (i.e. Other schemes and pre-ECCE

spaces) that may result from the expansion of ECCE.

ECCE Take Up Levels – The analysis of this data is based on a presumption of full take up of ECCE by all eligible children. Traditionally

only 95% of children have availed of ECCE and this figure may well be lower in the 2016 cohort due to (a) the fact that the expanded

scheme was announced mid-year and parents may have already decided to commence primary education in September 2016 and (b)

the scheme affects the school starting age and some parents may wish their children to commence school nearer age four (either due

personal preference for school starting age or due to a wish to ease the financial pressures of childcare).

Expansion of provision – This data does not (for the most part) factor in expansion of provision, which anecdotally may be as high as

50% in some areas.

7

Total Eligibility per County (and enrolment cohort)

County September Enrolments January 2017 Enrolments April 2017 Enrolments Total 2016/2017 Enrolments

Carlow 1,106 274 172 1,552

Cavan 1,421 399 226 2,046

Clare 2,170 469 346 2,985

Cork City 1,782 443 334 2,559

Cork County 8,366 2,170 1,366 11,902

Donegal 2,740 700 454 3,894

Dublin City 8,960 2,373 1,540 12,873

Dun Laoghaire - Rathdown 3,498 938 627 5,063

Fingal 7,058 1,806 1,190 10,054

Galway 4,821 1,242 859 6,922

Kerry 2,407 596 386 3,389

Kildare 4,596 1,125 768 6,489

Kilkenny 1,877 480 309 2,666

Laois 1,710 423 285 2,418

8

Leitrim 599 155 80 834

Limerick 3,566 859 663 5,088

Longford 819 204 126 1,149

Louth 2,555 635 379 3,569

Mayo 2,205 560 340 3,105

Meath 4,158 1,070 692 5,920

Monaghan 1,149 314 165 1,628

Offaly 1,468 387 269 2,124

Roscommon 1,098 289 176 1,563

Sligo 1,196 282 197 1,675

South Dublin 6,066 1,496 998 8,560

Tipperary 2,888 720 425 4,033

Waterford 2,091 557 327 2,975

West Meath 1,730 466 295 2,491

Wexford 2,808 661 488 3,957

Wicklow 2,702 687 432 3,821

Total 89,609 22,780 14,914 127,303

9

Phase 1 ECCE Capacity Analysis

Area September January April Total Eligible Reported* Capacity

Surplus/Deficit for

SEPT intake

Surplus/Deficit for

JAN intake

Surplus/Deficit for

TOTAL intake

Carlow 1106 274 172 1552 1084 -22 -296 -468

Cavan 2832 800 459 4091 3686 854 54 -405

Clare 2170 469 346 2985 3019 849 380 34

Cork City 1,782 443 334 2,559 3211 1429 986 652

Cork County 8,366 2,170 1,366 11,902 10372 2006 -164 -1530

DLR 3498 938 627 5063 3483 -15 -953 -1580

Donegal 2728 702 459 3889 3144 416 -286 -745

Dublin City 8960 2373 1540 12873 7013 -1947 -4320 -5860

Fingal 7,058 1,806 1,190 10,054 7157 99 -1707 -2897

Galway 4939 1237 853 7029 6061 1122 -115 -968

Kerry 2407 596 386 3389 3984 1577 981 595

Kildare 4596 1125 768 6489 5379 783 -342 -1110

Kilkenny 1879 480 309 2668 2055 176 -304 -613

Laois 1709 423 285 2418 2648 939 516 230

Leitrim 519 18 8 836 637 118 100 -199

10

Limerick 3550 857 655 5062 4308 758 -99 -754

Longford 642 159 97 898 803 161 2 -95

Louth 2555 635 379 3569 3202 647 12 -367

Mayo 2214 560 340 3114 3383 1169 609 269

Meath 4158 1070 692 5920 4051 -107 -1177 -1869

Monaghan 1151 314 165 1630 1441 290 -24 -189

Offaly 1468 387 269 2124 1955 487 100 -169

Roscommon 1098 289 176 1533 1401 303 14 -132

SDCCC 6,066 1,496 998 8,560 5739 -327 -1823 -2821

Sligo 1193 280 198 1671 1413 220 -60 -258

Tipperary 2888 720 425 4033 3372 484 -236 -661

Waterford 2054 550 322 2926 2422 368 -182 -504

Westmeath 1730 466 295 2490 1914 184 -282 -576

Wexford 2803 661 488 3952 3692 889 228 -260

Wicklow 2707 687 432 3826 3916 1209 522 90

Totals after

Phase 1

analysis 90826 22985 15033 129105 105945 15119 -7866 -23160

11

Conclusions

A. The data is not suitable for publication to the general public as it would cause unnecessary concern without the requisite analysis and

understanding of the drivers outlined in ‘Factors for Consideration’.

B. The self reported nature of the data and the intricacies of the ‘Factors for Consideration’ mean that the data is not suitable for use in

determining the outcome of individual applications in the current round of Early Years Capital. However, future iterations of the data

may be suitable for directing future supports and funding towards particular counties.

C. Overall the Phase 1 of the data collection displays an overall deficit of c. 23k places in relation to total child eligibility for the expanded

scheme vs ‘reported capacity’ by the sector.

D. Areas of particular concern are: Dublin City, DLR, South County Dublin, Meath and Fingal who face significant deficits in capacity by

January (and September in the case of Dublin City), whilst County Cork, Galway and Kildare also display relatively large overall deficits.

E. The April intake of ECCE children is reporting as problematic for the majority of counties in the country at present.

F. However, the data does not account for two important factors: (a) total actual take up and (b) the potential levels of expansion within

the market.

12

Suggested Actions

1. Phase 2 Data: A single question survey (via PIP) should be issued in late May/early June to ascertain the projected levels of capacity for

September. The results of this data can then update the total reported capacity. It is expected that this may enhance the figures

significantly due to (a) the planning and support around expansion that has taken place at CCC level since Phase 1 data was collected

and (b) the results of the EYC16 campaign may bear fruit in a similar fashion. Phase 2 to also take into account the effect of new

services/services closing.

2. Phase 3 Data: The data should be analysed again in late September to account for levels of take up of the expanded scheme based on

actual enrolment levels on PIP.

3. WCCC to lead on the above analysis for DCYA of the above on behalf of CCI but would require small additional resources (€2k) to do so.

4. A small task group (DCYA/CCI) to be formed to keep abreast of the above.

5. CCI to develop a plan with all counties but in particular the eight counties worst affected by ECCE expansion (see D in Conclusions

above) to stimulate expansion with services through advice, support and guidance. Some of these counties may require a small amount

of additional resources to complete this work due to the constraints of their current budgets vs work demands.

6. DCYA to consider targeted use of future rounds of EYC in order to stimulate provision in certain areas.

13

7. The limiting of total ECCE eligibility to 76 weeks may dissuade parents of April intake children from enrolling until the following

September. As it currently stands, some children are entitled to 38 weeks of ECCE whilst the above (April) cohort may avail of up to 88

weeks (more than two years) of ECCE. There are also educational concerns surrounding the intake of children in April as a whole.

8. The cost of provision of ECCE on the part of the early years service is a barrier in certain parts of the country (in particular areas such as

the capital). Services in these areas receive the same level of income via capitation as other services with significantly lower overheads.

A system utilised in the UK to address such issues is for example a ‘London weighting’, which factors in additional capitation to account

for this disparity.

9. CCI to prepare generic statements regarding their collaboration with DCYA to support service to meet demand. These statements to be

used to ensure a consistent response should the expansion of ECCE become a media issue.