Value for Money Review of the Equal Opportunities Childcare

Transcription

Value for
Money Review
ofTitle
the Equal
of
Opportunities
Report
Childcare
Programme
Final Report
June 2007
VFM REVIEW OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES CHILDCARE PROGRAMME
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................................1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.1
INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1
1.2
BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW ......................................................................................................1
1.3
IN THIS REPORT .............................................................................................................................8
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................9
2.1
TERMS OF REFERENCE ...................................................................................................................9
2.2
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................9
2.3
RESEARCH TASKS UNDERTAKEN .................................................................................................10
POLICY CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................14
3.1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................14
3.2
NATIONAL POLICY DEVELOPMENTS ............................................................................................14
3.3
ROLE OF KEY DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES ..............................................................................19
3.4
COMPARING INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES ................................................................................20
3.5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................26
DELIVERY OF THE EOCP 2000-06.............................................................................................28
4.1
PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION...................................................................28
4.2
STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAMME ................................................................................................30
4.3
PROJECT APPLICATION AND SELECTION PROCESS .......................................................................34
4.4
MONITORING AND EVALUATION ARRANGEMENTS ......................................................................36
4.5
DELIVERY OF NCIP 2006-10 .......................................................................................................37
4.6
PERFORMANCE OF THE EOCP 2000-06 ..................................................................................41
5.1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................41
5.2
OVERALL EOCP FUNDING ..........................................................................................................41
5.3
DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDING .........................................................................................................44
5.4
NATURE OF ACTIVITIES FUNDED .................................................................................................48
5.5
PROGRAMME PERFORMANCE AND BENEFICIARIES ......................................................................50
5.6
ECOP UNIT COSTS ......................................................................................................................54
5.7
LABOUR MARKET PARTICIPATION ...............................................................................................55
5.8
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ................................................................................................58
5.9
ROLE OF THE CCCS AND NVCOS.............................................................................................64
6.1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................64
6.2
STRUCTURE AND NATURE OF THE CCCS .....................................................................................64
i
6.3
ROLE OF THE CCCS AND SUPPORT MECHANISMS ........................................................................67
6.4
CCC STRATEGIC PLANS ..............................................................................................................69
6.5
CCC ANNUAL ACTION PLANS .....................................................................................................72
6.6
CCC ROLE IN STIMULATING LOCAL PROJECT ACTIVITY .............................................................75
6.7
NVCO ACTIVITY.........................................................................................................................77
6.8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................78
7.
8.
9.
LOCAL IMPACT OF THE EOCP .................................................................................................80
7.1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................80
7.2
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECTS ................................................................................................80
7.3
THE APPLICATION PROCESS ........................................................................................................84
7.4
DELIVERY OF THE PROJECT .........................................................................................................86
7.5
STAFFING AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES ..........................................................................................93
7.6
ADDITIONALITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................................95
7.7
COSTS OF CHILDCARE PROVISION......................................................................................100
8.1
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................100
8.2
KEY PARAMETERS AND DATA SOURCES ....................................................................................100
8.3
COSTS OF CHILDCARE TO THE PROVIDER...................................................................................102
8.4
INDICATIVE COMPARATIVE COSTS OF PROVISION .....................................................................105
8.5
INCIDENCE OF CHILDCARE COSTS .............................................................................................109
8.6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................112
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................115
9.1
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................115
9.2
KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS BY ISSUE .............................................................................115
9.3
RECOMMENDATIONS: NCIP 2007-2010 ....................................................................................124
9.4
RECOMMENDATIONS: BEYOND 2010 .........................................................................................126
ANNEXES
ii
List of Abbreviations
ASC
Appraisal Sub-Committee
BCCN
Border Counties Childcare Network
BMW
Border, Midland, Western Region
CCCs
County Childcare Committees
CECDE
Centre For Early Childhood Development and Education
DEIS
Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools
ECCE
Early Childhood Care and Education
EOCP
Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme
HSE
Health Service Executive
IBEC
Irish Business and Employers Confederation
ICTU
Irish Congress of Trade Unions
IPPA
Early Childhood Organisation (previously Irish Preschool Playgroups
Association)
ISWECA
Irish Steiner Waldorf Early Childhood Association
NAPinclusion
National Action Plan on Inclusion
NCIP
National Childcare Investment Programme
NCNA
National Childrens’ Nurseries Association
NDP
National Development Plan
NGO
Non-governmental Organisation
NVCO
National Voluntary Childcare Organisation
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OMC
Office of the Minister for Children
OP
Operational Programme
PAC
Programme Appraisal Committee
PESC
Project Evaluation Sub-Committee
S&E
Southern and Eastern Region
VFM
Value for Money
iii
List of Figures and Tables
Table 1.1
Families Classified by Main Type of Childcare Arrangement Used, 2004 and
2005
Figure 2.1
Overview of Methodology
Figure 3.1
Recommendations to Enhance the Integration of Early Childhood Services for
0-6 Year Olds
Table 4.1
Annual Allocation to the EOCP Compared With Overall Allocation to Votes
19/41 in 2000-2007
Table 4.2
Basis for Allocation of EOCP Staffing Grants Since 2005
Table 5.1
Overall Funding Allocated Via the EOCP 2000-06
Table 5.2
Overall Funding Drawn Down Via the EOCP 2000-06
Table 5.3
EOCP Funding Allocated Under Sub-measures 1 and 2 by Year 2000-06
Table 5.4
Average EOCP Grant Assistance Under Sub-measures 1 and 2 by Year
Figure 5.1
Analysis of EOCP Co-financed Capital Grants by Range of Award 2000-06
Table 5.5
CCC Funding Assistance under Sub-measure 3 in 2006
Figure 5.2
Analysis of Nature of Activities Supported by EOCP Co-financed Capital Grants
2000-06
Figure 5.3
Analysis of Nature of Activities Supported Under EOCP Sub-measure 3, 200006
Table 5.6
Key Performance Indicators for the EOCP 2000-06
Table 5.7
Staff and Childcare Places Supported by EOCP 2000-06
Table 5.8
Unit Costs of EOCP Supported Activities
Table 5.9
Seasonally Adjusted Labour Force Participation Rate 1999-2006
Table 5.10
Labour Market Status of Parents Using EOCP Supported Childcare Services
Figure 6.1
Development Process of the CCCs
Figure 6.2
Average Members From Each Stakeholder Group Across CCCs
Figure 6.3
Satisfaction of CCCs with Support Provided by Pobal
Figure 6.4
Prevalence of Selected Topics in CCC Strategic Plans
Figure 6.5
Focus Given to Quality-related Issues in CCC Action Plans
Figure 6.6
CCC Activity in Supporting Local Project Providers and Potential Providers
Table 8.1
Estimated Staff Costs in Public Sector Places
Table 8.2
Estimated Indicative Annual Costs of Childcare Provision
Table 8.3
Estimated Indicative Hourly Costs of Childcare Provision
Table 8.4
Estimated Costs and Parent Charges Compared
iv
Executive Summary
Introduction and Terms of Reference
This report represents the final output of the independent Value-for-Money Review of the Equal
Opportunities Childcare Programme (EOCP) undertaken by Fitzpatrick Associates. The review
was commissioned in July 2006 by the Office of the Minister for Children (OMC), part of the
Department of Health and Children, as one of a series of Value-for-Money Reviews required by
the Minister of Finance over the 2006-2008 period. It was to examine the implementation of the
EOCP over the period 2000-2006 and make recommendations with regard to the development
of its successor programme, the National Childcare Investment Programme (NCIP) 2006-2010.
The Terms of Reference for the review listed the following requirements:

Identification of the EOCP and NCIP objectives, including how they have evolved over time.

Consideration of the continuing validity of these objectives and their fit with wider
Government policy.

Identification, and where possible/appropriate quantification, of the level and trend of
outputs and associated outcomes achieved by the EOCP.

Examination of the extent to which the EOCP’s objectives have been achieved and the
effectiveness with which they have been achieved.

Examination of the way in which the mechanisms for delivery of the EOCP have been
developed, including their development into new arrangements for the delivery of the NCIP,
and comment on the efficiency with which these have achieved the EOCP objectives (and
would be expected to achieve the NDP objectives).

Evaluation of the degree to which the EOCP objectives, and now the NCIP objectives,
warrant the allocation of public funding on a current and ongoing basis.

Evaluation of the scope for alternative policy or organisational approaches to achieving the
full range of EOCP/NCIP objectives more efficiently or effectively.

Specification of potential future performance indicators which might be used to better
monitor performance of the NCIP.
Methodology
In response to the requirements of the Terms of Reference, Fitzpatrick Associates adopted a
twelve-task approach covering four distinct phases: inception; national and international
research; local level research; and analysis and reporting. The comprehensive research
process included consultation with key national stakeholders, a detailed survey of City and
County Childcare Committees, a series of workshops for local stakeholders involved in
childcare provision, case studies of projects in receipt of EOCP assistance. An extensive review
v
of programme documentation and other relevant research at local, national and international
level was also part of this process.
Policy Context
Childcare is a central theme of Government policy, with a formal commitment within ‘Towards
2016: A Ten Year Social Partnership Framework’ to a significant increase in provision of quality
childcare places, the development of a National Childcare Training Strategy and targeting the
early education needs of children in disadvantaged areas. The National Childcare Strategy
2006-10 frames these commitments, with €2.65bn of investment set aside for its implementation
and tax relief and social welfare developments put in place to support delivery. The publication
of Síolta, the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education in Ireland, has the
potential to reinforce implementation of policy with regard to the generation of quality childcare
places, putting in place a series of guiding principles and standards. It’s value as a mechanism
to improve the quality of early childhood care, a stated objective of the NCIP childcare provision
will be dependent on adherence to the principles and standards set down in Síolta.
The Office of the Minister for Children is responsible for managing the delivery of the NCIP. The
creation of this Office, where relevant services from the Department of Justice, Equality and
Law Reform and the Department of Education and Science are co-located with those of the
Department of Health and Children, should facilitate achievement of the multi-faceted objectives
of the programme covering quality provision, early education, skills and training and social
inclusion. However this will only be the case if co-location leads to practical coordination of
activities, with sufficiently flexible approaches in place within the respective individual
departments to allow effective joint approaches to be developed.
The comparison of international approaches revealed that there is now a generally accepted link
between childcare and education in the policy approaches of most developed economies. It was
noted that all-inclusive policies had generally been adopted with regard to early childhood
education, targeting all children regardless of socio-economic background. This differs
somewhat from the focus of current policy in Ireland, where early education interventions have
primarily been targeted on disadvantaged areas thus far, via initiatives such as Early Start and
DEIS. It was noted that programmes are in place to address childcare needs in order to promote
social inclusion in a number of countries, with community-based models in place in the USA and
England. Local municipalities have a strong role in the implementation of the Dutch early
education VVE programme, an alternative means (to that of the CCCs in the EOCP and NCIP)
of utilising a locally based structure to identify needs and help to develop appropriate responses
in this regard. In general, as is the case in Ireland, most developed countries have a mixed
approach to the delivery of childcare services, with the State, private sector and community and
vi
voluntary sector typically involved in provision to some degree, in recognition of the different
circumstances and needs that provoke each individual intervention.
Delivery of the EOCP 2000-06
The lead department for the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme for the first six years of
delivery was the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Since December 2005, this
responsibility has been assumed by the OMC. The OMC is supported in its role by two
Committees which it chairs, the Programme Appraisal Committee (PAC) and the National
Childcare Coordinating Committee (NCCC). Pobal is responsible for managing the day-to-day
delivery of the programme. The EOCP was structured across three sub-measures as follows:

Sub-measure 1: Capital Grants, where grants were made available to support community
or not-for-profit childcare groups for capital investment to either establish a new childcare
facility or service, or upgrade an existing facility or service. The private sector was also
eligible to apply for smaller scale capital grants under this measure in order to establish or
upgrade childcare facilities or services.

Sub-Measure 2: Staffing Grants, where grants were provided only to community or not-forprofit organisations, which demonstrated a focus on disadvantage, to contribute towards
staffing costs, with a view to enhancing quality.

Sub-Measure 3: Quality Improvement, where the majority of resources were allocated
towards assisting CCCs and NVCOs to deliver interventions to support quality childcare.
Additional resources were also available for national or regional quality improvement
innovative projects
Across these three sub-measures of the EOCP, the review identified particular issues in relation
to staffing grants. While a multi-annual system for staffing grant funding was operated under the
programme in its initial and final stages, the move in 2004 towards a renewal of grants on a
short-term basis led to difficulties and uncertainty for the childcare facilities and staff concerned.
The removal of these problems at the time when longer-term grant funding was returned
underlies the need to continue to provide staffing funding on a multi-annual basis in the future
delivery of the NCIP.
A multi-tiered project selection and application process was in place for the EOCP. The review
found that this approach, while ensuring that sufficiently senior departmental representatives
can input into decision-making, nonetheless seemed overly complex. The changes in delivery of
the NCIP from the focus, structures and processes adopted by its predecessor should play a
role in streamlining the initial stages of the process and in ensuring that projects more closely
reflect local childcare needs. The increasing role for the CCCs in identifying local needs and
appraising applications in the first instance should be particularly beneficial in this regard. There
is also strong emphasis in the NCIP on improving the quality of early childhood care and
education services and supporting families to break the cycle of disadvantage. Capital grants
vii
are available for both private and community and voluntary sector providers, with the staffing
grants that will become available for the latter group still to be defined.
Performance of the EOCP 2000-06
A number of key aspects of the performance of the EOCP were highlighted by the review,
including:

By the end of 2006, €564.7mn in total had been allocated for investment in the development
of childcare via the EOCP.

60% of all monies allocated under EOCP had been drawn down by the end of 2006, with
most allocations outstanding concentrated within the capital grants measure.

The average capital grant award over the period 2000-2006 for co-funded assistance stood
at €179,419, while purely exchequer funded grants were generally smaller scale in nature,
with an average of €42,076.

33,582 new childcare places were created as a result of the EOCP, of which 14,799 are fulltime in nature.

1,280 full-time staff and 1,568 part-time staff supported via EOCP interventions.
However, issues were also identified that have impeded the progress of the EOCP in terms of
meeting its objectives over its lifetime. The slow-down in processing grants during 2004 had a
significant impact on the level of throughput of projects via the programme. A major backlog was
progressed upon resumption and it was noted that the awards were substantially higher than in
previous years with no clear evidence that this was a result of the different needs of the projects
being appraised. Under the period of the NCIP, funding must be allocated on a consistent needs
basis to ensure a value-for-money approach to delivery. Capacity issues among community and
voluntary organisations were also found to have caused delays, particularly in the management
of capital projects and it was noted that further technical expertise was required to progress
these projects effectively.
It was highlighted that as a result of the data available with regard to performance of the
programme, calculation of unit costs was highly problematic, while a number of new potential
key performance indicators were identified that will help to better monitor aspects of
performance moving forward. In particular, information relating to the wider costs of operating
community-based services, should be gathered to facilitate a greater understanding of the cost
components, and the provision of appropriate responses in this regard. The OMC is committed
under Towards 2016 to developing, in liaison with the HSE and the CECDE, a new National
Data Strategy to support the planning and delivery of policy and services in relation to early
childhood care and education and school age childcare. This should help the future evaluation
of the NCIP and the impact of investment under the programme.
viii
Role of the CCCs and NVCOs
The CCCs and other support structures that were put in place to assist in the implementation of
the EOCP have been of mixed effectiveness over the lifetime of the programme. The review
found that that there had been a very steep learning curve for the stakeholders involved in the
CCCs and that this meant that progress in establishing the Committees as effective
mechanisms in addressing local needs and helping to develop responses to those needs was
slow in the initial years of the programme. The fact that the CCCs had no formal role (other than
a consultative one) in the project application and selection process appeared to impede their
ability to be more proactive in this regard. Nevertheless there was evidence of positive impacts
arising from the establishment of the CCCs in terms of the development of more effective
working partnerships, promoting best practice locally via provision of training and advocating
adherence to standards and in supporting local promoters to develop projects. The annual
action planning process was also shown to be working effectively in focusing attention on key
areas of activity, although the number of headings under which activities are required to be
proposed in CCC action plans should be reduced, with social inclusion and equality and
diversity made horizontal principles that underpin all activities.
Moving forward, the role of the CCCs in the first appraisal stage of the NCIP application process
should improve their ability to ensure that local childcare needs are being met and that the right
type of services are being developed in the right locations. Representatives from the CCCs
highlighted that there was now more scope to make effective interventions in this regard moving
forward. It is critical that if there is to be ongoing justification for the presence of CCCs as local
mechanisms in the identification and facilitation of delivery of appropriate childcare responses,
they need to take on a more proactive role in the identification of local needs and progression of
appropriate projects, and in ensuring that services are adhering to standards in relation to
quality provision. If the NCIP is to continue to provide capital grants subject to ongoing
monitoring of local needs, the CCCs should play a critical role in determining where ongoing
needs for additional childcare provision exist and where local childcare needs have been met,
The CCCs should also play a prominent role in improving the quality of childcare provision at
local level, with consideration given to how their role within the grant application process might
be utilised to ensure adherence to requirements or standards.
The review found that the National Voluntary Childcare Organisations (NVCOs) funded under
the EOCP played important roles in terms of capacity building at local level and in serving as
representative structures for particular interest groups. However there was some evidence of
duplication of activities across NVCOs and also in relation to those undertaken by the CCCs. It
is therefore recommended that the remits of the NVCOs should be more closely defined in order
to reduce levels of duplication between these organisations and also to avoid overlap with the
activities of the CCCs.
ix
Local Impact of the EOCP
The examination of the local impact of the EOCP raised a number of issues with regard to
implementation of the programme. The review found that the stakeholders involved in the
development of EOCP supported projects were from diverse backgrounds, with many
originating from wider community development initiatives, while others were involved with
expansion of existing childcare facilities. This created capacity difficulties, as many projects
lacked the childcare expertise in the former case, or the organisational skills in the latter, to
effectively implement their proposals and draw down the money allocated. It was noted that this
weakness in the project development process might be addressed in the NCIP by building an
external specialist project management function into the process.
The application process attracted significant criticism from stakeholders in EOCP supported
projects. Although the development worker function in Pobal was effective in many cases, there
appeared to be a high level of turnover in the key contacts within the agency that EOCP
applicants dealt with over time, causing frustration and inefficiencies. It was found that there
should be greater transparency within the application process with a mechanism established to
allow applications to be tracked through the appraisal process. The developments that are being
made in terms of streamlining the application process in the NCIP are however welcomed at
local level, with the more proactive role of the CCCs and a move away from front-loading of
reporting requirements perceived to have made the application process more efficient.
In terms of project delivery, a high degree of diversity was evident in terms of the nature of
facilities, target groups served, charging policies and catchment areas and it is important to
recognise such differences in planning the implementation of the NCIP moving forward. There is
real scope for the income generated by supported community-based services to be increased
under the NCIP, with maximum fees raised, an effective tiered fee system put in place in all
services, and appropriate minimum fees set. However it was also found that if public sector
support was withdrawn from these facilities, the majority would be forced to cease operations
within a very short timeframe. There were particular problems for projects located in the most
disadvantaged locations which, hence, had the lowest fee earning potential to meet their
ongoing (non direct staffing) operational costs, as these were not provided for under the EOCP.
In the future, consideration might be given to providing a proportion of a community-based
organisation’s operational costs for facilities over a certain size, particularly for services in the
most disadvantaged areas. It is also in these areas that support for families is an especially
pertinent issue. However, no clear guidance exists with regard to how such interventions should
be delivered under the NCIP and further articulation of how the programme might address the
objective of supporting families to break the cycle of poverty and disadvantage is required.
x
Overall, the assessment of the local impacts of the EOCP would suggest that the programme
has made significant in-roads in terms of increasing childcare provision, with high levels of
additionality evident from the funding allocated. However the objectives of the EOCP and NCIP
continue to warrant the allocation of funding on an ongoing basis given the needs for childcare
interventions that still exist in most areas of Ireland. There is also a need to recognise that there
is a finite period for which public sector capital investment in childcare infrastructure continues
to be justified. At the start of the programme there was a clear and pressing need for childcare
provision in all areas, but gradually these needs are being met and it is important that they
continue to be gauged on an ongoing basis to determine when they have largely been met and
no further investment is required.
Costs of Childcare Provision
The review considered the costs of childcare provision across 3 different models of provision:
community and voluntary sector; public sector; and private sector. It was found that the area is
problematic, relying on indicative cost estimates that should be interpreted with caution. It is
concluded that labour costs are the really crucial costs, constituting around 70% of total annual
costs of all forms of provision.
When considering the relative costs of the types of provision examined, on an hourly basis
underlying costs come across as in roughly the same “ballpark” across all sectors. Pobal
estimates are the lowest because they were developed as a benchmark for grant evaluation and
are conservative e.g. minimum wage for support staff. Private figures are highest and may be
somewhat inflated as they were prepared for a pre Budget Submission. However the private
sector is delivering a premium product with longer opening hours and an educational element.
It also must be added that costs data alone do not answer the policy issues, and the quality of
childcare/education element objectives and benefits must also be considered.
An overall implication of this analysis is that ball-park costs of provision may not be as different
as might be expected when like is compared with like. From a cost perspective the most critical
issue may therefore not be so much “who provides?” as “who pays?” From a public policy
perspective, a key issue then becomes to what extent the public purse wishes to pay or wishes
users to meet their own childcare costs. A critical issue ahead for public policy is therefore also
not so much what providers it supports but, also at what level it wishes to do so and through
what mechanism it wishes to support the service, e.g. one-off capital versus ongoing subsidy
(EOCP does both) and to what extent it is the provider or the user who is subvented (EOCP
does the latter).
xi
Conclusions and Recommendations
The review draws a number of conclusions with regard to each point in the Terms of Reference
it was required to address:
ToR Requirement
“Identification of the
EOCP
and
NCIP
objectives, including
how
they
have
evolved over time.”
“Consideration of the
continuing validity of
these objectives and
their fit with wider
Government policy.”
“Identification,
and
where
possible/appropriate
quantification, of the
level and trend of
outputs
and
associated outcomes
achieved
by
the
EOCP. “
“Examination OF the
extent to which the
EOCP’s
objectives
have been achieved
and the effectiveness
with which they have
been achieved.”
Conclusion
The original EOCP objectives defined its primary remit very much as
being a facilitator of labour force participation and thus employment of
parents by increasing the quality and quantity of childcare places
available in Ireland, while improving the coordination of childcare
provision. There is a view that the quality objective of the EOCP was
somewhat overshadowed by a more quantitative-based approach
targeting maximisation of the supply of childcare places. The need for
quality childcare provision is now explicitly stated within the NCIP
objectives and is expected to be a critical focus of the new
programme. The other main development as the NCIP emerges is the
prominence given to issues of early childhood education, with
interventions to be progressed to support appropriate responses,
particularly in disadvantaged areas.
The development of the objectives and focus of the EOCP and NCIP
over time have therefore generally reflected national policy in relation
to childcare and the multiplicity of issues that childcare provision seeks
to address. The objectives of the EOCP and now the NCIP remain
valid and closely reflect national Government policy across a number
of areas. A feature of both current childcare policy discussion and the
NCIP is a gradual merging of the earlier objectives into an overall
policy acceptance that childcare services are a basic feature of a
modern economy, with increased emphasis on developmental benefits
for the children themselves
The quantitative findings generally confirm the fact that an effective
programme has been delivered over the EOCP period. This
commenced from a “standing start” and has well exceeded original
objectives. In terms of increasing the number of childcare places in
Ireland, EOCP has had a significant impact. Nevertheless this impact
could have been greater if a higher draw down rate of grants had been
achieved, a problem attributed to capacity issues in project
development at local level and the slow-down of capital grant
allocations in 2004.
In terms of overall efficiency, it is likely that the ECOP model, with its
strong C&V focus to date has delivered childcare places at an overall
cost level that is broadly in line with or below alternatives. An area of
concern regarding efficiency is the relatively poor information available
centrally, especially in the C&V sector and in the public sector, on full
provision costs and poor monitoring of these as against alternatives.
“Cost awareness” needs to be greatly enhanced under the NCIP if an
efficient system is to be both delivered, and seen to be delivered.
xii
“Examination of the
way in which the
mechanisms
for
delivery of the EOCP
have been developed,
including
their
development into new
arrangements for the
delivery of the NCIP,
and comment on the
efficiency with which
these have achieved
the EOCP objectives
(and
would
be
expected to achieve
the NCIP objectives).”
“Evaluation of the
degree to which the
EOCP objectives, and
now
the
NCIP
objectives, warrant the
allocation of public
funding on a current
and ongoing basis.”
“Evaluation of the
scope for alternative
policy
or
organisational
approaches
to
achieving
the
full
range of EOCP/NCIP
objectives
more
efficiently
or
effectively.”
There was some concern at what appeared to be a relatively unwieldy
application process and at the lack of transparency in the process. The
more streamlined application process planned for the NCIP should
prove more effective and efficient, with fewer administrative
requirements to be met prior to submission, and it is hoped that this
will facilitate more timely decision making. Pobal has played an overall
effective administrative role in ensuring that the programme was well
structured and appropriate financial controls were in place to ensure
accountability, although there are mixed levels of satisfaction with the
agency at local stakeholder level. Establishment of the City and
County Childcare Committees has been a notable development that
should facilitate better identification of local childcare needs and more
effective planning (at local level) of responses to meet those needs. It
will however be important to ensure CCCs stay focused on their core
role, and that any overlap (e.g. with new Pobal regional structures) is
avoided. A presumption that the CCCs will continue to be needed in
perpetuity should also be avoided.
There is little doubt that objectives of the EOCP and NCIP continue to
warrant the allocation of funding on an ongoing basis given the needs
for childcare interventions that still exist in most areas of Ireland.
However there is a need to recognise that there is a finite period for
which public sector capital investment in childcare infrastructure
continues to be justified as needs continue to be met. There is also
considerable scope for the income generated by EOCP and now NCIP
supported community-based services to be increased, with maximum
fees raised, an effective tiered fee system put in place in all services,
and appropriate minimum fees set. However it was also found that if
public sector support was withdrawn from C&V facilities as they
presently stand, the majority would be forced to cease operations
within a very short timeframe. Within the present structure, we
therefore feel that large-scale capital funding should continue during
the period of the new programme (i.e. 2006-10) but that it should be
planned such that an adequate national supply should by then be in
place and that capital funding thereafter would become smaller scale
and exceptional post 2010.
In terms of alternative delivery models within Ireland, a consideration
of both purely private sector and various public sector childcare
delivery models offered no indication that underlying costs would be
lower than is the case in EOCP supported community facilities. It is
also unlikely that such models would be able to adequately deliver on
objectives in relation to social inclusion and family support, issues that
require a community development model of intervention in order to be
effectively addressed. In terms of alternatives, it is also important to
keep in mind that this does not necessitate fully “either/or” situations.
Most developed countries, even where some forms of provision
predominate, continue to have a mix of public, private and NGO
organisations involved. In many ways the key policy issue should not
be about the form of provision, but about whether and how the public
sector wishes to subvent this provision, particularly on an ongoing
basis.
xiii
“Specification of the
potential
future
performance
indicators which might
be used to better
monitor performance
of the NCIP.”
The key performance indicators in place for the EOCP, such as
generation of additional childcare places, support of staff, labour force
participation and skills accreditation, have obvious merit and should
continue to be used to define performance of the NCIP moving
forward. There is a need to focus on quantifiable indicators reflecting
other objectives in relation to quality of provision, the wider costs of
childcare and relationship to local needs.
In light of these conclusions, the review proposes the following recommendations for the
implementation of the NCIP over the period 2007-10:
1. The NCIP should continue to provide capital grants subject to ongoing monitoring of local
needs. The CCCs should play a critical role in determining where ongoing needs for
additional childcare provision exist. Where local childcare needs have been met, the capital
element of the programme should be withdrawn.
2. For community-based capital grants, project management functions and costs should be
included as a central component of the programme and included as a condition of funding.
3. Staffing grants should be introduced for community-based facilities under the NCIP and
should be based on ensuring that effective tiered fee structures are put in place in all
facilities, that maximum and minimum fees are set at an appropriate level and that these
conditions are an integral part of the eligibility criteria for funding. Continued eligibility for
staffing grants should be monitored to ensure that all facilities seek to move towards
sustainability.
4. For community-based staffing grants, approval should be given for a minimum of three
years. EOCP staffing grant recipients should, where possible, be considered for NCIP
funding prior to the termination of their existing grant.
5. Consideration should be given to adoption and implementation of criteria based on levels of
disadvantage to determine whether facilities will be eligible for staffing support assessed on
the basis of needs in the short to medium term or on a medium to longer term basis.
6. There should be greater transparency within the application process with a mechanism
established to allow applications to be tracked through the development and appraisal
processes. The criteria for determining the level of staffing grant support should be more
clearly defined and applied
7. Consideration should be given to providing a proportion of a community-based
organisation’s operational costs in order to provide more scope for quality provision,
particularly for larger services in the most disadvantaged areas.
8. The adoption of the principles and standards within Siolta by NCIP supported services
should be formally encouraged within the criteria for the programme, with consideration
being given to setting resources aside to facilitate the development of provision in this
regard.
xiv
9. The objectives of the NCIP are valid, but further articulation of how the programme can
address the objective of supporting families to break the cycle of poverty and disadvantage
is required.
10. Information relating to the wider costs of operating community-based services, should be
gathered to facilitate a greater understanding of the cost components, and the provision of
appropriate responses in this regard.
11. The National Data Strategy which is being developed by the OMC in liaison with the HSE
and CECDE should be used to coordinate the gathering of local-level information to support
the planning and delivery of policy and services for early childhood care and education.
12. The CCCs should play a more prominent role in improving the quality of childcare provision
at local level, utilising their role within the grant application process might be utilised to
ensure adherence to requirements or standards.
13. The number of headings under which activities are required to be proposed in CCC action
plans should be reduced, with social inclusion and equality and diversity made horizontal
principles that underpin all activities.
14. The remits of the NVCOs should be closer defined in order to reduce levels of duplication
between these organisations and also to avoid overlap with the activities of the CCCs.
15. The level of national and regional supply, demand, customer satisfaction, waiting levels, etc.
should be monitored on an ongoing basis, with a view to establishing when there is
sufficient supply in place, i.e. when large-scale capital subvention could be withdrawn as its
continuation would then begin to result in large-scale deadweight and displacement.
Moving beyond the lifetime of the NCIP, the post-2010 period can be seen as the
commencement of a more “mature” phase of provision, and the following recommendations are
proposed:

that large-scale capital investment at that stage be phased out and that in the interim
(2007-10) the necessary capital investment is made available;

that, in the interim, alternative forms of ongoing subvention to the current one, which is
primarily a mix of ECOP staffing grants, CE and in some cases free and subsidised access
to premises, be replaced by a less ad hoc and more structured system. Such a system
should be: transparent; have clear parameters from the point of view of Exchequer
commitments; better targeted upon appropriate groups, including socially excluded groups;
and more neutral as between different types of supplier.
The possibilities of such systems, e.g. labour subsidies, vouchers for childcare users, should be
explored in the interim, drawing in particular on international experience.
xv
1. Introduction and Background
1.1 Introduction
This report represents the final output of the independent Value-for-Money Review of the Equal
Opportunities Childcare Programme undertaken by Fitzpatrick Associates. The review was
commissioned in July 2006 by the Office of the Minister for Children (OMC) following a competitive
tendering process and involved an extensive research process. The process was overseen by a
Steering Group, including representatives from the Office of the Minister for Children and the
Department of Health and Children, the Department of Finance, the Centre for Early Childhood
Development and Education (CECDE) and community based childcare providers.
1.2 Background to the Review
1.2.1 Value-for-Money Reviews
The Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 and the Public Service Management
Act 1997 laid the foundations for Government departments to develop individual evaluation
strategies in line with the activities they support. They stimulated a subsequent expenditure review
process, with the first round of reviews approved by Government in 1997 and Guidelines for their
undertaking drawn up by the Department of Finance. While the evaluative capacity of departments
improved significantly as a result of these initiatives, a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General
in 2001 noted that evaluations remained too focused on inputs rather than outcomes, and a 2004
report of the Expenditure Review Central Steering Committee found that there should be a closer
relationship between the reviews and the decision-making processes for resource allocation.
Recognising these issues, the Minister for Finance in June 2006 announced that the existing
Expenditure Review Initiative would be revised and rebranded as a Value for Money and Policy
Review process. This was to complement other value for money initiatives including multi-annual
capital envelopes, revised capital appraisal guidelines, public procurement reforms and production
of annual output reports. It is intended that the Value for Money Review process will increase the
focus on department outcomes as well as inputs and consider in greater depth issues of relevance,
economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Some 90 formal Value for Money Reviews are planned to be
undertaken over the 2006-08 period, including this review of the Equal Opportunities Childcare
Programme 2000-06.
The overall purpose of this value-for-money review is to examine the delivery of the Equal
Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000-06 with a view to making recommendations on the future
development of the National Childcare Investment Programme 2006-10. It is intended to focus
1
particularly on the community and voluntary strand of the programme, while also considering
performance in general. The Terms of Reference for the review are set out below:
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE VALUE-FOR-MONEY REVIEW

Identification of the EOCP and NCIP objectives, including how they have evolved over time.

Consideration of the continuing validity of these objectives and their fit with wider Government
policy.

Identification, and where possible/appropriate quantification, of the level and trend of outputs
and associated outcomes achieved by the EOCP.

Examination of the extent to which the EOCP’s objectives have been achieved and the

Examination of the way in which the mechanisms for delivery of the EOCP have been
developed, including their development into new arrangements for the delivery of the NCIP, and
comment on the efficiency with which these have achieved the EOCP objectives (and would be
expected to achieve the NDP objectives).

Evaluation of the degree to which the EOCP objectives, and now the NCIP objectives, warrant
the allocation of public funding on a current and ongoing basis.

Evaluation of the scope for alternative policy or organisational approaches to achieving the full
range of EOCP/NCIP objectives more efficiently or effectively.

Specification of potential future performance indicators which might be used to better monitor
performance of the NCIP.
1.2.2 Childcare Provision in Ireland
The very high levels of economic growth experienced in Ireland since the mid-1990s have been the
product of a number of factors, with a principal source being the significant expansion of the labour
force during that time. Fuelled by reductions in the unemployment rate, new labour from immigration
and a marked increase in labour force participation rates, the Irish labour force has grown from
1.43mn in 1994 to 2.07mn in 2006. The expansion in female participation levels has been
particularly significant, with the rate rising from 35.8% to 52.2% between 1990 and 2006. While it
must be acknowledged that female participation has grown from a very low base due to a range of
social, economic and cultural circumstances, significant albeit lower scope still exists to expand
participation further.
Indeed female labour force participation rates in Ireland remain low in comparison with other EU
member states (60.8% for 15-64 age group in Ireland compared to 62.5% in EU25) and it would
seem that barriers still exist that limit the extent of economic activity. As noted in the Information
Note accompanying the Request for Tender, the increase in female labour force participation since
1994 has resulted in strong demand for non-parental childcare and it appears that one such barrier
is insufficient provision to meet this need. Costs of childcare to parents have risen in recent years,
2
with the average cost of paid childcare per household per week for pre-school children increasing
from €106.37 in 2002 to €131.35 in 20051. Prior to this, in 2001, OECD research found that Ireland
already had relatively high childcare costs relative to incomes in comparison with other developed
countries (representing 29% of average industrial wage). As shown in Table 1.1, factors such as
limited childcare services and relatively high childcare costs have contributed to a high proportion of
parents/guardians in Ireland looking after children of both pre-school and primary school age during
the working day, while paid and unpaid relatives also have a high incidence as carers.
TABLE 1.1: FAMILIES CLASSIFIED BY MAIN TYPE OF CHILDCARE ARRANGEMENT USED,
2002 AND 2005
Pre-School
Primary School
2002
2005
2002
2005
Parent/Guardian
62.1%
59.7%
78.0%
78.5%
Unpaid relative
10.5%
11.5%
9.2%
9.7%
Paid relative
4.6%
4.5%
3.2%
2.6%
Paid carer
12.0%
12.1%
7.5%
6.5%
Crèche/Montessori
9.3%
10.1%
1.4%
1.4%
Other
1.6%
2.2%
0.8%
1.3%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
SOURCE: CSO QNHS 2005
The Government recognised the need to improve childcare services and supports for families, and
made six distinct commitments in its Agreed Programme for Government in this regard:

To ensure that every county implemented a Childcare Strategy by the end of 2002, providing
the planning and funding basis to significantly increase childcare provision.

To seek to significantly expand the number of new childcare places supported by state funding.

To significantly increase capital grants for community and private childcare facilities.

To seek to streamline the application process for childcare capital grants and increase the
grant limits for all providers, subject to overall compliance with EU State Aid rules.

To ensure that there is a network of supports in place for childminders.

To expand support for the provision of out-of-hours childcare programme based in schools.
This national commitment has been reinforced by developments at EU level, with the Lisbon
Agenda requiring member states to increase labour force participation rates and the Barcelona
summit establishing a series of targets with regard to childcare and early age education. Despite
significant progress in childcare provision, Ireland still has some way to go to meet the 2010 targets,
with participation in Government funded childcare services under half the 30% target level when last
measured by NESF in 2002/03, while participation in full-time education by 3-5 year olds was 49.6%
against a target of 90%. Concentrated intervention is needed to move towards such targets, while
continuing labour force growth and relatively high fertility rates (in comparison with other EU
1
CSO QNHS Special Module Quarter 1 2005
3
member states) further highlights why investment in childcare has been a key policy priority over
recent years.
1.2.3 Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000-06
The initial Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme (EOCP) operated from January 1998 to June
2000 and involved three strands of funding: Capital Infrastructure; Employer Demonstration Project
and Community Support Childcare Initiative. With a budget of £11.5mn, it supported 123 projects
over the period. The success of these interventions led to inclusion of the Programme in the
National Development Plan 2000-06. It formed part of the Social Inclusion Sub-Programme of the
Border, Midland and Western (BMW) and Southern & Eastern (S&E) Regional Operational
Programmes, financed via a combination of Government and EU Structural Funds.
Initially €317mn was allocated for the delivery of the programme, but over the programming period
this has risen to €499mn. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was designated lead
responsibility for the delivery of the EOCP, becoming the implementing body, with Pobal (formerly
ADM) managing day-to-day operations on behalf of, and in consultation with, the Department. In
December 2005, responsibility for the childcare programmes transferred to the new Office of the
Minister for Children (OMC) under the Department of Health and Children.
The principle roles and responsibilities of the Implementing Body (Childcare Directorate of the Office
of the Minister for Children) are set out below:
Receipt and initial handling of EOCP applications from childcare service providers

Provide public funding to Pobal for disbursement of grants to Grant Beneficiaries

Report at project level to the NDP Information System quarterly in arrears

Elaborate Government policy in relation to childcare

Host the Programme Appraisal Committee and submission of recommendations to the
Deciding Authority

Notify applicants of the success or otherwise of their applications for funding

Report on progress to the Monitoring Committees for the Regional Operational Programmes
bi-annually

Oversee the disbursement of grants to successful applicants and the reporting of Programme
level data by Grant beneficiaries

Verify and Certify Co-Financed Expenditure to the Managing Authority (B2 Level)
The principal roles and responsibilities of Pobal are as follows:-
4

Carry out a detailed assessment of each application/proposal against the eligibility criteria
established under the Programme (including an independent assessment by a building
specialist for larger capital projects as appropriate)

Present draft recommendations on funding to the Programme Appraisal Committee

Manage contractual arrangements with all Grant Beneficiaries

Disburse grants, in agreed instalments, to all Grant Beneficiaries

Capture and record of Programme level data on the Childcare Programme Database

Verify operations on-the-spot at Grant Beneficiary level

Verify and Certify Co-Financed Expenditure to the Implementing Body (B1 Level)
The EOCP made an active contribution to a variety of social and economic issues targeted by the
Regional Operational Programmes and wider NDP including labour force growth, social inclusion,
unemployment, gender equality, education and family support. This multi-purpose nature of the
Programme has been a feature of childcare provision in Ireland and elsewhere, and remains one of
the challenges in defining its priorities ahead. The programme’s primary aim was to increase access
to training, education and employment opportunities for parents via provision of quality childcare
supports. In this regard a series of objectives were set:

To improve the quality of childcare in Ireland;

To increase the number of childcare facilities and childcare places;

To introduce a coordinated approach to the delivery of childcare services.
Alongside these objectives a number of guiding principles were established to frame programme
activity:

The needs and rights of children;

Equal opportunities and equality of access and participation;

Diversity;

Partnership;

Quality.
Support was provided for a number of different types of childcare services: those providing care for
babies, full day care, part-time places, pre-school places, school age childcare and childminding.
This support is delivered via three measures: Capital Grant Scheme for Childcare Facilities; Support
for Staffing Costs; and Quality Improvement Programme. These are described in the accompanying
box.
5
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES CHILDCARE PROGRAMME 2000-06: SUMMARY OF CATEGORIES
OF ASSISTANCE
Capital Grant Scheme for Childcare Facilities
Grant assistance was available to renovate, upgrade or build a suitable facility for the purpose of
providing a childcare service, subject to qualifying conditions. Grant assistance was also available to
equip such facilities with suitable materials and equipment. Applications for assistance were made
directly to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and subsequently developed and
appraised by Pobal before being submitted for final appraisal by the Department. Applications could
be made by community-based/not-for-profit groups and organisations, a private sector childcare
provider or a community based consortium consisting of both types of organisation.
Support for Staffing Costs Measure
This measure operated in a similar way to the Capital Grant Scheme, with applications made
directly to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with a subsequent initial appraisal
process undertaken by Pobal. Unlike capital grants, it was however only available for those
community based/not for profit groups operating in an area of significant disadvantage or for
services that have a specific focus on disadvantage.
Quality Improvement Measure
The objective of this measure was to improve the quality of childcare services through the training
and education of childcare workers and establishment of support networks for childcare providers. It
was implemented differently from the other two measures as it involved provision of operational
funding to relevant network-type organisations (mainly to 33 City/County Childcare Committees and
7 National Voluntary Childcare Organisations) to implement Strategic Plans, which impacted on the
EOCP objectives.
The EOCP was thus a “supply-side” instrument providing capital and current financial support to
childcare providers, mainly but not exclusively in the community and voluntary sector. It was not of
course the full extent of policy towards childcare development, with other related instruments also
promoting this as summarised in 1.2.4 below.
To the end of December 2006, €348mn of NDP funding had been invested in childcare development
under the EOCP, consisting of €139mn of capital expenditure and €209mn of current expenditure.
Community and voluntary projects accounted for 87% of the expenditure, with private projects
receiving the remaining 13% of support. Almost 33,582 new childcare places have been provided,
exceeding the target set for the programme, with 1,280 full-time and 1,568 part-time childcare staff
positions supported. City/County Childcare Committees have delivered 322 accredited courses with
3,888 participants, while National Voluntary Childcare Organisations have delivered 89 accredited
courses with 1,220 participants.
The City/County Childcare Committees have played a central role in the delivery of the EOCP since
their establishment in 2001. Each has drawn up a locally focused childcare development strategy
that is currently being delivered through annual action plans funded by EOCP, and more recently
the NCIP, with €35mn allocated to end December 2006. Membership of the Committees varies from
area to area but typically involves relevant statutory agencies, National Voluntary Childcare
6
Organisations, parents representatives, and local service providers, mainly from the community and
voluntary sector.
1.2.4 National Childcare Investment Programme 2006-10
The new National Childcare Investment Programme (NCIP) follows on from the EOCP as the
primary source of public funding for childcare facilities in Ireland. The NCIP is a part of the wider
National Childcare Strategy 2006-10, launched in December 2005. This also includes interventions
with regard to maternity leave, and introduction of an early childcare supplement and childcare
training. It aims to improve the availability and quality of childcare to meet the needs of children and
their parents.
The Strategy establishes a planned and coordinated response to all aspects of childcare and
increasing labour force participation by parents. It aims to ensure that synergy exists between work
practices, the welfare system, taxation policy, investment in infrastructure, enhancement of the skills
base, engagement of the community and voluntary sector in provision and stimulation of related
entrepreneurship in order to ensure that the desired labour market impacts can be realised. The
ECOP and its successor are of course the focus of this review.
Within the Strategy, the NCIP aims to provide a funding response to the local planning and
development of quality childcare supports and services centred on the needs of the child and the
family. Three key objectives have been defined for the NCIP as follows:

Increase the supply and improve the quality of early childhood care and education services,
part-time and full day care, school age childcare and childminding,

Support a co-ordinated approach to the delivery of childcare, which is centred on the needs of
the child.

