Literature Review: Parental decision
making around use of formal
childcare
Summary
Cost and Location
 Even for free childcare, there can be a perception among low income families that
childcare is too expensive for them to access. This may be particularly prevalent where
settings are not absolutely clear that there is no obligation to buy additional childcare
when accessing their 15 hours free entitlement.
 Transport costs can also present a significant barrier to parents attempting to access
childcare, particularly where public transport is poor.
 As a result – local authorities should emphasise that the offer is for childcare, free to
parents, at a local provider.
Preference for Parental Childcare
 Some parents express a preference for providing all the care that their children need,
particularly when they are very young (up to 30 months). This is particularly prevalent
among parents who are out of work, or who are a ‘stay at home’ parent.
 Some ethnic minority groups reported strong social expectations that they be responsible
for providing early education to their children – or for relying on wider family or
neighbourhood networks to do so.
 As a result, local authorities should stress the benefits to children of free good quality
childcare when communicating with parents who may otherwise chose to provide care to
children themselves.
Trust in, and reputation of, providers
 Trusting providers is of central importance to parents when deciding whether to access
childcare. Parents often place greater emphasis on information gathered from informal
networks.
 Lower-income parents were particularly concerned by the potential of their children being
physically hurt when receiving childcare.
 As a result, local authorities should engage with informal and community networks to
raise the profile of childcare providers, and consider running sessions where parents can
meet providers in a trusted environment. Further, they should emphasise the health and
safety procedures and records of providers where parents express any concern.
Lack of information and awareness
 A significant proportion of ethnic minority parents reported not receiving enough
information about childcare in their area – with Asian families receiving the least
information, and Black families reporting the highest dissatisfaction with both the quality
and quantity of available childcare.
 Parents reported that the information they did receive was also hard to understand,
particularly where there was a language barrier, and did not catch the eye.
 As a result, local authorities should engage with informal networks to disseminate
information about childcare, and ensure all communication is undertaken in plain English,
and in eye-catching form, illustrated by images and pictures.
The importance of child social development
 Parents often drew a distinction between children ‘learning’ and ‘playing’ – and were often
alienated by references to ‘formal childcare’. Though parents had different expectations of
childcare and which it should provide, complex language in government communications
often lowered parents views of the childcare on offer.
 As a result, local authorities should ensure that they communicate simply, and stress both
the important social and education aspects of childcare – and use pictures to emphasise
this point, where possible.
Cost and location
The cost of childcare is often quoted as being one of the major barriers for parents to access
childcare (Ben-Galim, 2011, Speight et al. 2010). Looking in more depth at this the cost was
not only a barrier in terms of affordability, but also in that it created a perception that childcare
was unaffordable, and discouraged parents from trying to access it.
Indeed, families experiencing the highest level of multiple disadvantage were more negative
about the affordability of local childcare than those in better circumstances (Speight et al.
2010). There was also evidence that parents not accessing from childcare for 3 and 4 year
olds, were unaware that it was provided by the government for free – and that no additional
costs were attached. (Speight et al. 2010).
Whilst the cost was mentioned as a problem the location of the available childcare was also
frequently referenced with many parents lacking suitable transport to get to the provision or
not being to take time out of their days to travel long distances. It was found that to support
parents to use services they needed to be close to home, have good transport links to get to
the services, fit with the primary school hours and offer flexibility in its arrangements (BenGalim, 2011).
Alternatively when describing what they consider to be their ‘ideal’ childcare environment
parents said that they were primarily looking for warm, friendly staff who relate well to
children with the ideal location being close to the parental home or to the grandparents, so
that they could pick up the children if the parents were unavailable (Roberts 2008).
Preference for parental childcare
A preference for parental childcare has been often presented as one of the core reason why
parents decided not to use childcare. This may have been due to the parent’s family life and
values, or opinions about the childcare available in their local area. In one study Smith found
this to be the overwhelming reason as to why parents chose not to use childcare compared
to the trust, quality, transport problems and a previous bad experience which were far less
frequent reasons given (Smith et al. 2010) this was also a reason for parents who chose not
to use wraparound care (Speight et al. 2010).
Parental preference to care for their children themselves also figured prominently In Speight
et al. 2010 it was found that amongst the reasons why parents didn’t use childcare was
because parents preferred to look after child(ren), that their children preferred to be at home
and reported that they had no need to be away from their child(ren) (Speight et al. 2010).
This was the main reason why families suffering multiple disadvantage, low income families
and BME families in particular had chosen to not use wraparound care or nursery provision
and was one of the most common reason why parents didn’t take up the free three and four
year old entitlement (Speight et al. 2010).
The age of the child also played a role in this. In Ben-Galim 2011 parents were asked at what
age they considered early years provision was appropriate. Many were resistant to the idea
of their child attending in a formal setting before the age of two, preferring to leave their
children with family members if they were not available themselves. Most felt that in the first
two years of a child’s life, time spent bonding with immediate and then extended family was
of overriding importance (Ben-Galim, 2011).
Generally, parents responded that formal childcare was appropriate from about the age of
two or two-and-a-half, at which point they felt it was important for their child to start
interacting with other children. From the age of two or three, playing and spending time with
other children were considered to be important, but not education per se. Once the child
reached three, parents thought learning became more important, in preparation for school
(Ben-Galim, 2011).
This was also found to be the case in other research (Speight et al. 2010). It was seem that
parents felt uncomfortable leaving their children alone – especially at an age where they
couldn’t report back to them whether they enjoy the service (Roberts, 2008). In addition, in
families where English was a second language some were worried about very young children
not being able to make themselves understood within a formal care setting because the
children often spoke a hybrid of English and their parents’ or grandparents’ mother tongue
language (Roberts 2008).
Some groups of parents are particularly likely to report that they did not need to use childcare
because they didn’t need to be away from their child (Speight et al. 2010). Culturally, Muslim
mothers reported that they are expected to be their child’s primary carer. Thus, the notion of
‘childcare’ was an alien concept, particularly for Bangladeshi mothers, most of whom were
not working (Roberts 2008). For low income parents wanted to spend as much time as
possible with their children and they tended to see work as a means to an end. They were
very disapproving of ‘career people’ who (they perceive) have children and pay someone
else to bring them up. This view is further illustrated by the fact that many said the
government should be encouraging parents to stay home with their children when the
children are young (Roberts 2008).
In the cases where those parents who had a preference for parental care did require support
outside of the household they would turn to extended family member. For Muslim mothers
any social occasions they attended in the evening would be a family outing (to visit relatives,
or to a wedding etc.) so they had no need for paid babysitters. Plus, if the need ever arose,
the Pakistani and Bangladeshi mums all came from large families so relatives were always
available to help. They also spoke of the stigma attached to using formal childcare within the
Muslim community and the risk of offending family members by seeking professional care
(Roberts 2008).
It was also shown that for many families there was predominance of strong extended families
networks – with many families having older generations either living in the house or living
close by. This shows the important role of family and why so many parents turn to them to
help with childcare duties (Roberts 2008). Not only was family care considered by many to be
the first port of call for care, it was also considered the best form of care for children. Family
members were seen as an extensions of parental care (‘the next best thing to being there
myself’), while using childcare was seen as leaving one’s child with a ‘stranger’. It was seen
that family members meant the child would be treated as ‘one of their own’, because children
enjoy spending time with their family, especially grandparents are seen as having the
experience of raising a child, it is convenient and free. It also removed concerns about
whether the religious beliefs of the child (would halal or vegetarian food be available) would
be met in formal care (Roberts 2008).
However, parents also understood that this may mean that children would lose out on the
interaction with other children in most family care settings, children were less likely to do any
structure or stimulating activities with family members and that parents often felt (or were
made to feel) guilty about asking family members to babysit (Roberts 2008). Amongst these
families young children were most likely to receive childcare for reasons related to their
development or enjoyment. The more disadvantaged children experienced the less likely they
were to receive childcare for economic reasons i.e. so that they parents could work or study
and instead more likely to receive childcare for reasons related to parental time i.e. so that
parents could do domestic activities, socialise, or look after other children (Speight et al.