Support families to break the cycle of poverty and disadvantage,
The new multi-annual investment programme is seeking to create 50,000 additional childcare places
by 2010. It will be funded entirely by the Exchequer and involve investment of €575mn over five
years. Financial assistance is to be provided to invest in developing childcare infrastructure and
enhancing and increasing the supply of quality childcare. It will include the following programme of
support:

A new capital grant scheme for private sector childcare providers, where applicants may apply
for assistance up to €100,000 towards the capital cost of developing a childcare facility in
catchment areas where there is a demonstrated childcare need.
7

A provision to fund community/not for profit organisations to develop childcare facilities where
there is a demonstrated childcare need in the area, with the level of funding determined by the
number of places the group proposes to provide up to a normal maximum allocation of €1mn.

The allocation of capital grants to childminders and Parent and Toddler Groups to support
these sectors of childcare provision.

The provision of grants to help meet the staffing costs of community sector childcare providers.
Overall responsibility for the implementation of the NCIP at national level now rests with the Office of
the Minister for Children. Pobal manages the day-to-day running of the programme on behalf of the
OMC, building on its similar role in the delivery of the EOCP. The City and County Childcare
Committees (CCCs) are helping to plan activity at local level and progress delivery on national
approval of applications. The National Voluntary Childcare Organisations will also play a role in this
process.
1.3 In This Report
This report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 outlines the methodology adopted for undertaking the review, noting the specific
research tasks completed.

Chapter 3 provides the policy context underpinning the development of the EOCP and now the
NCIP, identifying recent policy developments, highlighting the roles of key departments and
agencies involved in this process and their perspectives on future policy development in this
regard, and detailing relevant policy initiatives overseas from which learning can be drawn.

Chapter 4 focuses on the delivery of the EOCP 2000-06, highlighting the management and
administration arrangements, application processes, monitoring and evaluation processes, and
considering how the NCIP is to be delivered over the 2006-10 period.

Chapter 5 offers a comprehensive profile of the EOCP, analysing the development of the
programme in terms of financial inputs, outputs results and impacts.

Chapter 6 examines the role of the CCCs in delivery of the programme drawing on an extensive
consultation and survey of the process.

Chapter 7 considers local experiences of the EOCP, drawing on a series of case studies on
specific projects supported by the programme, workshops held with key local stakeholders, and
a number of other consultations.

Chapter 8 deals with the question of costs of childcare in different types of providers.

Chapter 9 brings the report to a close, pinpointing the main conclusions of the VFM review and
proposing recommendations for the future development of the NCIP.
8
2. Methodology
2.1 Methodology Overview
In response to the requirements of the Terms of Reference, Fitzpatrick Associates adopted a fourphase, twelve-task approach in order to undertake the review. An overview of this methodology is
given in Figure 2.1.
FIGURE 2.1: OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY
PHASE 1
INCEPTION
PHASE 2
NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH
Inception Meeting
Review of Relevant
National Material
Key Stakeholder
Consultation
International Research
Profile of EOCP Activity
PHASE 3
LOCAL LEVEL
RESEARCH
Review of CCC
Strategies, Plans,
Reports
Survey of City/County
Childcare Committees
Case Studies of EOCP
Supported Services
Regional Workshops for
Service Providers
Analysis of Findings
PHASE 4
EVALUATION AND
REPORTING
Preparation of Draft Final
Report
Preparation of Final
Report
The individual tasks that are highlighted across the four phases in Figure 2.1 and undertaken as
part of this review are discussed in detail below.
9
2.2 Research Tasks Undertaken
2.2.1 Phase 1 - Inception
The inception phase formed a critical part of the review, with an inception meeting held with the
Office of the Minister for Children on 21st August 2006 to commence the process. This allowed key
contacts for consultation to be identified, access to appropriate material to be arranged and the work
programme to be finalised. Since that time Fitzpatrick Associates has met directly with the OMC on
five occasions in order to discuss progress.
A Steering Group, consisting of representatives from the OMC, the Department of Finance, The
Department of Health and Children, the community and voluntary sector and CECDE has also met
on four occasions in order to advise on progression of the review.
2.2.2 Phase 2 – National and International Research
Task 2a - Review of Relevant Material
The first task of the review was to understand the wider context underpinning the delivery of the
EOCP 2000-06. An examination of relevant national material was therefore undertaken
encompassing relevant legislation, policy material, stakeholder organisation strategies, previous
evaluations and reviews, and relevant research undertaken.
Task 2b - Stakeholder Consultation
A number of key national stakeholders involved in delivery of the EOCP and related policy initiatives
were consulted during the course of the review in order to further inform the analysis and
understanding of the programme. These included meetings with representatives from:

Office of the Minister for Children.

Department of Finance.

Department of An Taoiseach.

Department of Education and Science.

CECDE.

National Voluntary Childcare Organisations.

Regional representatives of the CCCs.
A full list of consultees is provided as Annex 2.
10
Task 2c – International Research
It was important that the review consider experience overseas in relation to childcare interventions
in order to identify areas where learning could be taken on board in the development of Irish policy
and the NCIP in the future. Particular issues where it was felt that such research would be valuable
included alternative approaches to provision, the role of funding and of public subvention, links
between childcare and education, the role of childcare in targeting social inclusion, the capacity of
the community and voluntary sector to engage in service provision. A desk research phase focusing
on international material was therefore conducted, with documentation reviewed also listed within
Annex 3.
2.2.3 Phase 3 – Local Level Research
Task 3a – Profile of EOCP Activity
In order to undertake the review effectively, an understanding of the inputs and outputs of the EOCP
over the 2000-06 period was developed with the assistance of Pobal. This included reviewing
outputs from the Pobal Grants Database, management accounts, monitoring committee reports,
synthesis reports of CCC and NVCO action plans, Programme Appraisal Committee reports, and
any other publications of relevance produced over the lifetime of the programme. A comprehensive
analysis of EOCP delivery over the period 2000-06 was then undertaken, identifying key trends and
characteristics in performance of the programme.
Task 3b – Review of CCC Strategies, Action Plans and Other Documentation
It was also important to gain a broad understanding of the activity supported by the EOCP that is
taking place around the country, and material produced by the City and County Childcare
Committees was reviewed. This involved examination of the strategic plans, action plans, research
and other materials produced by the CCCs since they were established.
Task 3c – Survey of City/County Childcare Committees
While examination of the activity planned by each CCC provided a valuable insight into the nature of
EOCP delivery around Ireland, it was also essential that the Committees were consulted to directly
establish the existing situation in each individual local area. A survey of the CCCs was therefore
conducted, based on a focused and detailed questionnaire that was approved by the Steering
Group. Of the 33 CCCs established, 28 submitted completed surveys, representing a response rate
of 85% and providing an analytical base from which sound conclusions could be drawn. The
questionnaire used for this exercise is provided as Annex 4.
Task 3d - Case Study Analysis of EOCP Supported Services
11
The review of CCC documentation and survey of the committees provided a valuable overview of
how the EOCP is being implemented at local level. However, it was also felt to be important that
local experiences were examined in greater depth, in order that the intricacies involved in delivering
local projects could be understood and a more comprehensive assessment of the impacts of the
EOCP can be made. In order to do this, 11 EOCP-supported projects were selected for further case
study analysis. This selection was based on ensuring that a cross-section of areas were
represented, including urban and rural areas, spread geographically around the country and taking
account of differing local socio-economic characteristics and different types of provision, and also
covering both capital and staffing grant recipients and the private and community sectors. The case
studies informed the general analysis of EOCP delivery and also facilitated the consideration of
activity on a themed basis, with projects visited that had a particular focus on, for example, voluntary
sector provision, employer-sponsored childcare, education and care, quality assurance, social
inclusion, targeting minority groups or developing a self-sustaining service. These projects were
considered in the context of such themes in case study examples provided in this report.
Task 3e - Regional Workshops
In undertaking a review where a programme is being delivered across many areas it is critical that
individual experiences are not only considered in isolation, but also as component parts of a more
holistic process. A series of four regional workshops were held. Between 12-18 representatives from
the CCCs and service providers from both the private and community and voluntary sectors
attended the workshops on each of the following dates:

Cork, 4th December, 2006.

Galway, 5th December, 2006.

Dublin, 6th December, 2006.

Dublin, 11th December, 2006.
2.2.4 Phase 4 - Analysis and Reporting
The final phase of the review has involved bringing all of the findings together from both the desk
research and consultation based tasks that have been described above. The profile of EOCP
activity and the survey and analysis of CCC activity and action plans has facilitated the drawing of
conclusions on the nature, scale and extent of the programme. This analysis phase of the study also
placed a particular focus on costs data in order to ensure that full account was taken of the cost of
the programme in determining its value-for-money. The more qualitative research drawn from
national stakeholder consultations, international research, case study analysis and regional
workshops has then allowed successes and best practice to be identified and explained in detail,
specific impacts to be detailed, weaknesses and failures to be identified, and the wider policy
context to be understood. These outputs have been gathered together and are articulated within this
final report.
12
A draft report was submitted on December 13th 2006 with the findings presented at a Steering
Group meeting on December 15th. Comments were subsequently provided by members of the
Steering Group and these were taken into account in a revised draft of the report. The revised draft
report was assessed by an independent assessor who reported back on any outstanding issues to
be addressed. Fitzpatrick Associates has worked to address these issues and produced this
finalised version of the Value-for-Money Review of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme
2000-06.
13
3. Policy Context
3.1 Introduction
Before considering the development and delivery of the EOCP in detail, it is important to review the
policy context that underpins implementation of the programme. This includes relevant national
policy developments that are framing the responses to meeting childcare needs in Ireland at
present, of which the EOCP and its successor the NCIP represent a major part, and these are
detailed within this chapter. The role of the key departments and agencies in delivering the EOCP
and NCIP is then considered. Finally, policy approaches overseas are compared in order that
learning can be taken on board in terms of childcare provision elsewhere, particularly with regard to
issues of early childhood education, targeting social inclusion and the role of the community and
voluntary sector.
When the EOCP was established, there was a significant deficit in terms of childcare infrastructure
in Ireland. At the same time the economy was experiencing unprecedented levels of growth, and
there was strong demand for labour. The labour force was expanding at a rapid pace, and a major
contributory factor was an increase in the female participation rate. It was recognised that, if growth
was to continue to be stimulated via this source, any barriers to women re-entering the labour force
must be addressed. The principle barrier in this regard was acknowledged as a lack of childcare
provision at local level that would allow a parent to access employment. Hence the programme was
conceived with its key objective to increase access to training, education and employment
opportunities for parents. During the implementation of the EOCP the supply of childcare places has
been increased significantly, while the importance of childcare in delivering early education
interventions has increasingly been recognised in both EU and national Government policy. As the
NCIP continues to be implemented, there appears to have been somewhat of a shift in policy focus
from quantity to quality of provision, and the developments discussed in detail below reinforce this
view.
3.2 National Policy Developments
3.2.1 National Childcare Strategy
The Budget Statement in 2005 heralded the launch of the National Childcare Strategy 2006-10 and
a series of accompanying commitments in order to increase supply of and improve accessibility to
childcare services in Ireland. The National Childcare Strategy had core aims of substantially
increasing the supply of childcare and assisting parents with the cost of childcare. Covering both
capital and current expenditure, implementation of the strategy is expected to involve €2.65 billion of
government investment. At the heart of the strategy was the introduction of a new multi-annual
14
National Childcare Investment Programme, following on from the EOCP, with a capital funding
stream providing grant aid for building or expansion of childcare facilities and a current funding
stream to support staff costs of community facilities with a focus on disadvantage.
In addition, a commitment was made to coordinate and increase funding for childcare training in
order to provide 17,000 additional childcare training places over the five years to 2010. This activity
is to be framed by the development within the Office of the Minister for Children of a new strategic
programme of standards and training. The OMC is working with the Department of Education and
Science, FAS, the VECs, and the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education to
formulate this training programme.
Among the other provisions put in place by the Government in support of the National Childcare
Strategy were:

Tax relief for childminding and for investment in childcare facilities;

The provision of an Early Childcare Supplement worth EUR 1,000 per annum for parents of
children under six years of age;

Increase in Child Benefit payments;

Increase in the duration of paid and unpaid maternity leave.
In addition to these Government measures, IBEC and ICTU launched a comprehensive ten year
strategy for childcare in Ireland in November 2005 with recommendations to address the supply of
places, quality of childcare, affordability, institutional responsibility and planning requirements. In
particular, it aims to encourage more women with children to enter and remain in the workforce by
creating the availability of more affordable and suitable childcare arrangements. Many of its
recommendations have now been taken into account in the development of Government policy and
it is now important that this strategy works in tandem with the National Childcare Strategy 2006-10
during implementation to realise its extremely important goal.
3.2.2 Towards 2016
The new social partnership agreement, ‘Towards 2016: A Ten Year Social Partnership Framework’,
was published in June 2006. It contains a series of policy commitments set out for the next decade
in relation to childcare. The framework puts in place a lifecycle approach to development, with
childhood, and adopting a holistic approach to meeting the needs of children, identified as one of
the key lifecycle stages for focused intervention.
Within this, a specific plan of action has been agreed between Government and social partners in
the area of early childhood care and development, working towards increasing the supply of
childcare places (of all types) by 100,000 over the period 2007-16. It is noted that this will be
15
achieved through a combination of the NCIP 2006-10, appropriate successor programme(s) and
other providers, with a number of specific actions identified:

Creation of 50,000 new childcare places, including 10,000 pre-school places and 5,000 afterschool places, as part of the €2.65 billion National Childcare Strategy 2006-10;

Development of a National Childcare Training Strategy which will aim to provide 17,000
childcare training places during 2006-10, and include quality and training provisions of the
National Childcare Investment Programme (NCIP);

Targeting the early childhood education needs of children from areas of acute economic and
social disadvantage through DEIS (the action plan for educational inclusion);

Relevant departments and agencies working together to complement and add value to
childcare programmes in disadvantaged communities with a view to ensuring that the overall
care and education needs of the children concerned are met in an integrated manner. This will
also involve the provision of education related professional support and training to existing
providers, together with a curriculum and quality framework for early childhood education;

Steps to standardise and improve inspections under the Child Care (Pre School) Regulations
by publishing the strengthened amended 2006 regulations and providing training for inspectors
across the HSE, establishing improved administrative systems to facilitate a national
standardised inspection service and ensuring that standardised inspection reports are publicly
available, and;

Support and encouragement of school facilities being made available for childcare provision as
a key addition to the utilisation, development and support of local community facilities.
A commitment was also made within the partnership agreement that a review of the NCIP 2006-10
will be undertaken prior to its conclusion including consultation with the social partners. This is
intended to assess the progress made with regard to addressing childcare needs with a view to
developing new policy responses and successor programme(s) appropriate to emerging needs in
childcare.
As with the EOCP, which was part of the National Development Plan 2000-06, the NCIP is part of
the new National Development Plan 2007-13 ‘Transforming Ireland – A Better Quality of Life For All’.
The NDP adopts the lifecycle approach agreed under Towards 2016. This is complemented by the
new National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2007-16 (NAP inclusion). This also adopts the lifecycle
approach and sets out key priorities for social inclusion for children, providing a strategy to achieve
them during 2007-16.
3.2.3 Síolta
Síolta, the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education in Ireland, was produced by
the CECDE, as one of the central recommendations of the White Paper on Early Childhood
16
Education, ‘Ready to Learn’, published by the Department of Education and Science (DES) in 1999.
From 2002-05, CECDE undertook an extensive consultation process with key stakeholders involved
in the early education sector in order to produce the framework. Síolta is intended to act as a
framework for use by providers to facilitate the delivery of quality early education in Ireland by the
development of services in line with a series of guiding principles and standards. Its flexible and
multi-dimensional approach allows it to function as a developmental aid for all levels of practice to
improve the quality of provision. It has potential to serve as:

A support for individual professional practice and development;

A focus for team work and team development;

A tool for management, strategic planning and policy development;

A common base for the interactions of a varied team of professionals.
It will also support formal and informal assessment processes, with the contents of the framework
collectively forming a prototype for a national quality assurance process for early education settings
in Ireland. It is hoped that this prototype will become the basis for practical implementation of the
vision of quality in early education contained in Síolta, with policies and programmes underpinned
by its guiding principles and practical mechanisms put in place to facilitate and ultimately ensure
that these principles are reflected in the delivery of services in the future.
The framework is intended to be adaptable for use in a wide range and variety of settings in which
integrated care and education is provided to children from birth to six. These settings include
relatively informal childminding arrangements, preschools, playgroups, crèches and nurseries, all of
which can be organised as private enterprises or as community-based initiatives and which may or
may not be in receipt of State funding. They also include the infant classes of primary schools where
the guidelines will be relevant to initiatives such as Whole School Evaluation and School
Development Planning.
The twelve principles that have been put in place by Síolta are intended to serve as the benchmark
for all quality practice and service provision in early education and have been defined as follows:

Early childhood is a significant and distinct time in life that must be nurtured, respected, valued
and supported in its own right.

The child's individuality, strengths, rights and needs are central in the provision of quality early
childhood experiences.

Parents are the primary educators of the child and have a pre-eminent role in promoting her/his
well-being, learning and development.

Responsive, sensitive and reciprocal relationships, which are consistent over time, are
essential to the wellbeing, learning and development of the young child.

Equality is an essential characteristic of quality early childhood care and education.
17

Quality early childhood settings acknowledge and respect diversity and ensure that all children
and families have their individual, personal, cultural and linguistic identity validated.

The physical environment of the young child has a direct impact on her/his well-being, learning
and development.

The safety, welfare and well-being of all children must be protected and promoted in all early
childhood environments.

The role of the adult in providing quality early childhood experiences is fundamental.

The provision of quality early childhood experiences requires cooperation, communication and
mutual respect.

Pedagogy in early childhood is expressed by curricula or programmes of activities which take a
holistic approach to the development and learning of the child and reflect the inseparable
nature of care and education.

Play is central to the well-being, development and learning of the young child.
These principles sit alongside a series of 16 standards revolving around:

Rights of the child

Health and Welfare

Environments

Organisation

Parents and Families

Professional Practice

Consultation

Communication

Interactions

Transitions

Play

Identity and Belonging

Curriculum

Legislation and Regulation

Planning and Evaluation

Community Involvement
The principles and standards are enshrined within a series of Resource Manuals that are targeted at
four specific types of early childhood education namely, full and part-time day care services, infant
classes, childminding and sessional services. They represent the key tool by which services can
proactively target the improvement of quality in relation to early childhood education moving forward.
Within each manual, the standards that should be implemented for each type of service are
detailed, with a series of components of delivery underneath them that should be included. For
example, within the Environments standard of the manual for full and part-time day care providers,
one component of delivery should be that “the indoor and outdoor environment is well planned and
laid out to accommodate the needs of all children and adults in the setting”. There then follows a
range of questions in relation to how the service should be delivered in line with this, with prompts
listed to stimulate thought about good practice on the part of the provider. Some of these questions
are also tailored towards different types of target groups catered for within the services (e.g. babies,
toddlers). It therefore attempts to engage the user in a developmental proactive manner, rather than
simply laying down a range of prescriptive rules to be followed which might have the potential to
alienate the provider.
18
3.3 Role of Key Departments and Agencies
3.3.1 Office of the Minister for Children
The establishment of the Office of the Minister for Children could be a highly positive step from
the perspective of meeting the multi-faceted objectives that have been laid down for the NCIP and
given the experiences of EOCP implementation. The Office brings together relevant staff working on
a range of functions related to children in the Departments of Health and Children; Justice Equality
and Law Reform; and Education and Science. It has been charged with the responsibility for
managing delivery of the EOCP and NCIP, the programmes and activities of the former National
Children’s Office, and policy work on Child Protection (previously undertaken by the Department of
Health and Children). In addition, the Youth Justice Service of the Department of Justice, Equality
and Law Reform and Early Years Education functions of the Department of Education and Science
are co-located in the new Office.
This innovative Government approach to meeting the needs of a key target group offers significant
potential for maximising the effectiveness of the NCIP, given its focus on areas such as quality of
provision, early education, skills and training, social inclusion and family support. It will require a
cross-department response in order to be fully successful, and such a response will clearly be
facilitated by the strategic approach adopted via the OMC.
While the OMC will have the central role in the planning, funding and coordination of delivery of
childcare responses, it is also important to note the operational role of the Health Service Executive.
The HSE will continue to have a key function at operational level in relation to monitoring
compliance with standards and legislative requirements to be met by childcare facilities.
3.3.2 Department of Education and Science
While the work of the OMC will be central to the effectiveness of the NCIP, it is also critical that
other relevant departments are fully engaged in its implementation, in order to maximise its impacts.
The Department of Education and Science will be particularly important in helping to develop
early education responses within facilities supported by the EOCP and NCIP. In this regard the
focus of DEIS, the Department’s action plan to put in place an integrated, strategic approach to
addressing the educational needs of children and young people from disadvantaged communities, is
to be welcomed. DEIS focuses on educational responses from pre-school through to second-level
education (3 to 18 years), with one of its key priorities to strengthen early education supports. In this
regard there is a strong commitment to build on the existing work of EOCP (and in the future NCIP)
supported childcare facilities where these are best placed to deliver on the objectives of DEIS. This
differs from previous initiatives such as Early Start which did not focus on maximising the use of
19
existing childcare infrastructure and hence DEIS represents a significant opportunity for effective
early education responses to be supported by the NCIP in future in disadvantaged areas.
3.3.3 Department of Finance
The Department of Finance clearly has a keen interest in the effectiveness and efficiency of
delivery of the EOCP and the NCIP. The Department’s key concerns are that the programme is
maximising the income that can be generated via local projects (with an emphasis on encouraging
self-sustainability where feasible), that the community and voluntary sector represent an effective
delivery mechanism in order to satisfy the objectives of the programme (and that no alternative
policy approaches would be more appropriate in this regard), and that processes in place ensure
accountability and value-for-money for the significant public sector investment involved. There is
also concern that it remains a needs-focused programme with a finite lifecycle and that provision of
infrastructure and any staffing supports is concentrated in activities and areas where there is a
demonstrated need. Given the level of investment there will come a point at which infrastructure
needs will generally have been met, and there must be a means of identifying when this stage is
reached, and an acceptance that such a capital-focused programme will no longer be necessary.
3.4 Comparing International Approaches
3.4.1 Early Childhood Education
There is now consensus among OECD countries that “care” and “education” are inseparable
concepts and that quality services for children necessarily provide both. The EU has made a strong
commitment to expansion of early childhood education provision, with a series of ambitious targets
set at the Barcelona summit. Member states must aim to ensure that 90% of all children aged 3-5
years old participate in full-time education by 2010. This requires policy makers to adopt a coherent
approach to policy and provision which is inclusive of all children and all parents, regardless of their
employment or socio-economic status.
2
The approach in Ireland, while recognising that early
education opportunities should be available for all, has thus far concentrated on delivery of
interventions in disadvantaged communities, via programmes such as Early Start and DEIS. If the
Barcelona target in terms of early education is to be met however, it is likely that policy initiatives will
have to be forthcoming to stimulate provision in all areas of the country for families of all income
bands.
This is borne out by the findings of the 2004 Background Report on Ireland for the OECD’s
Thematic Review on Early Childhood Education and Care. This report noted that despite repeated
statements in policy documents highlighting the importance of the relationship between education
2
OECD, Starting Strong Early Childhood Education and Care, 2001
20
and care, in practice the reality is quite different. It found a clear distinction in Ireland between the
two concepts; with non-school based services very “care”-focused and school-based services
purely focused on “education”, and little evidence of combining the two. The Review found that:3
“Co-ordination remains one of the key challenges facing policy-makers in particular. The creation of
effective and efficient co-ordination mechanisms or structures that address the needs and concerns
of various stakeholders – children, parents, providers and funders – involved in early education and
care and that recognises the contribution and expertise of both the ‘education’ and ‘care’ sectors
would be a substantial advance in this arena.”
This review attributed this weakness to a lack of understanding at policy-making level about how
and where “care” and “education” overlap. If education and care are segregated at departmental
level, the OECD Review stated, it is unlikely that the infrastructure put in place will facilitate cohesive
integrated thinking on the ground. In the past, responsibility for children’s policy was fragmented and
disjointed as it was divided between seven different government department and agencies.
Progress has now been made through the establishment of the Office of the Minister for Children,
bringing appropriate functions of the Department of Health and Children, Department of Education
and Science and Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform together to produce more
cohesive strategies in relation to the development of the child.
Early childhood education and care systems tend to be fragmented under governments that see
early care as a private responsibility for parents, and not a public responsibility, such as Australia,
Canada, the UK, the US and traditionally Ireland. These governments generally acknowledge
government responsibility for pre-school education from the age of 3 or 4 years (depending on the
country) in particular for children from disadvantaged or at-risk backgrounds but less so for children
under 3. The younger children are said to need care rather than education, whereas the focus for
older children is mostly on education. A definite distinction is thus drawn between the two concepts.
An alternative approach, termed the “integrated model”, is used in the Nordic countries and in the
municipality of Reggio Emilia in Italy. Under this system, the state or municipality provides services
directly to families with children below school age. Both access and quality tend to be good, and a
more seamless and clear public service is provided to families with children aged 1 to 6. Financing
is through a combination of government subsidy to the local authorities, local authority grants and
parental fees. Early childhood services provided by the Nordic model are among the best in the
world, with a strong emphasis on health care, socialisation, well being and active learning for
children.
FIGURE 3.1: RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENHANCE
CHILDHOOD SERVICES FOR 0-6 YEAR OLDS
3
THE
INTEGRATION
OF
EARLY
OECD, Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care Background Report Ireland, 2004
21
1: Formulate a coordinated policy framework at centralised and decentralised levels
In Australia, a draft National Agenda for Early Childhood was published by the federal government
to provide an overarching framework for promoting optimal child development. Building a more
cohesive childhood education and care system is recognised in the National Agenda as a key
action area.
2: Nominate a lead ministry to work in cooperation with other departments and sectors
From 2006, all educational services, including early childhood care and education services, will be
brought under the auspices of the Ministry of Education and Research in Norway. The Ministry of
Education and Research has responsibility for the revised ECEC curriculum framework, which
entered into force in August, 2006.
3: Adopt a collaborative approach to reform
The Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Ministry of Education have worked with
the National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health, researchers,
municipalities, providers and parents in a recent project to reform the ECCE system. A
comprehensive database containing the latest ECCE information on development projects and
studies being undertaken has been developed to support ECCE staff across Finland. The portal
also has a central role in implementation of the new curriculum guidelines.
4: Forge strong links across services, professionals and parents in each community
In Prince Edward Island (PEI), a small maritime province in Canada, the government and
community partners have worked together to compile a co-ordinated child development policy.
PEI’s strategy is based on the idea that all islanders share responsibility for children and that
parents, families, the business community, academia and government all have a role to play. The
framework developed supports the multi-faceted nature of Early Childhood Education and Care.
SOURCE: OECD, Starting Strong II Early Childhood Education and Care, 2006
Figure 3.1 highlights the main recommendations proposed within the OECD publication ‘Starting
Strong II, which tracks progress in terms of provision of early childhood education and care and
highlights ways in which policy can be adapted to improve provision. There are some positive signs
that Ireland is following the approaches outlined above, with the development of the National
Childcare Strategy 2006-10 facilitating a more coordinated policy framework, the establishment of
the OMC taking on the status of lead ministry in coordinating activity with other departments and
agencies, and the structures established via the CCCs potentially offering a structure to forge
stronger links across services, professionals and parents. However these are all recent policy
developments, and it is essential that they all feed into ensuring that practical interventions are
progressed that significantly increase provision of ECCE services in Ireland moving forward, and not
just in disadvantaged areas.
22
3.4.2 Targeting Social Exclusion
The Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme had a strong foundation in targeting social inclusion.
It was funded by the NDP as “Measure 1” of the Social Inclusion Priority in the Regional Operational
Programmes. The lack of adequate childcare facilities was identified as a significant contributor to
exclusion from education, training and employment opportunities. The programme has also had a
particular focus on community and voluntary providers working in disadvantaged areas. The capital
grants provided to the community and voluntary sector were significantly larger than those provided
to the private sector. Only community and voluntary providers were also entitled to a staffing grant to
support operating costs. The extent to which a service caters for disadvantaged groups is also a key
part of the project assessment process. Each applicant must show the extent to which a project
would increase the number of “affordable” childcare places in disadvantaged areas.
Thus provision of childcare in Ireland can be said to be strongly linked to the targeting of social
inclusion, and this objective is one that is shared by similar childcare programmes in place
overseas. A number of OECD countries have introduced preschool education programmes targeted
specifically at low-income groups. The aims of these programmes tend to be similar, i.e. to promote
the cognitive, language, literacy, numeracy and social skills of children from disadvantaged
communities in order to provide them with a fair start in national school. The OECD Report on Early
Childhood Education and Care for Children from Low-income or Minority Backgrounds favours the
so-called “combination programmes”.4 These are long-term, intensive, centre-based programmes,
provided by professionals that cater for children from a young age. Many of the targeted preschool
education programmes fall short of meeting all of these criteria. They are often temporary projects,
where demand is significantly higher than supply. The US Head Start programme, which has been
in operation since 1965 is the largest centre-based education programme in the world, yet caters for
only 36% of the eligible low-income children.
The English Sure Start programme and the Dutch Voor- en Vroegschoolse Educatie (VVE) (Preand Early Primary Education) policy aim to provide the “combination programme” model. Sure Start
is a community-based initiative, implemented in areas of greatest need throughout England. It is a
highly decentralised, bottom-up model, based on the US Head Start model for preschool education
for 3 to 5 year olds. It adopts a “whole child” approach by expanding on that model to provide
targeted family supports and health services for families with younger children. Support services
include prenatal home visitation, postnatal health education, child-focused playgroups and preschools. All families and children living in designated areas are eligible for support and pre-school
services, thus avoiding stigmatisation.
4
OECD, Early Childhood Education and Care for Children from Low-income or Minority
Backgrounds, 2002
23
Under the Sure Start Programme, clear goals and targets were set out to ensure that the
programme achieved its target of providing services to the most disadvantaged areas. The National
Evaluation of the Sure Start Programme is a long-term wide-ranging study designed to evaluate the
efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the programme. In phase one (2003-06), the Sure Start unit
defined the 20% most disadvantaged areas, using an index of multiple deprivation. These areas
were prioritised for Sure Start Centres in the first phase of the programme. There are now 1,000
Sure Start centres catering for 800,000 children. The next phase of the Government’s strategy is to
develop 2,500 centres by 2008 in the 30% most disadvantaged areas. All Sure Start targets are set
out in the Public Service Agreement. These targets are milestones towards the long-term objective,
to establish a children’s centre in each community by 2010, gradually moving from the most
disadvantaged to the less disadvantaged areas.
While the impact of Sure Start will not be evident for some years, the Report of the Comptroller and
Auditor General of the UK National Audit Office (2004) on Early Years Education refers to the
evidence of the benefits of high quality childcare for cognitive, language and social development. In
addition, cost benefit analyses of where high quality childcare has been used as a form of
intervention for disadvantaged families shows clear economic benefits in terms of reductions of
negative outcomes, e.g. crime, remedial education, unemployment.
The Dutch VVE policy aims to provide compensatory education programmes for 2½ to 6 year olds
from disadvantaged backgrounds by promoting cooperation between day-care centres, playgroups,
pre-schools, home-based programmes and kindergartens. Implementation of the programme is
decentralised to the municipalities, but activities are coordinated at central government level to
ensure a high-quality, effective implementation of the programme by setting standards in relation to
age of onset, intensity, duration, staff-child ratio, parent involvement and curriculum coherence. The
central government also advises on the implementation of a number of comprehensive, high-quality
education programmes that were introduced in the Netherlands, such as the Dutch version of
High/Scope.
This international experience highlights a number of areas from which Ireland can learn in terms of
how social inclusion issues are addressed via childcare interventions. Indeed although the EOCP
had a strong focus on tackling social exclusion in its objectives and principles, it has been found no
analysis of the childcare needs and situations of target groups had informed the design of the
programme and therefore, the programme’s effectiveness in targeting these issues was initially
limited.5 A more recent CECDE Audit of Provision of Services targeting disadvantage and Special
Needs among children aged birth to six found that accurate information on the range and nature of
early childhood care and education services targeting disadvantage to be extremely difficult to
5
NDP/CSF Evaluation Unit, Evaluation of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000-06,
2003
24
assess due to lack of accurate data.6 Simple geographic classifications (e.g. by services within
RAPID areas) have proved insufficient in highlighting whether social inclusion is being adequately
targeted. In order to be more effective in the future there is a need to develop a strategy to ensure
that information on provision to, and the needs of, disadvantaged communities is gathered. This in
turn should facilitate more effective planning to which NCIP interventions can then respond.
3.4.3 Role of the Community and Voluntary Sector
The EOCP relied on the community and voluntary sector as the central mechanism in delivery of
childcare services in Ireland, and it is interesting to consider whether such a significant role has
been accorded to this sector in other countries and compare the relative success of such initiatives.
Ireland has made significant progress in recent years in the development of the early childhood care
and education (ECCE) sector. In response to rapid economic growth and significant growth in labour
market participation, particularly among women, the demand for ECCE services has grown
significantly. Initially, the gap in services was filled by family members and the informal childminding
sector. However, recent trends show a shift from these informal services to increased prominence of
community-based, not-for-profit providers. The contribution of these childminding services and their
umbrella organisations – such as IPPA, the Early Childhood Organisation and the Montessori
Schools – should not be overlooked. At a time when there was little state support, such providers
and organisations worked to develop and increase the capacity of the sector to deliver quality
services.9 In many ways funding the community and voluntary sector to expand childcare provision
was the most logical course given that they were heavily involved in delivery of existing provision.
The country has now progressed from being virtually unfunded by the state to one that has
interconnected structures to support its development at various levels.
In terms of the role of the community and voluntary sector, Ireland is not unique in the funding of
organisations within this sector to provide early childhood care and education services, although the
support structures vary in nature and extent across different countries. The voluntary sector and
non-governmental organisations play an important role in the provision of early childhood care and
education in Canada. There, 77% of childcare centres are operated by voluntary, community-based
groups or non-profit organisations of various kinds. Approximately 10-15% of those services are
provided by local government or school boards and 60-70% are provided by voluntary
organisations. The remaining services are provided by the private sector. The voluntary
organisations play an important role in; the collation of ECCE data; the dissemination of information
about research and best practices; and the provision of training and professional development.
6
CECDE, An Audit of Provision of Services targeting Disadvantage and Special Needs among
Children from Birth to Six, 2004
9
OECD, Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care Background Report Ireland, 2004
25
In the National Council for Voluntary Childcare Organisations was established to represent the
voluntary sector’s role in providing childcare services. Their vision is to ensure the well-being and
safeguarding of children and families through maximising the voluntary sector’s contribution to the
provision of services. They hope to maximise the potential of the C&V pillar by providing an umbrella
group to represent their common interests. The Council works closely with the Children and
Families Directorate in the Department of Education and Skills, other relevant government
departments, national, regional and local bodies and member organisations.
The majority of early childhood services in New Zealand are also community-based services, run by
NGOs with considerable voluntary involvement. The government provides financial and regulatory
support to the sector. Government funding is provided in the form of capital grants to develop notfor-profit services and capitation grants for each child attending ECCE services. The government
now covers over 50% of operational costs of services. Low-cost loans are also available for
caregivers or teachers who want to train as ECCE teachers. Low income families receive further
subsidises for ECCE services from the Ministry for Social Welfare.
In its regulatory role, the Ministry for education sets standards, accredits and monitors services and
provides the curriculum and supporting materials for infants, toddlers and pre-school children. Most
children in the ECCE sector are in Education and Care Centres but there are also kindergartens,
play centres and family day care facilities. Over 30% of 0-3 year olds and 85% of 3-5 year olds are
in regulated, publicly-funded services.
Therefore it can be concluded that Ireland is not alone in its policy focus on community and
voluntary sector provision of childcare services. The balance of provision between community and
voluntary and private providers is very similar in Ireland, Canada and New Zealand. Similarities also
exist in the nature of funding support for provision, with the dual capital and current streams of
assistance in place for community and voluntary organisations in other countries.
3.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter has highlighted that childcare is a central theme of Government policy, with a formal
commitment within ‘Towards 2016: A Ten Year Social Partnership Framework’ to a significant
increase in provision of quality childcare places, the development of a National Childcare Training
Strategy and the targeting the early education needs of children in disadvantaged areas. The
National Childcare Strategy 2006-10 frames these commitments, with €2.65bn of investment set
aside for its implementation and tax relief and social welfare developments put in place to support
delivery. The publication of Síolta, the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education in
Ireland, has the potential to reinforce implementation of policy with regard the generation of quality
26
childcare places, putting in place a series of guiding principles and standards. Its value as a
mechanism to improve the quality of early childhood care, a stated objective of the NCIP childcare
provision will be dependent on adherence to the principles and standards set down in Síolta. It is
therefore recommended the adoption of the principles and standards within Síolta by NCIP
supported services should be formally acknowledged within the criteria of the programme, with
consideration given to how their role within the grant application process might be utilised to ensure
adherence to requirements and standards.
The OMC are responsible for managing the delivery of the NCIP. The creation of this office, where
relevant services from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of
Education and Science are co-located with those of the Department of Health and Children, should
facilitate achievement of the multi-faceted objectives of the programme covering quality provision,
early education, skills and training and social inclusion. However this will only be the case if colocation leads to practical coordination of activities, with sufficiently flexible approaches in place
within the respective individual departments to allow effective joint approaches to be developed.
The comparison of international approaches revealed that there is now a generally accepted link
between childcare and education in the policy approaches of most developed economies. It was
noted that all-inclusive policies had generally been adopted with regard to early childhood
education, targeting all children regardless of socio-economic background. This differs somewhat
from the focus of current policy in Ireland, where early education interventions have primarily been
targeted on disadvantaged areas thus far, via initiatives such as Early Start and DEIS. It was noted
that programmes are in place to address childcare needs in order to promote social inclusion in a
number of countries, with community-based models in place in the USA and England. Local
municipalities have a strong role in the implementation of the Dutch early education VVE
programme, an alternative means (to that of the CCCs in the EOCP and NCIP) of utilising a locally
based structure to identify needs and help to develop appropriate responses in this regard. In
general, as is the case in Ireland, most developed countries have a mixed approach to the delivery
of childcare services, with the state, private sector and community and voluntary sector typically
involved in provision to some degree, in recognition of the different circumstances and needs that
provoke each individual intervention.
27
4. Delivery of the EOCP 2000-06
4.1 Programme Management and Administration
4.1.1 Management and Administration Arrangements
The lead department for the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme for the first six years of
delivery was the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Since December 2005, this
responsibility has been assumed by the newly formed Office of the Minister for Children. The OMC
is supported in its role by two Committees which it chairs, the Programme Appraisal Committee
(PAC) and the National Childcare Coordinating Committee (NCCC). The NCCC examines broad
policy issues relating to the development of childcare. Sub-groups of the NCCC have considered
and reported on areas such as school-aged childcare, childminding, certifying bodies and children
with special requirements or from minority ethnic communities. The Programme Appraisal
Committee (PAC) includes representatives from relevant areas of the OMC, the regional assemblies
and Pobal.
It undertakes the final assessment of grant applications following which its
recommendations are made to the Secretary General of the Department of Health and Children for
approval, as Accounting Officer.
In managing the day-to-day delivery of the programme, Pobal is required to:

Manage and implement clear and transparent internal appraisal procedures leading to
recommendations to the Programme Appraisal Committee (PAC).