2010).
Trust in, and reputation of, providers
The biggest influence on childcare provider selection were the reputation of the provider and
finding a provider that was convenient – a further reason provided by half of parents who did
use childcare and especially relevant to those parents with a child aged 0-2 (Speight et al.
2010). Overall there was most trust in government-run nurseries, schools and schools clubs
and least trust in childminders (those not known personally to the family) although there was
some parents willing to change this view if there was better explanation of the registration
process to show the trustworthiness of childminders (Roberts 2008).
Research on choice (Duncan et al 2003, Carling et al 2002, Lowe & Weisner 2004, Meyers &
Jordan 2006) show that parental decisions around childcare are a complex mixture of
practical and moral concerns, social relations are as least as important as economic
relations. For many, trust was a key issue in not choosing childcare (Bell et al 2005). Many
parents struggle with trust issues and the possible consequences of leaving their child with a
‘stranger’ - some parents said they would blame themselves for making a bad choice if their
child were harmed or mistreated in any way. (Roberts 2008).
Parents from lower income groups were more fearful about their children’s physical safety
than their middle class counterparts, and commonly opted for nurseries, rejecting
childminders unless they were previously known to them. This was striking throughout the
sample (Vincent & Ball 2006, Vincent et al 2008a). These mothers tended to stress the risk of
emotional neglect in nurseries whereas for the working class mothers the primary concern
was the possibility of physical neglect or harm from childminders. It was very clear that the
working class respondents distrusted, even feared, unknown private spaces (such as a
childminder’s house), and individual, unknown carers (Lowe & Weisner 2004 also find fears
of ‘stranger’ carers in the US amongst working class families). Some working class
respondents did not feel comfortable leaving their child with another carer, even if in a formal
regulated setting, and cited lack of trust as the explanation for this (Duncan et al 2004).
Lack of information and awareness
As well as location and affordability, a lack of available information has been noted as a key
barrier preventing parents from accessing childcare (Bell at al 2004). Asian parents were
least likely to have received any information on childcare but were also significantly more
likely than White or Black parents to say that ‘about the right amount’ of information was
available to them. This could reflect a lower demand for such information among Asian
parents, who are the least likely of all the groups to be using (formal) childcare. Black parents
were least positive about the amount of childcare information available to them, which could
reflect their higher demand for childcare or the relative shortage of childcare in more deprived
areas (Bell et al. 2005).
Evidence has identified that there can often be a lack of awareness around cultural difference
between and within minority ethnic groups from local government and childcare providers.
The ‘one size fits all’ BME label can be unhelpful as it blinded some service providers to the
different values, cultures and needs of distinct minority ethnic groups, despite examples of
best practice of working with different communities being available (Bell et al. 2005).
For the current free entitlement, low awareness of the scheme was a particular barrier for
highly disadvantaged families who had less awareness of the offer than less or nondisadvantaged families (Speight et al. 2010).
The evidence suggests that parent networks are positive to engage potential new users
(Ben-Galim, 2011) by working through the positive benefits of word of mouth but do not
provide a complete solution. They were found to offer an important source of mutual support
and a source of capacity building for parents to involve themselves in childcare (Beirens et al.
2006). Parent’s meetings and parents’ associations have also been found to have a positive
effect and had helped give a voice to otherwise marginalised minority ethnic parents (Blair
and Bourne, 1998. Ofsted 2004b).
The lack of information is important not only for the understanding of the offer but because it
can link to wider perceptions about quality and availability. Parents from the most
disadvantaged families were somewhat more likely to hold the view that there were not
enough childcare places than families in better circumstances. The research found that those
parents who said there was too little information available to them were much more likely to
say that there were not enough childcare places in their local area than those who felt
satisfied with the amount of information they had received (Speight et al. 2010).
Similarly, the most disadvantaged parents were less positive about the quality of childcare
available in their area (Speight et al. 2010). Asian parents were most likely to say that they
did not know about either the number or the quality of childcare places available, reflecting
the fact that they were least likely to have received any childcare information (Bell et al 2005).
These findings are consistent with previous research that found that families living in
deprived areas tended to overestimate the difficulties or arranging formal childcare for their
pre-school children (Smith et al. 2007).
It was found that parents wanted information on what services are available in the area
should come to parents from the local authority should be summarised, simple literature
should be produced in plain English with explanatory illustrations and photos in leaflets and
made available in everyday places (shopping centres, supermarkets, doctors surgeries,
libraries) and online (Ben-Galim, 2011, Kazimirski et al 2008, McNeil 2010).
Language barriers
The additional barrier of communication where language difficulties exist means that when
information is provided to parents it is not always understood (Beirens et al. 2006). The term
‘childcare’ is often equated with formal childcare among families with English as a second
language. They often see childcare as something not relevant to their lives, because they
associate it with working parents and those with no family members around to help.
Low-income parents, on the other hand, generally have close relationship with their extended
family and family care was by far the preferred option across the board (Roberts 2008).
Whilst ‘childcare’ is sometime constructed as providing a double benefit – good for them,
good for you – low income audience sees childcare as a service for parents who put their
own needs first. They believe staying home with their children is a positive choice (Roberts
2008). The way in which the educational benefits of childcare are expressed in terms of
‘goals’, ‘stages’, and targets’ in government literature is alienating for low-income parents,
who prefer to think of pre-schoolers learning at their own pace and in a fun way (Roberts
2008). It has been found that there should be no suggestions that formal care is better for
children’s progress at school than informal care, as parents are likely to reject this notion
(Roberts 2008).
The importance of child social development
For many low income families ‘childcare’ equated to ‘formal childcare’ - they were unfamiliar
with the concept of ‘formal childcare’ when it was referred to in those terms. The word ‘formal’
suggest something strict and structured, whilst ‘childcare’ evokes images of play, fun and
informality. Due to a genuine lack of understanding of the term, respondents assumed such
care would be out of their reach, both in financial and social class terms (Roberts 2008). For
many low income families the main barrier to using formal childcare was not so much lack of
information, but a lack of connection with the concept. Childcare was perceived to have little
personal relevance to their lives because they saw it as something used by working mums or
mums with a career, or people who put work before their family. (Roberts 2008).
Parents were concerned that pre-school children should learn in a fun – not academic – way.
By contrast, the official discourse assumes its readers value “educational goals” and
“development stages”. The act of choosing childcare is constructed as closely related to the
future success of the child where as many low income families more closely associate
childcare with fun activities (Roberts 2008).
One of the most common themes across families – including minority ethnic and traveler
communities -for their wish to use childcare was that they saw childcare as beneficial for a
child’s development, although again the issue of the age of the child was present (Waldfogel
and Garnham 2008, Speight et al 2009). Most parents recognized that through interacting
with other children their child would learn and develop confidence and social skills, learning
to share, making friends, getting to know children they would later go to school with, fostering
independence, and preparation for other environments, especially school (Ben-Galim, 2011,
Speight et al 2010).
Other parents, particularly those from minority ethnic backgrounds, stressed the importance
of childcare as an opportunity for their children to mix with children from different
backgrounds and for children to improve their English language skills as being particularly
important for their children (Ben-Galim, 2011, Williams and Churchill 2006).
However, again the issue of adequate information was present with some parents showing a
lack of understanding of the benefits of childcare for the child (Roberts 2008).