Manage contractual arrangements with all EOCP beneficiaries in all its forms (including
support, development, training, evaluation, finance and monitoring).

Manage financial control and monitoring of expenditure trends and progress.

Implement audit and financial control procedures.

Implement a qualitative and quantitative performance monitoring system.

Organise seminars and workshops to support the programme implementation.

Implement effective reporting systems.
Pobal also inputs to policy development and coordination through the following:

Preparing reports and strategies based on the lessons learnt in consultation with the OMC.

Assessing and evaluating City and County Childcare Strategic Plans.

Developing guidelines for County Childcare Committees and liaising with them to support and
monitor the implementation of their strategic plans.

Consulting with relevant bodies to ensure synergy and avoid duplication;

Participating in and providing technical support to the NCCC.
28
4.1.2 Cost of Delivering and Managing the EOCP
The EOCP has been a significant programme in budgetary terms both for the Department of
Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Vote 19) during 2000-06 and for the OMC (Vote 41) since 1st
April 2006. Table 4.1 shows the amount of funding allocated annually to the EOCP vis a vis the
overall allocations to Votes 19/41.
TABLE 4.1: ANNUAL ALLOCATION TO THE EOCP COMPARED WITH OVERALL
ALLOCATION TO VOTES 19/41 IN 2000/07
EOCP as % of
Overall
EOCP
Overall
Year
Allocation
Vote
Allocation
Allocation
2000
19
132,262,880
26,035,000
19.68%
2001
19
251,089,000
88,539,000
35.26%
2002
19
235,612,000
58,410,000
24.79%
2003
19
325,515,000
68,260,000
20.97%
2004
19
331,346,000
68,233,000
20.59%
2005
19
358,178,000
83,432,000
23.29%
2006
19
374,696,000
20,240,000
5.40%
2006
41
352,240,000
81,888,000
23.25%
2007
41
540,594,000
113,346,000
20.97%
SOURCE: Department of Finance
As a major EU co-funded invested programme, the closure of the EOCP is subject to programme
rules and procedures which follow a set timeframe. Under these rules and timeframes, community
based capital grant applicants can continue to draw down EOCP funding during 2007. In addition,
EOCP staffing grants for community based childcare facilities are continuing to be paid during 2007.
As a result, €113,346 million has been allocated in respect of the EOCP for 2007.
The total cost of managing the EOCP is estimated at some €36mn or 10% of the total cost of the
programme (taking into account the cost of sub-measures 1 and 2 and operational aspects of submeasure 3). This is based on the programme related salary costs of the Childcare Directorate
(€3mn), of Pobal (€20mn) and relevant funding for the CCCs/NVCOs (€13mn). At 10%, the
administration costs are higher than would be expected normally in a capital investment
programme. However, given the focus of the EOCP on the community and voluntary sector and
specifically on building capacity in this sector together with development of a support infrastructure
for quality childcare, a higher level of administrative costs does not seem unreasonable. In the case
of community-based applicants, a high level of interaction with their programme development
worker is likely to have given value-for-money to the programme in terms of the validity of the
project proposed. The high degree of assistance given to these applicants during the often lengthy
periods in which grant proposals were developed is also likely to have resulted in a greater capacity
29
within each group to sustain their childcare service, and therefore protect the public investment, in
the longer-term.
4.2 Structure of the Programme
4.2.1 Overview
As noted in Chapter 1, the EOCP was structured across three sub-measures as follows:

Sub-measure 1: Capital Grants

Sub-Measure 2: Staffing Grants

Sub-Measure 3: Quality Improvement
The eligibility criteria, nature and scale of grants awarded across each of these three sub-measures
is considered in turn below.
4.2.2 Sub-Measure 1: Capital Grants
Under sub-measure 1 of EOCP, grants were made available to support community or not-for-profit
childcare groups for capital investment to either establish a new childcare facility or service, or
upgrade an existing facility or service. Grants were available for full, integrated day care services
and also for part-time and sessional provision. The grants could cover 100% of the capital costs of
such a project, although supplementary investment could be made by external sources if the project
is structured by the applicant in this manner. These costs could include components such as
architect’s fees, building costs, equipment costs and the funding of feasibility studies, although
allocations for the latter purpose are provided separately. Initially there was no limit on the level of
grant that could be awarded but, from 2004, the maximum grant that could be allocated to any one
project was capped at €1.4mn.
The private sector was also eligible to apply for capital grants under this measure in order to
establish or upgrade childcare facilities or services. ERDF co-funding was available for those
providers supplying less than 20 places, while the Exchequer solely funded larger providers
supplying, or intending to supply, 20 places or more. Match funding of at least 35% was required on
the part of the provider, while assistance was available up to a maximum of €50,790.
Funding was also available under this sub-measure for consortia or not-for-profit groups to provide
or progress specific childcare initiatives. Typically this is accessible by groups led by either
educational institutions or community organisations.
30
4.2.3 Sub-Measure 2: Staffing Grants
Under sub-measure 2 staffing grants were available, only to community or not-for-profit
organisations, which demonstrated a focus on disadvantage, to contribute towards staffing costs,
with a view to enhancing quality. The staffing grants provided only for direct service provision by
childcare staff in EOCP supported activities, and not for other cost components relating to these
members of staff for activities such as training and development, administration, curriculum planning
or organisational tasks. Initially staffing grants were awarded on a three year basis but, in 2004,
staffing grant renewals were approved for shorter term periods which led to difficulties for childcare
facilities due to the uncertainty on which their future funding provision was based. In 2005, the
staffing grants reverted to longer grant approvals and all staffing grants now in place under the
EOCP are approved to end 2007 when expenditure under the programme will cease and the new
programme arrangements are expected to commence.
The basis for deciding on the level of staffing grant allocated to each service was based on the
nature of the service (i.e. full-time, part-time or sessional provision) and other criteria such as the
number of children using the facilities, the diversity of services on offer, whether services were
provided to babies (thus requiring lower staff ratios), and whether services were targeting
disadvantage. However the weighting of such criteria in the appraisal process does not appear to
have been fixed. The levels of grant aid (last updated in September 2005) are shown in Table 4.2.
31
TABLE 4.2: BASIS FOR ALLOCATION OF EOCP STAFFING GRANTS SINCE 2005
Type of
Allocation Per
Provision
Annum
Nature of Service
Sessional
Childcare
facility meeting all the normal criteria operating for 4 hours
or less per day and closed over the summer months;
€36,800
Sessional
Childcare
facility meeting all the normal criteria operating for 4 hours
or less per day during term time and normally providing
full time care out of school term;
€51,750
Part-time
Childcare
Facility meeting all the normal criteria operating between
4-6 hours per day for a full year;
€51,750
Full-time
Childcare
facility meeting all the normal criteria operating in excess
of 6 hours a day for a full year
€74,750
Full-time
Childcare
of 6 hours a day for a full year with some of the following;
High numbers of babies
Very high levels of disadvantage
Very long operating hours – requiring shift work rotas
A range of childcare services (all ages)
Number of children attending (excess of 45)
€97,750
Full-time
Childcare
of 6 hours a day for a full year with most of the following;
Large number of children attending (excess of 45)
€120,750
Full-time
Childcare
of 6 hours a day for a full year with all of the following;
Large number of children attending (excess of 45)
€172,500
AND they address some of the following issues;
Operating the service over multiple settings
Catering for numbers of children with specific
requirements
Providing out of school hours childcare on a full time
basis out of term
Very high numbers of out of school children attending
(excess of 60)
SOURCE: Pobal
4.2.4 Sub-Measure 3: Quality Improvement
Activity supported under sub-measure 3 was categorised as quality improvement. The majority of
resources under this sub-measure were allocated towards assisting CCCs and NVCOs to deliver
interventions to support quality childcare. These interventions covered a range of activities and were
supported through annual administrative budgets approved by the OMC on the basis of annual
action plans to deliver the programme objectives. Funding for operational and core staffing costs of
32
the CCCs, consisting of the grades of Coordinator, Development Worker and Administrative Worker,
was provided and this continues to be the case during 2007. They serve as employees of CCCs
themselves, with a sole brief to support the activities of the Committee. The sub-measure also
provides operational funding to the CCCs and NVCOs to implement strategic plans, which impact
on EOCP objectives. CCCs and NVCOs are required to submit annual action plans, based on an
overall agreed strategic plan, which are then appraised by Pobal in order to determine the yearly
funding allocation to each organisation.
Additional resources were also available under this sub-measure for national or regional quality
improvement innovative projects, although this funding represents only a small proportion of the
total support available under the sub-measure. Proposals are submitted and appraised and
promoters are interviewed as part of the process. Most of the proposals tended to be pilot projects
that were innovative in nature from which learning and best practice could be shared upon
completion. Proposals that were local in nature were not normally considered centrally but instead
were referred to the CCCs for their consideration. Other assistance was provided for training
initiatives and the development of local networks, these were only a small proportion of the overall
Sub-Measure.
Types of training commonly provided by the CCCs include:
•
Managing a Childcare Service
•
Completing Application Forms for EOCP Funding
•
Developing Policies and Procedures
•
Quality Standards
•
Staff Management
•
First-aid
•
Childminding (10 week course)
•
Fire Safety
•
Working in Partnership with Parents
•
Therapeutic Play
•
Speech and Language Development
In addition, under the Childminders Initiative, the CCCs were funded to coordinate a Quality
Awareness Programme of lectures and organise networking, information and training opportunities
for childminders, who could also access a childminders development grant.
33
4.3 Project Application and Selection Process
4.3.1 Sub-Measures 1 and 2
As the basis for intervention in relation to capital and staffing grants had been established in
programmes preceding the launch of the EOCP 2000-06, developed application and selection
systems were already in place. These were refined for the purposes of the new programme and
have subsequently developed over its lifetime.
This resulted in a highly structured application and selection process, involving input into decisionmaking from a wide range of stakeholders at both local and national level and an emphasis on
technical support to ensure that potential applicants were equipped with the capacity to make an
effective application. Prior to submitting a formal application, interested parties could contact their
City or County Childcare Committees for assistance in its preparation. The effective establishment
of these committees has been an advantage in generating a more transparent application process
for the programme, as in the early stages of EOCP delivery Pobal was required to take on a more
proactive role in technical support prior to application, creating somewhat of a paradox given its role
in the initial appraisal of applications. Pre-application technical support was also available from the
HSE in relation to the requirements for each category of pre-school service under the Childcare
(Pre-School Services) Regulations, 1996, for those applicants proposing a new, or extension to an
existing, pre-school childcare service.
When a formal application was submitted, a number of distinct stages followed, as presented below,
culminating in the final decision on resource allocation. The first stage involved allocation of a
technical support worker within Pobal to act as the main contact with the applicant, discussing the
content of the application and often requesting additional information in support of the proposal. The
application was then appraised by the Development Worker based on five specific criteria: socioeconomic/demographic profile of the area; quality of the proposal; capacity of the group to
implement the project; level of integration/coordination; and the costings and value for money
offered. Large-scale building projects were subject to review by a building specialist on behalf of
Pobal. For all staffing applications submitted, Pobal arranged on-site visits with members of the
management committee. The CCCs were then consulted by Pobal, via Consultation Committees set
up in each area, regarding each application to help ensure that EOCP resources were being
directed appropriately within each area.
EOCP 2000-06 APPLICATION PROCESS
After this, the application was brought to the
Pobal Appraisal Sub-Committee (ASC) meeting,
where a recommendation was made to the
Board for endorsement.
The outcome of this
process was then submitted to the Programme
34
Application Submission and Allocation of
Pobal Development Worker
Discussion re. Application & Further
Information Requested
Technical Appraisal of Application by
Development Worker
Consultation with CCCs to Obtain Local
Feedback re. Application
Appraisal
Committee
(PAC)
for
final
recommendation to the Secretary General of the
Department of Health and Children. The PAC is
chaired by the OMC, with representatives from
the Border, Midland and Western and Southern
and Eastern Regional Assemblies, Pobal, the
Department of Health and Children and the
Department of Education and Science. Although
some 90% of applications that reached this
Recommendation Made by Pobal
Appraisal Sub-committee to Board
stage
recommended
for
approval
by
the
Committee, the PAC played an important role in
Board Recommendation Passed to OMC
Programme Appraisal Committee
acting as a final check on project eligibility from
PAC Agree Recommendation for Final
Approval by Secretary General
asking for further clarification on the remaining
a Departmental perspective, either rejecting or
portion of applications.
Decision Communicated in Writing to
Applicant and CCC Informed
Contract Drawn Up, Signed and Draw
Down of Funding Arranged
Applicants were notified in writing of the result and, if unsuccessful, of the reasons for the decision.
Pobal then contacted successful applicants regarding contract requirements and informed CCCs of
decisions on the grants. On conclusion of a contract, drawdown of the first tranche of funding was
arranged.
Approximately 75% of applications for funding under the EOCP 2000 – 2006 were
approved for funding by the PAC.
4.3.2 Sub-Measure 3
The process of funding under Sub-Measure 3 differed from that under 1 and 2. As noted in section
4.2.3, core staffing costs were provided to the CCCs on an annual basis, while proposals could be
made with regard to innovative projects or training initiatives. The main formal application and
selection process involved under sub-measure 3 surrounded the programme funding provided to the
CCCs and the NVCOs.
Since 2003, the CCCs were required to produce annual action plans detailing proposed activities
under 9 headings:

Information;

Capacity building (staff and committee);

Networking;

Training;

Capacity building (providers);

Quality;

Social inclusion;

Childminding Initiative;
35

Equality and diversity;
The activities proposed within each action plan and the individual budget allocated to each of the
CCCs under sub-measure 3, were inter-related. The budgets also corresponded broadly to the size
of the population in the area served by the CCC (further analysis in this regard is provided in
Chapter 5). Along with the action plan, a progress report on the status of the actions proposed in the
previous plan was also required. Each annual action plan was assessed and, where appropriate,
adjusted having regard to the overall budgets proposed before being recommended to the Secretary
General for approval. The average annual budget provided to each CCC in 2006 was €332,722
with a total CCC budgetary provision in 2006 of €10,979,815.
The NVCOs were funded on a similar basis, with funding also allocated on the basis of annual
action plans submitted by each organisation, structured in terms of five categories of action as
follows:

Support for members, EOCP beneficiaries or the childcare sector.

Quality assurance and promotion and development of best practice.

Information and networking.

Professional development and training.

Development of national policy.
The action plans were appraised in a similar manner to those of the CCCs, and each NVCO was
also required to stipulate a series of returns and outcomes with regard to its performance that was
benchmarked against its counterparts.
4.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements
Significant mechanisms were in place to ensure that monitoring and evaluation of the programme
was conducted on an ongoing basis. Projects were required to submit quarterly returns to Pobal
detailing the performance of their service. Pobal also produced management accounts on a monthly
basis that detail the financial performance of the EOCP for the year to date and on an accumulated
basis since the programme was established. Reports to the Monitoring Committee for the Border,
Midland and Western and Southern and Eastern Regional Assemblies (as overall Regional OP
Monitoring Committees) detail the performance of the programme to date in terms of a number of
key performance indicators, new developments occurring, and any new reports and studies
produced.
A dedicated evaluation exercise was undertaken by the NDP/CSF Evaluation Unit in April 2003 that
tracked the progress of the EOCP 2000-06 over its initial years of operation and made
recommendations for its future development. Mid-term reviews were also undertaken of the BMW
36
and S&E Operational Programmes, of which the EU co-funded components of the EOCP were a
part. This value-for-money review takes account of all of these monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms and reports and draws on their findings wherever appropriate.
4.5 Delivery of NCIP 2006-10
4.5.1 Overview
The National Childcare Investment Programme (NCIP) 2006-10 which was announced on 6th
December 2005, came into effect on 1 January 2006 and succeeded the EOCP 2000-06 that forms
the main subject matter of this review. During 2006-07, the EOCP continues to be operational
across the 3 sub-measures (other than for private sector capital grants) in parallel with the new
programme. From the end of 2006, grant applications ceased to be processed, however, drawdown
and verification of funding for approved grant recipients will continue until the end of 2007.
The NCIP, like the EOCP, is administered by the Office of the Minister for Children and managed on
a day-to-day basis by Pobal.
The NCIP incorporates a number of key objectives as follows:

Increase the supply and improve the quality of early childhood care and education services,
part-time and full day care, school age childcare and childminding,

Support a co-ordinated approach to the delivery of childcare, which is centered, on the needs
of the child.

The programme aims to provide a proactive response to the development of quality childcare
supports and services, which are grounded in an understanding of local needs. The County and City
Childcare Committees have been given a more direct role in the implementation of the NCIP to
enable greater flexibility and responsiveness to local needs.
The NCIP can be accessed for the support of services including those providing care for babies, full
day care, part time places, pre-school places, school age childcare including "wrap around"
childcare places and childminding. Special consideration is given to broad-based services which
provide a range of the above types of provision.
4.5.2 Types of Support Offered
A number of funding components have been specified for the NCIP to date and these are
summarised below.
37
Private Sector Capital Funding
A new capital grant scheme for private sector childcare providers came into operation on 1 January
2006. Applicants may apply for grant assistance of up to €100,000, towards the capital cost of
developing a childcare service facility in a catchment area where there is a demonstrated childcare
need. Applications for more than one grant under this scheme may be considered, provided the
subsequent childcare facilities are in different catchment areas areas and subject to an overall
ceiling of €500,000 per applicant. In each case, an applicant must provide at least 25% of the total
funding required for the project.
Community/Not-for-Profit Sector Capital Funding
A new capital grant scheme for community/not-for-profit sector childcare providers was opened to
applications from March 2006. Groups may apply to their CCC for grant assistance based on a
demonstrated childcare need in the area. The Expression of Interest Forms received by the CCCs
are developed at local level and appraised by reference to a demonstrated need for the service,
capacity of the group to deliver the service and value for money of the project. Following local
appraisal, the applications are submitted to Pobal and are subsequently appraised by the OMC PAC
and recommended to the Secretary General for decision on grant approval. This revised process is
intended to provide a more streamlined and applicant friendly system. The level of funding granted
is determined by the number of places which the group proposes to provide subject to a general cap
of €1 mn on the maximum grant payable per project. Grants are also limited to a maximum of
€20,000 per childcare place and account is taken of the sustainability of a project.
Other Capital
The Childminding grant scheme is expected to be reviewed in 2007 and may lead to a new, more
effective scheme under the NCIP from 2008. A new capital grant scheme to assist Parent and
Toddler Groups in disadvantaged areas was introduced in 2006 as an OMC/Katharine Howard
Foundation (KHF) initiative.
KHF is an independent grant-making foundation whose particular
emphasis is on the support of projects and initiatives in disadvantaged communities. Grants
generally range from €100 to €600. In 2007, applications will be assessed by the KHF and then
submitted to the OMC PAC for recommendation to the Secretary General.
Supporting the Community-based Sector to Develop Sustainable Quality Childcare.
It has yet to be decided what form of grant assistance towards staffing costs of childcare facilities
will be introduced under the NCIP. This decision is expected to be taken in 2007 following this
review. The new grant scheme could involve funding provision for the initial start up and support
phase for community and not for profit services serving an area with a demonstrated level of
disadvantage. However, in more concentrated areas of disadvantage it is likely to be necessary to
continue the support phase into the medium and longer-term. Services where the client base
represents a cross section of society could be expected to become sustainable over the short to
medium term. The level of poverty/disadvantage could be determined by reference to geographic
location (e.g. RAPID and CLAR areas), to social inclusion programmes such as DEIS, but should
38
also take account of factors specific to the service. It is considered that all services should be
required to operate a tiered system of charges, based on parental ability to pay.
NCIP 2006-10 APPLICATION PROCESS
The application and project selection process for the
Expression of Interest (EoI) Form
Submitted to CCC by Applicant
NCIP is illustrated in the diagram opposite. As it
EoI Reviewed by CCC and Project
Proposal Form (PPF) Requested
PPF appraised by CCC using Project
Proposal Summary Template
highlights, the CCC is now more heavily involved in the
initial stages of the process. The CCC is the first point
of contact for any potential applicant, with an
Expression of Interest form to be submitting outlining
the nature of the proposed project. The CCC should
then judge if it will meet local childcare needs and
Templates Considered by PESC and
Portfolio of Projects Passed to Pobal
whether any amendments need to be made in order to
ensure that this is the case and that the project meets
CCCs sent Receipt by Pobal, Logged and
Assessed Against NCIP Criteria
the objectives of the NCIP. It then requests a Project
Proposal Form with more detailed information about the
Recommendation Passed to PAC for
Consideration
proposal, which is then appraised by the CCC using a
PAC Make Final Recommendation to
Secretary General for Final Approval
programme
Decision Communicated in Writing to
Applicant and CCC Informed
Contract Drawn Up, Signed and Draw
Down of Funding Arranged
template
covering
consistency
objectives.
This
with
the
template
is
three
then
considered by the Project Evaluation Sub-Committee,
involving the CCC and Pobal (via a Development
Worker), with a portfolio of recommended projects then
passed to Pobal for the undertaking of their formal
appraisal process. The PAC, chaired by the OMC, then
considers
these
appraisals
and
makes
final
recommendations to the Secretary General for final
decision, as was the case under the EOCP.
This chapter has considered the delivery of the EOCP over the 2000-06 period and the structures
and processes which have been put in place in order to implement the NCIP from 2006-10. Case
study examples of local experiences under the EOCP are provided in Chapter 7 to highlight the
overall results and impact on the ground. The role of the OMC in assuming overall responsibility for
both programmes has been detailed, as has the responsibility of Pobal for managing the day-to-day
operations of them. Across the three sub-measures of the EOCP, particular issues were identified in
relation to staffing grants. While a multi-annual system for staffing grant funding was operated under
the programme in its initial and final stages, the move in 2004 towards a renewal of grants on a
short-term basis led to difficulties and uncertainty for the childcare facilities and staff concerned. The
removal of these problems when longer -term grant funding was returned, underlies the need to
continue to provide staffing funding on a multi-annual basis in the future delivery of the NCIP.
39
A further issue in relation to staffing grants revolves around their basis on direct service provision
hours rather than an appropriate salary scale that reflects the skills and professionalism required by
childcare workers. Although as things stand, this issue is outside the remit of the childcare
programmes, it is relevant to other issues which the National Childcare Strategy is examining. It is
therefore recommended that in its consideration staff training and development and curriculum
preparation, the Expert Working Group under the National Training Strategy 2006-10 should
examine issues relating to salary scales for childcare workers in NCIP supported services. These
issues are considered further in Section 7.5.
The project selection and application process was detailed and it was noted that the multi-tiered
approach, while ensuring that sufficiently senior departmental representatives can input into
decision-making, nonetheless seemed overly complex. However, given the scale of the programme
and the involvement of several parties in its delivery and management, it is difficult to see how a
more simplified structure could be put in place which would provide a sufficient degree of system
control. However, the changes in delivery of the NCIP from the focus, structures and processes
adopted by its predecessor should play a role in streamlining the initial stages of the process and in
ensuring that projects closely reflect local childcare needs. The increasing role for the CCCs in
identifying local needs and appraising applications in the first instance should be particularly
beneficial in this regard. There is also strong emphasis in the NCIP on improving the quality of early
childhood care and education services and supporting families to break the cycle of disadvantage.
Capital grants are available for both private and community and voluntary sector providers, with the
staffing grants that will become available for the latter group still to be defined.
40
5. Performance of the EOCP 2000-06
5.1 Introduction
In order to effectively review the operation of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 200006, it is important that the exact nature of the programme and the projects it has funded is profiled,
with any changes in this regard over its lifetime highlighted. This must include a consideration of the
overall levels of funding allocated, the scale of support allocated to individual projects, the type of
activities that this funding supports, and the benefits and impacts that have resulted from EOCP
interventions. These benefits and impacts can then be measured against costs in order to examine
value for money issues such as the cost per childcare place supported, number of jobs created, and
so forth. This chapter considers these aspects of programme delivery in turn, providing detailed
quantitative analysis to profile its development.
5.2 Overall EOCP Funding
By the end of December 2006, €564.7mn in total had been allocated for investment in childcare via
the EOCP over the period 2000-06. This was split across the three sub-measures of Capital Grants,
Staffing Grants and Quality Improvement, with an additional allowance for Technical Assistance,
representing the administrative costs of running the programme.
While the bulk of the resources allocated have been co-financed by the European Social Fund,
European Regional Development Fund and the Exchequer, the Exchequer have also acted as the
sole source of support via the EOCP for a number of activities funded across the three submeasures, most notably in relation to school-related childcare and childminders initiatives. Table 5.1
details the overall funding allocated via the EOCP over the period 2000-06.
TABLE 5.1: OVERALL FUNDING ALLOCATED VIA THE EOCP 2000-06
Funded Solely by
EU Co-Financed
Exchequer
SM1: Capital Grants
€279,351,311
€18,043,178
SM2: Staffing Grants
€174,901,639
€12,643,709
SM3: Quality Improvement
€71,915,813
€7,823,160
Total
€526,168,763
€38,510,047
SOURCE: EOCP Management Accounts, December 2006
Total
€297,394,489
€187,545,348
€79,738,973
€564,678,810
The allocations highlighted in Table 5.1 do not include grants approved in the precursor initiatives to
the EOCP 2000-06 in years 1998, 1999 and 2000, totalling €658,994. Nor does it include the grants
allocated in 2006 under the successor to the EOCP, the National Childcare Investment Programme,
amounting to €34 million.
41
Of course, alongside the resources allocated via the programme under the three sub-measure
headings there was also a need to fund the Technical Assistance aspects of the programme,
primarily relating to the administration costs of delivering EOCP over the 2000-06 period. An initial
budget of €14,460,000 was put in place for this cost component. With the subsequent expansion of
the scale of the programme during its lifetime, the actual costs incurred for technical assistance
have risen by just over 14% of the original level anticipated, to just over €17mn by the end of 2006.
However the original budget assumed a programme size of £250mn (€317mn) of funding and this
grew by some 58%.
The analysis above refers only to the approval and allocation of funding under the three submeasures, and it is also important to ascertain to what extent this funding represents real, practical
investment in childcare around the country. In order to do this, the level of funding de-committed (i.e.
allocations that have been withdrawn as a result of the project failing to meet its obligations or failing
to progress for any other reason) and that which has been drawn down thus far must be brought
into the equation. Table 5.2 examines these factors.
Table 5.2: OVERALL FUNDING DRAWN DOWN VIA THE EOCP 2000-06
Initial
Allocation
Decommitted
289,223,670
9,872,359
177,494,129
2,592,490
72,091,665
175,852
538,809,464
Co-Financed
SM1: Capital Grants
SM3:Quality
Improvement
Total
Net
Allocation
279,351,31
1
174,901,63
9
Drawn Down
Funding
Drawn
Down as %
of Initial
Allocation
123,242,456
42%
136,519,578
76%
58,351,784
80%
12,640,701
71,915,813
526,168,76
3
318,113,818
59%
19,186,605
13,033,054
1,143,427
389,345
18,043,178
12,643,709
15,304,396
9,512,107
79%
72%
7,837,762
40,057,421
14,602
1,547,374
7,823,160
38,510,047
564,678,81
578,866,885
14,188,075
0
SOURCE: EOCP Management Accounts, December 2006
5,050,054
29,866,957
64%
74%
347,980,775
60%
Exchequer Financed
SM1: Capital Grants
SM3:Quality
Improvement
Total
OVERALL TOTAL
Table 5.2 highlights some issues that have affected the progress of the EOCP over its lifetime, with
60% of all monies allocated under the programme drawn down by the end of September 2006. Of
42
course, there will always be a natural gap between allocations and funding drawn down as a result
of the development of a project and in meeting the financial, administrative and reporting
requirements of the programme prior to being able to access the finance, but this does not explain
the low draw down rates, particularly with regard to capital grants. While the draw down rates for
staffing grants are around 75%, broadly in line with what might be expected to be a natural gap, and
much higher in relation to sub-measure 3 where funding was generally filtered through the CCCs
and NVCOs, there were significant problems in relation to sub-measure 1.
The most striking statistic is the draw down of 43% of co-funded capital grants over the
implementation period of the EOCP. The review has found that this can mainly be attributed to two
factors. Firstly, in 2004, at the time of the mid-term review of the EOCP, the rate of processing of
capital grants slowed, leading to a significant backlog to overcome in the later stages of the
programme. This also resulted in a need for many projects to update and re-submit a range of
material in relation of the project, causing further time lags, while capacity issues also arose as a
result of the key contacts for a project changing during this period.
These issues augmented a problem that had existed throughout the implementation of the EOCP in
relation to the capability of organisations within the community and voluntary sector to effectively
develop childcare projects through to operation stage. This represented the second major
impediment to the successful drawing down of allocated funding. The stakeholders involved in many
of the community projects tended to be from a general community development background and
often found it difficult to understand the exact specifications required within a childcare project in
order to meet legislative requirements and also those of the EOCP. The other main cohort involved
in the development of community projects had previously run local childcare facilities and hence
often needed to develop capacity in relation to understanding national funding programmes.
Significant work has been undertaken by the CCCs in recent years to develop capacity in these
areas, but there is no doubt that such issues acted as a major barrier to drawing down funding for
community projects after the initial allocations had been made.
The impact of the slow-down in the programme during 2004 is apparent in consideration of the
allocation of funding on an annual basis over the life of the programme to date, as shown in Table
5.3. The backlog that had to be overcome when allocation of capital grants resumed in 2005 caused
overall awards under sub-measure 1 in that year to be around three times the level approved in the
preceding three years. The new project approvals also had a knock-on effect on staffing grants, with
a significant increase under sub-measure 2 also apparent in 2005.
43
TABLE 5.3: EOCP FUNDING ALLOCATED UNDER SUB-MEASURES 1 & 2 BY YEAR 2000-06
Solely Funded by
Co-Funded
Exchequer
Year
Amount
% of Total
Amount
% of Total
2000
€6,279,220
2.2%
€1,156,315
6.0%
2001
€25,495,458
8.8%
€3,438,220
17.9%
2002
€41,483,816
14.3%
€4,015,732
20.9%
2003
€31,884,847
11.0%
€3,355,920
17.5%
2004
€38,608,578
13.3%
€2,215,450
11.5%
2005
€117,522,461
40.6%
€4,670,741
24.3%
2006
€27,949,290
9.7%
€334,227
1.7%
Total
€289,223,670
100%
€19,186,605
100%
Sub-measure 2: Staffing Grants
2000
€15,571,994
8.8%
-
-
2001
€35,294,736
19.9%
€4,579,913
35.1%
2002
€18,047,429
10.2%
€1,301,822
10.0%
2003
€16,672,758
9.4%
€949,105
7.3%
2004
€19,800,232
11.2%
€1,169,500
9.0%
2005
€55,104,777
31.0%
€3,283,886
25.2%
2006
€17,002,203
9.6%
€1,748,828
13.4%
Total
€177,494,129
100%
€13,033,054
100%
SOURCE: Pobal Grants Database, December 2006
5.3 Distribution of Funding
5.3.1 Average Grant Assistance (Sub-measures 1, 2)
The average capital grant award over the period 2000-06 for co-funded assistance stood at
€179,419, while purely exchequer funded capital grants (including non co-financed Community
Based/Not-for-Profit grants) were generally smaller scale in nature, with an average of €42,076. The
equivalent average staffing grants over the period were €84,400 and €68,958 from co-funded and
exchequer sources respectively. The average capital and staffing grant levels for each year of the
programme thus far are highlighted in Table 5.4.
44
TABLE 5.4: AVERAGE EOCP GRANT ASSISTANCE UNDER SUB-MEASURES 1 & 2 BY YEAR
Co-Funded
Solely Funded by Exchequer
Year
Amount
No of
Grants
Average
Amount
No of
Grants
Average
2000
€6,279,220
109
€57,608
€1,156,315
12
€96,360
2001
€25,495,458
294
€86,719
€3,438,220
103
€33,381
2002
€41,483,816
319
€130,043
€4,015,732
98
€40,977
2003
€31,884,847
225
€141,710
€3,355,920
76
€44,157
2004
€38,608,578
160
€241,304
€2,215,450
49
€45,213
2005
€117,522,461
326
€360,498
€4,670,741
86
€54,311
2006
€27,949,290
179
€156,141
€334,227
32
€10,445
Total
€289,223,670
1612
€179,419
€19,186,605
456
€42,076
2000
€15,571,994
109
€142,862
-
-
-
2001
€35,294,736
287
€122,978
€4,579,913
53
€86,413
2002
€18,047,429
195
€92,551
€1,301,822
18
€72,323
2003
€16,672,758
224
€74,432
€949,105
11
€86,282
2004
€19,800,232
473
€41,861
€1,169,500
25
€46,780
2005
€55,104,777
537
€102,616
€3,283,886
49
€67,018
2006
€17,002,203
278
€61,159
€1,748,828
33
€52,995
Total
€177,494,129
2,103
€84,400
€13,033,054
189
€68,958
It is interesting to note that, despite the significant increase in the total capital funding allocated in
2005, there has not been a similar proportionate increase in the number of grants approved,
resulting in average capital grant allocations for 2005 that were over twice the average for the entire
programme.
There do not appear to be any notable differences in the nature of potential projects seeking funding
at this stage, which would suggest that the expansion in scale of allocations may have been a
consequence of the slow-down of capital grant awards during 2004, rather than the different needs
of the projects being appraised. The analysis also shows that the average capital grant fell
significantly again in 2006, perhaps when the backlog had been cleared to some extent. Under the
period of the NCIP, funding should be allocated on a consistent needs basis to ensure a value-formoney approach to delivery.
There are also some notable characteristics in the scale of grants awarded under sub-measure 2. In
the initial years of the programme, staffing grants were awarded on a multi-annual basis, explaining
the high average awards in 2000 and 2001. During the 18 month period in which capital grants were
45
delayed, staffing grants were renewed for shorter-term periods and the averages fell. The average
for 2006 does however seem more in line with the experience of the earlier years of the programme.
5.3.2 Grant Size Bands (Sub-measures 1,2)
While this means that it is impossible to analyse the scale of staffing grants on a like for like basis
across projects, it is useful to study the range of capital grants awarded by the EOCP. Figure 5.1
illustrates the differences in the scale of awards made under sub-measure 1 that were co-financed
by the Exchequer and ERDF. It highlights quite a broad distribution of grants allocated across the
categories, with a mix of small scale capital projects and those involving very significant capital
investment.
FIGURE 5.1: ANALYSIS OF EOCP CO-FINANCED CAPITAL GRANTS BY RANGE OF AWARD,
2000-06
Approvals over
€1.4mn, 20, 3%
Approvals betw een
€1mn & €1.4mn, 70,
11%
Approvals less than
or equal to €100,000,
289, 43%
Approvals betw een
€400,000 & €1mn,
134, 20%
Approvals betw een
€100,000 & €400,000,
152, 23%
SOURCE: POBAL
The analysis above highlights that a number of projects were awarded co-financed grants of
between €1mn and €1.4mn, a scenario that is currently not feasible under the NCIP due to the
€1mn cap, other than by exception, now in place. If there was a need for higher grant levels, it is
worthwhile considering why this limit was set, and whether it is based on an arbitrary figure or has a
sound justifiable basis for its selection. A similar analysis of the benchmark limit of €20,000 per
46
place in the community and voluntary sector and €15,000 in the case of private sector grants, would
also be useful particularly as costs would be expected to rise over time.
5.3.3 Sub-Measure 3 Grants
Sub-measure 3 was funded via a different mechanism, with a significant proportion targeted on the
CCCs and NVCOs. The annual awards to the CCCs are generally based on the relative size of the
county and city populations that they serve, with bands established to guide the allocation. However
Dublin City Childcare Committee receive an additional allocation in recognition of the different
structures in place to respond to a much wider catchment area (in numerical terms), while Galway
City and County Childcare Committee also receives additional assistance due to the decision that
the CCC should serve both City and Council local authority areas. In order to provide an indication
of the proportional amount received by the CCCs each year, Table 5.5 shows the position in 2006.
TABLE 5.5: CCC FUNDING ASSISTANCE UNDER SUB-MEASURE 3 IN 2006
Co-Funded
Solely Funded by Exchequer
2006
Allocation
% of
Total
CCC
Carlow
271,700
2.47%
Cavan
271,700
Clare
2006
Allocation
% of
Total
Limerick County
328,200
2.99%
2.47%
Longford
251,450
2.29%
290,300
2.64%
Louth
290,300
2.64%
Cork City
328,200
2.99%
Mayo
328,200
2.99%
Cork County
465,450
4.24%
Meath
367,750
3.35%
Donegal
367,750
3.35%
Monaghan
271,700
2.47%
Dublin City
789,365
7.19%
Offaly
271,700
2.47%
Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown
401,100
3.65%
Roscommon
271,700
2.47%
Fingal
401,100
3.65%
Sligo
271,700
2.47%
South Dublin
465,450
4.24%
Tipperary North
271,700
2.47%
Galway City & County
416,900
3.80%
Tipperary South
281,050
2.56%
Kerry
367,750
3.35%
Waterford City
251,450
2.29%
Kildare
401,100
3.65%
Waterford County
271,700
2.47%
Kilkenny
281,050
2.56%
Westmeath
281,050
2.56%
Laois
271,700
2.47%
Wexford
328,200
2.99%
Leitrim
251,450
2.29%
Wicklow
328,200
2.99%
Limerick City
271,700
2.47%
TOTAL
10,979,815
100%
CCC
The NVCOs are the other main beneficiary of quality improvement grants, and the allocations
approved for 2006 in this respect were as follows:
47
Barnardos
€621,282
Childminding Ireland
€367,719
Forbairt Naionrai Teo
€367,719
IPPA
€787,969
ISWECA
€52,531
NCNA
€512,500
SNMTA
€78,797
BCCN
€252,150
5.4 Nature of Activities Funded
5.4.1 Capital Grants
Focusing first on capital grants, most assistance was targeted on community-based projects
providing either pre-school or integrated childcare services. Of the total capital grants allocated
some 13% were provided to the private sector with 87% to community-based organisations.
As is shown in Figure 5.2, which highlights co-funded assistance only, over €80mn was allocated to
the provision of community-based pre-school provision from this source, with over €175mn for
integrated services. Other smaller levels of assistance were made available for the undertaking of
feasibility projects prior to the application for capital grants, while a number of not-for-profit
consortium initiatives, typically involving community development organisations or educational
institutions, also progressed with the programme’s support. Over €15mn was allocated to selfemployed childcare providers offering less than 20 places for capital investment. Private childcare
providers offering more than 20 places were accommodated via funding solely provided by the
Exchequer as they were not eligible for ERDF support.
48
FIGURE 5.2: ANALYSIS OF NATURE OF ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED BY EOCP CO-FINANCED
CAPITAL GRANTS, 2000-06
Not for
Profit/Consortium
Group Initiatives,
€5,631,475
Self Employed
Private Providers <
20 Places,
€15,314,998
Community Based
Pre School Provision
, €82,164,643
Community Based
Feasibility Grants,
€139,357
Provision of
Integrated Services,
€176,100,838
SOURCE: POBAL
5.4.2 Staffing Grants
In the case of staffing grants provided under sub-measure 2 of the Programme, three main types of
activities were supported. The total allocation to date is €190,527,183 all of which went to
community and voluntary sector. Some 323 community-based groups have been allocated a total of
€94,753,012 in staffing grants to support a full day care service for children aged 0-14 years. This
represents 49% of the total staffing grants allocated over the 2000-06 period. Full-time pre school
service provision was allocated €23,789,503 in staffing grants across 77 providers, representing
12% of the total allocation under sub-measure 2. The remainder of staffing grants (representing
39% of total funding) allocated were targeted on part-time or sessional services, with €71,984,668
allocated to 488 groups.
5.4.3 Quality Improvement
Under sub-measure 3, as noted previously, the bulk of funding allocated targeted the CCCs and the
NCVOs, although other activities focusing on quality improvement within the childcare sector were
also targeted. Support for the CCCs was split into two categories, one providing the core staffing
costs for each Committee, with another strand concentrating on programme costs. The other types
of activities funded included the development of local networks, training initiatives and stimulation of
49
innovative projects. Figure 5.3 shows the allocations to each type of activity under this submeasure.
FIGURE 5.3: ANALYSIS OF NATURE OF ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED UNDER EOCP SUBMEASURE 3, 2000-06
Programme Studies,
€474,727
Innovative Projects,
€1,006,625
Feasibility
Studies/Development
Work, €49,136
LDP Partnerships/CG's
, 2,360,062
Training Initiatives,
€964,649
Local Netw orks,
€1,697,532
NVCOs, €21,206,265
CCC Core Costs,
€3,099,732
CCC Programme Costs,
€41,107,085
SOURCE: POBAL
5.5 Programme Performance and Beneficiaries
The latest analysis of the impacts of the EOCP 2000-06 to date were provided in the Monitoring
Committee reports for the Border, Midland and Western and Southern and Eastern Regional
Assemblies for Autumn 2006. They tracked performance of the programme up until the end of
December 2006. Table 5.6 summarises the main EOCP performance indicators in this regard.
50
TABLE 5.6: KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THE EOCP 2000-06
BMW Region
S&E Region
Key Performance
Indicator
Performance to
End
EOCP Target
December ‘06
new
places
10,000
new
childcare places
12,262 new
childcare places
created
%
of
childcare
workers
supported
under
the
Programme with a
childcare qualification
accredited at FETAC
Level 5 or higher 1, 3
50% of childcare
workers
funded
with a childcare
qualification
accredited
at
FETAC Level 5 or
higher.
%
of
parents
engaging
in
education, training or
employment
opportunities on foot
of the availability of
childcare
facilities
broken
down
by
gender
Number of childcare
workers
supported
(disaggregated
by
gender full time and
part time.)
Number
childcare
created
of
EOCP Target
Performance to
End December
’06
21,372 new
childcare places
22,612 new
childcare places
created
48.9 % of childcare
workers
funded
with a childcare
qualification
accredited
at
FETAC level 5 or
higher.
50% of childcare
workers funded
with a childcare
qualification
accredited at level
II or higher.
48.9% of childcare
workers funded
have a childcare
qualification
accredited at
FETAC level 5 or
higher.
60% of parents
engaging
in
education, training
or employment
On the basis of
responses
within
the
Annual
Beneficiary
Questionnaire
(Pobal)
2006,
nearly
84%
of
parents
using
services supported
under
the
Programme were
engaged
in
education, training
or employment
60% of parents
engaging in
education, training
and employment
On the basis of
responses within
the Annual
Beneficiary
Questionnaire
(Pobal) 2006,
nearly 84% of
parents using
services supported
under the
Programme were
engaged in
education, training
or employment.
800
childcare
workers
funded
directly under the
sub-measure,
of
which 45 will be
school
age
childcare staff.
1,109
childcare
workers (more than
98% women) of
which 436 are full
time staff.
2,000 childcare
workers funded
directly under the
sub-measure, of
which 120 will be
school age
childcare staff.
1,739 childcare
workers (more than
98% women) of
which 844 are full
time. Of this
approximately 10%
were school age
childcare staff.
SOURCE: Pobal, January 2007
There are three main types of beneficiaries of the EOCP that can be identified: the organisations
that receive the grants in order to run childcare services, the staff that are employed and trained by
these organisations, and the children (and parents) that benefit from the availability of childcare
places. The numbers of grants received by the first group, the nature and scale of these grants, and
the activities supported were discussed in previous sections. The key impacts of the programme,
however, lie in the latter two categories, with the increased childcare skills base generated by the
programme, and the childcare places supported and created by EOCP interventions.
51
Table 5.7 provides an analysis of these two types of beneficiary to date across each local authority
area, considering the number of full-time and part-time childcare staff funded by the programme,
and the number of childcare places that have been supported by EOCP activity. The analysis takes
account of multiple access to EOCP grants, meaning that an organisation receiving both capital and
staffing grants is only counted once in terms of the number of childcare places put in place, i.e.
there is no double counting in the calculations.
The analysis includes both the additional childcare places that have been created as a result of the
programme and places in existence prior to the programme which have been supported via staffing
grants. Data in relation to additional childcare places only is available on a regional basis as follows:

Within the Southern and Eastern Region, 21,852 new childcare places have been created since
establishment of the EOCP (as at December 2006), of which 10,374 were full time.

Within the Border, Midland and Western Region, 11,730 new childcare places have been
created since the establishment of the EOCP (as at December 2006), of which 4,425 were fulltime.

Overall, 33,582 new childcare places have been created in Ireland as a result of the EOCP, of
which 14,799 are full-time in nature.
52
TABLE 5.7: STAFF AND CHILDCARE PLACES SUPPORTED BY EOCP 2000-06
Staff Supported
Childcare Places Supported
Local Authority Area
Paid Full-time
Staff
Paid Part-time
Staff
Carlow
44
22
Cavan
20
82
Clare
36
50
Cork City
78
52
Cork County
82
90
Donegal
58
53
Dublin - Dublin City
172
208
Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown
19
37
Fingal
23
34
South Dublin
33
23
Galway City
26
74
Galway County
76
67
Kerry
13
5
Kildare
18
46
Kilkenny
21
80
Laois
34
46
Leitrim
44
59
Limerick City
18
17
Limerick County
23
21
Longford
48
22
Louth
40
90
Mayo
21
13
Meath
42
31
Monaghan
11
39
Offaly
32
30
Roscommon
23
45
Sligo
44
44
Tipperary North
12
18
Tipperary South
38
35
Waterford City
13
25
Waterford County
11
10
Westmeath
25
37
Wexford
48
45
Wicklow
34
18
Total
1,280
1,568
Full-time
Childcare
Places
Supported
Part-time
Childcare
Places
Supported
283
260
509
698
1198
580
2399
1083
1216
250
867
726
740
569
269
198
527
603
269
774
469
640
401
192
283
171
809
293
199
374
138
586
915
313
19,801
771
1140
976
1381
2586
1510
3916
969
1352
913
1743
1714
924
980
788
797
930
909
668
1133
1456
1225
911
748
529
810
1207
576
696
598
574
1282
1549
1078
39,339
Table 5.7 shows that the EOCP programme is supporting 1,280 full-time and 1,568 part-time
childcare jobs via the capital and staffing grants. In total, some 19,801 full-time childcare places and
39,339 part-time places have been supported by the programme, representing a significant increase
in the quantity of childcare provision over the last seven years.
53
5.6 ECOP Unit Costs
5.6.1 Unit Costs 2000-06
The statistics in relation to performance outlined above highlight one of the key difficulties in relation
to establishing unit costs for the childcare interventions made during the implementation of the
EOCP. As noted about almost 20,000 full-time childcare places have been supported alongside
almost double this amount of part-time places since commencement of the programme. These
figures are sourced from Pobal, with the agency having taken account of the potential for double
counting when monitoring performance and ensured that the figures represent all of the individual
places supported.
It is therefore worth providing some analysis of the unit costs of supporting the childcare places via
the EOCP over its lifetime. If it is assumed, to facilitate the analysis, that one part-time childcare
place represents one half of a full-time place, this means that until the end of October 2006, this
means a total of 39,470 full-time equivalent childcare places have been supported over the lifetime
of the programme.
If the total spend (i.e that actually drawn down following initial allocation) for capital investment,
provision of staffing grants and quality improvement across the three sub-measures of the EOCP is
considered, the unit cost of each of these types of activities in terms of supporting childcare places
can be measured. Table 5.8 summarises the analysis, which finds a unit cost of each childcare
place supported under the EOCP to date of €7,210.
TABLE 5.8: UNIT COSTS OF EOCP INVESTMENT, 2000-06
Expenditure
No of FTE Places
Unit Cost
Supported
€138,546,852
39,470
€3,510
€146,031,685
39,470
€3,700
Total EOCP Investment
€284,578,537
39,470
€7,210
The limitations of this analysis have been noted above and also raise issues in relation to
performance monitoring systems that need to be put in place in order to ensure that factors such as
additionality can be considered more effectively in the implementation of the NCIP in the future. The
need for further work to establish performance in relation of EOCP costs is however recognised,
and Chapter 8 focuses on the costs of the programme relative to alternative policy approaches,
providing an indicative guide to the relative value-for-money of the EOCP approach.
54
5.7 Labour Market Participation
As noted earlier in the report, the primary aim of the EOCP was to increase access to training,
education and employment opportunities for parents via provision of quality childcare supports. The
growth in the Irish economy leading up to the establishment of the programme in 2000 had been
fuelled by an expansion in national labour force participation rates for both men and women.
However there was an acknowledgement that female participation was still at a relatively low rate in
comparison with other EU member states and that further growth was essential in order to meet the
needs of the rapidly expanding economy moving forward. It was clear that there were a number of
constraints in place that limited the extent to which women were entering either employment directly,
or training and education in order to access employment at a later date. In particular, it was noted
that there was a large proportion of parents that were responsible for taking care of their children on
a full-time basis during the day. While for many this represented a valid choice on the parents’
behalf, there was a significant base of parents who wanted to enter employment, training or
education that were prevented from doing so by the lack of available childcare services. While Irish
policy has remained neutral in terms of whether a parent should be encouraged to remain as a fulltime carer for his/her dependent children, there was a commitment to facilitate choice in this regard.
Hence a major programme of investment in childcare was launched in order to substantially
increase the supply of childcare serves in Ireland, with the EOCP the central mechanism its
facilitation.
Earlier in this chapter the investment in the establishment and operation of childcare facilities that
has been made since 2000 via the EOCP has been detailed. This has significantly increased the
number of new childcare places available in Ireland, with 33,582 additional places created by the
end of December 2006. The knock-on impact in terms of participation in employment, training and
education is difficult to determine given its dependence on a number of other factors. These include
the availability of employment, training and education opportunities, the perceived rewards of taking
up such opportunities (set against the costs of childcare) and even parental choice (where the
childcare services might be taken-up but the parent still decides not to enter employment, education
and training).
Nevertheless it is worthwhile considering the key national indicator relating to participation levels
over the period of implementation of the EOCP, the labour force participation rate, as this highlights
the general trends to which the provision of substantial additional childcare places will have made
some contribution. The CSO produces the Quarterly National Household Survey every three months
to analyse labour market trends, providing detailed seasonally adjusted calculations of the labour
market participation rate in the period in question. The participation rate in this regard is considered
to be all persons either in work or available to work as a proportion of all persons of working age.
Table 5.9 provides this analysis.
55
TABLE 5.9: SEASONALLY ADJUSTED LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE, 1999-2006
Labour Force Participation Rate (%)
Male
Female
Overall
June-August 1999
71.4
47.0
,59.0
June-August 2000
71.7
47.9
59.6
June-August 2001
72.0
48.7
60.2
June-August 2002
71.0
49.0
59.8
June-August 2003
70.9
49.6
60.1
June-August 2004
71.6
50.0
60.7
June-August 2005
72.5
51.9
62.1
June-August 2006
73.1
53.0
63.0
SOURCE: CSO (drawn from the Quarterly National Household Survey Series)
Over the period of implementation of the EOCP, it is evident that there was a significant increase in
the female labour force participation rate. The rate rose from 47% in June to August 1999 to 53% in
the equivalent period in 2006. The rapid pace of change would suggest that the strong economic
growth performance has stimulated the availability of significant employment opportunities and
clearly a larger proportion of women of working age have now taken up these opportunities. As the
lack of childcare services served as a barrier to parents accessing employment prior to the
establishment of the programme, it is reasonable to assume that the provision of a substantial
quantity of additional childcare places has had some impact on this increase in participation levels.
However the extent of this impact cannot be fully clarified, as the relationship is dependent on the
issues noted above. A key contributing factor in the increase in labour participation in general is also
the major in-flow of migrants over the period, of which the vast majority entered employment,
boosting the participation rate as a direct result.
More programme-level analysis can also be provided to highlight the EOCP impact in terms of
participation by considering the EOCP Annual Beneficiary Surveys conducted by Pobal. While the
survey does not determine the number of parents that have entered employment, education or
training as a direct result of being able to use the EOCP childcare services, it does nonetheless
highlight the labour market status of all parents using the facilities. This can at least provide an
indication of whether childcare is being used as a means of facilitating employment to some extent.
The analysis for the latest Annual Beneficiary Survey, published in November 2006, is summarised
in Table 5.10.
56
TABLE 5.10: LABOUR MARKET STATUS OF PARENTS USING EOCP SUPPORTED
CHILDCARE SERVICES
Parents using EOCP Supported Services
Male
Female
Total
No
%
No
%
No
%
Part-time training
361
1.1%
2,035
6.3%
2,396
3.6%
Full-time training
201
0.6%
818
2.5%
1,019
1.5%
Total in training
562
1.7%
2,853
8.8%
3,415
5.2%
Part-time education
267
0.8%
1,793
5.6%
2,060
3.1%
Full-time education
499
1.5%
1,086
3.4%
1,585
2.4%
Total in education
766
2.3%
2,879
9.0%
3,645
5.5%
Part-time employment
1,826
5.4%
7,563
23.5%
9,389
14.2%
Full-time employment
18,042
53.1%
9,343
29.1%
27,385
41.4%
Community Employment Scheme
10,352
30.5%
917
2.9%
11,269
17.0%
Job Initiative Scheme
63
0.2%
61
0.2%
124
0.2%
Social Economy Scheme
79
0.2%
120
0.4%
199
0.3%
30,362
89.4%
18,004
56.1%
48,366
73.2%
31,690
93.3%
23,736
73.9%
55,426
83.8%
1,730
5.1%
2,211
6.9%
3,941
6.0%
547
1.6%
6,202
19.3%
6,749
10.2%
2,277
6.7%
8,413
26.2%
10,690
16.2%
33,967
100%
32,149
100%
66,116
100%
Total in employment
Total participating in employment,
education or training
Unemployed
At Home
Total not participating in
employment, education or training
OVERALL TOTAL
SOURCE: Pobal EOCP Annual Beneficiary Survey 2005
Although the analysis in Table 5.10 does not allow any solid conclusions to be drawn on the
additionality of the EOCP in facilitating employment, education or training opportunities, it does
highlight some interesting findings in relation to the labour market status of mothers of children
using EOCP services. Almost three-quarters of female parents were participating in either
education, training or employment, indicating that the primary purpose of the programme was being
realised to a significant extent. There was a much higher incidence of part-time employment,
education and training among female parents, perhaps indicating that part-time childcare places can
also make an important contribution in facilitating employment impacts.
This can be further illustrated by considering the labour market status of parents within the general
population. Although no ongoing analysis is conducted at national level to this degree of
disaggregation, the CSO did produce a Quarterly National Household Survey module on Childcare
in April 2006 that covered such statistics. The CSO analysis considered the labour market status of
the female parent or guardian (if this was recorded as being different from the female parent) of
children of either pre-school or primary school age. It revealed that 44.9% of this group were in
employment, 4.5% were in some form of education, 4.2% were unemployed and 44.3% were
57
involved in home duties, while 2.1% were retired or of another noted status. Although not an exact
science, this highlights the fact that mothers that are accessing EOCP supported facilities are
substantially more likely to be in employment or education or training and less likely to be in the
home than those in the general population of female parents with children of pre-school or primary
school age. This further suggests that the programme is having the desired effect as a driver of
access to employment opportunities.
The Annual Beneficiary Survey provides an important opportunity to gauge the benefits and impacts
of the EOCP and NCIP from a parent’s perspective, and is important that future surveys take full
advantage of this opportunity. It is important more consideration is given to probing for the
additionality of the programme (i.e. has the use of childcare directly resulted in access to
employment, training or education?) to supplement information on current status.
Finally, it is worthwhile noting the broader economic benefits arising from the EOCP in stimulating
the effects on labour market participation noted above. Clearly as more parents enter employment,
the income tax revenue benefits for the Government should rise, while there is also likely to be a fall
in social welfare payments as a result of this change in status. These impacts were examined by
PwC in a Discussion paper in 2003 entitled ‘Universal Childcare Provision in the UK – towards a
cost benefit analysis. It offered a methodological framework that examined benefits in terms of:

Short-term benefits (parents) - enhanced earnings, productivity increases, associated tax
revenues, lifetime earnings potential.

Long-term benefits (children) - enhanced earnings, productivity increases, associated tax
revenues, lifetime earnings potential.

Economic Multipliers.

Reduced Social Welfare Payments.

Impact on Health, Crime and Remedial Education Requirements.
Future consideration might be given to adopting this as a methodological framework to examine the
short and long-term benefits to parents and children as well as the economic multipliers that derive
from these benefits.
5.8 Key Performance Indicators
The preceding analysis in this chapter has considered a wide range of different indicators of
performance in relation to the EOCP. While it has been possible to note the trends in terms of level
of programme expenditure, nature of activities funded, and the numbers of childcare places
supported, other elements of performance such as the additionality of the programme, the quality of
childcare provision and the overall costs of operating childcare facilities have proved impossible to
gauge given the data currently available. Under the terms of reference for this review, potential
58
future performance indicators which might be used to better monitor performance of the NCIP are
required to be specified, and these information gaps should be addressed moving forward.
The existing performance indicators that are monitored on an ongoing basis via the twice yearly
Monitoring Committee remain relevant and should continue to serve as key performance indicators
in the delivery of the NCIP. The fact that a baseline was established at the outset of the programme
(recording 28,671 part-time and 14,072 full-time places in existence in the Southern and Eastern
Region and 10,847 part-time and 3,213 full-time places in existence in the Border, Midland and
Western Region) has also facilitated ongoing monitoring of the programme, and this should be
maintained for the NCIP moving forward. At present, the Monitoring Committee reports track a
number of indicators including the following:
Number of additional part-time and full-time childcare places created.
Existing places receiving support from the EOCP (including those that were in place at start of
programme).
Number of new childcare facilities created.
Number of existing childcare facilities upgraded.
Number of childcare places supported in quality enhanced facilities.
Percentage of parents engaging in education, training or employment opportunities on foot of the
availability of childcare facilities broken down by gender.
Percentage of facilities receiving capital grants still in operation 2 years following full expenditure
of grant aid.
Number of childcare workers supported (disaggregated by gender part-time and full-time).
Percentage of childcare workers supported under the programme with a childcare qualification
accredited by FETAC at Level 5 or higher.
Number of accredited training courses delivered by National Voluntary Childcare Organisations
(NVCO) personnel by level and location and no. of participants disaggregated by gender.
Number of accredited training courses organised by City/County Childcare Committees (CCC)
by level and location and the no. of participants disaggregated by gender.
Number of childminders supported under the Childminding Development Grants scheme.
Number of participants in the Childminding Quality Awareness Programme (QAP).
These indicators are all valid in terms of providing an indication of progress of the EOCP over its
period of implementation. The sourcing of ESF and ERDF funding to contribute to the delivery of the
programme placed minimum requirements on the use of indicators, and the diverse range of
indicators established reflected these requirements. It is essential that measurement of these
indicators is not neglected for the NCIP moving forward as a consequence of the removal of EU
obligations in this regard. Indeed the indicators are generally quantity and output focused, and given
the focus of the new programme, there is a need to expand the base of indicators to closer reflect
the wider impacts of interventions and the quality of childcare being provided.
59
Measuring the new childcare places created via programme interventions in the Monitoring
Committee reports as noted above is of paramount importance as a distinct indicator separate from
the places that were already in place prior to the programme that are being supported via EOCP
investment (and NCIP investment in the future). However additionality can only be measured if
information on funding can be broken down in line with whether places are new or additional. It is
therefore critical in future that indicators are monitored on an ongoing basis that highlight the level of
capital investment and staffing grant assistance that has supported the creation and ongoing
provision of new childcare places. Similar information must be recorded for the support of existing
places via staffing grants (capital grants could also be relevant here if a new, higher quality facility
has been provided and hence the capital investment has safeguarded the places that were already
in place).
There is a strong case however for performance indicators to go beyond this and incorporate ‘whole
cost’ measurements with regard to the facilities supported via the programme. The data considered
by this review has focused on the funding allocated and drawn down via the EOCP, but these
investments represent only contributions to the capital and operational costs of the childcare
facilities, and there is currently no gauge of the relative scale of the contribution being made in this
regard. Achieving greater levels of self-sufficiency in childcare facilities is a key priority for the NCIP
moving forward, and if this is to be effectively tracked information on the entire cost of running each
service must be gathered, with its provision made a condition of the allocation of funding. This will
allow the costs of operating different types of childcare facilities to be analysed and better
understood, as well as measuring the extent to which programme resources are contributing to
overall costs.
Alongside this, and linked to the need to put in place more self-sufficient and sustainable childcare
services moving forward, is the importance of beginning to gather information in relation to the
income generated by childcare facilities from fees. Guidance and standards have been put in place
at national level that is intended to help maximise the finance generated via the supported childcare
services, with tiered fee structures to be implemented and minimum fees applied. As will be detailed
later in this report, the extent to which this has taken place in the way originally envisaged has
varied within local projects, and effort should be made to more tightly control this aspect of the
programme and measure the extent to which facilities are generating their own income from fees.
There is therefore a requirement for a key performance indicator that measures the income received
by programme supported facilities, with the provision of this information made a condition of funding
as with that concerning wider costs. This will allow tighter control of the implementation of tiered fee
structures and the need for projects to focus on maximising fee income. It will also allow trends in
sustainability to be monitored over time.
60
As has been noted in the review, there is a strong emphasis of the provision of quality early
childhood care and education in the NCIP. While quality has always been recognised as an
important aspect of childcare provision, the more formal commitment to its central role within the
NCIP, and national policy developments such as the establishment of Síolta, mean that there is now
a need for its importance to be recognised in the implementation of new key performance indicators
that focus on the issue of quality provision in supported services. There is a need to go beyond the
measurement of number of “quality-enhanced” services supported as was monitored under the
EOCP, as this seems to rely an arbitrary judgement and lacks the multi-dimensional focus which is
required in gauging quality childcare provision. It is recommended in chapter 7 of this review that it
is made a condition of funding that recipients adhere to the principles and standards defined by
Síolta. If this is adopted, some system should be put in place in order to monitor the adoption of
these principles and standards in projects post-funding. A range of key performance indicators
reflecting these principles and standards and other aspects of childcare provision should be
introduced for NCIP moving forward. They should focus on issues such as use of a formal
curriculum, standards relating to the internal and external environment, use of a formal assessment
system to establish the needs of the child, the extent of consultation with parents and families and
the quality of staff.
This latter staffing issue is also important and one that requires further formalisation in the
development of key performance indicators. While there are legislative requirements in place that
require certain staff ratios for different types of activities in childcare services, there does seem to be
variations between projects and it would be worthwhile recording this information from the projects
supported by the programme. High staff turnover levels were also apparent in supported services,
and this should be monitored in the future as turnover can have implications for service quality. The
qualifications and levels of accreditation achieved by staff is also an important component that
should continue to be measured if there are to be serious efforts to increase the skills base in
childcare provision and contribute to a high quality of service delivery.
In addition to the indicators tracked in the Monitoring Committee reports throughout the lifetime of
the EOCP, which should continue to serve in this manner for the NCIP, a number of new indicators
should be established. These focus on more effective measurement of value-for-money and the
quality of service in supported childcare facilities, and are defined in the box below.
61
NEW INDICATORS TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NCIP
Funding
Amount of funding invested in support of new childcare places (split by capital and current
expenditure).
Amount of funding invested in support of existing childcare places (split by capital and current
expenditure).
Costs
Overall capital cost of establishing childcare facilities (including non NCIP contributions)
Overall capital cost of upgrading existing childcare facilities (including non NCIP contributions)
Overall staffing costs in supported childcare services (including contributions outside NCIP
staffing grants)
Overall operational costs and breakdown of cost components for supported services.
Income
Total income generated by supported childcare services (from all sources).
Income generated by supported childcare services by source of funding.
Proportion of income of supported services sourced from fees.
Charging system in place for childcare services.
Staffing
Staff/child ratios in place in supported childcare services (in terms of overall staff, direct childcare
workers and by type of target group within service)
Staff turnover rates in supported childcare services.
Quality
Number of supported services with a curriculum based approach to child development in place.
Number of supported services undertaking formal needs assessment of each child using the
service.
Number of supported services with a mechanism in place to consult with parents.
Number of supported services undertaking activities to support wider families.
Number of supported facilities with external as well as internal environments.
Number of supported facilities with separate dedicated play areas.
If the above proposed indicators are to be put in place, the increasing focus on cost issues and
income generation may require more specific focus on auditing of these figures. Pobal has an
Article 4 team in place for auditing purposes and is required to visit each project at least once during
each programming period. This not only presents an opportunity to control adherence to the new
indicators, but this comprehensive level of monitoring might also facilitate the gathering of
information by the Article 4 team to form a database of indicators to serve as a check on figures
submitted by the individual projects.
62
This chapter has examined the performance of the EOCP over its period of implementation. A
number of key aspects of performance were highlighted, including:

By the end of 2006, €564.7mn in total had been allocated for investment in the development of
childcare via the EOCP.

60% of all monies allocated under EOCP 2000-06 had been drawn down by the end of 2006,
with most allocations outstanding concentrated within the capital grants measure.

€179,419, while purely exchequer funded grants were generally smaller scale in nature, with an
average of €42,076.

33,582 new childcare places created in Ireland as a result of the EOCP, of which 14,799 are
full-time in nature.

However, issues were also identified that have impeded the progress of the EOCP in terms of
meeting its objectives over its lifetime. The slow-down in processing grants during 2004 had a
significant impact on the level of throughput of projects via the programme. A major backlog was
progressed upon resumption and it was noted that the awards were substantially higher than in
previous years with no clear evidence that this was a result of the different needs of the projects
being appraised. Under the period of the NCIP, funding must be allocated on a consistent needs
basis to ensure a value-for-money approach to delivery. Capacity issues among community and
voluntary organisations were also found to have caused delays, particularly in the management of
capital projects and it was noted that further technical expertise was required to progress these
projects effectively. The need to provide, within the structure of the grant award, for further technical
expertise in project management, is considered in section 7.2.
It was highlighted that as a result of the data available with regard to performance of the
programme, calculation of unit costs was highly problematic, while a number of new potential key
performance indicators were identified that will help to better monitor aspects of performance
moving forward. In particular, information relating to the wider costs of operating community-based
services, should be gathered to facilitate a greater understanding of the cost components, and the
provision of appropriate responses in this regard. The OMC is committed under Towards 2016 to
developing, in liaison with the HSE and the CECDE, a new National Data Strategy to support the
planning and delivery of policy and services in relation to early childhood care and education and
school age childcare. This should help the future evaluation of the NCIP and the impact of
investment under the programme.
63
6. Role of the CCCs and NVCOs
6.1 Introduction
Establishment of City and County Childcare Committees (CCCs) and the designation of National
Voluntary Childcare Organisations were designed as mechanisms by which the EOCP could be
more effectively delivered and its objectives realised. As noted in Chapter 3, thirty-three CCCs were
established – one in each local authority area – to serve as mechanisms for monitoring local
childcare provision, identifying local childcare needs, co-ordinating local delivery, helping to develop
appropriate responses to meet these needs, and providing support to local providers to ensure that
services were delivered effectively.
At national level, the NVCOs took on a variety of responsibilities, including representation of a
particular stakeholder group within the childcare sector, information provision, conducting of
research, policy development, and capacity building with local organisations.
In this chapter, the role, nature and activities of the CCCs since establishment are examined and
the perspectives on the development of the EOCP and NCIP by members of the CCCs are
presented. The analysis draws on a survey of the CCCs, supplemented by more qualitative
research via case studies and regional workshops to which CCC coordinators, other Committee
members and local childcare providers were invited. After consideration of the CCCs, the activities
of the NVCOs are then discussed, drawing on consultations with a number of these organisations
and on feedback provided by a range of other stakeholders.
6.2 Structure and Nature of the CCCs
6.2.1 Phases in CCC Development
In considering the role of the CCCs in delivery of the EOCP, it is important to understand that there
was a developmental phase before each Committee could become effectively established. The
pace of development from area to area differed substantially. In general, there appear to be five
distinct tasks that required to be successfully completed in order to ensure that a CCC could
perform the role envisaged. These are summarised in Figure 6.1.
64
FIGURE 6.1: DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF THE CCCS
Identification of
stakeholders to serve on
CCC & securing their
commitment
Convening of first
meeting and election of
CCC Chair
Building of effective
working partnerships
between CCC members
& orgns
Appointment of CCC
Coordinator and Support
Staff
Production of CCC
Strategic Plan
From examination of different experiences in terms of development, it appears that while some
CCCs were able to agree on membership of the Committee and convene the first meeting relatively
quickly, with some meeting before the end of 2000, others took until 2002 to get to this stage.
Similarly, while some CCC coordinators were appointed as early as January 2001, there were still
Committees operating without a Coordinator in 2003. This of course had implications for the drawing
up of the local Strategic Plan, which as a result had to be undertaken without this dedicated
assistance.
6.2.2 CCC Membership
The nature of the membership of the CCCs also differs substantially. All CCCs have at least one
representative from the HSE, the local authority, a NVC0, and local service providers. However, the
extent to which parents representatives, stakeholders with an educational perspective (e.g. from the
VEC or a local school) or the Department of Social and Family Affairs are involved varies from area
to area. Figure 5.2 shows the combined membership structure across the 26 CCCs that responded
to the survey.
65
FIGURE 6.2: AVERAGE MEMBERS FROM EACH STAKEHOLDER GROUP ACROSS CCCS
Local Authority,
1.15
HSE, 1.31
Other, 3.15
NVCO, 1.73
DSFA, 0.50
Partnership Co,
1.46
Parents Rep, 1.12
VEC, 1.04
DES, 0.73
CEB, 0.50
FAS, 0.81
Service Providers,
2.35
SOURCE: SURVEY OF CITY AND COUNTY CHILDCARE COMMITTEES
The average number of CCC members stands at 14.8. Although the size of membership across
individual Committees varies from 9 to 24.
Aside from the core categories highlighted above, the CCCs consist of many other types of
stakeholder, including representatives from community fora, other childcare networks, childminding
representatives, Chambers of Commerce, farmers’ organisations and other groups, third level
colleges, trade unions, groups representing specific target groups (e.g. people with disabilities, the
Traveller community) and Community Development projects and initiatives.
The development period experienced in order to effectively establish the CCCs is indicated by
analysis of the numbers of times that CCCs have met over the lifetime of the current programme. In
2001, when structures were still being developed, there were just 5 meetings on average by each
CCC. However from 2002 onwards, regular meetings were held in most CCC areas, with each
Committee meeting on average 8.42, 9.19 and 8.62 times in 2002, 2003 and 2004 respectively.
66
6.3 Role of the CCCs and Support Mechanisms
6.3.1 Benefits of CCCs
Perhaps the most important benefit of establishment of the CCCs has been the facilitation of better
working partnerships between key stakeholders involved in the planning and delivery of childcare
services at local level. The survey of CCCs found that 65.4% of respondents believed that better
working partnerships between their member organisations had been facilitated as a result of
establishment, while all remaining CCCs acknowledged that this had happened to some extent. For
example, experiences were noted of FAS, the VEC and the County Enterprise Board working
together on the identification and delivery of appropriate childcare training responses, and of the
NVCOs developing stronger links with training agencies via the CCCs.
Another successful development involved collaborative working between the local authority, HSE
and a local community development organisation to create a building management resource worker
that could assist in delivery of the highly important project management component involved in
EOCP capital grants projects. This is an area where it was identified during the research process
that a capacity deficit existed at local level and such an initiative should only be of benefit from an
efficiency perspective and could be expected to generate overall cost savings as a result of the
additional expertise in managing a construction process. Many other examples of successful
collaborative approaches were logged during the review, with much stronger links between statutory
and community and voluntary organisations in evidence.
6.3.2 CCC View of Pobal
Pobal has played an important role in helping to develop the role of the CCCs and their capacity to
act as a mechanism to meet childcare needs at local level. There is a high level of satisfaction
among CCCs with the general guidance provided by the agency in supporting the activities of the
CCC, with almost 90% of those responding to the survey noting their satisfaction in this regard. Of
particular value was the designation of a specific key contact person within Pobal for each CCC,
allowing effective working relationships to be developed between the two parties. However it was
also noted that staff turnover resulted in changes to this key person in some cases, making efficient
resolution of CCC queries more problematic.
The production of a comprehensive Resource Manual by Pobal also appears to have been a highly
effective tool in helping to guide CCC activities over the life of the programme, with over 90%
satisfied with this resource and over a third noting that they were very satisfied. There do however
seem to be issues with regard to the training provided by Pobal with regard to assisting the
development of the CCCs, with more than one-half of survey respondents expressing dissatisfaction
with the training. Among the issues identified were the lack of training targeted at CCCs in the initial
67
period of establishment, the need for more training for Committee staff, locating training
programmes in more regional venues, and a greater focus on training to build capacity to meet the
financial and administrative requirements of the EOCP. The satisfaction with Pobal’s support role
across the three categories is highlighted in Figure 6.3.
FIGURE 6.3: SATISFACTION OF CCCS WITH SUPPORT PROVIDED BY POBAL
34.62%
Resource Manual
Very Satisfactory
46.15%
Training
Guidance
57.69%
Satisfactory
15.38%
0.00%
20.00%
73.08%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
The role of the CCCs has developed over the lifetime of the EOCP with the creation of Consultation
Committees as sub-groups of the CCCs in order to facilitate local input into the decision-making
process for allocation of resources under sub-measures 1 and 2. There has been a mixed response
to this development, with 38.5% rating the change of being of no or limited effectiveness. However
46.2% of CCCs surveyed did agree that the Consultation Committee mechanism has been quite
effective, with 15.3% feeling that its introduction had been very effective. It was noted that this
approach placed the onus on applicants to work in partnership with organisations such as the local
authority, the HSE and the County Enterprise Board and demonstrate that they have the capacity to
effectively deliver projects.
68
6.4 CCC Strategic Plans
6.4.1 Plan Preparation
As one of the first steps in helping to support the implementation of the EOCP, every CCC was
charged with the responsibility of producing a local strategic plan that would help to frame its own
activities and the delivery of childcare provision within the area over the period 2000-06. Most of the
plans were drawn up in 2002 as a result of the developmental phase noted above, although one or
two CCCs were able to establish plans at an earlier date.
The vast majority of the CCCs used external consultants to facilitate this process, perhaps partly
because the partnerships between the organisations were still developing and remained in their
infancy, needing a more independent mechanism to find and articulate an agreed way forward.
An extensive consultation process was used to underpin the development of the strategic plans,
with all having taken into account the views of parents and all but one those of childcare providers.
Consultation with the various stakeholder organisations that served as members of the CCCs was
also an integral part of this process. The level of involvement of the NVCOs and children in feeding
into the plan did however vary from area to area, and while 80% of planning processes included
consultation with the former group, only just over one-third had included a mechanism to gather the
views of children.
Pobal provided guidance in the development of the strategic plans, and there was again general
satisfaction among the CCCs with regard to their role in this regard, with two-thirds of those
responding to the survey satisfied. However there was concern from other CCCs that the level of
guidance had not been sufficient, with high levels of inconsistency across plans, and there was
significant dissatisfaction at the process which led to the rejection of a number of plans upon
submission..
6.4.2 Plan Content
The inconsistencies in plans noted above were apparent in the way in which they were structured.
Some plans defined a small number of very strategic objectives to be pursued, with no specific
actions identified. Other plans combined moiré strategic objectives with specific actions to be
delivered, while a number concentrated only on putting in place a series of 20-30 actions to be
undertaken over the course of implementation. There also appears to be some confusion in terms of
how each CCC viewed their role at local level, with the focus of attention differing markedly across
the plans.
69
There was greater consistency in terms of the wider content of the plans, with all having providing
demographic analysis to help determine local needs, and most also considering both the national
and local policy context that underpinned the development of the plans. Encouragingly, there was
also widespread consideration of the quality aspects of childcare, while around three-quarters of
CCCs also examined local childcare training available within the plan. Around a quarter also
considered experiences overseas that could help in the delivery of effective childcare responses
moving forward. Figure 6.4 highlights the different components that made up the CCC strategic
plans.
FIGURE 6.4: PREVALENCE OF SELECTED TOPICS IN CCC STRATEGIC PLANS
International Research
23.10%
Examination of Quality
73.10%
Consideration of Quality
80.80%
Local Policy Context
84.60%
National Policy Context
84.60%
Audit of Childcare Provision
88.50%
Demographic Analysis
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
The CCCs themselves have acknowledged the weaknesses that limited the effectiveness of the
plans, with many felt to be too wide ranging and overly ambitious. Priorities have also changed in
the time since publication, diminishing the ongoing value of the plans. This is reflected in the mixed
response with regard to the current relevance of the strategic plans, with 23.1% of CCCs noting that
the plans still reflected local needs to a significant extent, while just over half (53.8%) felt that this
was true to some extent. However, 15.4% of CCCs felt current needs only related to those identified
in the plans to a minor extent, and a further 7.7% of Committees felt they was no longer any
relevance in this respect. The decline in relevance is clearly a natural consequence of the passage
of time, but funding issues were also cited as impeding the implementation of some plans,
70
particularly in terms of delays in drawing down funding, while a lack of capacity among potential
providers was also identified as a barrier to successful progression of the strategy.
In recognition of the changing environment and barriers to delivering the strategic plans, a number
of CCCs have undertaken formal review exercises, while others have done this informally on an
ongoing basis. A series of mechanisms, including research studies, audits of provision and mapping
exercises and consultation with local stakeholders, have been used to revise and develop new
priorities in response to emerging needs. It was noted that the most critical component in guiding
the ongoing priorities of the CCCs was the annual action planning process, with these plans able to
reflect changing needs and provide for new interventions to meet these needs.
6.4.3 Strategic Plans 2007-10
The CCCs are in the course of drawing up strategic plans for 2007-10, the timeframe for delivery of
the NCIP. These will be different in both nature and focus from their predecessors and a number of
areas have been pinpointed in this regard:

Closer relationship between the strategic plan and the forthcoming action plans, with the
strategic plan following the nine action plan headings to ensure consistency:

o
Contents Sheet
o
Summary of the review of Strategic Plan 2001-2006
o
Executive Summary of Strategic Plan 2007-2010
o
Details of the Committee
o
Details of the Area
o
Analysis of Needs
o
Objective Setting
o
Linkages and Collaboration
o
Review and Monitoring
Greater focus on the quality aspects of childcare, with the implementation of Síolta at local level
a key priority.

Recognition of the diversity of childcare services and the need to develop different approaches
for different types of provision.

Emphasis on the mapping of local need and targeting of provision on communities where gaps
still exist, in acknowledgement of the progress that has been made in establishing a significant
base of childcare facilities over the period of the EOCP.

Consideration of social inclusion and family support issues, with interventions proactively
targeting the most disadvantaged communities.