Bibliography
Katz, I. & Pinkerton, J. (2003). Evaluating Family Support: Thinking Internationally, Thinking
Critically. Chichester: Wiley & Sons
Gillies, V, (2008). Perspectives on parenting responsibilities: Contextualising Values and
Practices. Journal of Law and Society, Volume 35, No 1 pp95-118
Katz, I., La Placa,V. & Hunter, S. (2007). Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Outreach to Children and Families, A Scoping Study, DCSF, June 2009
Early Education Pilot for Two Year Old Children, Evaluation, Ruth Smith, Susan Purdon,
Vera Schneider, Ivana La Valle, Ivonne Wollny, Rachael Owen and Caroline Bryson, Sandra
Mathers, Kathy Sylva, Eva Lloyd, DCSF, 2009
Understanding Attitudes to Childcare and Childcare Language among Low Income Parents,
Karen Roberts, DCSF, 2008
Li, Y, Savage, M & Pickles, A. (2003) Social Change, Friendship and Civic Participation
Sociological Research Online, 8, (4), <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/8/4/li.html
Lowe, E. & Weisner T. (2004) 'You have to push it- who's gonna raise your kids?': situating
child care and child care subsidy in the daily routines of lower income families, Children and
Youth Services Review, 26 (2) 143-171.
Carling, A., Duncan, S. and Edwards, R. (2002) Analysing Families: Morality and Rationality
in Policy and Practice, London, Routledge.
Meyers, M & Jordan, L. (2006) Choice and accommodation in parental child care decisions
Community Development: Journal of the Community Development Society, 37, 2: 53-70
Duncan, S., Edwards, R., Reynolds, T., & Alldred, P. (2003) Motherhood, paid work and
partnering: values and theories, Work, Employment and Society, 17 (2): 309-330.
Duncan, S., Edwards, R., Reynolds, T., & Alldred, P. (2004) Mothers and childcare: policies,
values and theories, Children and Society, 18: 254-65.
Vincent, C. & Ball, S. J. (2006) Childcare, Choice and Class Practices. London, Routledge.
Vincent, C., Ball, S. J. & Braun, A. (2008b) „It‟s like saying “coloured”:understanding and
analysing the urban working classes. The Sociological Review 56 (1): 61-77.
Vincent, C., Braun, A. & Ball, S. (2008a) Childcare, Choice and Social Class, Critical Social
Policy, 28, (1) 5-26
Local links, local knowledge: Choosing care settings and Schools, Carol Vincent, Annette
Braun and Stephen Ball, Institute of Education, University of London, 2009
Smith, R., Poole, E., Perry, J., Wollny, I., Reeves, A., Coshall, C., d’Souza, J., and Bryson, C.
(2010) Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents 2009. DfE Research Report. RR-054
London:DfE
Speight, S., Smith, R., and Lloyd, E., with Coshall, C. (2010) Families Experiencing Multiple
Disadvantage: Their Use of and Views on Childcare Provision, DCSF Research Report
DCSF-RR191. London: DCSF.
Stratford, N., Finch, S. and Petick, J. (1997) Survey of Parents of Three and Four Year Old
Children and their Use of Early Years Services. DfES Research Report 31. Nottingham: DfES
Publications .
Smith, R., Speight, S. and La Valle, I. (2009a) Fitting It All Together: How Families Arrange
Their Childcare and the Influence on Children’s Home Learning, DCSF Research Report
RR090. Nottingham: DCSF Publications.
Page, J., Whitting, G., and Mclean, C. (2007) Engaging Effectively with Black and Ethnic
Minority Parents in Children’s and Parental Services. DCSF Research Report DCSF-RR013.
London: DCSF,
Oppenheim, C. (2007) Increasing the take-up of formal childcare among Black and Minority
Ethnic Families and families with a disabled child. Report to the Department for Education
and Skills. www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/download/?id=384 (accessed 21 August
2010).
Box, L., Bignall, T., & Butt, J (2001) Supporting parents through provision of childcare,
London: Race Equality Unit
Ben-Galim, D., (2011) Parent’s at the Centre, IPPR
Ben-Galim, D., (2011) Parent’s at the Centre – Slide Pack for Practitioners, IPPR
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) Sure Start Communication Toolkit,
London: Department for Children, Schools and Families
National Children’s Bureau (2010) principles for Engaging with Families, London: National
Children’s Bureau
Daycare Trust, Benefits of a parent champions scheme. Available at:
http://www.daycaretrust.org.uk/pages/benefits-of-a-parent-champions-scheme.html