Given the increased capacity of service providers to deliver projects, a shift in CCC activity
from organisational development interventions to ongoing technical support to ensure quality
childcare provision and on maximising the degree of self-sufficiency.
71

Further development of the link between education and childcare, with expansion of school age
childcare and attention given to ensuring that curriculum based approaches are being followed
in all facilities.
In addition to the attention to be given to these issues, the strategic plans should also contain more
focused, practical objectives. It is important that responsibility for delivery of these objectives is
assigned wherever possible, and that timescales are put in place for completion. Account should be
taken of the changing role and responsibilities of the CCC under the NCIP, with planning activities of
the dedicated CCC staff a key priority, an aspect of implementation that was absent in the previous
plans. The significant demographic changes in Ireland in recent years should be tracked within the
strategic plans in order to help establish the local demand for childcare services.
A number of CCCs are proposing to put a monitoring framework in place to track progress of the
new strategic plan. Monitoring and ongoing review should be an intrinsic part of any strategic
planning exercise, and adoption of such an approach should be encouraged across all CCCs.
Finally, given the development of in-house expertise with the employment of Coordinators and other
CCC dedicated staff, it should be possible for Committees to draw up plans without this external
assistance.
6.5 CCC Annual Action Plans
As a consequence of the significant period that has passed since the development of the strategic
plans, their relevance to ongoing CCC activity has been diminished somewhat. The annual action
plans now play the most important role in framing activity in this regard. The plans propose actions
based under nine headings, and hence there is a higher degree of consistency between those for
different areas than was the case for the strategic plans.
There is general support among CCCs for the action planning process, with the more structured
consistent approach considered by most CCCs (61% of those responding to the survey) to be
effective in meeting local needs. Pobal’s role in supporting the development of the action plans also
attracted praise, with 92.3% of CCCs expressing satisfaction with the agency’s performance in this
regard, with 30.7% noting that they were very satisfied.
Some concern was however apparent that the nine action headings, while ensuring a consistent
approach, also need to be revised and developed as the environment changes, with some identified
as being more important than others in delivery of CCC interventions. Although more than half of the
CCCs that responded to the survey agreed that each of the categories represented a valid area of
intervention, capacity building for local providers was considered to be the most critical type of
action that had to be progressed. It was noted that the capacity of providers underpins the ultimate
success of the programme, given that such activity can change mindsets in relation to, for example,
72
the importance of training and quality aspects of childcare and consideration of social inclusion and
equality issues. Their roles in terms of information provision, networking, training, quality and in
progressing with the Childminding Initiative were also all rated as important, although there was
slightly less support for specific actions under social inclusion and equality and diversity headings.
This was not due to any lack of commitment from the CCCs with regard to addressing these issues,
but rather that they should serve more as horizontal principles that underpin all of the actions
progressed, regardless of the heading to which such activity was attached.
The heading that was considered least important in delivering effective local childcare provision via
the EOCP was capacity building for CCC staff and members of the Committee. This is mainly in
recognition that CCCs now have skilled staff who have developed a good working knowledge of the
programme and of local childcare issues and a Committee where effective working partnerships
have developed between members, and that perhaps now there was not as much need for such
significant focus in this regard.
There was support for the action plans to allow more flexibility, with many noting that there should
be an ‘other’ category available for actions that the CCC has identified as being relevant to meeting
local needs but which does not easily fit into any given heading. That aside, there was a feeling that
there were too many rather than too few headings, and that some might be merged in order to
develop a more succinct approach, with the overlap between training and quality improvement
identified as one such example, while making social inclusion and equality and diversity overarching
principles rather than action categories was also supported. There was also a perception that CCCs
had to try to find activities under some heading in order to ensure that there was at least one action
under each heading regardless of whether any need existed. However consultations with Pobal
indicated that there is no obligation to progress activity under all headings, so this needs to be reemphasised to CCCs as the NCIP moves forward.
The CCCs can play an important role in providing sufficient training, guidance, support and control
in the implementation of Síolta, the National Quality Framework, and the survey of Committees
probed for any existing activity that was being progressed in relation to ensuring the quality of
childcare services. Here the approaches seem to differ, with some CCCs proving to be very
proactive in this area, while others felt there was little scope for intervention given that they have no
authority to consider and implement quality aspects of childcare. The scale of provision in some
urban area was also perceived as being a barrier to implementing quality-related requirements for
local services and it was noted that CCCs are only able to provide information and guidance in this
regard.
Nevertheless there does appear in general to be a growing recognition of the need to focus on the
quality aspect of childcare provision, given the focus on delivering quality childcare provision within
the National Childcare Strategy and NCIP, and in light of the production of Síolta. The action plans
73
are beginning to reflect the need to progress with interventions to ensure that quality of provision is
developed throughout the sector. In Figure 6.5 analysis is provided of the ways in which action
plans are focusing on the issues
FIGURE 6.5: FOCUS GIVEN TO QUALITY-RELATED ISSUES IN CCC ACTION PLANS
Outlining service delivery
schemes and objectives
38.46%
Establishing monitoring and
evaluation mechanisms
53.85%
Establishing indicators
53.85%
Reflecting quality aspects in
provider strategies
61.54%
Reflecting quality aspects in
service design
69.23%
Identifying the need to
gather information
73.08%
76.92%
Advocating standards
Promoting best practice
through training
0.00%
84.62%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Figure 6.5 shows that there is strong commitment to ensuring that high quality childcare facilities are
delivered within the area. The majority of CCCs have promoted best practice in provision via
training, but perhaps most encouraging are the steps that have been made by over half of the CCCs
in establishing monitoring and evaluation mechanism and indicators. This represents highly practical
activity which helps to ensure that local providers are meeting their obligations with regard to
providing quality childcare. In light of these findings, the review found that all of the CCCs could be
taking on the proactive stance adopted by some in relation to quality in view of their role in providing
guidance and coordinating childcare activity at local level, regardless of any perceived lack of
authority in this area. Given the specific role of the CCC in the application and appraisal process for
NCIP projects, it would seem that there is now a lot more scope to ensure that projects give
sufficient aspects to the quality aspects of childcare, and the possibility of establishing formal criteria
in this regard is worthy of further examination. There are a number of quality-related requirements
74
that have been put in place by CCCs, with around 70% having progressed with the following actions
in this regard:

Clear aims and objectives for the service;

Clear management structures in place;

Meeting minimum legislative requirements;

Provision of a developmentally appropriate curriculum;

Development of working partnerships with parents;

Staffed by sufficiently skilled workforce;

Implementation of equal opportunities policies and practices;

Appropriate physical environments including indoor and outdoor space;

Incorporation of play, care and educational components into service delivery.
An objective for the NCIP moving forward therefore should be to extend the implementation of such
requirements across the remaining 30% of CCC areas, and also to ensure that such requirements
are formalised as far as possible in all areas. There is also scope for more CCCs to ensure that
services put in place a system to address children’s learning and development needs, as currently
only one-half of Committees have adopted this approach.
Finally, it was encouraging that many CCCs put in place their own monitoring and evaluation
processes to track progress with regard to the annual action plans, in addition to the review of
progress requested by Pobal prior to the drawing up of a new plan. Among the techniques adopted
was the introduction of evaluation forms, use of formal performance management systems of
partner agencies, establishment of a monitoring and evaluation sub-group, putting in place a
performance indicators log, and use of a traffic lights system (where actions are colour coded green,
amber or red depending on whether they are progressing on track, progressing with some delay or
unable to progress) to monitor progress. It would seem that learning could be shared across CCCs
in this regard, as it is important that all have ongoing monitoring and evaluation systems in place in
order to track performance.
6.6 CCC Role in Stimulating Local Project Activity
The CCCs have played a significant role in helping to stimulate local project activity in response to
meeting childcare needs. Almost three-quarters have provided support in helping potential providers
to develop projects, while a significant proportion have also engaged in helping with the preparation
of applications to access EOCP assistance and to overcome capacity issues that have delayed the
drawing down of EOCP funding by successful local applicants. There has been less involvement in
working with unsuccessful EOCP applicants in order to over come issues that resulted in rejection of
their applications, but encouragingly, there is more commitment to performing this function as the
75
NCIP progresses, in recognition of the more proactive role that CCCs will play in the application
process.
FIGURE 6.6: CCC ACTIVITY IN SUPPORTING LOCAL PROJECT PROVIDERS AND
POTENTIAL PROVIDERS
Support to unsuccessful
NCIP applicants
Support to unsuccessful
EOCP applicants
Support in draw ing dow n
funding
57.69%
42.31%
61.54%
Support in developing
applications
73.08%
Support in developing
projects
0.00%
88.46%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
One of the most important areas in which the CCCs appear to be offering specific added value was
identified as the facilitation of a more holistic understanding of the issues involved in delivering
effective local childcare interventions via the partnership ethos developed. There is also a strong
belief that they have also allowed improved local planning to respond to the needs of the sector. It is
also acknowledged by almost all of the CCCs that the local focus of the Committees enables a
better understanding of the issues arising within their particular area.
There was enthusiasm for the CCC’s new role in the NCIP grant application process. It was felt that
this would benefit applicants significantly as the CCCs could provide better local knowledge and
support, and direct meetings could be facilitated at which issues could be discussed. It was also
acknowledged that this approach will help to reduce the risk of duplication and displacement in
provision, as the CCC will be able to ensure that a potential project is meeting local needs or can
work with the applicant to amend its specifications so that this becomes the case.
76
6.7 NVCO Activity
NVCOs are membership-based organisations supporting different categories of childcare providers
(e.g. full-day care, Montessori, Naíonraí etc). Seven National Voluntary Childcare Organisations
have been supported by the programme to develop their organisation’s capacity, support their
membership and deliver enhanced quality in childcare provision as follows:

Barnardos

National Childminding Association of Ireland (NCMAI)

Forbairt Naíonraí Teo

IPPA, the Early Childhood Organisation

Irish Steiner Waldorf Early Childhood Association (ISWECA)

National Childrens Nurseries Association (NCNA)

St. Nicholas Montessori Society of Ireland
In terms of the EOCP and with the assistance of EOCP funding, the seven NVCOs focus on four
main areas, which are reflected in their 3 year Strategic Plans.

Work with member base – capacity; training; quality; supporting increase in childcare places
and services.

Work with County Childcare Committees – effective participation on CCC; cohesive
organisation approach to supporting all 33 CCCs.

Role in information – cutting edge on childcare in Ireland; information on new developments;
thematic seminars on emerging trends.

Collaborative work together with other NVCOs – feeding into national policy; developing
discussion papers; developing thematic areas, e.g. quality; defining NVCO role in delivery of
childcare training.
The review considered the role of the NVCOs as part of the overall EOCP process and the
realisation of its objectives. It was found that at local level their support was often critical to ensuring
that there was childcare expertise on the management board and in delivery of projects by
community-based organisations. Their work in capacity building in this regard attracted significant
praise, and they have the opportunity of being able to engage with providers at operational level,
helping them to address general day-to-day problems and offer support whenever it is required. The
membership structure of some of the NVCOs is also a valuable asset that allows the views of key
stakeholders within the sector (e.g. childminders, montessori providers)
The relationship between the NVCOs and the CCCs was less clear however, with their involvement
on Committees not consistent throughout the country. Indeed there was concern that the NVCOs
and CCCs were duplicating activity to some extent in terms of research and working on policy
77
development. There is a need for greater clarity in the roles of both parties in this regard, with policy
development an obvious function for which NVCOs should assume full responsibility, and research
being something that should have clear national and local emphasis for NVCOs and CCCs
respectively.
The accountability of the NVCOs is another matter that requires further attention moving forward.
There are strengths and weaknesses with regard to the interventions delivered by NVCOs as noted
above, but the only assessment that tends to take place in terms of their performance is in the
review and approval process of the annual action plans. This involves considering the proposed
NVCO activity over the next 12 months, having regard to their performance in line with their previous
action plans and making amendments to the new plans if required and then allocating budgets on
the basis of those plans. In practice however, there seems to be very little questioning of
performance in this regard. Concentrating on the activities where the NVCOs add most value as
noted above and introducing a system of service-level agreements that would make them more
accountable in terms of performance, would be worthy of consideration moving forward. This would
involve the NVCOs signing a contact promising to deliver certain services and levels of activity
within a specified period in return for funding with penalties attached to not meeting performance
targets. This would be more consistent with value-for-money approaches across similar
programmes, with the current action planning process leaving the system open to inefficient use of
resources due to a focus on general objectives and actions and not the actual interventions being
delivered.
The CCCs and other support structures that were put in place to assist in the implementation of the
EOCP have been of mixed effectiveness over the lifetime of the programme. It was clear that there
had been a very steep learning curve for the stakeholders involved in the CCCs and that this meant
that progress in establishing the Committees as effective mechanisms in addressing local needs
and helping to develop responses to those needs was slow in the initial years of the programme.
The fact that the CCCs had no formal role (other than a consultative one) in the project application
and selection process appeared to impede their ability to be more proactive in this regard.
Nevertheless there was evidence of positive impacts arising from the establishment of the CCCs in
terms of development of more effective working partnerships, promoting best practice locally via
provision of training and advocating adherence to standards and in supporting local promoters to
develop projects. The annual action planning process was also shown to be working effectively in
focusing attention on key areas of activity, although the number of headings under which activities
are required to be proposed in CCC action plans should be reduced, with social inclusion and
equality and diversity made horizontal principles that underpin all activities.
78
Moving forward, the role of the CCCs in the first appraisal stage of the NCIP application process
should improve their ability to ensure that local childcare needs are being met and that the right type
of services are being developed in the right locations. Representatives from the CCCs highlighted
that there was now more scope to make effective interventions in this regard moving forward. It is
critical that if there is to be ongoing justification for the presence of CCCs as local mechanisms in
the identification and facilitation of delivery of appropriate childcare responses, they need to take on
a more proactive role in the identification of local needs and progression of appropriate projects, and
in ensuring that services are adhering to standards in relation to quality provision. If the NCIP is to
continue to provide capital grants subject to ongoing monitoring of local needs, the CCCs should
play a critical role in determining where ongoing needs for additional childcare provision exist and
where local childcare needs have been met, The CCCs should also play a prominent role in
improving the quality of childcare provision at local level, with consideration given to how their role
within the grant application process might be utilised to ensure adherence to requirements or
standards.
Finally, the role of the NVCOs was examined, with these organisations found to have played
important roles in terms of capacity building at local level and in serving as representative structures
for particular interest groups. However there was some evidence of duplication of activities across
NVCOs and also in relation to those undertaken by the CCCs. It is therefore recommended that the
remits of the NVCOs should be closer defined in order to reduce levels of duplication between these
organisations and also to avoid overlap with the activities of the CCCs.
79
7. Local Impact of the EOCP
7.1 Introduction
In the previous two chapters, the review has provided an analysis of implementation of the EOCP
over the 2000-06 and an examination of the roles of the CCCs and NVCOs, noting how they have
performed an important function in ensuring that effective responses to meeting childcare needs at
local level are identified and developed. It is important that the nature of these local responses is
also considered, with assessment of the programme’s impact only ascertained by including an
examination of their role in developing projects, supporting potential applicants, delivering
successful interventions and the supporting operation of the childcare facilities established. In this
chapter each of these four aspects of programme intervention is considered. The extent to which
the services supported are sustainable in the long-term is then examined, alongside the additionality
of the programme in putting in place additional childcare places that would not otherwise have been
developed. Case study examples of local experiences are also provided to highlight the overall
results and impacts of the programme on the ground, and the issues that require to be addressed in
order to maximise these results and impacts, within each section.
7.2 Development of the Projects
The origins of the EOCP supported projects were very mixed. Some have involved completely new
ventures and some the continuation or expansion of childcare initiatives that were already present
within an area. Accessibility to the programme has involved both the private and community and
voluntary sectors (mainly the latter), with groups from the latter background experiencing many
different histories and varying substantially in terms of structures and capacities. All of these factors
had a bearing on the way in which a project developed, both prior to and post acceptance of a
particular application.
A number of the supported projects have developed as a result of wider community initiatives,
where organisations and structures were already in place to address other issues in relation to
community development, social inclusion or inequalities experienced by a particular target group.
For these organisations childcare was identified as an important means by which these objectives
could be realised, and also represented a critical area of local need. The advent of the EOCP
therefore offered a significant opportunity to develop responses to meet this need. Hence
committees and key individuals were designated to progress the project, the organisations began to
liaise with ADM (now Pobal), and the exact specifications of the initiative were gradually articulated
in order to submit a full application leading to successful progression.
80
The other main community-based organisational model around which groups had potential to
access the EOCP was that of existing community childcare projects. Stakeholders in this regard
saw an opportunity via the programme to upgrade facilities and expand capacity to more closely
meet local needs, and they also began to express an interest with ADM and engage in the
application process.
Role of Voluntary Sector in Childcare Provision
This purpose-built childcare centre is located in an Enterprise Park and caters for babies,
toddlers, infants, pre-school, montessori and after-school children from 7.00am until 7.00pm. The
centre can cater for a maximum of 105 children on a full-time basis. A childcare committee has
been established to oversee the management of the centre. The centre manager, assistant
manager, senior supervisor and 16 full-time staff members run the centre on a daily basis. A
capital grant was sourced for the construction of the facility and staffing grants for two full-time
workers. The centre’s mission statement is to provide high quality childcare to the greater
community at the most reasonable rate that can be achieved.
The childcare initiative has been progressed as part of a wider regeneration programme in
response to the closure of a major local employer in the late 1990s. A community development
organisation was formed with the employer setting aside a budget of approximately €2mn for
redevelopment purposes. The first task was to carry out a survey of the local area in order to
identify the local development needs and this exercise highlighted two priority action areas,
alternative sources of employment and a childcare facility. It was decided to adopt an integrated
approach to the problems highlighted by developing an enterprise park with business incubation
facilities, a training centre and a state of the art childcare facility to allow parents to avail of the
employment and training opportunities.
The development of the childcare centre, valued at €1.6mn, was managed by a small voluntary
group, with one leading figure. The EOCP application process was found to be a detailed, timeconsuming and expensive task by the voluntary group, particularly as they felt they had taken on
the project out of a sense of civic responsibility. Applicants were required to outline the aims and
objectives of the project, details of the facility (planning permission, architectural plans, etc.) and
the benefit of the project to the area, with particular regard to how it focuses on disadvantage.
They were also required to assess what benefits would accrue if funding was granted and
whether the funding would lead to displacement. Finally financial issues such as details of project
costs, other funding, future sustainability, staffing, etc. was to be prepared. All of this information
is essential to ensure appropriate controls are in place for efficient delivery of the programme, but
the capacity constraints in community and voluntary organisations mean that delays can result as
a consequence of an inability to meet the stringent requirements.
There have however seemed to be capacity issues that have inhibited the ability of both these types
of groups from progressing their project in an effective manner. The former group typically had
81
experience of establishing appropriate management structures, of addressing project development
issues within the community and voluntary sector, and of transcending the application process and
meeting the requirements of national community-focused funding programmes. However they had
little knowledge of the intricacies, legislative controls and quality aspects involved in developing an
operational childcare facility. Hence they struggled to encapsulate the exact specifications
necessary in progressing the project, and significant time was spent trying to develop the
appropriate knowledge base and tap into relevant expertise.
Existing childcare providers, on the other hand, possessed the knowledge and understanding of all
the technical requirements of establishing a childcare facility, yet lacked the experience of accessing
national funding programmes. The reporting and structural obligations in order to become
successful in the application process therefore proved to be a significant barrier to progress.
The project development phase hence proved to be quite arduous in a lot of cases. The securing of
planning permission, commissioning and control of architects, understanding of HSE and other
regulatory requirements, articulation of the project specifications, development of appropriate
community partnerships and management of the construction process were all cited as barriers to
the successful development of the project. The last issue in particular was identified by local
stakeholders as a critical impediment to effective and efficient progress. It was noted that managing
a capital project requires a very specific set of project management skills that the organisations
accessing the EOCP are unlikely to possess.
It was acknowledged during the research process that the project development and implementation
phase of capital projects would have benefited from a technical support resource in the form of a
project or building management function. There was a strong perception that overall cost savings
would result from an initial investment in this type of role, backed by practical examples of how
wastages in the construction process had arisen as a result of this lack of expertise. This could be
achieved either via definition of an expanded remit for the architect involved (ensuring that the
architect designated had the requisite project management skills), commissioning of consultancy
support or accessing of external assistance. Spiralling costs, construction delays and inappropriate
or insufficient infrastructure provision for the purposes of a childcare facility were among the
inefficiencies identified that were attributed to the lack of control and understanding of the building
management process.
Some innovative responses were developed in order to address this problem, with the CCC in
Kilkenny coordinating a valuable partnership initiative with the local authority and HSE. This initiative
put in place a specialist building resource worker who was given the responsibility of facilitating the
smooth progression of the construction process in EOCP supported capital projects through to
completion for EOCP capital projects.
82
Similar initiatives might be considered by other CCCs as the NCIP moves forward, as the CCCs
have a key role in supporting the effective development of the programme, and are committed to
doing so as evidenced from the survey analysis in the previous chapter. The increasing importance
of this role was apparent during the research process, with Pobal appearing to take on a more
proactive role in facilitating development of projects in the early stages of the programme, prior to
the time when the CCCs were fully established. The NCIP could however strengthen this aspect of
the process, and achieve greater efficiency in project delivery, by ensuring that appropriate project
management functions are put in place to assist community-based projects. This would be
particularly useful in the context of the €1mn cap normally placed on community capital grants under
the NCIP. Consideration should be given to having most project management functions taken on
board by an appropriate architect, funded centrally through the programme rather than through
individual grant funding, perhaps by requiring this as a component of an NCIP supported project.
While undoubted difficulties arose in the development of EOCP projects, it must also be
acknowledged that, for the most part, these were overcome and high quality childcare facilities
created around the country. There was a clear link between the development of all the projects
examined and local childcare needs, and there was consideration of the quality aspects of provision
(e.g. different development rooms, play areas, libraries, outdoor and indoor space) when project
specifications were being developed. Indeed it appears that there was no reduction in the eventual
quality of projects as a consequence of the lack of capacity in project development, with the
inefficiencies that did arise relating to time and cost. These inefficiencies could however be
corrected in future by building in a specific, technical project management function in each case as
noted above.
Model of Employer Sponsored Childcare
This private sector initiative is based in a Business Park close to Dublin and received an EOCP
capital grant to assist with funding the construction of the premises. The centre can cater for up
to 95 children aged between 3 months and 10 years. The project is part of a multi-national
programme led by a US organisation, with 600 similar centres established in the US, Canada and
across Europe.
The organisation’s mission statement is to provide innovative programmes that help children,
families and employers grow to be their very best through providing the highest quality childcare,
early education and work-life solutions. It develops relationships with employers that are
interested in building family-friendly workplaces and then works with them to provide employersponsored care. The centres attempt to address the three challenges that a parent faces when
they are sourcing childcare; availability, affordability and quality. The centres provide exclusive or
priority places for employees at times that are tailored to meet demand, with places subsidised by
the employer, with significant emphasis on quality of care.
83
The organisation has used a number of different models to provide convenient, reliable, highquality childcare at a reasonable price that caters for the employers’ and parents needs. One
approach adopted is the ‘management fee’ approach. In this situation, the employer covers all
overhead costs (rent, equipment, staffing, etc.) and pays a fixed fee for managing the centre,
regardless of how many children use the service. The employer then deducts an agreed fee from
the users’ salaries. Another model used is the ‘direct fee’ approach, whereby the employer again
covers the overhead costs, but in this situation the parents pay a fee (below the market price)
directly to the centre.
This model of employer-sponsored childcare has had positive returns for employers, employees
and children. Employers have seen it in terms of improved employee satisfaction, reduced
absenteeism, improved recruitment policies and lower turnover rates, all of which have
transferred into increased return on investment. Parents have the opportunity to balance their
work and family commitments and the children have the benefits of a quality early education
service, thus creating a win-win-win situation for all parties.
7.3 The Application Process
Discussions on the effectiveness of the application process involved in accessing the EOCP
attracted a very mixed response from local stakeholders. While there was a strong recognition of the
need to put in place highly structured and transparent processes to ensure accountability and hence
efficient and effective delivery of the programme, there was however some concern about the
nature of these processes and the relationships developed with Pobal in the course of the
application process.
The development worker approach attracted considerable praise, and it was felt to be highly
important that a permanent Pobal contact for each applicant organisation was put in place
throughout the application. Where the same person had served as the designated development
officer throughout this process, there was generally a high degree of satisfaction with the assistance
provided, and a good working relationship had developed. However where the development officer
had changed during the process, there was frustration evident at having appeared to be asked to
supply the same information more than once and about the loss of understanding about the nature
of the project that was the subject of the application. Experiences also appear to have been
coloured by a high level of turnover of staff at the stage of drawing down payments (post successful
application decision), where again there was a perception that requests were being made for the
same information that had previously been submitted and problems were also experienced in
obtaining resolution of queries.
Pobal acknowledges the difficulties that have arisen in terms of staff turnover at the payment stage
that has resulted in such concerns. The agency is also conscious of the need to develop a more
84
cohesive base of knowledge about projects during the application process, and is working towards
creating a regional structure where small teams of development workers will be responsible for
handling applications from each region. The establishment of this mechanism should allow the
sharing of information about projects among the team, and facilitate the development of a local
knowledge base with regard to needs and circumstances. It should mean that, if a development
officer is unavailable, another member of staff will have knowledge of the project and be able to
handle queries from applicants. At a local level this response would undoubtedly be welcomed, as
the benefits of developing a good relationship with development offices were clear from the
consideration of a sample of projects. Care should however be taken that this does not duplicate
any of the work of the CCCs and that focus is placed on adding value to the process. There is a
danger of additional structures meaning greater bureaucracy and a very tight remit must be set for
these regional structures that ensures that this is the case and there is no overlap with any existing
infrastructure in place.
Consultation with local stakeholders also revealed perceptions that the application process as a
whole was unwieldy and that there were too many tiers in place that did not appear to add value.
This resulted in a significant delay between submission of an application and final acceptance or
rejection. For applicants, the most frustrating aspect in this regard was the fact that the application
could not be tracked throughout the process, meaning that at no stage were applicants aware of
when a final decision might be forthcoming, or at what point of the process it currently stood. It
would seem that there is scope to increase the level of transparency in the application process and
the inability to check on the progress of an application was cited as a major source of annoyance at
local level and caused a significant amount of negative feedback about Pobal’s role in the
administration of the scheme. This was also reflected in the mixed response to the support offered
by the agency that was revealed in the analysis of the CCC survey in the previous chapter. It would
seem that there is scope to increase the level of transparency in the application process.
The changes that are being made in terms of streamlining the application process with the
introduction of the NCIP are very welcome at local level. The involvement of the CCCs in the
process, which began with the establishment of Consultation Committees during the life of the
EOCP and now involves them directing the first stage of application process, should increase the
level of understanding of local issues and facilitate a better flow of information between applicant
and programme. It also creates a clearer remit for the development worker function in Pobal. This
function had previously seemed to be somewhat compromised by the need to provide technical
assistance and at the same time make an objective judgement about the application. Although the
development worker serves on the PESC, there is now a greater level of detachment from the
development of the application itself, and this can only benefit the clarity of the overall process.
The NCIP system whereby a decision will be made on the basis of a smaller base of central project
information should also generate a more efficient application process. Timely decision making and
85
greater certainty about the funding forthcoming at local level will facilitate better planning, while
accountability will be ensured via the requirement of submission of the more detailed information
and reports as a pre-condition of drawing down funding. In doing so, it should also avoid the
unpopular occurrence of any repeat requests for information.
7.4 Delivery of the Project
7.4.1 Overview
Different approaches in delivery were identified throughout the research process in terms of the
delivery of services. As was noted in Chapters 3 and 4, case studies with a wide range of EOCP
supported projects were conducted, and covered all types of services, including full-time integrated
day care and sessional services, and both private and community and voluntary sector provider
models. The types of services considered also differed in scale and location, with some purpose
built for the purposes of childcare while others were adapted from existing community centres or
residential property.
It is important to note this diversity in delivery in order to understand one of the central aspects that
must be present in order to ensure an effective NCIP is delivered that meets its key objectives.
There can not be a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing the childcare needs of different
communities and support organisations to provide responses in this regard. As will be documented
in the remainder of this section, a service in a very disadvantaged urban area will differ very
substantially in terms of the way in which it must be implemented from a facility based in, for
example, a provincial town with a catchment area of potential users from different income bands, or
from a private facility in a commuter area that is responding to the demand for childcare in order to
facilitate employment of the parents. The former facility will not be able to source the same level of
income or introduce a tiered fee structure with the same effectiveness as the second or third
examples, nor will the same staff ratios be applicable to its facility given the generally higher support
needs of children from a disadvantaged background. It is therefore critical that as the programme
develops, it is structured in a way that takes account of the different objectives of service provision,
from facilitating employment, targeting social inclusion, family support, early childhood education
and enhancing quality, with appropriate resources available to provide effective responses in
relation to the realisation of each.
The need for more flexibility in recognising that the changing circumstances of projects may have
short-term impacts on delivery was a key concern raised during the local research undertaken.
There is a perception that staffing funding can be changed automatically and with no notice in
response to information contained in the quarterly reports. This may be a necessary consequence
of a change in circumstance at local level. However, the decision can cause significant disruption at
local level. Often problems arise that are temporary in nature, or that can be solved by intervention
86
or technical support, resulting in lower capacity in a service. While change in staffing grant levels
are generally phased and subsequent reversion to previous funding levels is made where the
circumstances revert, an improved flagging system should be considered under NCIP staffing
grants to alert the development worker or the relevant CCC in these instances that an issue has
arisen. Time would then be set aside for its resolution before a decision on any reduction of funding
is made.
Education and Care
This service is a purpose-built childcare centre in suburban housing estate. It was established in
the mid 1990s and originally operated from a converted house. The purpose-built facility was
opened in 2004 and has capacity for 70 full-time places from 7.15am until 6.30pm. An EOCP
capital grant was sourced at this time, which was used for the purchase of equipment for the
centre.
The private facility is owned by three investors and managed by two of those investors on a daily
basis. The centre employs one childcare supervisor and 13 childcare assistants to carry out the
core childcare work. Two kitchen staff are also employed in the centre to provide snacks and
meals for the children. It attempts to provide a supportive environment that integrates the care
and education needs of the children at each stage of their development.
The centre is divided into six different stages of development: babies (2-18 months); toddlers (1830 months); waddlers (2-3 years); pre-school (3-5 years); Montessori (4-6 years) and after-school
(4-12 years). Each stage has the appropriate facilities, equipment and curriculum for children of
that age. In the early years (0-3), the focus is on care and the development of the child’s basic
coordination skills. In later years, the focus shifts from care to education through play. The centre
has adopted the High/Scope curriculum to provide this learning environment.
The High/Scope curriculum is an approach to early childhood education that allows children to
learn in meaningful situations and within a variety of social contexts through active learning. The
curriculum has set out content areas and assessment tools to develop and assess children’s
progress. It also as outlines teaching practices and a training model to help adults support the
children’s development. There is a strong emphasis on the importance of developmentally
appropriate environments that will allow children to pursue their own interests and goals guided
by trained adults who understand the important learning areas for children and will allow them to
foster the characteristics of independence, decision-making and problem solving.
The staff in the service believe that childcare and education are inextricably linked elements in a
child’s holistic development and that quality preschool experiences lead to immediate and lasting
social and educational benefits. They are thus committed to ensuring that the facility continues to
provide appropriate interventions in this regard.
87
7.4.2 Quality Aspects of Provision
One theme emerging from the both the case study research and the regional workshops was the
need to move from a quantity to a quality based approach for the support in childcare provision in
Ireland. It was perceived that the ‘raison d’etre’ of the EOCP was very much framed in the delivery
of the maximum number of childcare places that could be achieved over the lifetime of the
programme. This has been acknowledged as playing an important role in supporting the return to
work of parents over the period, with significant increases in the national female labour force
participation rate indicative of an increased supply of childcare. However while this goal had
undoubted merit, the importance of other factors such as the quality of service being delivered may
have been overlooked, particularly in terms of the allocation of resources.
The introduction of the CCCs was identified as a positive step in facilitating a greater focus on the
quality aspects of provision at local level. They organised training events, produced research
material and helped to develop local networks of providers where learning and best practice could
be shared in order to develop the overall quality of service provision in the area. It is also
acknowledged that there appears to be a move towards a more quality based focus within the new
NCIP, with specific commitment to the creation of “quality childcare places”. The publication of Síolta
was also identified as a key development that might help to focus minds and resources on the
quality of early childhood care and development in Ireland. Other important activity has also been
progressed on encouraging the development of quality provision at local level, with coordinated
approaches developed via the establishment of networks and support of the CCCs.
Quality Assurance
This pre-school service is located in a community centre of a rural village. The service can cater
for 20 children from 9.00am until 1.00pm from Monday to Friday. A management committee
oversees its operation, with two full-time staff members running it on a daily basis, assisted by
one FAS Community Employment participant. The preschool received an EOCP capital grant,
used for the refurbishment of the community centre and the purchase of equipment and a staffing
grant to fund two full-time and one part-time worker.
The aim of the facility is to provide a high quality, accredited preschool service that builds on
children’s strengths, interests and abilities by providing a consistent but flexible routine enabling
them to be actively involved in deciding the structure of each session. The preschool uses the
Quality Development and Accreditation Programme (QDAP), which has been developed by the
Border Counties Childcare Network (BCCN) to provide a co-ordinated approach to the delivery of
high quality early years services. Under the programme, quality indicators have been drawn up
under 6 identified units; premises; the learning environment; legislation and management; safety,
health and hygiene; partnership with parents; and the pre-school curriculum. The performance
indicators used will meet the requirements of CECDE’s National Quality Framework. The
programme can be divided into four stages:
88
Stage 1 Evaluation: Each participating service provider receives a QDAP Service Evaluation
System pack. Working with a Quality development worker from the CCC, the provider can
evaluate their existing services and analyse what adjustments are required to develop a service
that reaches the quality assurance criteria for each of the six units listed above.
Stage 2 Implementation: A number of tools are used to assist providers to develop a services
QDAP portfolio that meets the performance indicators for the programme. These include the
Quality Development Information pack, in-service quality development training and a mentoring
and support service, all of which are provided by the BCCN with the assistance of the CCCs.
Stage 3 Assessment: A qualified assessor from the BCCN assesses each facility. This consists
of a thorough assessment of the services QDAP Portfolio and an onsite visit to obtain an overall
view of the service and to observe interactions and relationships. The assessor will then pass the
services QDAP Portfolio and comments of their visit to an Accrediting Board for verification.
Step 4 Award: On approval of the accrediting board, providers are awarded accreditation,
showing that the service reaches the agreed standards. These awards are reviewed every three
years.
In considering the 12 principles to underpin the delivery of quality childcare services defined by
Síolta and highlighted in Chapter 3, it would appear that experience is mixed in terms of their
relationship to current provision. Good physical environments were created via the support of the
programme, and there was a strong focus on play within the facilities.
Encouragingly, it would also appear that most providers in the private and community sectors were
committed to a curriculum based approach regardless of the location of the facility. While it was felt
to be important not to lose a play ethos within each childcare facility as noted above, at the same
time a structured development programme was required in order to equip the child with the
necessary skills to maximise their potential. The opportunity was welcomed by most facilities to
develop a more significant early education component within their service, and there was a strong
willingness to work with the Department of Education and Science in progressing the DEIS initiative
in this regard in the future.
However constraints did exist in terms of consistency with the principles of Síolta in devoting
adequate staff time to issues of training and development in order to ensure quality interventions,
and in finding the time to meet and network with other providers in order to share experiences
despite efforts to facilitate this by the CCCs. The resourcing of quality staff provision is looked at in
section 7.5.
7.4.3 Targeting Social Inclusion
As noted above, there is a need to recognise that childcare facilities in the most disadvantaged
areas have to address a different set of needs. Those services located in urban areas with high
89
levels of social exclusion generally draw their client base exclusively from families on very low
income bands, often with significant social problems, and it is important that the programme
recognises the difficulties inherent in such provision. It has proved to be very difficult for such
facilities to implement tiered fee systems, with all service users only eligible to pay the minimum fee,
and such facilities generate only a very small proportion of their income from this source.
The higher support needs of children from a disadvantaged background were also noted, with the
importance of adopting a strong curriculum based approach critical in these settings. A number of
facilities providing after-school services had developed good links with local schools, and were able
to tailor their own curriculum to complement that of the school’s, helping the child to overcome any
difficulties and get the most out of this education. Developing a structure in the lives of children was
seen as a highly important aspect of the provision, along with the socialisation skills that they
require to effectively integrate at school.
In effect, some childcare services, particularly in urban areas, have included a family support
function within their delivery of services. It was noted that these very community-focused centres
played a critical role in preparing local children to integrate effectively into school, with pre and after
school services tailored to complement the school curriculum, and there was strong evidence of
good links developed with local schools in order to ensure that the impact of the childcare service
was maximised in this regard. A structured curriculum was identified as being of critical importance
in these types of services, and the ability to develop cognitive and socials skills at an early age for 34 year olds in order to prepare them effectively for school were also critical components. One of the
key objectives of the NCIP is to support families to break the cycle of poverty and disadvantage. If
this is to be successfully progressed, it is important that consideration is given to funding
interventions at this level, possibly in the context of working with and supporting the DEIS
programme for educational inclusion. This would mean that to build up good relationships with the
wider services and with other relevant agencies such as schools, the VEC, the HSE and the local
authority, allowance must be made for the time to develop such relationships, and that it takes a
particular skill-set to be able to realise development in the area of family support.
Social Inclusion
This childcare centre is based in an urban setting and has the capacity to provide 72 full-time
places for babies, toddlers, pre-school and after-school users. The services are available from
8.45am until 5.30pm. Twenty-five full-time staff members are required to provide these services,
including a centre manager, a deputy manager, five senior childcare workers and eighteen
childcare assistants. A management committee, consisting of a chairperson, treasurer, business
representative, parent’s representative, community representative and the centre manager, is
responsible for overseeing the management of the centre, for producing the quarterly and annual
reports and liaising with relevant stakeholders. The service received an EOCP capital grant for
90
refurbishment of the centre and a staffing grant for four full-time childcare workers.
The facility’s mission is to “provide a safe, secure, structured environment in which all children
are valued as individuals.” The overriding ethos is to promote social inclusion by providing a state
of the art facility where a cross-section of society has the opportunity to develop their social,
cognitive and learning skills in a secure, inclusive and supportive environment. The centre
provides facilities for children from a variety of backgrounds; various income levels, different
ethnic backgrounds and able-bodied and disabled children to learn, play and interact with one
another for everyone’s mutual benefit.
This mix of social diversity is achieved by maintaining a balance between disadvantaged and
mainstream families. 40% of places are provided to families that can afford to pay the full fee and
the remaining 60% of places are reserved for children from disadvantaged circumstances. Some
of these children receive a 100% subsidy funded by various support groups (St. Vincent de Paul,
the Refuge for Domestic Violence, Cura and the HSE). The remainder of places are provided at a
reduced rate, agreed between the family and the centre. Because the standard of the service
provided is so high, the demand for places spans all income levels. This allows the centre to build
the integrated, inclusive environment set out in its vision.
While the benefits of early childhood education accrue to all children, research shows that they
are particularly significant for disadvantaged children. Many of the children attending the facility
come from circumstances of extreme poverty, deprivation, violence, substance abuse and other
domestic problems. The centre provides these vulnerable children with an escape into a more
secure routine. They benefit from the early years of education as they are more motivated when
they start national school and less likely to finish school early. Also, staff are in a position to
identify and address any behavioural, learning or other development problems at an early stage.
There have been many good examples of the EOCP supporting childcare provision in tandem with
projects and initiatives focusing on such issues as social inclusion, equality, community
development and homelessness. The RAPID programme has been used to help target EOCP
resources, but there does seem to be potential for further synergies to be developed in this regard,
with childcare to support other programmes with a social inclusion focus introduced into the NCIP
on a more formal basis. The Local Development Social Inclusion Programme, currently undergoing
a process of review, could offer such potential, given its focus on community development
interventions based on partnership.
There are also many positive examples of how local childcare interventions supported by the
programme are helping to target the needs of specific target groups, such as for the traveller
community in the initiative described in the case study example below. There is an increasing level
of demand for community-based childcare community from the new migrant communities, and
promotion of anti-racism and inter-culturalism in the services provided must be a key focus in the
future. Policy and funding responses are being developed to more effectively meet the needs of the
91
new communities, and again there could be scope to develop formal links between the NCIP and
any new initiatives introduced in this regard.
Targeting Minority Groups
A VEC established this community crèche in the Senior Traveller Training Centre in a large
provincial town. The crèche is administered through the VEC and is managed by a communitybased management committee, comprising representatives of the VEC, local representative
organisations (FAS, HSE, etc.), the traveller support teacher from the local primary school and 3
members of the Traveller community. The crèche opens from 9.15am until 4.00pm from Monday
until Friday and can currently cater for eight children (babies and toddlers).
The crèche received capital and community grants under the EOCP programme. The capital
grant funded the refurbishment of a part of the training centre so that it could be converted into a
crèche and the purchase of equipment for the new crèche. The staffing grant covers half of the
salary of the crèche manager. This is supplemented by VEC funds. The crèche also employs a
Community Employment Scheme (CES) participant on a full-time basis, whose salary is funded
by FAS.
The centre is part of a network of 33 Senior Traveller Training Centres that have been
established throughout Ireland to provide basic education for travellers who have left school early
without any formal training or qualifications. The centre offers literacy, numeracy and technology
training, as well as a number of FETAC accredited courses, in areas such as woodwork, metal
work, hair-dressing and home economics.
Improved education is widely regarded as a key tool for improving travellers’ living conditions and
quality of life. A joint working group to provide recommendations for a traveller education strategy
submitted its report to the Advisory Committee on Traveller Education this year. The Report
emphasised the importance of lifelong learning from early childhood education and care to
continued adult education. The crèche facilities established in the centre allow the VEC to target
both ends of the lifelong learning spectrum directly, early childhood education and continued
adult education. Without the crèche, the parents would not be in a position to avail of the training
facilities provided.
A key objective of the Traveller Education Strategy will be to ensure that traveller children have
access to well-resourced, well-managed, high quality early education. It is essential to take the
necessary measures to prevent any learning gap emerging between the settled and travelling
children prior to starting school, by ensuring that traveller children have access to the same
learning opportunities as others. Such gaps risk traveller children becoming disenfranchised and
unmotivated to attend school from day one. “Education is a vital element in supporting greater
traveller participation and empowerment in society” (Minister Mary Hanafin, November 2006).
92
7.5 Staffing and Operational Issues
The support of staff in childcare facilities was of course a central component of the EOCP and has
played a critical role in ensuring that services have been sustained around the country. The review
consulted with a wide array of programme beneficiaries, with the CCCs who have been overseeing
activity directly over the last few years, and with other key stakeholders involved in the delivery of
the programme such as the NVCOs, and there is no doubt that the vast majority of community
facilities are wholly dependent on staffing grants for their continued survival. There was no obvious
evidence of wastage in the deployment of staff resources, with all those funded by the EOCP
engaged in direct supervision for as much of their work hours as possible.
However, as was noted in Chapter 4, the staffing grants at present are based on bands defined by
the number of direct supervised hours spent with the service users. By definition this creates an
obvious shortfall in the service’s overall staffing costs, as it neglects the cost components that would
make up a salary in any business model, such as holiday and sick leave, training and staff
development, administration and organisational development. From a childcare perspective in
particular, and especially if Síolta is to be effectively implemented, there is also a need for staff to
spend time on curriculum development, on becoming accredited in particular areas to meet
legislative requirements, on needs assessment, on liaison with schools, the HSE and other relevant
services, and indeed to network with other childcare providers in order to share learning and good
practice.
It is considered that the effective implementation of Síolta with adherence to its principles and
standards would require that this is made a condition of future funding under the NCIP, a
development for which there is considerable merit and support. If this step is to be progressed,
investment must be available to local providers to target the quality aspects of provision.
This has placed significant and increasing pressure on community providers to meet the ongoing
staff costs in order to continue to operate a childcare facility of sufficient quality. In order to meet the
shortfall in staff costs, there has been a reliance in the past on the assistance of FAS Community
Employment staff resources, particularly in terms of administrative and maintenance functions, but
this itself has generated problems in terms of quality levels, supervision needs, high turnover, parttime focus and lack of a progression route. Some facilities are reliant on resources provided by
wider community organisations, or other agencies such as the VEC, HSE or local authorities, but
these are often ad hoc in nature and not based on any long-term commitments.
As a result there have been high levels of turnover of staff in the community-based EOCP supported
childcare facilities. It is considered important that these providers are in a position to give a
reasonably long-term commitment to staff, indicating a need for multi-annual grant allocation. Such
a commitment would help to reduce turnover and hence vacancy levels, making it easier to develop
93
the quality of the service and effectively engage staff in its development, In the future delivery of the
NCIP, it is recommended that consideration should be given to approving staffing grants for a
minimum of 3 years. Current recipients of EOCP staffing grants should, where possible, be
considered for, and advised of, the position with regard to their future funding under the NCIP prior
to the cessation of EOCP funding.
Management and general administration duties, that are an essential part of any childcare facility,
were not provided for under EOCP staffing grants. These duties would include:

General management tasks, including recruitment, staff supervision and development,
maintenance and upgrading of facilities, liaison with the management board.

General administration tasks, including attendance records, correspondence, handling
enquiries, etc.

Financial management tasks, from implementing fee structures, producing accounts, meeting
EOCP reporting requirements.

Service quality and development tasks, such as networking with other providers, discussion
with the CCC, securing appropriate training and resources to ensure quality service, etc.
To perform these tasks again services have to rely on external support either from another
organisation or via Community Employment. In many instances some of these tasks are put on hold,
and it is typically the latter category that is most neglected in this instance, placing severe doubt on
the ability of services to implement the National Quality Framework without additional staff
resources. In general it was most impressive that facilities were able to sustain a service without
sufficient staff resources to perform all the necessary functions required, but it is not something that
was perceived to be sustainable in the long-term, particularly if more legal and quality-based
standards were placed on facilities in the future. If the quality objective of the NCIP is to be realised
therefore, there is a need for investment that takes account of childcare staffing costs outside of
direct supervision and builds in time for both management and staff to focus on quality development
issues, as staffing will always be intrinsically linked to quality.
In general however, there needs to be an explicit move to recognise childcare as an important
highly skilled occupation, particularly if education, quality and social inclusion objectives are to be
delivered via the programme. It is considered therefore that the Expert Working Group established
under the National Training Strategy 2006-2010 should consider the various issues relating to salary
scales for childcare workers.
Investment in staff was of critical importance given that operational costs were not provided via the
EOCP. Meeting the general operational expenses of running a childcare facility was identified as a
major challenge for local providers, with again many having to rely on external sources of
assistance to meet running costs on an ongoing basis. There was strong support for the NCIP to
94
include a sub-measure providing at least a proportion of a services operational costs, particularly
those in the more disadvantaged areas where there is less potential to earn significant amounts
from fees. While this issue must be considered in the context of ensuring a more effective
implementation of the tiered fee structure in place for staffing grants, there appears to be merit in
considering the introduction of some provision for the cost of an administration function for facilities
that are over a certain size would be an important step forward.
In general the staff ratios supported by the programme were agreed as being satisfactory. Staff
issues also arise around the issue of targeting social inclusion. It was noted that if the most
disadvantaged and marginalised families are being targeted by childcare facilities the support needs
of the child tend to be higher as a result of behaviour, social skills and early education and account
should be taken of these higher needs when funding the facilities on the basis of staff ratios.
7.6 Additionality and Sustainability
The issue of sustainability in relation to projects supported by the EOCP is highly complex and must
be considered within the context of the very different types of provision assisted by the programme
combined with the different objectives that the programme is attempting to meet. In the previous
sections we have talked about the significant problems posed by the lack of resources available to
meet operational costs outside of direct staffing, and this was clearly cited as a major risk to ongoing
sustainability. It is important to acknowledge this issue and examine potential interventions via the
NCIP that might help to circumvent these difficulties by making some contribution to running costs of
a facility. However it is also important to acknowledge that the EOCP never set out to meet the full
costs of every project supported. Indeed within EOCP eligibility criteria it is explicitly stated that
applicants to the programme must “demonstrate that the project is sustainable and that there are
sufficient resources to meet the running and maintenance costs of the project for a reasonable
period after completion”. Therefore the onus is on the community and indeed private providers to
secure resources, either in financial or in-kind form, that will support the ongoing operation of the
project alongside the direct staffing costs provided and the capital cost contribution that may have
originally been received.
While facilities have generally managed to survive by sourcing support from external organisations,
from voluntary input and via income from fees, there is significant and growing concern that
development of a quality service has been constrained by a lack of resources. With regard to
operational costs, although services made a commitment to meet these obligations on an ongoing
basis, it is considered that there will be significant difficulties in meeting NCIP objectives in relation
to social inclusion and supporting families to break the cycle of poverty and disadvantage, unless
assistance is provided in some form that contributes to operational expenses. However the need in
terms of on-going and in-depth support differs significantly. Under the EOCP, community facilities in
the most disadvantaged areas of the country were able to set only very low charges for their
95
services while those with a balance of service users from different backgrounds were able to cover
more of their costs via fee income. It is considered, therefore, that the need to establish and
implement appropriate tiered fee structures/parental contributions is crucial to ensuring that
resources are available for the more targeted supports recommended by the sector.
The need to ensure that the different needs, characteristics and approaches of different types of
childcare provision are taken into account in the future development of the NCIP should not
however detract from the substantial impact it should make in terms of providing additional childcare
places to meet pressing local needs, given the experience of the EOCP. The review has found that
without EOCP assistance, the vast majority of community-based childcare services would have
been unable to survive and depend on the securing of future funding in order to remain viable on an
ongoing basis. There would seem to be a high degree of additionality evident from the EOCP
interventions, with capital grants creating facilities that would not otherwise have proceeded or
would have proceeded on a much smaller scale, and staffing grants sustaining their operations.
However, it was also found that there is scope to increase the value-for-money offered by these
facilities, principally by maximising the income generated from provision. In this regard there are
three key areas where provision is not yielding the income it could with a concerted effort on the part
of the provider, summarised as follows:

The introduction of effective tiered fee systems for local childcare services that serve a client
group from different economic backgrounds. While, under the EOCP staffing grants, all
providers are obligated to have tiered fees in place, the differentials in fees are sometimes
negligible and it would appear that a number of facilities have shied away from the idea of a
means-tested tiered system completed. However there are examples of good practice in this
regard, with notably different fees charged to those in receipt of social welfare, those in
education and training and those in full-time employment, and there is no reason why such
models should not be replicated in the majority of community-based childcare services around
the country.

The increase of the maximum fees charged by community-based facilities to service users from
higher income bands. Currently fees would appear to stand at around 50-60% of the equivalent
local rates charged by private sector providers, yet in many cases the EOCP supported
community facility has distinct advantages in terms of quality. There is no reason why the
maximum fee charged should not be set at a level comparable to those charged by their private
sector counterparts.

The implementation of reasonable minimum fees in all community-based facilities in order to
generate some contribution to costs and also to ensure commitment to using the facility by local
families. The failure by some providers to implement an effective tiered system with reasonable
minimum fees should be addressed. This will help to prevent places being wasted by
absenteeism due to a lack of perceived value about the service as a consequence of it being
96
free. It also acknowledges that all families, regardless of income, are entitled to the once-off
early childcare supplement to pay for such services.
Sustainability
This urban childcare centre opened in March 2004. It provides 40 full-time and 36 part-time
childcare places to babies, toddlers and infants as well as offering pre-school and after-school
care from 8.00am until 6.00pm. The centre is managed by a Board of Management and there are
12 full-time and 7 part-time staff running the centre on a daily basis. It received a capital grant
towards the building and equipment for the centre and a staffing grant to fund three full-time
employees. EOCP funding was supplemented by contributions from the local authority, the local
partnership company and the Dormant Accounts fund.
The centre is based in a RAPID area, i.e. it has been designated as one of the 45 most
disadvantaged areas in the country. It was developed by a childcare action group established by
the partnership company in 1996, which identified early education as a tool for developing social
inclusion and reducing long-term unemployment in the area. The project’s mission is to “work in
partnership with parents, guardians, families and other agencies to foster and promote the wellbeing of children, especially those who are most in need, through the provision of quality,
accessible, affordable childcare.“
The centre charges a fee to all parents who avail of the service. The fees charged are structured
on a tiered fee system, based on the costs incurred and the maximum that parents from the area
can afford. For illustration purposes, we will look just at the costs involved with providing a fulltime place. The cost of running the service is estimated at €216 per full-time place per week.
Therefore the total cost of providing the 40 full-time places €8,640 per week.
The maximum full-time fee charged by the service is €155 per child per week (Band A). The rate
for Band B families is €110 per child per week and the Band C rate is €90 per child per week. If
40% of families (16 children) pay the full fee, the income received from those children will be
€2,480, i.e. €976 below cost. If 30% of families (12 children) pay the Band B rate, the total
income received from those families will be €1,320 (€1,272 below cost). If 30% of families pay the
Band C rate, the total income from that group is €1,080, (€1,512 below cost). Therefore the total
loss incurred in a given week at these rates is €3,760 or 44% of the total cost of providing the
service.
In order to achieve its objectives, which are in line with national policy objectives, to provide
quality, accessible, affordable childcare, especially to those who are most in need, the centre
cannot afford to charge higher rates. The catchment area that the childcare facility serves does
not have a base of families earning higher income bands that could cross-subsidise provision for
families more at risk of exclusion or disadvantage. Ongoing public funding is essential to sustain
the service.
97
The examination of the local impact of the EOCP in this chapter raised a number of issues with
regard to implementation of the programme. It was found that the stakeholders involved in the
development of EOCP supported projects were from diverse backgrounds, with many originating
from wider community development initiatives, while others involved expansion of existing childcare
facilities. This created capacity difficulties, as many projects lacked the childcare expertise in the
former case, or the organisational skills in the latter, to effectively implement their proposals and
draw down the money allocated. It was noted that this weakness in the project development process
might be addressed in the NCIP by building in an external specialist project management function
into this process. As referred to in section 7.2, it is recommended that consideration is given to
having project management functions included as a central component and a condition of funding
for community-based capital grants under the NCIP.
The application process attracted significant criticism from stakeholders from EOCP supported
projects. Although the development worker function in Pobal was effective in many cases, there
appeared to be a high level of turnover in the key contacts within the agency that EOCP applicants
dealt with over time, causing frustration and inefficiencies. It was found that there should be greater
transparency within the application process with a mechanism established to allow applications to
be tracked through the appraisal process. The developments that are being made in terms of
streamlining the application process in the NCIP are however welcomed at local level, with the more
proactive role of the CCCs and a move away from front-loading of reporting requirements perceived
to have made the application process more efficient.
In terms of project delivery, a high degree of diversity was evident in terms of the nature of facilities,
target groups served, charging policies and catchment areas and it is important to recognise such
differences in planning the implementation of the NCIP moving forward. There is real scope for the
income generated by supported community-based services to be increased under the NCIP, with
maximum fees raised, an effective tiered fee system put in place in all services, and appropriate
minimum fees set. However it was also found that if public sector support was withdrawn from these
facilities, the majority would be forced to cease operations within a very short timeframe. There were
particular problems for projects located in the most disadvantaged locations, which hence had the
lowest fee earning potential, to meet their ongoing (non direct staffing) operational costs, as these
were not provided for under the EOCP. In the future, consideration might be given to providing a
proportion of a community-based organisation’s operational costs for facilities over a certain size,
particularly for services in the most disadvantaged areas. It is also in these areas that support for
families is an especially most pertinent issue. However, no clear guidance existed with regard to
how such interventions should be delivered under the NCIP and further articulation of how the
programme might address the objective of supporting families to break the cycle of poverty and
disadvantage is required.
98
Overall, the assessment of the local impacts of the EOCP would suggest that the programme has
made significant in-roads in terms of increasing childcare provision, with high levels of additionality
evident from the funding allocated. However the objectives of the EOCP and NCIP continue to
warrant the allocation of funding on an ongoing basis given the needs for childcare interventions
that still exist in most areas of Ireland. There is also a need to recognise that there is a finite period
for which public sector capital investment in childcare infrastructure continues to be justified. At the
start of the programme there was a clear and pressing need for childcare provision in all parts of
Ireland, but gradually, as highlighted in this chapter, these needs are being met and it is important
that they continue to be gauged on an ongoing basis to determine when they have largely been met.
99
8. Costs of Childcare Provision
8.1 Introduction
This Chapter deals with the issue of the costs of childcare, with a particular focus on the full
underlying costs of various forms of provision, EOCP-assisted and other. This is an important topic
in the present context of this “value for money”. In particular, the review is asked to consider the
scope for alternative policy or organisational approaches to achieving EOCP/NCOP objectives more
efficiently and effectively (see ToR Section 2.1). Approaches to provision of childcare and the
relative costs of these alternative approaches is clearly a key issue in this regard.
The topic of the full underlying costs is also arguably an aspect of childcare in Ireland that is
relatively neglected in analyses to date. There have already been a series of such analyses and a
number of these discuss childcare costs.11 However, they tend to do so in terms of “costs to service
users” (which of course may not reflect full costs), or of costs to the exchequer. In neither case, of
course, are full underlying costs to “Ireland Inc” necessarily captured.
As previous Chapters indicate, the level of systematic cost data available to facilitate any VFM
assessment is also fairly sparse. Readily available data generally relate to EOCP projects only, and
then to Programme-funded costs only.
8.2 Key Parameters and Data Sources
8.2.1 Key Parameters
The focus has been on establishing – as far as possible – the full underlying costs of alternative
types of provision of formal childcare places (i.e. not including childcare in the home and by informal
childminders) in Ireland irrespective of who meets those costs, and of whether they are currently
EOCP funded or not. We feel that this wider emphasis is appropriate as it helps to introduce greater
clarity to the issue. Otherwise, there is a danger of drift into a confusing mix of supply and demand,
of emphasising some parts of costs and ignoring others, of mixing charges to users with true costs,
and of mixing average, marginal and total costs. This approach of focusing on the full underlying
costs of childcare places also, in principle, allows for the costs of alternative approaches to provision
to be compared.
11
Goodbody Economic Consultants, Study on the Economics of Childcare in Ireland, Report for the Partnership 2000 Expert
Working Group on Childcare, The Stationery Office, 1999.
NDP/CSF Evaluation Unit, Evaluation of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000-06, April 2003.
Indecon, Review of Property-based Tax Incentive Schemes, Report for the Department of Finance, October 2005.
ESRI, Ex Ante Evaluation of the Investment Priorities for the National Development Plan 2007-13, Policy Research Series
No. 59, October 2006.
100
In addition the approach serves the useful purpose of highlighting two overlapping but crucial
ambiguities in policy discussion on childcare. These relate to use of the terms “costs” and
“affordable”:
the former can refer either to total full cost, or to charges to users. Analyses frequently do not
clarify to which they are referring;
related to this “affordable” childcare can either refer to attempts to reduce its true total cost, or it
can refer to a policy of subsidising costs to the service user.
Therefore in this Chapter we have aimed to:
(i)
address full underlying costs of childcare place provision whoever meets these, and whether
they are overt or hidden (land and building costs, for example, are frequently excluded from
public sector costings);
(ii)
disregard all types of subsidies, EOCP and other, be they direct grants, “free” buildings, capital
allowances because they are all ultimately paid for by somebody – be that the user, the
taxpayer, an NGO or whoever;
(iii) focus on “typical” cost of a childcare place in an all day, year round service for toddlers in a
medium sized childcare unit– in order to get a basis for a reasonably representative and valid
comparison albeit with inevitable simplification ( the number of hours of fulltime childcare
provided varies from 9 hours to 11 hours);
(iv) focus on the cost per place rather than per child. More than one child could use the same place
in different sessions and all places provided may not be occupied;
(v) focus on three major cost categories, namely:
o
land/buildings;
o
labour;
o
other operating costs.
(vi) look at three major types of provision:
o
community/voluntary provision (the core of the EOCP to date);
o
provision within the public sector;
o
private sector provision;
Regarding public sector provision, we also looked at childcare provision within the public sector
bodies used by its own staff (which is typically provided by private operators in publicly provided
premises) as opposed to a purely state-run and funded public sector childcare model. We do
however discuss the latter also.
101
We aim to show annual figures. Capital costs (land and buildings) are thus “annualised” as a rent
equivalent, i.e. what it would in principle cost to rent a similar (and similarly equipped) premises for a
year.
Initially therefore also we are looking at the direct cost of child care provision to the provider, not at
the charges which parents are asked to pay to the provider or at the cost to taxpayer of the many
indirect State subsidies for children and childcare e.g. Child Benefit, Back to School Allowances,
Tax exemptions for people who mind up to 3 children, Capital Allowances for provision of childcare
premises, BIK exemption for childcare provided for employees, higher tax band for two earner
couples, Home Carers Tax Benefit and measures to increase the supply of childcare places.
8.2.2 Data Sources Used
The data sources used are described more fully in Section 5.3. In summary they are:
for the Community and Voluntary sector we obtained detailed cost estimates from one major and
reasonably typical provider, and cross-checked the estimates against information from other
providers and Pobal;
public sector capital costs were based on information provided by the Department of Finance,
based in turn on a number of examples of OPW purpose built buildings which, following a
tendering procedure, are provided free to operators who meet most of the running costs and
recover these from users through fees (which are less than those charged by private providers);
private sector costs are based on the report published by the National Childcare Nurseries
Association (NCNA)12 and included in their pre-Budget Submission (2006). These relate to a
middle-size (60 places) facility in South Dublin. Figures were also cross-checked with a major
private sector provider.
8.3 Costs of Childcare to the Provider
8.3.1 Introduction
As described, the objective has been to get a clearer picture of the actual costs to the provider of
childcare provision on a like with like basis. This is carried out separately for three main sectors of
child provision, i.e. Community and Voluntary, Public and Private.
The method of provision of the capital i.e. land, building and fit out, elements of childcare varies
widely across the three sectors. Size of units also varies, as do other important parameters such as
opening hours and number of weeks open. We have tried to overcome these complexities to the
maximum possible extent by considering yearly (and then hourly) costs of provision for a medium
102
size facility providing an all day (9 hours plus) service for toddlers (and some babies) and that does
not have a strong formal educational component, i.e. not “pre-school”.
While this exercise seeks to quantify total costs, it should be recognised that childcare is labour
intensive and that labour is the largest cost element for all types of provision. The NCNA estimates
that labour accounts for 66-73% of total costs of childcare.
8.3.2 Community and Voluntary Sector Costs of Provision
Land and Buildings: In the typical case examined, the building was provided by a local NGO, and
had an initial insurance valuation of €800,000 in 1994. A further €1 mn approximately has been
spent in stages, with EOCP support on improving the building and increasing capacity from 30 to c
70 childcare places. The 2006 insurance valuation is €1.75 mn. This has been rentalised at 7.5%,
giving a rent equivalent of €131,250 or €1,835 per child annually for 70 children.
The programme can give capital grants up to a maximum of €20,000 per child place for a facility
such as this. These are not shown separately in our calculations as we are looking at cost,
irrespective of who pays. Grants are obviously critical for recipient organisations and for users and
we are not implying that they are unimportant. Other Chapters of the report have dealt extensively
with this issue.
Staff: The actual staff costs for the facility for 2006 were estimated as €425,290 or about €5,900 per
child.
Pobal has also provided information on their baseline operational cost estimates used as a basis
for assessing staffing grant applications. Wages for CE/JI workers are not included but are stated to
be very low as the number of suitable CE workers now available is low.
Other: For the facility considered, these costs including food, cleaning products, light and heat,
materials etc. are €82,500 or approximately €1,145 per child.
When compared to the Pobal baseline operational cost estimates that feed into the staffing grant
process, the figures from the case study are somewhat higher than the Pobal internal working
figures. Some of this variance can be accounted for by differences in the number of operating
weeks and by ancillary support staff pay rates.
12
National Children’s Nurseries Association, ‘Pre-Budget Submission 2006: The Real Costs of Childcare’
103
8.3.3 Public Sector Costs of Provision
Land and Buildings: Six crèches with 30 places each have recently been provided, two in Dublin
and one each in four other locations. These crèches have been provided by the State for children of
Civil Servants and public bodies. They have been constructed by OPW on state owned land at a
cost for the last three listed above of €1 mn each, including VAT and fit out but excluding cost of
land. The capital cost per child for these centres is thus €33,333 cost (not including land) for 30 child
units (2002/2003). A further larger crèche with about 135 places is being provided in a seventh
location. The total cost is expected to be €4.1 mn including land, VAT and fit out. Due to economies
of scale, the capital cost per child place including land for this larger unit is lower at about €30,350.
Taking an average of these two as €31,000 and a rent return of 7.5% per annum, the building cost
per child would be €2,325. As the facilities are provided directly by the State, capital allowances do
not apply.
Staff: Following a tender process, the crèches are leased at no charge to operators who pay staff
costs, food, internal cleaning, waste costs, etc. These costs are recovered by the operator through
fees charged to parents. Fees are expected to be lower than fees charged by the private sector.
The units are open for 10 hours each working day, 52 weeks per year.
As actual staff costs are not available, they have been estimated in Table 8.1 below.
TABLE 8.1: ESTIMATED STAFF COSTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR PLACES
No. of children by age
Child:Carer Ratio
10 Babies
3:1
20 from 1 to 5 years
6:1
30 total
Per child
* based on NCNA figure of €10.50 per hour, 40 hour week, 52 week year = €21,840
Salaries*
€72,000
€72,000
€133,000
€4,800
Other: The Department of Finance pays for heating, electricity, general maintenance, security, pest
control, and replacement of equipment. These costs amounted to €30,000 per crèche in 2005 or
€100 per child. As these are not the total “other” costs, a higher figure of €1,500 (mid way between
Community and Private figures has been used.
8.3.4 Private Sector Costs of Provision
These costs are taken from a report by the National Children’s Nurseries Association (NCNA) and
included in their pre-Budget Submission 2006. Detailed costs are given for three sizes of crèche in
South Dublin. For this exercise the middle size, i.e. 60 child places has been selected. These
figures were confirmed to us as typical by one of the larges private operators of crèches.
Land and Buildings: the NCNA survey shows the annual rent as €78,000 or €1,300 per child.
104
A large private sector operator will typically lease a “shell” building from an investor who is availing
of capital allowances. Typical rent will be €20 per sq. ft. for a 5,000 sq. ft. unit in Dublin i.e. €100,000
per annum. This will provide 100 childcare spaces, i.e. €1,000 per child. VAT can be additional cost
unless the lease is structured in a particular way as operators currently are VAT exempt (as distinct
from Zero Rated) and are therefore not able to recover VAT.
Fit out of a shell for childcare is €135 per sq. ft. multiplied by 5,000 sq. ft. = €67,500 divided by 100
children = €675. Rent plus fit out therefore costs nearly €1,100 per annum. This broadly confirms
the NCNA rent figure above. Note, the landlord is availing of capital allowances involving a subsidy
and this is normally shared following negotiations between the landlord and the tenant in the form of
a reduced rent. In the absence of capital allowances, rents could be expected to be 20-30% higher.
Staff: The NCNA report shows a cost of €604,695 for salaries (including PRSI). This equates to
€10,078 per child. Opening hours of 11 hours will typically be longer than C&V or public facilities
and an educational element is typically included for older children.
A private operator consulted operates 100 child units (mix of ages from 3 months to 5 years)
requiring 25 staff. At €10.50 per hour (MCNA Pre Budget Submission) the annual cost is €30,000
per staff member. €30,000 multiplied by 25 = €750,000 divided by 100 children = €7,500, somewhat
lower than the NCNA Submission figure.
Other: The NCNA report gives detailed breakdown of other costs under a number of headings
which amount to €1,941 per child place per annum.
8.4 Indicative Comparative Costs of Provision
8.4.1 Summary of Sectors – Total Annual Costs
Table 8.2 summarises the findings of the previous sections. It shows estimates of the full annual
costs of a childcare place for a typical c 60 place facility. It shows three broad cost categories
(buildings, staff, other operating) for three types of provision – Community and Voluntary, private
sector, and contracted out provision within the public sector. Figures have been rounded from the
detailed figures given above. The indicative nature of all data must be emphasised.
The table shows that total estimated costs for the C&V and Public Sectors are similar at
€8,875 and €8,625 respectively and for the Private Sector are approximately 50% higher at
€13,320.
For the C&V sector: a cost of €8,875 is shown consisting of buildings €1,830, staff €5,900 and other
costs €1,145.
105
TABLE 8.2: ESTIMATED INDICATIVE ANNUAL COSTS OF CHILDCARE PROVISION1
Main Cost Categories
Type of Provision
C&V
Public Sector
Private Sector
(contracted out)
Buildings
€1,830
€2,325
€1,3002
Staff
€5,900
€4,800 €10,080 (7,500)3
Other Operating
€1,145
n.a. (€1,500 est.)
€1,940
Total Operating
€7,045
n.a. (€6,300 est.)
€12,020
Total
€8,875
n.a. (€8,625)
€13,320
1 for a middle sized, year round, all day facility, incl. babies
2 cost of capital allowances not included
3 lower operator estimate
For the public sector (contracted out): annual capital costs are shown as €2,325 and staff as €4,800.
No proper estimate of other costs is available. We introduced a guesstimate of €1,500 as a mid
point between the C&V and private sectors estimates. Inclusion of this gives an estimated total of
€8,625 per annum, similar to our C&V estimate and above the implicit Pobal estimate.
For the private sector: taken on NCNA estimate annual capital costs are €1,300 (much lower than
the other sectors), estimated annual staff costs are nearly twice as high as the other sectors, while
“other” costs are also relatively high. These costs do not allow for the role of capital allowances, the
role of which is unclear. Firstly, they are subsidies to the owner of premises, any benefit is not
necessarily passed on to operators who rent these premises. Secondly, surveys carried out as part
of the 2005 Department of Finance evaluation of the property-based tax incentives suggested that
neither operators nor agencies thought the incentive had much impact on childcare provision costs.
The consultants did conclude, however, that by helping to increase supply the incentives prevented
costs from rising faster.13
The private sector therefore appears to come out of the analysis as a high-cost provider. However,
there are a number of major caveats to this conclusion. First, the private sector typically operates an
eleven hour day and is open for a 51 week year compared to a nine hour day and 49 or 45 week
year for the C&V figure, the private sector may also provide a greater educational element. .
Second, it may be the sector with the most comprehensive information, i.e. the full costs of other
sectors might tend to be underestimated, e.g. CE personnel are not included in C&V costs and rents
are estimated. Third, the private sector may have an incentive to emphasise upper band estimates
in order to demonstrate a case for high charges and subsidisation (they are taken from a Pre
Budget Submission). As shown in Section 8.5, at this cost level the private sector operators would
appear to on average be making sizeable losses. As private sector operators are commercially
driven the suggestion would appear to be highly unlikely. One large private sector operator
106
consulted reported lower labour costs. While scale of labour costs could partly explain this, it is also
likely that NCNA overestimate the average private sector labour costs. However as the only
exercise that has considered comparative childcare costs in any depth to date, it is still worthwhile
taking its figures as an indicative estimate, albeit with the caveat that it is likely to be an
overestimate.. The hourly costs estimated in 8.4.2 below will give a more accurate comparative
figure.
As between publicly contracted out services and C&V provision, the annual cost picture looks
similar – unless Pobal’s lower operating cost estimate is included, in which case C&V looks cheaper
(c. €6,000 as against €8,625 per place per annum).
8.4.2 Cost Summary By Sector – Hourly Costs
A major variable only partially factored into Table 8.2 is opening hours/weeks. Longer opening hours
will tend to push up annual staff costs and, given their predominance, total costs also.
The
estimates in Table 8.2 try to relate to facilities providing year-round and full-day services – as
opposed to for example morning only services. However, even within that, opening days and hours
could vary considerably. Table 8.3 thus takes the annual cost estimates in Table 8.2 (first row) but
adds an estimate of average annual opening hours and hence typical hourly costs (second row).
These are calculated as follows:
The final line in Table 8.3 then shows the estimated hourly cost of supplying a typical childcare
place. This is shown as €4 for the C&V sector, €3.3 Public Sector and €4.75 for the private sector.
Longer operating hours thus go some way towards explaining higher annual private sector costs.
TABLE 8.3: ESTIMATED INDICATIVE HOURLY COSTS OF CHILDCARE PROVISION –
Main Cost
Type of Provision
Categories
C&V Case
Public Sector
Private Sector
(contracted out)
€8,875
€8,625
€13,320
Total annual cost per
childcare place1
Typical annual
opening hours2
Cost per hour
49 wks x 9 hrs = 2205
52 wks x 10 hrs =
2600
€3.31
€4.02
1 See Table 8.2 and accompanying text for basis.
13
Indecon (see earlier reference)
107
51 wks x 11 hrs =
2805
€4.75
8.4.3 Purely Public Sector Provision
As already pointed out, the “public sector” provision figures used relates to cases of provision of
childcare for children of public officials. It involves publicly-owned buildings which are then leased
free of charge to private providers who recoup most of their costs from charges levied on users.
This type of service is of course subsidised to the extent of the costs of the land and buildings and
services which are supplied free of charge, but we have tried to estimate total costs inclusive of all
costs.
This model could in principle constitute a basis for further roll-out of national provision, i.e. rather
than grant-aiding the C&V sector or providing tax reliefs to the private sector, the public sector could
make suitable and suitably located buildings – existing or new – available to external operators
(private or C&V) who would provide places to all users and not just to public servants. Still leaving
aside the question of who meets other costs, the analysis in Table 8.3 suggests this model might
have similar or lower total costs than both C&V and private sectors.
An alternative, and still in principle, “public sector provision” model would be that the service itself be
provided within a public service structure, i.e. that the staffing would also be by public servants as is
the case with education/childcare of older children. Again, whether this would involve user charges
and the nature and extent of this, is being side-stepped here. The fully public sector model is of
course that used in a number of Scandinavian countries (see Chapter 3). There, the service is
provided within local government with users paying a proportion of costs.
Arguably, the higher the level of public subsidy or “free” universal provision public policy makers opt
for, the more relevant a pure public model might become. Childcare could come to be seen as a
type of public or quasi-public good, akin to healthcare or primary education.
During the research, we considered this option from a cost perspective within the framework used in
this chapter, i.e. there could ideally be an additional column in Tables 8.2 and 8.3. However, in the
absence of any real examples or comparators in Ireland we do not feel in a position to offer any
useable cost estimates.
The closest existing service is the DES Early Start Programme. This programme operates 56
classes in 40 schools in disadvantaged areas providing 1680 places of which 1600 are filled. Each
class has a teacher and childcare worker. The programme is funded through capitation grants and
uses existing vacant classrooms. This has annual costs per place of €3,347 to cover staff and
materials etc but not including premises and some overheads. It should be noted that this
programme operates for school terms and hours and has a higher child staff ratio. However, this
cost relates to marginal costs of existing vacant facilities. Any kind of nationwide service could not
be done on such a basis. The type of service involved is also much more education-related than
existing childcare.
108
An important aspect of any such purely public model highlighted by our analysis is whether it could
utilise existing buildings such as school complexes, e.g. after school hours. (This could make a
significant contribution to costs as marginal costs only would be involved. Realistically, only parttime out of school hours services could be provided within existing school buildings. other public
buildings, if available, would still have an opportunity cost.)
Also, as with all childcare provision, staff costs will be the main annual cost. To the extent that
carers within a public service framework might expect to gravitate upwards in salary terms other
potential savings in this model could be lost.
Also, crucial here would be the “who pays” issue. It is likely that in an Irish context charges to user
could become less acceptable in a purely public service context, and that an increasing share of
total costs (possibly up to 100%) would gradually accrue to general taxation. This is because the
model is vulnerable to “double-taxation” type charges that faces other public service charges. Thus,
the costs of this model to the Exchequer would be likely to be higher than the other models, other
things being equal.
The merits or otherwise of this model in particular are therefore not merely an issue of relative costs
but become one of wider public policy choices regarding childcare provision. Higher costs
specifically to the exchequer, as distinct from any overall inefficiency, are not inherently “good” or
“bad”, ceteris paribus their merits depend on how taxpayers (and their representatives) choose to
fund childcare provision.
8.5 Incidence of Childcare Costs
8.5.1 Introduction
As set out at the beginning of this Chapter we have deliberately “parked” the important issue of who
meets childcare costs in order to bring a clearer focus on the issue of the underlying costs
themselves, and keep a clear distinction between this and the question of who meets these.
This Section now turns to the question of the incidence of the costs of childcare, i.e. who bears the
costs that have been estimated above.
As has been outlined at various points in previous chapters, in the present Irish context, a number of
parties can in principle be involved in meeting childcare costs. These are:
the user through fees charged to them. This issue is in itself obviously a crucial one at the
moment, including in the Community and Voluntary sector where fess vary widely, and more
widely in national debate regarding the “affordability” of childcare to the user;
109
the tax payer can meet capital costs of provision. This is so through both CEOP and its
successor NCIP, but also in other ways. The most overt of these to date has been capital
allowances on buildings being developed for use as childcare facilities by the private sector.
also, the provision within the public sector where buildings are made available free of charge
which involves public sector meeting the full capital costs of the facilities involved fpr the children
of officials;
the tax payer also can meet current costs. This is most evident in Sub-Measure 2 of CEOP which
is in effect a labour subsidy to childcare workers in the Community and Voluntary sector. The
Exchequer also meets the costs of childcare in some situations where it is purchasing childcare
places from either the Community & Voluntary sector or the private sector, although this is
essentially a subsidy to the user rather than to the provider;14
the other major contributor is the Community & Voluntary sector itself. This can occur both
through provision of buildings at no or low cost, and also through provision of voluntary or low
cost labour. As emphasised earlier and throughout the report, this does not just involve
necessarily the Community & Voluntary groups currently providing childcare places, but other
organisations who may be participating directly and indirectly.
The picture is therefore a complex one.
8.5.2 Charges to Users
One of the clearest incidences of costs is where these are borne by the users of services. Data
abounds in and around this topic, based on various surveys etc. The most recent survey is that of
the NCNA which carried out a nationwide survey of 432 nurseries in November 2006. Based on fees
for nursery (as distinct from baby) care in different types of facilities, its mean estimates across the
country are as follows:
community & voluntary sector €81 per week;
workplace provision (roughly equivalent to our public sector model) €128 per week
private sector €160 per week.
Table 8.4 converts these estimates into annual equivalent figures. For the purposes of estimation
this is done by multiplying them by 52, although clearly this is unrealistic as almost all facilities will
operate for slightly less than the full 52 weeks annually. Nevertheless, this estimate gives us a basis
for typical annual charges for a fulltime childcare place in these types of facility. The estimates are
14
e.g. in the C&V case study examined above 41 out of 70 places provided were reserved for
subsidised children. These places are subsidised by public bodies : HSE 3, HSE (for foreign
nationals) 4, and part subsidies for Youth Reach 3, VTOS 3 and FAS 1. The balance of 27 of the
41 are subsidised by NGOs and 29 paces are available without subsidies to the public.
110
Community & Voluntary sector €4,212, workplace provision €6,656 and private sector provision
€8,230.
TABLE 8.4: ESTIMATED COSTS AND PARENT CHARGES COMPARED
Main Cost Categories
Type of Provision
Community and
Workplace
Voluntary
(a) Estimated Annual
€8,875
€8,6253
1
Costs
(b) Estimated Annual
€4,212 (81 x 52)
€6,656 (128 x 52)4
2
Fee
(b) as % of (a)
47%
77%
1 see Table 8.2 and accompanying text
2 based on mean weekly fees x 52 from NCNA survey 2006
3 Public Service locations only
4 All workplaces
Private
€13,320
€8,230 (160 x
52)
62%
As broad estimates, these weekly fee figures are not out of line with other estimates, for example
the weekly fee figures give a simple average of €123. This is consistent with the estimate of €100
per week in the 2002 QNHS Survey of childcare costs. It should be noted however that the NCNA
survey shows a very wide variation from county to county and shows that Dublin is not always the
most expensive.
The bottom row in Table 8.4 shows what these annual charges are relative to the cost estimates
earlier. In the case of Community & Voluntary sector they are roughly 50%, which seems to broadly
correspond with what would be assumed, i.e. that on average in that sector the user is paying
roughly half the cost, with a combination of the Exchequer and Community & Voluntary Sector itself
meeting the balance. A contribution of 77% emerges in the case of workplace provision (Caution the
costs are based on Public Service facilities only, while the charges apply to workplaces in the NCNA
Survey), i.e. that users of workplace provision are meeting roughly three-quarters of the full costs of
their childcare places. This again appears intuitively reasonable since typically in the public and
private sector workplaces the premises would be made available by the employer and the operating
costs would be met by the users.
The private sector figure is the one which is particularly out of line, and would suggest huge ongoing
losses in the private sector. The NCNA Pre Budget submission argued that the average cost of a
quality childcare service for a sixty place nursery is €256 per week while the average current cost of
a childcare place to parents is €190 per week ( this appears to be a Dublin figure). On this basis
they argued for a capitation grant of 2,500 for each child up to age of 6 years and paid directly to the
provider. As stated earlier in the Chapter, this is more likely to suggest that the annual cost estimate
in the private sector is itself probably on the high side, or the typical €160 week found in the survey
may be somewhat on the low side. From consultation with private sector providers, it would certainly
appear that the former statement is true, with labour costs noted as being lower than the
111
assumptions in the NCNA calculations, and this should be borne in mind when considering the
findings of this Chapter.
Having considered the costs of childcare provision, a number of broad provisional conclusions can
be drawn:
the area is problematic, costs estimates used here are indicative and should be interpreted with
caution;
labour costs are the really crucial costs, constituting c 70% of total annual costs of all forms of
provision;
the NCNA estimates for private sector costs suggest that operators make a loss of around 5% in
provision, an unlikely scenario and which would lead the review to conclude that labour costs are
overestimated in this regard.
even if the data are not good, the exercise in itself is worthwhile and provides a lot of clarity;
regarding the relative costs of the types of provision examined, on an hourly basis underlying
costs come across as in roughly the same “ballpark” across all sectors. Pobal estimates are very
lowest because they were developed as a benchmark for grant evaluation and are conservative
e.g. minimum wage for support staff. Private figures are highest and may be somewhat inflated
as they were prepared for a pre Budget Submission. However the private sector is delivering a
premium product with longer opening hours and an educational element. Public and Pobal
figures are least robust as they involve more assumptions that the other two;
costs data alone do not answer the policy issues, must also consider quality of
childcare/education element objectives and benefits.
An overall implication of this analysis is that ball-park costs of provision may not be as different
as might be expected when like is compared with like. From a cost perspective the most critical
issue may therefore not be so much “who provides?” as “who pays?” From a public policy
perspective, a key issue then becomes to what extent the public purse wishes to pay or wishes
users to meet their own childcare costs. A critical issue ahead for public policy is therefore also
not so much what providers it supports but, also at what level it wishes to do so and through
what mechanism it wishes to support the service, e.g. one-off capital versus ongoing subsidy
(EOCP does both) and to what extent it is the provider or the user who is subvented (EOCP does
the latter). We return to some of these issues again in Chapter 9.
112
18
NDP/CSF Evaluation Unit Review of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 2003-06, 2003
113
114
9. Conclusions & Recommendations
9.1 Conclusions
This value-for-money review of the EOCP Childcare Programme was asked to examine a series of
specific aspects of the Programme as set out in the project Terms of Reference. These are:
(1) Identification of the EOCP and NCIP objectives, including how they have evolved over time.
(2) Consideration of the continuing validity of these objectives and their fit with wider Government
policy.
(3) Identification, and where possible/appropriate quantification, of the level and trend of outputs
and associated outcomes achieved by the EOCP.
(4) Examination of the extent to which the EOCP’s objectives have been achieved and the
(5) Examination of the way in which the mechanisms for delivery of the EOCP have been
developed, including their development into new arrangements for the delivery of the NCIP, and
comment on the efficiency with which these have achieved the EOCP objectives (and would be
expected to achieve the NCIP objectives).
(6) Evaluation of the degree to which the EOCP objectives, and now the NCIP objectives, warrant
the allocation of public funding on a current and ongoing basis.
(7) Evaluation of the scope for alternative policy or organisational approaches to achieving the full
range of EOCP/NCIP objectives more efficiently or effectively.
(8) Specification of potential future performance indicators which might be used to better monitor
performance of the NCIP.
The following Sections set out our findings and conclusions regarding each of the issues, and the
recommendations that emerge from these. The remainder of the Chapter is structured as follows:
Section 9.2 deals with the key findings and conclusions regarding the issues in the Terms of
Reference. Based on these Section 9.3 presents our recommendation regarding the immediate
period ahead, i.e. 2007-10. Finally, Section 9.4 contains recommendations regarding planning for
the period after 2010.
9.2 Key Findings and Conclusions by Issue
9.2.1 Introduction
This Section sets out our conclusions regarding each of the issues in the Terms of Reference. This
is done in the sequence these were listed in the ToR.
115
9.2.2 Objectives and their Evolution
TOR POINT 1: “IDENTIFICATION OF THE EOCP AND NCIP OBJECTIVES, INCLUDING HOW
THEY HAVE EVOLVED OVER TIME.”
In the main body of the report, we have described the stated objectives of both the EOCP and its
successor NCIP, noting how there has been a gradual shift in emphasis over the lifetime of the
former and formulation of the latter.
The original EOCP objectives defined its primary remit very much as being a facilitator of labour
force participation and thus employment of parents by increasing the quality and quantity of
childcare places available in Ireland, while improving the coordination of childcare provision. The
core aim of facilitating employment, education and training opportunities has remained the critical
driving force underpinning delivery of the programme, with a strong focus on increasing the overall
levels of childcare provision around the country and enabling this aim to be achieved. This
commitment has been reflected in significant Exchequer investment not only in community-based
facilities, but also more recently in private sector provision. The expansion in the levels of grant aid
available to private sector providers under the NCIP indicates that increasing the overall level of
childcare infrastructure in Ireland still remains a principal goal.
In terms of improving the coordination of childcare interventions, this was also a key focus of the
EOCP but is less relevant within the NCIP due to the establishment of national and local structures
for this purpose, most notably in the setting up of City and County Childcare Committees and via
investment in the NVCOs to facilitate a more coordinated approach.
There is a view that the quality objective of the EOCP was somewhat overshadowed by a more
quantitative-based approach targeting maximisation of the supply of childcare places. However, the
quality aspects of provision have received more attention in the latter years of delivery. The need for
quality childcare provision is now explicitly stated within the NCIP objectives and is expected to be a
critical focus of the new programme.
As its name implied, the EOCP also had a strong guiding principle of facilitating equality of access
and this underpinned a social inclusion emphasis under the programme, something further
developed in the commitment to “support families to break the cycle of poverty and disadvantage”
identified within NCIP objectives. The other specific development as the new programme emerges
is the prominence given to issues of early childhood education, with interventions to be progressed
to support appropriate responses, particularly in disadvantaged areas.
116
9.2.3 Continuing Validity of Objectives
TOR POINT 2: “CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTINUING VALIDITY OF THESE OBJECTIVES
AND THEIR FIT WITH WIDER GOVERNMENT POLICY.”
As described in Section 9.2.1 above, the development of the objectives and focus of the EOCP and
NCIP over time have therefore generally reflected national policy in relation to childcare and the
multiplicity of issues that childcare provision seeks to address. At the start of the programme there
was a strong emphasis on increasing the female participation rate, and childcare provision was
identified a key mechanism by which this could be achieved. Social inclusion has always been a key
national policy objective since inception of the EOCP, and the growing recognition that the
availability of quality childcare provision is a prerequisite to a number of family support and early
intervention strategies is reflected in the development of the new NCIP objectives. The national
policy focus on the quality aspects of childcare also became apparent during the life of the
programme with the establishment of CECDE and their role in developing the National Quality
Framework for Early Childhood Development and Education. The focus on early education is now a
critical component of national policy, with the Department of Education and Science committed to
substantial investment in provision, concentrated within disadvantaged areas, and the efforts to
meet early education targets established by the Lisbon Agenda. The objectives of the EOCP and
now the NCIP therefore remain valid and closely reflect national government policy across a number
of areas.
A feature of both current childcare policy discussion and the NCIP is a gradual merging of the earlier
objectives into an overall policy acceptance that childcare services are a basic feature of a modern
economy, increased emphasis on developmental benefits for the children themselves (see for
example “Towards 2016”, Section 30.2.1), and resulting specification of NCIP objectives as more
immediate childcare ones rather than strategic socio-economic ones.
9.2.4 Outputs and Outcomes
TOR
POINT
3:
“IDENTIFICATION,
AND
WHERE
POSSIBLE/APPROPRIATE
QUANTIFICATION, OF THE LEVEL AND TREND OF OUTPUTS AND ASSOCIATED
OUTCOMES ACHIEVED BY THE EOCP. “
The review identified the significant trends in inputs, outputs and outcomes generated by the EOCP.
A number of key aspects of performance emerged, including:

By the end of 2006, €564.7mn in total had been allocated for investment in the development of
childcare via the EOCP.
117

60% of all monies allocated under EOCP 2000-06 had been drawn down by the end of 2006,
with most allocations outstanding concentrated within the capital grants measure.

€179,419, while purely exchequer funded grants were generally smaller scale in nature, with an
average of €42,076.

33,582 new childcare places created in Ireland as a result of the EOCP, of which 14,799 are
full-time in nature.

The quantitative findings above generally confirm the fact that an effective programme has been
delivered over the EOCP period. This commenced from a “standing start” and has well exceeded
original objectives.
In terms of increasing the number of childcare places in Ireland, EOCP has had a significant impact.
Nevertheless this impact could have been greater if a higher draw down rate of grants had been
achieved, a problem attributed to capacity issues in project development at local level and the slowdown of capital grant allocations in 2004. There is also concern that, while the EOCP was
undoubtedly effective at the generation of childcare infrastructure and hence the facilitation of
increased participation in employment, education and training opportunities, only limited progress
has been made in terms of ensuring quality childcare provision. This is an area that will require a
much greater focus by the NCIP moving forward.
9.2.5 EOCP Objectives Achieved and Efficiency
TOR POINT 4: “EXAMINATION OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE EOCP’S OBJECTIVES
HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED AND THE EFFECTIVENESS WITH WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN
ACHIEVED.”
In terms of overall efficiency, it is likely that the ECOP model, with its strong C&V focus to date has
delivered childcare places at an overall cost level that is broadly in line with or below alternatives.
That said, when typical hourly childcare costs of similar types of provision (as opposed to costs to
users) are examined data seems to suggest that the C&V sector has also not proven a hugely
cheaper option overall against comparable alternatives such as private provision or contracted out
places in the public sector. However, this is not a remarkable finding. Ultimately, childcare costs
consist principally of staffing costs. It is not surprising that a similar quality of service in a similar
facility is likely to involve similar staffing costs within whatever institutional framework it takes place.
An area of concern regarding efficiency is the relatively poor information available centrally,
especially in the C&V sector and in the public sector, on full provision costs, and poor monitoring of
118
these as against alternatives. “Cost awareness” needs to be greatly enhanced under the NCIP if an
efficient system is to be both delivered, and seen to be delivered.
9.2.6 Delivery Mechanisms and Their Efficiency
TOR POINT 5: “EXAMINATION OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE MECHANISMS FOR DELIVERY
OF THE EOCP HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED, INCLUDING THEIR DEVELOPMENT INTO NEW
ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE NCIP, AND COMMENT ON THE
EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH THESE HAVE ACHIEVED THE EOCP OBJECTIVES (AND
WOULD BE EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE THE NCIP OBJECTIVES).”
The mechanisms for delivery of the EOCP were discussed in depth in the previous Chapters of this
report. There was some concern at what appeared to be a relatively unwieldy application process,
with several tiers that did not appear to add any significant value to the process, yet caused delay
between application submission and decision. There was significant concern at the lack of
transparency in the process, with applicants unable to track an application through the process or
obtain information about when a decision might be forthcoming.
The more streamlined application process planned for the NCIP should prove more effective and
efficient, with fewer administrative requirements to be met prior to submission, and it is hoped that
this will facilitate more timely decision making.
Pobal has played an overall effective administrative role in ensuring that the programme was well
structured and appropriate financial controls were in place to ensure accountability, although there
are mixed levels of satisfaction with the agency at local stakeholder level. Pobal has taken on the
administration of the NCIP and continues to operate on the basis of an annual administrative fee to
the OMC based on costs of administering the programme but not normally to exceed 4% of the
annual budget of the programme.
Establishment of the City and County Childcare Committees has been a notable development that
should facilitate better identification of local childcare needs, and more effective planning (at local
level) of responses to meet those needs. The new role that the CCCs will play in the first stage of
the application process, and the fact that they have now become a well-established local structure
within their area with dedicated skilled staff, should facilitate successful delivery of their function as
an effective coordinating mechanism for local childcare interventions. It will however be important to
ensure CCCs stay focused on their core role, and that any overlap (e.g. with new Pobal regional
structures) is avoided. A presumption that the CCCs will continue to be needed in perpetuity should
also be avoided.
119
9.2.7 Justification for Ongoing Public Funding
TOR POINT 6: “EVALUATION OF THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE EOCP OBJECTIVES, AND
NOW THE NCIP OBJECTIVES, WARRANT THE ALLOCATION OF PUBLIC FUNDING ON A
CURRENT AND ONGOING BASIS.”
The case for public subvention, including ongoing subvention, of childcare facilities is widely
accepted. Generally these facilities can be seen as constituting a type of public good which
necessitate a degree of public intervention if the optimum level is to be provided in society. This in
turn reflects various forms of “market failure” which means that without such intervention, if left to
the commercial sector alone the optimum level of delivery will not take place. These types of
arguments were elaborated on and accepted for example in the 2003 Department of Finance
NDP/CSF Evaluation Unit Review of the Childcare Programme.18
This view is widely shared internationally. However, the means by which it is given effect vary widely
and are highly contextualised within the circumstances of individual countries. For example, as set
out earlier in the report, the Scandinavian childcare model involves one of strongly public sector
provision and highly subsidised childcare places made available universally for a relatively modest
contribution. Against that, a more Anglo Saxon model is one of mixed public and private provision.
It should also be emphasised that the method of provision and the level of public subvention do not
necessarily have to be correlated. For example, in principle, a publicly-provided service can be
charged for, and equally a privately-run service (or its users) could receive public subsidies to
provide a level of public good provision. Our own analysis of the relative cost level of different forms
of provision also suggest that perhaps the ultimate total costs of the different types of provision are
not that different, and that the real public policy decisions facing the sector is not so much the form
of provision but who pays for it, and in particular at what level this is to be subsidised on an ongoing
basis by the Exchequer.
In the immediate context here, there is little doubt that objectives of the EOCP and NCIP continue to
warrant the allocation of funding on an ongoing basis given the needs for childcare interventions
that still exist in most areas of Ireland. There is also a high level of synergy between existing
components of national Government policy and the objectives of the EOCP and now NCIP as noted
above. However there is a need to recognise that there is a finite period for which public sector
capital investment in childcare infrastructure continues to be justified. At the start of the programme
there was a clear and pressing need for childcare provision in all parts of Ireland, but gradually
these needs are being met and it is important that they continue to be gauged on an ongoing basis
to determine when they have largely been met.
120
There is also considerable scope for the income generated by EOCP and now NCIP supported
community-based services to be increased, with maximum fees raised, an effective tiered fee
system put in place in all services, and appropriate minimum fees set. However it was also found
that if public sector support was withdrawn from C&V facilities as they presently stand, the majority
would be forced to cease operations within a very short timeframe. Within the present structure, we
therefore feel that large-scale capital funding should continue during the period of the new
programme (i.e. 2006-10) but that it should be planned such that an adequate national supply
should by then be in place and that capital funding thereafter would become smaller scale and
exceptional post 2010.
Regarding ongoing operational funding, this is a challenging topic. It is considered that the present
system seems reasonable for the moment, within the present structures. However, after the NCIP
period alternatives which would allow for clearer objectives and more targeted intervention should
be considered, including subventing demand rather than supply. This is discussed further in Section
9.4.
9.2.8 Scope for Alternative Policy or Organisational Approaches
TOR POINT 7: “EVALUATION OF THE SCOPE FOR ALTERNATIVE POLICY OR
ORGANISATIONAL APPROACHES TO ACHIEVING THE FULL RANGE OF EOCP/NCIP
OBJECTIVES MORE EFFICIENTLY OR EFFECTIVELY.”
Alternative policy and organisational approaches have been considered throughout this review in
terms of learning from experiences overseas and cost comparisons with alternative delivery models.
This included looking at selected models elsewhere. From the former perspective, good practice
has been identified that could help with the effective implementation of early education interventions
and in developing the quality of childcare services.
In terms of alternative delivery models within Ireland, a consideration of both purely private sector
and various public sector childcare delivery models offered no indication that underlying costs would
be lower than is the case in EOCP supported community facilities. It is also unlikely that such
models would be able to adequately deliver on objectives in relation to social inclusion and family
support, issues that require a community development model of intervention in order to be
effectively addressed.
In terms of alternatives, it is also important to keep in mind that this does not necessitate fully
“either/or” situations. Most developed countries, even where some forms of provision predominate,
continue to have a mix of public, private and NGO organisations involved. In the immediate Irish
case, while the ECOP is predominantly supportive of the Community and Voluntary sector, the
121
private sector has also been involved, and is increasingly so. We would agree with this position
since ultimately the core policy focus should be on what is good for children and their parents, and
not on what is good for any form of providers.
As emphasised in particular in Chapter 8, in many ways the key policy issue should not be about the
form of provision, but about whether and how the public sector wishes to subvent this provision,
particularly on an ongoing basis. This is to some extent the core policy question which remains
unanswered in Ireland, and frequently debates about the type of provision can in fact be proxy for
this discussion. Supporters of Community and Voluntary provision, for example, would frequently be
people who are supportive of publicly-funded provision. Equally, those who might instinctively favour
private sector provision may be those who would also feel that people should pay the majority of
costs of their own childcare provision.
However, in practice, the two issues of who pays and who provides can in principle be separated
from each other, and indeed benefit from being kept somewhat separate in policy analysis. In
particular, it is quite possible for Community and Voluntary providers to charge commercial, or near
commercial, fees to relatively well-off parents. Equally, there is no inherent reason why the state
cannot subsidise (as it currently does in Ireland) places for children of poorer families in alternative
forms of provider, i.e. effectively pay the fee on behalf of poorer families. These types of approach
effectively subsidise the user rather than the supplier, and this has considerable arguments in its
favour in terms of transparency, clarity of objectives, equality of treatment, avoidance of a dual
structure, and flexibility. This is particularly so in mixed areas or in areas near workplaces where the
users may be mixed.
9.2.9 Performance Indicators
TOR POINT 8: “SPECIFICATION OF THE POTENTIAL FUTURE PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS WHICH MIGHT BE USED TO BETTER MONITOR PERFORMANCE OF THE
NCIP.”
Finally, while the key performance indicators in place for the EOCP such as generation of additional
childcare places, support of staff, labour force participation and skills accreditation have obvious
merit and should continue to be used to define performance of the NCIP moving forward, there is a
need to focus on quantifiable indicators reflecting other objectives in relation to quality of provision,
the wider costs of childcare and relationship to local needs. This report has defined a series of
proposed new indicators for the implementation of the NCIP, focusing on the key areas of funding,
costs, income, staffing and quality as follows:
122
Funding
Amount of funding invested in support of new childcare places (split by capital and current
expenditure).
Amount of funding invested in support of existing childcare places (split by capital and current
expenditure).
Costs
Overall capital cost of establishing childcare facilities (including non NCIP contributions)
Overall capital cost of upgrading existing childcare facilities (including non NCIP contributions)
Overall staffing costs in supported childcare services (including contributions outside NCIP
staffing grants)
Overall operational costs and breakdown of cost components for supported services.
Income
Total income generated by supported childcare services (from all sources).
Income generated by supported childcare services by source of funding.
Proportion of income of supported services sourced from fees.
Charging system in place for childcare services.
Staffing
Staff/child ratios in place in supported childcare services (in terms of overall staff, direct childcare
workers and by type of target group within service)
Staff turnover rates in supported childcare services.
Quality
Number of supported services with a curriculum based approach to child development in place.
Number of supported services undertaking formal needs assessment of each child using the
service.
Number of supported services with a mechanism in place to consult with parents.
Number of supported services undertaking activities to support wider families.
Number of supported facilities with external as well as internal environments.
Number of supported facilities with separate dedicated play areas.
The indicators defined above with regard to funding and costs should also be gathered on a per unit
project basis for comparative purposes. The indicators should allow the additionality and impact of
the interventions to be better established moving forward. To ensure their accurate measurement,
the Pobal Article 4 team may also have to take on a proactive role in control adherence to
monitoring of the indicators at local level. There may also be benefit from establishing a monitoring
database as a result of such activity.
123
9.3 Recommendations: NCIP 2007-2010
9.3.1 Introduction
This Section sets out a series of recommendations relating to the 2007-2010 NCIP Programme. It
therefore essentially assumes that the present broad “architecture” for childcare provision in Ireland
are going to remain as now, i.e. that none of the radical alternative models which are in principle
available (see Section 9.2.7 above) are actually brought into play in practice.
We think this is an appropriate pragmatic approach since, even if such an alternative were to be
considered positively, the lead-time for its introduction would be likely to mean that it would not be in
place for a number of years hence. Furthermore, there is a strong argument that in the present
developmental phase of childcare in Ireland there is a case for continuing in the present type of
programme for some period still. We return to the issue of subsequent phases in Section 9.4.
9.3.2 Recommendations 2007-2010
Recommendation 1 – The NCIP should continue to provide capital grants subject to ongoing
monitoring of local needs. The CCCs should play a critical role in determining where ongoing needs
for additional childcare provision exist, where local childcare needs have been met, the capital
element of the programme should be withdrawn.
Recommendation 2 – For community-based capital grants, project management functions and
costs should be included as a central component of the programme and included as a condition of
funding.
Recommendation 3 – Staffing grants should be introduced for community-based facilities under the
NCIP and should be based on ensuring that effective tiered fee structures are put in place in all
facilities, that maximum and minimum fees are set at an appropriate level and that these conditions
are an integral part of the eligibility criteria for funding. Continued eligibility for staffing grants should
be monitored to ensure that all facilities seek to move towards sustainability.
Recommendation 4 – For community-based staffing grants, approval should be given for a
minimum of three years. EOCP staffing grant recipients should, where possible, be considered for
NCIP funding prior to the termination of their existing grant.
Recommendation 5 – Consideration should be given to adoption and implementation of criteria
based on levels of disadvantage to determine whether facilities will be eligible for staffing support
assessed on the basis of needs in the short to medium term or on a medium to longer term basis.
124
Recommendation 6 – There should be greater transparency within the application process with a
mechanism established to allow applications to be tracked through the development and appraisal
processes. The criteria for determining the level of staffing grant support should be more clearly
defined and applied
Recommendation 7 – Consideration should be given to providing a proportion of a communitybased organisation’s operational costs in order to provide more scope for quality provision,
particularly for larger services in the most disadvantaged areas.
Recommendation 8 – The adoption of the principles and standards within Siolta by NCIP
supported services should be formally encouraged within the criteria for the programme, with
consideration being given to setting resources aside to facilitate the development of provision in this
regard.
Recommendation 9 – The objectives of the NCIP are valid, but further articulation of how the
programme can address the objective of supporting families to break the cycle of poverty and
disadvantage is required.
Recommendation 10 – Information relating to the wider costs of operating community-based
services, should be gathered to facilitate a greater understanding of the cost components, and the
provision of appropriate responses in this regard.
Recommendation 11 – The National Data Strategy which is being developed by the OMC in liaison
with the HSE and CECDE should be used to coordinate the gathering of local-level information to
support the planning and delivery of policy and services for early childhood care and education.
Recommendation 12 – The CCCs should play a more prominent role in improving the quality of
childcare provision at local level, utilising their role within the grant application process might be
utilised to ensure adherence to requirements or standards.
Recommendation 13 – The number of headings under which activities are required to be proposed
in CCC action plans should be reduced, with social inclusion and equality and diversity made
horizontal principles that underpin all activities.
Recommendation 14 – The remits of the NVCOs should be closer defined in order to reduce levels
of duplication between these organisations and also to avoid overlap with the activities of the CCCs.
125
Recommendation 15 – The level of national and regional supply, demand, customer satisfaction,
waiting levels, etc. should be monitored on an ongoing basis, with a view to establishing when there
is sufficient supply in place, i.e. when large-scale capital subvention could be withdrawn as its
continuation would then begin to result in large-scale deadweight and displacement.
9.4 Recommendations: Beyond 2010
9.4.1 Introduction
Section 9.3 set out a series of recommendations for the NCIP period up to and including 2010. This
Section sets out some recommendations regarding preparations that should now commence for the
post 2010 period. These recommendations are appropriate because the ending of the current NCIP
in 2010 is now not very far away, i.e. less than 3 years. There are already existing commitments in
Towards 2016 and in the new National Development Plan for continuation of support to childcare
beyond this period. It is also important that in implementation of the NCIP that which follows it be
gradually become clearer and be taken into account.
9.4.2 A Phased Approach
Thinking about post 2010 needs to be done in the context of the evolution of policy towards
childcare to date and its continued evolution into the future. In this regard, we think a number of
distinct periods can be seen:
the period prior to 2000 when there was no formal programme of public support, but when
various elements of ad hoc support were made available through a variety of sources and
means, without any national framework and within quite limited resources;
the 2000-06 ECOP period which can essentially be seen in a national context as a “start-up”
period when major expansion took place through the provision of new public funding for the
sector, and with the introduction of a new emphasis on community and voluntary provision and
on national and local co-ordinating structures. Tax breaks for investment in private provision was
also a feature of this period;
the 2007-2010 period can be seen as one of “expansion” with the progress so far built upon, and
the task of putting in the supply-side of the system is completed. This means that there should be
a target by the end of the present period of having in place an adequate nation-wide level of
supply of appropriate quality childcare provision in Ireland, involving a mix of C&V, private and
public provision, and with development now of appropriate levels of regulation and quality
assurance;
the post-2010 period can therefore be seen as the commencement of a more “mature” phase of
provision, where major supply-side net expansion should gradually cease beyond that required
126
by natural growth in demand, and where availability of adequate childcare provision becomes a
mainstream component of the national economy and society.
With regard to funding levels in the post 2010 period, it is likely that major capital assistance would
then no longer be required, but that some level of ongoing public subvention would continue to be
required.
This latter is the experience in all developed countries, and reflects the widespread acceptance that
purely market based provision is inadequate in this particular area. A more mature situation would,
however, allow for consideration of alternative models of subvention rather than the current ones
which have evolved on a fairly ad hoc basis and in response to some of the types of supports which
have been available, including ESF supports.
9.4.3 Recommendations
Against this background, we therefore make the following recommendations with regard to planning
for post-2010:
that this be seen as a new third “mature” phase and that both policy thinking and interventions
now be developed to reflect this status;
that large-scale capital investment at that stage be phased out and that in the interim (2007-10)
the necessary capital investment is made available;
that in the interim, alternative forms of ongoing subvention to the current one, which is primarily a
mix of ECOP, staffing grants, CE and in some cases free and subsidised access to premises be
replaced by some kind of less ad hoc and more structured system. Such a system should be:
o
transparent;
o
have clear parameters from the point of view of Exchequer commitments;
o
better targeted upon appropriate groups, including socially excluded groups;
o
more neutral as between different types of supplier.
The possibilities of such systems, e.g. labour subsidies, vouchers for childcare users,
should be explored in the interim, drawing in particular on international experience;
the role of the present Programme structures, including both the central structures and local
structures, would also need to be given consideration in this context. There might for example be
scope to scale back on the CCCs, have smaller local co-ordinating or networking functions, and
attach these to another body rather than having them stand alone (e.g. the new Cohesion
structures, local authorities, DES Regional Offices, or the HSE);
127
that responsibility for the regulatory/quality assurance function is clearly assigned to an
appropriate body, with suitable national and local “reach”, and that it be appropriately
independent from service providers and other stakeholders.
128
9.5 Implementation of Recommendations
This Chapter has therefore proposed a series of recommendations that should be taken into
account in the implementation of the NCIP over the 2007-10 period, and in planning childcare
provision after completion of this programme. It is essential that a mechanism is put in place to
facilitate the progression of these recommendations and to monitor activity as they are being
implemented. It is suggested that an implementation group is established to oversee their delivery,
with a reporting procedure in place that tracks their realisation and designates responsibility to the
appropriate agency in this regard. The structure of the group might closely follow that of the Steering
Group for this review, involving representatives of the Office of the Minister for Children, the
Department of Finance, the Department of Health and Children, the CECDE and local childcare
providers, perhaps with the addition of Pobal given their important role in delivering NCIP.
129
Annexes
130
Annex 1: Members of the Steering
Group
Moira O’Mara, Office of the Minister for Children.
Eoin Halpin, Office of the Minister for Children.
Patricia Purtill, Department of Finance.
Maresa Duignan, CECDE.
Nuala Kane, Blanchardstown Area Partnership
Louise Kenny, Department of Health and Children
Michael Murchan, Department of Health and Children
Page 1
Annex 2: Stakeholders Consulted
1)
Sylda Langford, Office of the Minister for Children.
2)
Moira O’Mara, Office of the Minister for Children.
3)
Eoin Halpin, Office of the Minister for Children.
4)
Fred Foster, Department of Finance.
5)
Mary McKeown, Department of Finance.
6)
Paddy McDonagh, Department of Education and Science.
7)
Heino Schonfeld, CECDE.
8)
Maresa Duignan, CECDE.
9)
Patricia Curtin, Fás.
10)
Noirin Hayes, Dublin Institute of Technology.
11)
John Shaw, Department of An Taoiseach.
12)
Alex McLean, BMW Regional Assembly.
13)
Heidi Lougheed, IBEC.
14)
Catherine Bond, NCNA.
15)
Irene Gunning, IPPA.
16)
Ann Conroy, Barnardos.
17)
Maura Keating, Pobal.
18)
Patricia Murray, Childminding Ireland.
Page 2
Annex 3: Literature Reviewed
1)
Towards 2016: A Ten Year Social Partnership Framework, Department of An Taoiseach, 2006.
2)
Evaluation of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000-06, NDP/CSF Evaluation
Unit, 2003.
3)
Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD, 2001.
4)
Ready to Learn - White Paper on Early Childhood Education, Department of Education and
Science, 1999.
5)
Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care – Background Report Ireland, OECD,
2004.
6)
An Audit of Provision of Services Targeting Disadvantage and Special Needs Among Children
from Birth to Six, CECDE, 2004.
7)
Early Childhood Education and Care for Children from Low-income or Minority Background,
2002.
8)
BMW Monitoring Committee Final Progress Report on Childcare Infrastructure and Childcare
Staffing and Quality Improvement Measures, Border Midland and Western Regional Assembly,
2006.
9)
S&E Monitoring Committee Final Progress Report on Childcare Infrastructure and Childcare
Staffing and Quality Improvement Measures, Southern and Eastern Regional Assembly, 2006.
10)
EOCP County Childcare Committee Handbook, Pobal, 2003.
11)
NCIP Resource Toolkit for CCCs, Pobal, 2005.
12)
CSO Quarterly National Household Survey Special Module 1, CSO, 2006.
13)
EOCP Annual Beneficiary Survey 2005, Pobal 2006.
14)
Study on the Economics of Childcare in Ireland – Report for the Partnership 2000 Expert
Working Group on Childcare, Goodbody Economic Consultants, 1999.
15)
Review of Property-based Tax Incentive Schemes – Report for the Department of Finance,
Indecon, 2005.
16)
Ex-ante Evaluation of the Investment Priorities for the National Development Plan 2007-13,
Policy Research Series No 59, 2006.
Page 3
Annex 4: CCC Questionnaire
Page 4
Survey of City and County Childcare
Committees for Review of Equal
Opportunities Childcare Programme
To be completed by the Co-ordinator
in consultation with members of the City/County Childcare Committee
Please note that comments may be continued on a separate page if necessary
CCC Area
Person Completing Survey
Position
A.
Contact No
The City/County Childcare Committee (CCC)
1)
When was the first meeting of your CCC held?
2)
When was the CCC Coordinator appointed?
3)
Please indicate the number of representatives, if any, from each of the agencies/organisations listed below that
serve on your CCC.
National Voluntary Childcare
Local authority/CDB staff
HSE
Organisation
Parents representatives
Garda Siochána
FAS
County Enterprise Board
Department of Education
Local Partnership Co.
Department of Social & Family
Affairs
Vocational Education
Committee
Parents
Service provider representatives
Other
If other please specify
4)
Are the activities of the CCC currently guided by any of the following:
Remit or Terms of Reference
Mission Statement
Vision
Guiding Principles
Strategic Objectives
Other
Please give details
2001
2002
2003
2004
5)
How many times did your CCC full Board meet in 2001, 2002, 2003,
2004 and 2005?
6)
Are any of the following monitoring or reporting mechanisms in place with regard to the CCC’s activities?
Targets/Performance Indicators Set
Regular Progress Reports Produced
Performance Indicators Monitored
Members Attendance Recorded
Minutes of Meetings Circulated
Other Reporting Procedures
Please give details
Page 5
2005
7)
Have any sub-groups of the CCC been established to examine specific issues, progress particular actions or
appraise and advise upon applications for funding from the EOCP?
Yes
No
If yes please explain the purpose of each committee established.
8)
Has the establishment of the CCC facilitated better working partnerships between the organisations represented
on the Committee?
To a significant extent
To a minor extent
To some extent
Not at all
Please expand
9)
How would you rate the guidance provided by Pobal in supporting the activities of your CCC?
Very satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Very unsatisfactory
Please give details
10)
How would you rate the training provided by Pobal in supporting the activities of your CCC?
Very satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Very unsatisfactory
Please give details
11)
How would you rate the Resource Manual provided by Pobal to guide the activities of your CCC?
Very satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Very unsatisfactory
Please give details
12)
Has the establishment of Consultation Committees in CCCs provided an effective mechanism for local input into
the decision-making process for allocating EOCP resources under Sub-Measures 1 and 2?
Very effective
Of limited effectiveness
Quite effective
Not at all
Please give details
Page 6
13)
What do you consider to be the 3 main strengths of your CCC?
14)
What do you consider to be the 3 main weaknesses of your CCC?
B.
The CCC Strategic Plan
15)
When was the Strategic Plan 2000-2006 originally finalised by your CCC?
16)
How would you rate the guidance provided by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and ADM
(now Pobal) in drawing up the CCC Strategic Plan 2000-2006?
Very satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Very unsatisfactory
Please give details
17)
Which of the following approaches was adopted in the drawing up of your Strategic Plan?
Plan primarily drawn up by CCC Coordinator
Plan drawn up with help from consultants
Plan drawn up jointly by local stakeholders
Other approach adopted
Please give details
18)
Which of the following elements were considered in the drawing up of the Strategic Plan?
The national policy context
The local policy context
Demographic analysis of the city/county area
Audit of existing childcare provision in area
Examination of childcare-related training in the
area
Consideration of quality of childcare in area
International research
Other
Please give details
Page 7
19)
Was a consultation process put in place with each of the following groups or organisations?
Children
Parents
Childcare providers
National Voluntary Childcare Organisations
Other
Please give details
20)
How many objectives are contained within your strategic plan?
21)
Of these objectives, how many have been achieved to date?
22)
If some objectives as above have not been realised, what would you cite as the main reasons for this?
Priorities have changed over time
The plan was overly ambitious
Lack of funding to progress activity
The plan was too wide ranging
Delay in drawing down funding
The plan was wrongly targeted
Lack of capacity among potential providers
Progression was outside control of CCC
Other factors
Please give details
23)
Has the CCC Strategic Plan been updated since it was originally drawn up?
Yes
No
If yes, in what respect?
24)
To what extent does the Strategic Plan reflect the current needs of the local area and the priorities for the future?
To some extent
To a minor extent
No longer relevant
Why is this the case?
25)
If not, what is guiding the activities of the CCC?
Page 8
26)
C.
27)
In developing your Strategic Plans 2007-2010, what key differences from your previous plan do you anticipate,
given the change in your role with the transition from the EOCP to the NCIP?
The CCC Annual Action Plans
How would you rate the guidance provided by Pobal in drawing up the CCC Annual Action Plan?
Very satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Very unsatisfactory
Please give details
28)
Is the structured, consistent approach to annual action planning, with actions
planned under 9 headings, an effective approach to meeting local needs?
Yes
No
If no, why is this approach inappropriate?
29)
Are any of the action headings on which the action plans are based particularly important in delivering effective
local childcare provision via the EOCP?
Information
Networking
Capacity Building (Providers)
Social Inclusion
Equality and Diversity
Capacity Building (Staff & C’tee)
Training
Quality
Childminding Initiative
Please give details
30)
Is there a need for any additional action headings within the plans in order to fully cover all aspects of local
childcare needs?
31)
Does the Action Plan focus in any way on the issue of quality of childcare services by:
Identifying the need to gather information
Advocating standards
Establishing monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms
Highlighting the need to reflect quality aspects
in organisational strategies of providers
Establishing indicators
Outlining service delivery schemes and
objectives
Highlighting t he need to reflect quality aspects
in design of services
Promoting best practice through training etc
Page 9
32)
Have your Action Plans put any of the following quality-related requirements in place to be met by service
providers?
To have clear aims and objectives
To have clear management structures
To meet minimum legislation requirements
To provide developmentally appropriate
curriculum
To develop working partnerships with parents
To be staffed by sufficiently skilled workforce
To implement equal opportunities policies and
practices
To incorporate play, care and educational
components to service delivery
To have appropriate physical environments
including indoor and outdoor space
To have a system to assess children’s
learning and development needs
33)
34)
To what extent have the actions that have been progressed in your area matched those envisaged in the Annual
Action Plans submitted at the start of the year?
To a minor extent
To some extent
Not at all
If there are differences between the original Plan and activity that has been progressed, what are the reasons for
these differences?
Priorities have changed over time
Plans were overly ambitious
Lack of funding to progress activity
Plans were too wide ranging
Delay in drawing down funding
Plans were wrongly targeted
Lack of capacity among potential providers
Other factors
Please give details
35)
Has your CCC established any monitoring or evaluation systems or adopted any
performance indicators in addition to the ones developed centrally in order to
track progress of activities?
Please give details
36)
What do you consider to be the 3 main strengths of your Annual Action Plans?
Page 10
Yes
No
37)
What do you consider to be the 3 main weaknesses of your Annual Action Plans?
38)
Can you suggest any ways in which the annual action planning process could be improved in the future?
39)
How does your proposed 2007 Action Plan differ from your previous Action Plans as a result of your new role
under the NCIP?
D.
Local Project Activity
The City and County Childcare Committees have progressed many actions with the support of the Equal Opportunities
Childcare Programme. In order to gain an insight into the most significant actions and projects progressed in terms of
meeting local childcare needs, we would like you to identify what you believe to be the 3 most important projects that
have been progressed since the establishment of the EOCP. For each project, we would be grateful if a brief overview
could be provided, together with the broad benefits or impacts realised within the local area, the approximate cost, and
the source(s) of funding. The final question asked with regard to each of the projects is whether, in your opinion, the
project would have been progressed had the EOCP not been established, and if so, would there have been a greater
delay prior to its realisation. A sample of the input we are hoping to receive with regard to each project is provided below.
SAMPLE PROJECT
Project Overview
Sourcing and introducing third level childcare training into the county.
Approximate Cost
€120,000
Source(s) of Funding
Funding of €70,000 received from the EOCP, with €50,000 invested by the local Institute of
Technology.
Benefits/Impacts of
Project in Local Area
For the first time fully accredited childcare qualifications can be obtained within the county. In the
first pilot year of course operation, 40 individuals are participating and will significantly increase the
skills base within the area.
Action Heading
Training
Would the project have progressed in the same manner without EOCP assistance?
Would have progressed in any event at the
same budget and time-scale
9
Would have progressed, but with some delay
Would have progressed, but on smaller scale
Would not have progressed
Impossible to judge
Page 11
PROJECT NUMBER 1 (40)
Project Overview
Approximate Cost
Action Heading
Benefits/Impacts of
Impossible to judge
Project Overview
Approximate Cost
Action Heading
Benefits/Impacts of
Impossible to judge
Project Overview
Approximate Cost
Action Heading
Page 12
Benefits/Impacts of
Impossible to judge
43)
What EOCP funding has been received to date by the CCC under each of the action headings or for other
purposes?
2001
2002
2003
2004
Information
Networking
Capacity Building (Providers)
Training
Capacity Building (Staff and Committee)
Social Inclusion
Equality and Diversity
Quality
Childminding Initiative
Other
44)
Has the CCC played any role in working with potential childcare providers to develop projects and applications in
order to access the EOCP?
Played a significant role
Played a minor role
Played some role
Not at all
Please expand
45)
Did the CCC play any role in the initial development of local EOCP project applications prior to their submission
to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for the national application and selection process?
Played a minor role
Played some role
Not at all
Please expand
Page 13
46)
Does the CCC play any role in working with successful EOCP applicants in order to ensure that the project
progresses effectively and money allocated can be drawn down in a timely and efficient manner?
Plays a significant role
Plays a minor role
Plays some role
Not at all
Please expand
47)
Did the CCC play any role in working with unsuccessful EOCP applicants to overcome the issues that resulted in
rejection and facilitate the progression of projects in the future?
Played a minor role
Played some role
Not at all
Please expand
48)
Does the CCC plan to play any role in working with unsuccessful NCIP applicants to overcome the issues that
resulted in rejection and facilitate the progression of projects in the future?
Will play a significant role
Will play a minor role
Will Play some role
Not at all
Please expand
49)
What is the specific value of the CCC in identifying local childcare needs?
It provides for improved local planning to
respond to the needs of the sector
It provides a forum for local providers and
parents to raise any issues of concern
The staff provide full-time support to local
providers and parents
The Partnership approach facilitates holistic
understanding of the issues involved
Access is provided to EOCP resources to
investigate local needs
The local focus enables a better understanding
of the issues arising in a particular area
Any other specific benefits
50)
How will the CCC’s new role in the NCIP grant process help applicants?
Page 14
51)
Will this assistance make the project applications more responsive to local needs?
Significantly more responsive
Slightly more responsive
Somewhat more responsive
Not at all more responsive
Please expand
52)
Will CCC assistance help to reduce the time taken to complete the project application process?
Reduce time significantly
Reduce time slightly
Reduce time somewhat
Won’t reduce time at all
Please expand
53)
Give a brief outline of your view of the CCCs role in developing schoolage childcare under the NCIP
54)
Has the effectiveness of the CCC in facilitating responses at local level to childcare needs increased over the
lifetime of the programme?
Effectiveness in facilitating responses significantly increased over the lifetime of the programme
Effectiveness in facilitating responses increased to some extent over the lifetime of the programme
Effectiveness in facilitating responses increased to a minor extent over the lifetime of the programme
Effectiveness in facilitating responses remained unchanged over the lifetime of the programme
The programme has become less effective in facilitating responses over its lifetime
Please explain why this is the case
55)
Has the extent to which the local authority has funded or supported local childcare projects increased as a result
of the establishment of the EOCP?
To a minor extent
To some extent
Not at all
Please expand
Page 15
56)
Has the establishment of the EOCP resulted in local agencies (e.g. HSE, FAS, etc.) deploying greater time or
resources to progressing local childcare projects?
To a minor extent
To some extent
Not at all
Please expand
57)
Has the establishment of the EOCP resulted in a greater level of private sector investment in local childcare
projects?
To a minor extent
To some extent
Not at all
Please expand
H.
58)
Overview of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme
Do you believe that the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme has resulted in an increase in the number of
childcare places available within your area?
To a minor extent
To some extent
Not at all
Please expand and give reasons
59)
Do you believe that the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme has resulted in an increase in the quality of
childcare provision within your area?
To a minor extent
To some extent
Not at all
60)
Do you believe that the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme has made a positive impact in terms of
addressing social exclusion within your area?
To a minor extent
To some extent
Not at all
Page 16
61)
Were you satisfied with the funding procedures in place under the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme?
Very satisfied
Dissatisfied
Quite satisfied
Very dissatisfied
If you had issues with any particular aspects of
the funding process scale of funding, the
application assessment, reporting procedures),
please give details:
62)
Were the objectives of the EOCP relevant in addressing local childcare needs?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Please expand and give
reasons
63)
Are the objectives of the NCIP more relevant to addressing local childcare
issues?"
reasons
64)
Is there a need for alternative approaches, locally or nationally, in order to
address local childcare needs?
reasons
65)
Have you encountered any barriers under the EOCP to progressing effective childcare provision and if so what
factors were involved?
66)
Can you suggest any ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of NCIP in terms of the use of its
resources?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP
If you have any queries or difficulties carrying out the survey, please contact:
Ciara Quinlan, Fitzpatrick Associates
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 01 676 3200
Page 17
Annex 5:
Template
CCC
Summary
Page 18
Budget
Annex 6: EOCP Application Form
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Annex 7: NCIP Application Form
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FORM - CAPITAL FUNDING - COMMUNITY SECTOR
NATIONAL CHILDCARE INVESTMENT PROGRAMME 2006 – 2010
FOR USE BY CCC ONLY
Ref: CCX-
Date Logged:
Notes:
DED (Facility Only)
SECTION 1.
Contact Name
APPLICANT DETAILS
Facility Name
Contact Address
Facility
Address
Contact Tel. No.:
Submitted
to
Fax No.:
E-mail:
…………………………………………………………………...
City/County
Childcare
Committee
SECTION 2.
PROJECTED IMPACT OF PROJECT
(NB: When filling in these details, please refer to the Guidance Notes
provided for the definitions of the type of places provided.)
Currently Provided
Proposed
(if applicable)
Sessional
Part-time
Full-time
Sessional
Part Time
Full Time
Number of places per day
Number of days per week
Number of weeks per year
Please tick the box if this
Pre-school (3-4 yr old) education
Pre-school (3-4 yr old) education
includes either of the following
School Age Childcare
School Age Childcare
types of service
(More than one option may be
ticked)
Estimate the date of commencement of New Service
SECTION 3.
FUNDING
Note the type of Capital funding requested
Page 34
(More than one option may be ticked)
Site costs
Professional Fees
Purchase costs of premises
Fixtures and Fittings
Construction/renovation costs
Equipment Costs
Estimate
the
amount
of
Capital
funding
€
requested*
* Please Note: maximum available =
€1,000,000
Signed: ___________________________________________________________________
Position In Group: _________________________________________________________
Date: ____________________________________________________________________
Page 35
Summary of the Application Process
STEP 1:
Complete the one page form and contact your local City/County
Childcare Committee (CCC) for guidance and support
•
See overleaf for one page Expression Of Interest form
STEP 2: Following a support phase with your CCC, prepare a Project Proposal which
demonstrates the following;
1. The nature and extent of the need for the service you propose
2. Your capacity to deliver in terms childcare expertise and
professional management of the operations
3. How the proposal constitutes value for money
•
Contact your CCC for a Project Proposal form
STEP 3: The CCC will review your Project Proposal in light of their strategic mapping
exercise, and Programme criteria and include it within the county portfolio for national
consideration.
•
The CCC may suggest amendments to enhance your Project
Proposal
STEP 4: Pobal reviews County portfolios and presents funding recommendations to the Office of the
Minister for Children’s Programme Appraisal Committee leading to funding decisions by the Secretary
General of the Dept. Health and Children.
STEP 5: Following the decision, which is notified to the applicant by the Office of the Minister for
Children, Pobal will deal with the following aspects of the grant, in liaison with the CCC:
• Implementation plan to achieve the project within budget and
in line with Programme criteria
•
Offer of contract
•
Financial payments
•
Monitoring of performance and expenditure
•
Training and support
Page 36
Annex 8: Independent Evaluation of the
Value-for-Money Review
1.
Context
1.1
Introduction
Raymond Burke Consulting (RBC) was commissioned by the Office of the Minister of
Children (OMC) to carry out an Independent Evaluation of the Value for Money
Review of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme (EOCP) that was prepared
by Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants.
The focus of the Review also extends to the successor of the Equal Opportunities
Childcare Programme, namely, the National Childcare Investment Programme 2006
– 2010 (NCIP) with an overall purpose to examine the delivery of the Equal
Opportunities
Childcare
Programme
2000-06
with
a
view
to
making
recommendations on the future development of the National Childcare Investment
Programme 2006-10.
Value-for-Money or Expenditure Reviews are part of a process introduced by the
Government in 1997 within the context of the Strategic Management Initiative to
analyse in a systematic way what is being achieved by Government spending and to
provide a basis on which more informed decisions can be made on priorities within
and between programmes.
The process is overseen by the Central Steering
Committee (CSC) on Programme Evaluation, chaired by the Secretary General of the
Department of Finance.
The CSC has appointed a Panel of Independent Evaluation Experts from which a
person is selected for the assessment of the Expenditure Review. That person’s role
is to comment on the evaluative process and methodologies rather than on any policy
recommendations set out in reports per se.
1.2
Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000 - 2006
The Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000 – 2006 (EOCP II) was launched
as an element of the National Development Plan 2000 – 2006 (NDP) and was largely
funded through the two Regional Operational Programmes for the Border, Midlands
and Western Region (BMW) and the Southern and Eastern Region (S&E)
respectively. The main objectives of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme
were

To improve the quality of childcare;

To maintain and increase the number of childcare facilities and places; and

To introduce a co-ordinated approach to the delivery of childcare services.
Page 37
Funding for the EOCP is channelled through the two Regional Operational
Programmes as elements of the Social Inclusion and Childcare Priority or SubProgramme. Each of the Operational Programmes refers to the lack of childcare as a
significant contributor to exclusion from available education, training and employment
opportunities. They note that this impacts most severely on women, in particular
disadvantaged women and single parent families.
There were three categories of assistance:

Capital Grant Scheme for Childcare Facilities
Grant assistance to renovate, upgrade or build a suitable facility for the purpose
of providing a childcare service, subject to qualifying conditions. Grant assistance
was also available to equip such facilities with suitable materials and equipment.

Support for Staffing Costs Measure
This measure is only available for those community based/not for profit groups
operating in an area of significant disadvantage or for services that have a
specific focus on disadvantage.

Quality Improvement Measure
The objective of this measure was to improve the quality of childcare services
through the training and education of childcare workers and establishment of
support networks for childcare providers. It was implemented differently from the
other two measures as it involved provision of operational funding to relevant
network-type organisations (mainly to 33 City/County Childcare Committees and
seven National Voluntary Childcare Organisations) to implement Strategic Plans,
which impacted on the EOCP objectives.
1.3
National Childcare Investment Programme 2006 - 2010
The new National Childcare Investment Programme (NCIP) follows on from the
EOCP as the primary source of public funding for childcare facilities in Ireland. The
NCIP is a part of the wider National Childcare Strategy 2006-10, launched in
December 2005. This also includes interventions with regard to maternity leave, and
introduction of an early childcare supplement and childcare training. It aims to
improve the availability and quality of childcare to meet the needs of children and
their parents.
Within the Strategy, the NCIP aims to provide a funding response to the local
planning and development of quality childcare supports and services centred on the
needs of the child and the family. Three key objectives have been defined for the
NCIP as follows:

Increase the supply and improve the quality of early childhood care and
education services, part-time and full day care, school age childcare and
childminding,
Page 38

Support a co-ordinated approach to the delivery of childcare, which is centred on
the needs of the child.
The new multi-annual investment programme is seeking to create 50,000 additional
childcare places by 2010. It will be funded entirely by the Exchequer and involve
investment of €575m over five years.
1.4
Terms of Reference
The Terms of Reference for the Review were as follows:

1.5
Identification of the EOCP and NCIP objectives, including how they have evolved
over time.
Consideration of the continuing validity of these objectives and their fit with wider
Government policy.
Identification, and where possible/appropriate quantification, of the level and
trend of outputs and associated outcomes achieved by the EOCP.
Examination of the extent to which the EOCP’s objectives have been achieved
and the effectiveness with which they have been achieved.
Examination of the way in which the mechanisms for delivery of the EOCP have
been developed, including their development into new arrangements for the
delivery of the NCIP, and comment on the efficiency with which these have
achieved the EOCP objectives (and would be expected to achieve the NDP
objectives).
Evaluation of the degree to which the EOCP objectives, and now the NCIP
objectives, warrant the allocation of public funding on a current and ongoing
basis.
Evaluation of the scope for alternative policy or organisational approaches to
achieving the full range of EOCP/NCIP objectives more efficiently or effectively.
Specification of potential future performance indicators which might be used to
better monitor performance of the NCIP.
Assessment Criteria
This Evaluation Report was prepared in the context of the Criteria established by the
Central Steering Committee on Programme Evaluation and with particular reference
to:

The composition of the Review’s Steering Group

The planning, approach and management of the Expenditure Review

The contents and structure of the Expenditure Review

The appropriateness of and how the Terms of Reference were addressed

Understanding of the issues

The clarity and quality of analysis

Financial appraisal

Any comparative benchmarking and analysis undertaken

The logic and rationale of any options and recommendations

Any monitoring procedures and processes proposed
Page 39

Determination of relevant Performance Indicators and Value for Money (3Es)

Matters for any further investigation and inclusion

Ease of reading and flow
It should be noted that the objective of the Consultant’s assessment is to comment on
the evaluative process and methodologies rather than any policy recommendations
set out in the Report per se.
1.6
Key Findings of the VfM Review
The principal Findings of the Consultant’s Report are summarised below:

The increase in female labour force participation since 1994 has resulted in
strong demand for non-parental childcare and there is insufficient provision to
meet this need
Childcare is a central theme of Government policy
The OMC is responsible for managing the delivery of the NCIP. The creation of
this Office should facilitate achievement of the multi-faceted objectives of the
programme; however this will only be the case if co-location leads to practical
coordination of activities, with sufficiently flexible approaches in place within the
respective individual departments to allow effective joint approaches to be
developed
The assessment of the local impacts of the EOCP would suggest that the
Programme has made significant in-roads in terms of increasing childcare
provision, with high levels of additionality evident from the funding allocated
Almost 31,750 new childcare places have been provided, exceeding the target
set for the Programme, with 4,039 full-time and 4,613 part-time childcare staff
positions supported. City/County Childcare Committees have delivered 322
accredited courses with 3,888 participants, while National Voluntary Childcare
Organisations have delivered 89 accredited courses with 1,220 participants
However the objectives of the EOCP and NCIP continue to warrant the allocation
of funding on an ongoing basis given the needs for childcare interventions that
still exist in most areas of Ireland
The comparison of international approaches revealed that there is now a
generally accepted link between childcare and education in the policy
approaches of most developed economies. It was noted that all-inclusive policies
had generally been adopted with regard to early childhood education, targeting
all children regardless of socio-economic background. This differs somewhat
from the focus of current policy in Ireland, where early education interventions
have primarily been targeted on disadvantaged areas thus far
A multi-tiered approach was adopted to the project selection and application
process and it was noted that, while ensuring that sufficiently senior departmental
representatives can input into decision-making, it seemed overly complex.
However, given the scale of the programme and the involvement of several
parties in its delivery and management, it is difficult to see how a more simplified
structure could be put in place which would provide a sufficient degree of system
control
The slow-down in processing grants during 2004 had a significant impact on the
level of throughput of projects via the programme. Capacity issues among
community and voluntary organisations were also found to have caused delays,
particularly in the management of capital projects and it was noted that further
technical expertise was required to progress these projects effectively
Page 40

It was highlighted that as a result of the data available with regard to performance
of the programme, calculation of unit costs was highly problematic
There is a strong case for performance indicators to incorporate ‘whole cost’
measurements with regard to the facilities supported via the Programme
The CCCs and other support structures that were put in place to assist in the
implementation of the EOCP have been of mixed effectiveness over the lifetime
of the programme
There has been a very steep learning curve for the stakeholders involved in the
CCCs and that this meant that progress in establishing the Committees as
effective mechanisms in addressing local needs and helping to develop
responses to those needs was slow in the initial years of the programme.
Nevertheless there was evidence of positive impacts arising from the
establishment of the CCCs in terms of development of more effective working
partnerships, promoting best practice locally via provision of training and
advocating adherence to standards and in supporting local promoters to develop
projects
The NVCOs played important roles in terms of capacity building at local level and
in serving as representative structures for particular interest groups. However
there was some evidence of duplication of activities across NVCOs and also in
relation to those undertaken by the CCCs
the stakeholders involved in the development of EOCP supported projects were
from diverse backgrounds, with many originating from wider community
development initiatives, while others involved expansion of existing childcare
facilities
The application process attracted significant criticism from stakeholders from
EOCP supported projects
Although the development worker function in Pobal was effective in many cases,
there appeared to be a high level of turnover in the key contacts within the
agency that EOCP applicants dealt with over time, causing frustration and
inefficiencies
There should be greater transparency within the application process with a
mechanism established to allow applications to be tracked through the appraisal
process
There is considerable scope for the income generated by EOCP and now NCIPsupported community-based services to be increased, with maximum fees
raised, for an effective tiered fee system put in place in all services, and
appropriate minimum fees set. However it was also found that if public sector
support was withdrawn from C&V facilities as they presently stand, the majority
would be forced to cease operations within a very short timeframe
Within the present structure, the Consultants argue that large-scale capital
funding should continue during the period of the new programme (i.e. 2006-10)
but that it should be planned such that an adequate national supply should by
then be in place and that capital funding thereafter would become smaller scale
and exceptional post 2010
The development of the objectives and focus of the EOCP and NCIP over time
have generally reflected national policy in relation to childcare and the multiplicity
of issues that childcare provision seeks to address. At the start of the programme
there was a strong emphasis on increasing the female participation rate, and
childcare provision was identified a key mechanism by which this could be
achieved. Social inclusion has always been a key national policy objective since
inception of the EOCP, and the growing recognition that the availability of quality
childcare provision is a prerequisite to a number of family support and early
intervention strategies is reflected in the development of the new NCIP objectives
Page 41
Page 42
1.7
Key Recommendations of the VfM Review
Two sets of recommendations were proposed by the Consultants. One set related to
the period 2007 – 2010, while the other set related to post 2010.
1.7.1
Recommendations 2007 - 2010
2. Recommendation 1 – The NCIP should continue to provide capital
grants subject to ongoing monitoring of local needs. The CCCs should
play a critical role in determining where ongoing needs for additional
childcare provision exist, where local childcare needs have been met, the
capital element of the programme should be withdrawn.
3. Recommendation 2 – For community-based capital grants, project
management functions and costs should be included as a central
component of the programme and included as a condition of funding.
4. Recommendation 3 – Staffing grants should be introduced for
community-based facilities under the NCIP and should be based on
ensuring that effective tiered fee structures are put in place in all facilities,
that maximum and minimum fees are set at an appropriate level and that
these conditions are an integral part of the eligibility criteria for funding.
Continued eligibility for staffing grants should be monitored to ensure that
all facilities seek to move towards sustainability.
5. Recommendation 4 – For community-based staffing grants, approval
should be given for a minimum of three years. EOCP staffing grant
recipients should, where possible, be considered for NCIP funding prior
to the termination of their existing grant.
6. Recommendation 5 – Consideration should be given to adoption and
implementation of criteria based on levels of disadvantage to determine
whether facilities will be eligible for staffing support assessed on the
basis of needs in the short to medium term or on a medium to longer
term basis.
7. Recommendation 6 – There should be greater transparency within the
application process with a mechanism established to allow applications
to be tracked through the development and appraisal processes. The
criteria for determining the level of staffing grant support should be more
clearly defined and applied
8. Recommendation 7 – Consideration should be given to providing a
proportion of a community-based organisation’s operational costs in
order to provide more scope for quality provision, particularly for larger
services in the most disadvantaged areas.
9. Recommendation 8 – The adoption of the principles and standards
within Siolta by NCIP supported services should be formally encouraged
within the criteria for the programme, with consideration being given to
setting resources aside to facilitate the development of provision in this
regard.
10. Recommendation 9 – The objectives of the NCIP are valid, but further
articulation of how the programme can address the objective of
supporting families to break the cycle of poverty and disadvantage is
required.
11. Recommendation 10 – Information relating to the wider costs of
operating community-based services, should be gathered to facilitate a
greater understanding of the cost components, and the provision of
appropriate responses in this regard.
Page 43
12. Recommendation 11 – The National Data Strategy which is being
developed by the OMC in liaison with the HSE and CECDE should be
used to coordinate the gathering of local-level information to support the
planning and delivery of policy and services for early childhood care and
education.
13. Recommendation 12 – The CCCs should play a more prominent role in
improving the quality of childcare provision at local level, utilising their
role within the grant application process might be utilised to ensure
adherence to requirements or standards.
14. Recommendation 13 – The number of headings under which activities
are required to be proposed in CCC action plans should be reduced, with
social inclusion and equality and diversity made horizontal principles that
underpin all activities.
15. Recommendation 14 – The remits of the NVCOs should be closer
defined in order to reduce levels of duplication between these
organisations and also to avoid overlap with the activities of the CCCs.
16. Recommendation 15 – The level of national and regional supply,
demand, customer satisfaction, waiting levels, etc. should be monitored
on an ongoing basis, with a view to establishing when there is sufficient
supply in place, i.e. when large-scale capital subvention could be
withdrawn as its continuation would then begin to result in large-scale
deadweight and displacement.
1.7.2
Recommendations Beyond 2010
17. that this be seen as a new third “mature” phase and that both policy
thinking and interventions now be developed to reflect this status;
18. that large-scale capital investment at that stage be phased out and that in
the interim (2007-10) the necessary capital investment is made available;
19. that in the interim, alternative forms of ongoing subvention to the current
one, which is primarily a mix of ECOP, staffing grants, CE and in some
cases free and subsidised access to premises be replaced by some kind
of less ad hoc and more structured system. Such a system should be:
19.1
transparent;
19.2
have clear parameters from the point of view of Exchequer
commitments;
19.3
better targeted upon appropriate groups, including socially
excluded groups;
19.4
more neutral as between different types of supplier.
20. The possibilities of such systems, e.g. labour subsidies, vouchers for
childcare users, should be explored in the interim, drawing in particular
on international experience;
21. the role of the present Programme structures, including both the central
structures and local structures, would also need to be given
consideration in this context. There might for example be scope to scale
back on the CCCs, have smaller local co-ordinating or networking
functions, and attach these to another body rather than having them
stand alone (e.g. the new Cohesion structures, local authorities, DES
Regional Offices, or the HSE);
22. that responsibility for the regulatory/quality assurance function is clearly
assigned to an appropriate body, with suitable national and local “reach”,
and that it be appropriately independent from service providers and other
stakeholders.
Page 44
1.8
Key Findings of the Independent Evaluator
The key findings of this independent Evaluation are

Fitzpatrick Associates has prepared a detailed, comprehensive and professional
Review of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme
The extensive interview and consultation programme and the high response rate
to the Survey of City and County Childcare Committees provide the authority for
the findings and recommendations
The Review confirms that the Programme has given rise to additional childcare
places that would not exist without the funding provided
The Terms of Reference for the Review are appropriate but should have included
an explicit reference to the ‘Economy’ aspects of the Programmes. Efficiency
can be interpreted to be concerned more with delivery than cost

The Terms of Reference are more appropriate in Chapter 1

The recommendations proposed are relevant and appropriate

Membership of the Steering Group should be included in the Annexes

Was any feedback received on the Conclusions and Recommendations from the
Steering Group? Can it be included?

There should be an Executive Summary

Can/should the case studies be identified?

Were there many at the Regional Workshops?

There should be more detail of the role of the HSE which has the responsibility
for inspecting and regulating childcare facilities
Would there be any merit in presenting International Practice as a stand-alone
Chapter?
The UK National Audit Office has produced a Report entitled Early Years:
Progress in Developing High Quality Childcare and Early Education Accessible to
All extracts of which could be included in the Evaluation on how childcare is dealt
with operationally in the UK
References to the new National Development Plan and the National Action Plan
for Social Inclusion should also be included in Chapter 3

Copies of the EOCP and NCIP application forms should be included as an Annex

Are there any details of the number of applications rejected?

Has the Secretary General of the Department ever rejected a recommendation
made to him or recommended a grant where not recommended?
Should there be some discussion on the range and nature of the training
provided under Sub-Measure 3?
There should be some explanation as to why there is a 2007 Estimate of €113m
for the EOCP which is meant to cover the period 2000 – 2006
Is there a need for a comment on why there is not an explicit Quality
Improvement sub-measure in the NCIP particularly for training and upskilling?
There should be greater clarity in how the CCCs are funded under the NCIP
It would be interesting to relate the analysis in Table 5.7 to population and levels
of social deprivation in the respective local authority areas
Are there any statistics on the number of projects funded in each county and the
number of places supported for each project? This might give some idea on
whether some counties are getting more funding than others. An analysis of unit
Page 45
cost might suggest that economies of scale are available and, if so, should there
be greater support for the ‘larger’ childcare facility?

Is Chapter 5 the most appropriate location for a Review of Performance
Indicators? The Review might be more appropriate as a stand-alone chapter
later in the Review
The costs of operating the CCCs and details of their staffing should be indicated
The Review notes that the new CCC Strategic Plans will follow nine headings.
What are they?
Do the CCCs provide Value for Money?
Equally, do the NVCOs provide Value for Money? How is their performance
monitored and their expenditure audited? How do they account for their grants?
Are there any opportunities for streamlining and making less bureaucratic the
application process?
A little more detail on the broader economic impact should be provided. If time
and budget permits (or as a follow-up study), an outline and indicative costbenefit analysis could be attempted relating the earnings and tax take from the
additional employment and decrease in benefits arising with the cost of the
Programme; see http://www.pwc.com/uk/eng/about/ind/gov/PwC_UCC_ReportAug_03.pdf
Are there any staff, budgetary or training requirements arising for Pobal? If so,
please indicate
There should be a recommendation that future EOCP Annual Beneficiary
Surveys have an explicit question that looks at the number of parents that have
entered employment, education or training arising from the provision of childcare
facilities funded by the EOCP/NCIP
Funding and cost performance indicators should also be provided on a per unit
per project basis for comparative purposes
While recognising that the whole area of cost analysis is problematic and that the
cost estimates are indicative, it is difficult to believe, as the Review suggests, that
the private sector is experiencing ongoing losses. If this was the case, why are
there so many private childcare facilities in place and surviving?
There should be a final sub-section in the Conclusions and Recommendations
section entitled Next Steps and detailing how the Recommendations should be
progressed and tracked
The cost of administering the EOCP over the seven year period is estimated by
this Evaluator to be of the order of 10 per cent of the cost of Sub-Measures 1 and
2 (€285 million) and the Operational Aspects of Sub-Measure 3 (€70 million)
The Final Report should incorporate consistent ‘total’ figures in respect of
funding, draw-downs, childcare places and staffing, particularly between Tables
5.2 and 5.3
Page 46
1.9
Approach
The approach adopted by the Assessor was as follows:

1.10
A draft Evaluation Report was prepared for and issued to the Office
During the course of the preparation of the Evaluation Report, phone discussions
were held with Fitzpatrick Associates, the OMC and Pobal to clarify certain
matters in the Expenditure Review
A meeting was held on 22 February at the OMC with Ms Moira O’Mara and Mr
Eoin Halpin of the Office to discuss the Expenditure Review, and the findings and
suggestions of the Independent Evaluator
The Evaluation Report was then finalised based on the comments received
Structure of the Review
Following this Introduction,

Chapter 2 deals with the Review from an evaluation perspective

Chapter 3 deals with the Review from a presentation and structure perspective

Chapter 4 presents, in the form of a Conclusions Chapter, the key points of the
Evaluation
There are two Appendices.
1.11
Acknowledgements
Raymond Burke would like to thank Messrs Jim Fitzpatrick and Andrew Brownlee of
Fitzpatrick Associates, Ms Moira O’Mara and Mr Eoin Halpin of the Office of the
Minister for Children and Ms Joan McGarry, Finance Team Leader in Pobal, for their
assistance and inputs into this independent evaluation.
Page 47
2.
Value for Money Review Analysis
In this Chapter, we present the key matters of relevance from each of the Chapters of the
Review and suggest possible changes under the heading of ‘Comments’.
2.1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
This Chapter provides the background to the Value for Money Review and provides
some detail on Childcare Provision in Ireland.
It then describes the Equal
Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000 – 06 and the National Childcare
Investment Programme 2006 – 2010. The chapter concludes with setting out the
structure of the Report.
Comments
There should be a separate Executive Summary
I would have liked to have seen the Terms of Reference of the
Review in this Chapter. This would have given me a sense of what
the Review was all about
Does a reduction in the unemployment rate grow the labour force?
Some sense of the significance of the Programme, either in its own
right or within the Department’s overall budget, should be provided
Also, a summary of the principal Findings and Recommendations
would form a helpful section of this Chapter
Various costs for the delivery of the Programme are mentioned in this
Chapter and elsewhere but do not appear to tie up particularly with
figures presented in Chapter 5, eg €499m on page 3 and €368m on
page 5 which is to end 2005
Appendix 1 to this Report was provided by the OMC; it might be
helpful to include it in the Consultant’s Review
2.2
Chapter 2: Methodology
This Chapter sets out the Terms of Reference for the Value for Money Review. It
also provides details of the methodology applied. Including the research tasks
undertaken.
Following an inception meeting held with the Office of the Minister for Children on 21st
August 2006 to commence the process, Fitzpatrick Associates has met directly with
the OMC on five occasions in order to discuss progress.
Comments
As noted earlier, I would have preferred to have seen the Terms of
Reference in Chapter 1
There should have been an explicit reference to a consideration of
the cost of the Programmes in the Terms of Reference
No Annex 2 with documentation reviewed provided
Considerable research was carried out by Fitzpatrick Associates as
well as Stakeholder Consultation was carried out including with the
OMC and the Steering Group
Page 48
The Surveys, four Regional Workshops and Case Studies were
valuable inputs into the process and provide authority for the
findings, analysis and recommendations presented
Were there many at the Regional Workshops?
Can the case studies be identified?
How many questionnaire responses were received? 28 or 26 (see
page 60); in either case, it is an excellent response rate for a
questionnaire
2.3
Chapter 3: Policy Context
This Chapter previews the various policy matters that set the context for the
assessment of the EOCP. It does so under three headings.
2.3.1
National Policy Developments
National Policy Developments considers the new social partnership
agreement, Towards 2016: A Ten Year Social Partnership Framework, as
well as the National Childcare Strategy and Siolta, the National Quality
Framework for Early Childcare Education in Ireland.
2.3.2
The Role of Key Departments and Agencies
The Role of Key Departments and Agencies describing how the
establishment of the Office of the Minister for Children could be a highly
positive step from the perspective of meeting the multi-faceted objectives that
have been laid down for the NCIP and given the experiences of EOCP
implementation. The Office has been charged with the responsibility for
managing delivery of the EOCP and NCIP, the programmes and activities of
the former National Children’s Office, and policy work on Child Protection
(previously undertaken by the Department of Health and Children).
The section also examines the roles of the Department of Education and
Science and the Department of Finance.
2.3.3
Comparing International Approaches
The Consultants address the topic of International Comparisons by
considering how such matters as early childhood education, targeting social
exclusion, and the role of the community and voluntary sector are dealt with.
Much use is made of work carried out by the OECD and the experience of a
number of OECD countries including Canada, the UK, New Zealand and the
Netherlands.
Comments
This Chapter would benefit from initially setting out the policy context
for the Programmes actually under review in this Evaluation
Should there be more detail of the role of the HSE which has the
responsibility for inspecting and regulating childcare facilities?
Page 49
Would there be any merit of having a short stand-alone chapter on
International Practice? The UK National Audit Office has produced
an interesting Report entitled Early Years: Progress in Developing
High Quality Childcare and Early Education Accessible to All (HC
268) published 27 February 200419 extracts of which could be
included in the Evaluation of how childcare is dealt with operationally
in the UK.
The other UK web site of interest is
http://www.childcarelink.gov.uk/
This Chapter should be updated to take account of the recently
published National Development Plan as well as the forthcoming
National Action Plan for Social Inclusion which is reputed to indicate
that more than 100,000 childcare places are to be created by 2016
(Irish Times, Monday, 5 February 2007)
2.4
Chapter 4: Delivery of the EOCP 2000 - 2006
This Chapter commences with an examination of the programme management and
administration noting that Pobal (the former ADM) is responsible for the day-to-day
delivery of the Programme.
It then goes on to describe the structure of the Programme which has three submeasures dealing with

capital grants

staffing grants (for community or not-for-profit groups only)

quality improvement
Different conditions apply for the community or not-for-profit childcare groups and the
private sector.
The next major section of the Delivery Process deals with Project Application and the
Selection Process. Various sub-committees and Pobal are involved with the final
recommendation to the Secretary General of the Department of Health and Children.
This sub-section is good accompanied with clear diagrams of the processes involved.
A small section follows with the Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements.
This chapter continues with details of the National Childcare Investment Programme
2006 – 2010. The NCIP, which was announced on 7 December 2005, came into
effect on 1 January 2006 and succeeded the EOCP 2000-06. During 2006-07, the
EOCP continues to be operational across the 3 sub-measures (other than for private
sector capital grants) in parallel with the new programme. From the end of 2006,
grant applications ceased to be processed, however, drawdown and verification of
funding for approved grant recipients will continue until the end of 2007. The NCIP,
like the EOCP, is administered by the Office of the Minister for Children and managed
on a day-to-day basis by Pobal.
19
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/03-04/0304268.pdf
Page 50
Comments
if Capital Grants for the private sector is limited to €50,790, why is
the average in 2005 €54,311 (Table 5.4)?
Should a copy of the EOCP and NCIP application forms be included
as an appendix?
Are there any details of the number of applications rejected?
Some discussion on the range and nature of training courses
provided under Sub-Measure 3 would be useful
Has the Secretary General of the Department ever rejected a
recommendation made to him or recommended a grant where not
recommended?
The role of the HSE in monitoring should be noted
What is the Katharine Howard Foundation?
Are there any opportunities in streamlining and making less
bureaucratic the application process?
There should be greater clarity in how the CCCs are funded under
the NCIP
There should be some linkage with the comments made on delivery
in section 7.4
2.5
Chapter 5: Performance of the EOCP 2000 - 06
This major Chapter examines overall EOCP Funding and provides a detailed analysis
of the distribution of that funding by sub-programme, per project and by Region. The
Chapter also presents statistics in relation to staff ad childcare places supported by
the Programme 2000 – 2006 broken down by local authority area. The Chapter
presents details of Unit Costs and discusses increased labour market participation.
Finally,
the
authors
address
Key
Performance
Indicators
and
makes
recommendations for additional Indicators.
2.5.1
Overall EOCP Funding
Funding of €564.7m was allocated to the EOCP over the period 2000 – 06, a
figure that is net of some €14m de-committed for various operational or other
reasons. Only €348m or 62 per cent of the total sum has been drawn down
primarily because only 44 per cent co-financed capital grants has been
drawn down. The authors note that this can mainly be attributed to two
factors. Firstly, in 2004, at the time of the mid-term review of the EOCP, the
rate of processing of capital grants slowed, leading to a significant backlog to
overcome in the later stages of the programme. This also resulted in a need
for many projects to update and re-submit a range of material in relation of
the project, causing further time lags, while capacity issues also arose as a
result of the key contacts for a project changing during this period.
Further, these issues augmented a problem that had existed throughout the
implementation of the EOCP in relation to the capability of organisations
within the community and voluntary sector to effectively develop childcare
Page 51
projects through to operation stage. The stakeholders involved in many of the
community projects tended to be from a general community development
background and often found it difficult to understand the exact specifications
required within a childcare project in order to meet legislative requirements
and also those of the EOCP. Significant work has been undertaken by the
CCCs in recent years to develop capacity in these areas, but there is no
doubt that such issues acted as a major barrier to drawing down funding for
community projects after the initial allocations had been made.
2.5.2
Distribution of Funding
The average capital grant award over the period 2000-06 for co-funded
assistance stood at €162,963, while purely exchequer funded capital grants
were generally smaller scale in nature, with an average of €46,420. The
equivalent average staffing grants over the period were €90,996 and €63,643
from co-funded and exchequer sources respectively.
The consultants note that there are also some notable characteristics in the
scale of grants awarded under sub-measure 2. In the initial years of the
programme, staffing grants were awarded on a multi-annual basis, explaining
the high average awards in 2000 and 2001. During the period in which
staffing grants were renewed for shorter-term periods, the averages fell. The
average for 2006 does however seem more in line with the experience of the
earlier years of the programme.
An analysis of grant size bands shows that 14 per cent of grants (90) were
awarded co-financed grants in excess of €1m, a situation which is not
feasible under the NCIP.
Sub-measure 3 Grants were targeted at CCCs and NVCOs. The amounts
allocated to CCCs were generally based on the populations that they served;
however, Dublin and Galway received higher grants because of the particular
populations that they served.
2.5.3
Nature of Activities Funded
Figures 5.2 and 5.3 as well as section 5.4.2 provide an analysis of how the
various grants are utilised.
2.5.4
Programme Performance and Beneficiaries
The analysis of the impacts of the EOCP 2000-06 was drawn from the
Monitoring Committee reports for the Border, Midland and Western and
Southern and Eastern Regional Assemblies for Autumn 2006 detailing
performance of the programme up until the end of June 2006. Table 5.6
summarises the main EOCP performance indicators in this regard.
Page 52
The evaluation notes that
23. Within the Southern and Eastern Region, 20,878 new childcare places
have been created since establishment of the EOCP (as at June 2006),
of which 10,162 were full time.
24. Within the Border, Midland and Western Region, 10,872 new childcare
places have been created since the establishment of the EOCP (as at
June 2006), of which 3,292 were full-time.
25. Overall, 31,750 new childcare places have been created in Ireland as a
result of the EOCP, of which 13,454 are full-time in nature.
There is also Table 5.7 which details Staff and Childcare Places supported
by EOCP.
2.5.5
ECOP Unit Costs
Details of Unit Cost for Sub-Measures 1 and 2, overall are presented in Table
5.8.
2.5.6
Labour Market Participation
The authors note that over the period of implementation of the EOCP, there
was a significant increase in the female labour force participation rate from
47% in June to August 1999 to 53% in the equivalent period in 2006. As the
lack of childcare services served as a barrier to parents accessing
employment prior to the establishment of the programme, it is reasonable to
assume that the provision of a substantial quantity of additional childcare
places has had some impact on this increase in participation levels. However
the extent of this impact cannot be fully clarified.
More programme-level analysis can also be provided to highlight the EOCP
impact in terms of participation by considering the 2005 EOCP Annual
Beneficiary Survey conducted by Pobal which is summarised in Table 5.10 of
the Review. Although the analysis does not allow any solid conclusions to be
drawn on the additionality of the EOCP, it shows that almost three-quarters of
female parents were participating in either education, training or employment,
indicating that the primary purpose of the programme was being realised to a
significant extent. There was a much higher incidence of part-time
employment, education and training among female parents, perhaps
indicating that part-time childcare places can also make an important
contribution in facilitating employment impacts.
2.5.7
Key Performance Indicators
The authors present details of the KPIs currently used to monitor the
performance of the Programme and present a further 18 Indicators that could
be used. They note that the indicators are generally quantity and output
focused, and given the focus of the new programme, there is a need to
Page 53
expand the base of indicators to closer reflect the wider impacts of
interventions and the quality of childcare being provided.
They also argue that there is a strong case however for performance
indicators to go beyond this and incorporate ‘whole cost’ measurements with
regard to the facilities supported via the programme.
In addition, they believe that it is important to begin to gather information in
relation to the income generated by childcare facilities from fees with the
provision of this information made a condition of funding as with that
concerning wider costs. This will allow tighter control of the implementation of
tiered fee structures and the need for projects to focus on maximising fee
income. It will also allow trends in sustainability to be monitored over time.
Finally, the Consultants recommend that it is made a condition of funding that
recipients adhere to the principles and standards defined by Síolta. If this is
adopted, some system should be put in place in order to monitor the adoption
of these principles and standards in projects post-funding.
Comments
A very detailed and important chapter
Could a further column, Net Allocation, be included in Table 5.2 (to
link back to Table 5.1)?
The total allocation in sub-section 5.4.2 should add up to €174.9m?
Could figures 5.2 and 5.3 have percentage breakdowns to be
consistent with fig 5.1?
It would be interesting to relate the analysis in table 5.7 to population
and levels of social deprivation in the respective local authority areas
Are there any statistics on the number of projects funded in each
county and the number of places supported for each project? This
might give some idea on whether some counties are getting more
funding than others. An analysis of unit cost might suggest that
economies of scale are available and, if so, should there be greater
support for the ‘larger’ childcare facility?
Are there any statistics on childcare place utilisation?
Why is the number of childcare workers funded in the S & E Region
lower than the target?
There should be some linking text that relates the childcare places
noted in the Pobal Grants Database (Table 5.7) and the KPIs
reported by the two Regional Assemblies
It might be worth exploring how the labour market status of parents
using EOCP supported childcare services compares with the
population as a whole
The consultants rightly note that the Annual Beneficiary Survey
provides an important opportunity to gauge the benefits and impacts
of the EOCP and NCIP from a parent’s perspective, and is important
that similar surveys under the NCIP give more consideration to
probing for additionality
Page 54
The total funding allocated (€556m) and average capital grants in the
Conclusions section do not coincide with earlier figures
Is this chapter the most appropriate location for a review of
Performance Indicators? It might be more appropriate as a standalone chapter later in the Review
2.6
Chapter 6: Role of the CCCs and NVCOs
The establishment of City and County Childcare Committees (CCCs) and the
designation of National Voluntary Childcare Organisations were designed as
mechanisms by which the EOCP could be more effectively delivered and its
objectives realised. Thirty-three CCCs were established – one in each local authority
area – to serve as mechanisms for monitoring local childcare provision, identifying
local childcare needs, co-ordinating local delivery, helping to develop appropriate
responses to meet these needs, and providing support to local providers to ensure
that services were delivered effectively.
At a national level, seven National Voluntary Childcare Organisations (NVCO) took
on a variety of responsibilities, including representation of a particular stakeholder
group within the childcare sector, information provision, conducting of research,
policy development, and capacity building with local organisations.
The chapter describes the structures of these organisations, the CCCs in particular,
and provide the CCC view of Pobal. Pobal has played an important role in helping to
develop the role of the CCCs and their capacity to act as a mechanism to meet
childcare needs at local level. There is a high level of satisfaction among CCCs with
the general guidance provided by the agency in supporting the activities of the CCC.
Of particular value was the designation of a specific key contact person within Pobal
for each CCC, allowing effective working relationships to be developed between the
two parties. However it was also noted that staff turnover resulted in changes to this
key person in some cases, making efficient resolution of CCC queries more
problematic.
The production of a comprehensive Resource Manual by Pobal also appears to have
been a highly effective tool in helping to guide CCC activities over the life of the
programme. There do however seem to be issues with regard to the training provided
by Pobal with regard to assisting the development of the CCCs, with more than onehalf of survey respondents expressing dissatisfaction with the training. Among the
issues identified was the lack of training targeted at CCCs in the initial period of
establishment, the need for more training for Committee staff, locating training
programmes in more regional venues, and a greater focus on training to build
capacity to meet the financial and administrative requirements of the EOCP.
The consultants discuss CCC Strategic and Action Plans as well as their content and
note that inconsistencies in plan structure were found. They note that new Strategic
Page 55
Plans for 2007 – 2010 are currently being drawn up which will be different in nature
and focus than their predecessor. Nevertheless there does appear, in general, to be
a growing recognition of the need to focus on the quality aspect of childcare
provision, given the focus on delivering quality childcare provision within the National
Childcare Strategy and NCIP, and in light of the production of Síolta. The action plans
are beginning to reflect the need to progress with interventions to ensure that quality
of provision is developed throughout the sector.
The final part of the chapter deals with NYCO Activity noting that their focus is on four
areas, namely

Work with member base – capacity; training; quality; supporting increase in
childcare places and services.
Work with County Childcare Committees – effective participation on CCC;
cohesive organisation approach to supporting all 33 CCCs.
Role in information – cutting edge on childcare in Ireland; information on new
developments; thematic seminars on emerging trends.
Collaborative work together with other NVCOs – feeding into national policy;
developing discussion papers; developing thematic areas, e.g. quality; defining
NVCO role in delivery of childcare training.
The consultants note that the relationship between the NVCOs and the CCCs was
less clear however, with their involvement on Committees not consistent throughout
the country. They reported concern that the NVCOs and CCCs were duplicating
activity to some extent in terms of research and working on policy development.
They, therefore, state that there is a need for greater clarity in the roles of both
parties in this regard, with policy development an obvious function for which NVCOs
should assume full responsibility, and research being something that should have
clear national and local emphasis for NVCOs and CCCs respectively.
Comments
The Review notes that the new CCC Strategic Plans will follow nine
headings. What are they?
Appendix 2 was provided by Pobal on the performance of the CCCs
2.7
Chapter 7: Local Impact of the EOCP
This Chapter considers the impact of the Programme at a local level and
demonstrates its points through seven case studies. The chapter is broken down
under five main headings:

Development of the Projects

The Application Process

Delivery of the Project

Staffing and Operational Issues

Additionality and Sustainability
Page 56
2.7.1
Development of the Projects
It was noted that the project development phase proved to be quite arduous
in a lot of cases. The securing of planning permission, commissioning and
control
of
architects,
understanding
of
HSE
and
other
regulatory
requirements, articulation of the project specifications, development of
appropriate community partnerships and management of the construction
process were all cited as barriers to the successful development of the
project. The last issue in particular was identified by local stakeholders as a
critical impediment to effective and efficient progress. It was noted that
managing a capital project requires a very specific set of project
management skills that the organisations accessing the EOCP are unlikely to
possess.
It was also acknowledged during the research process that the project
development and implementation phase of capital projects would have
benefited from a technical support resource in the form of a project or
building management function. There was a strong perception that overall
cost savings would result from an initial investment in this type of role,
backed by practical examples of how wastages in the construction process
had arisen as a result of this lack of expertise. This could be achieved either
via definition of an expanded remit for the architect involved (ensuring that
the architect designated had the requisite project management skills),
commissioning of consultancy support or accessing of external assistance.
Spiralling costs, construction delays and inappropriate or insufficient
infrastructure provision for the purposes of a childcare facility were among
the inefficiencies identified that were attributed to the lack of control and
understanding of the building management process.
2.7.2
The Application Process
The development worker approach attracted considerable praise, and it was
felt to be highly important that a permanent Pobal contact for each applicant
organisation was put in place throughout the application. Where the
development officer had changed during the process, there was frustration
evident at having appeared to be asked to supply the same information more
than once and about the loss of understanding about the nature of the project
that was the subject of the application.
Consultation with local stakeholders also revealed perceptions that the
application process as a whole was unwieldy and that there were too many
tiers in place that did not appear to add value. This resulted in a significant
delay between submission of an application and final acceptance or rejection.
Page 57
For applicants, the most frustrating aspect in this regard was the fact that the
application could not be tracked throughout the process, meaning that at no
stage were applicants aware of when a final decision might be forthcoming,
or at what point of the process it currently stood.
2.7.3
Delivery of the Project
One theme emerging from the both the case study research and the regional
workshops was the need to move from a quantity to a quality based
approach for the support in childcare provision in Ireland. It was perceived
that the ‘raison d’etre’ of the EOCP was very much framed in the delivery of
the maximum number of childcare places that could be achieved over the
lifetime of the programme. This has been acknowledged as playing an
important role in supporting the return to work of parents over the period, with
significant increases in the national female labour force participation rate
indicative of an increased supply of childcare.
The introduction of the CCCs was identified as a positive step in facilitating a
greater focus on the quality aspects of provision at local level. They
organised training events, produced research material and helped to develop
local networks of providers where learning and best practice could be shared
in order to develop the overall quality of service provision in the area.
2.7.4
Staffing and Operational Issues
The support of staff in childcare facilities was, of course, a central component
of the EOCP and has played a critical role in ensuring that services have
been sustained around the country. The Review consulted with a wide array
of programme beneficiaries and there is no doubt that the vast majority of
community facilities are wholly dependent on staffing grants for their
continued survival. There was no obvious evidence of wastage in the
deployment of staff resources, with all those funded by the EOCP engaged in
direct supervision for as much of their work hours as possible.
However, there needs to be an explicit move to recognise childcare as an
important highly skilled occupation, particularly if education, quality and social
inclusion objectives are to be delivered via the programme. It is considered
therefore that the Expert Working Group established under the National
Training Strategy 2006-2010 should examine these issues.
Management and general administration duties are an essential part of any
childcare facility and were not provided for under EOCP staffing grants.
Consequently, to perform these tasks, services have to rely on external
support either from another organisation or via Community Employment. In
many instances some of these tasks are put on hold, placing severe doubt on
Page 58
the ability of services to implement the National Quality Framework without
additional staff resources.
2.7.5
Additionality and Sustainability
The issue of sustainability in relation to projects supported by the EOCP is
highly complex. While facilities have generally managed to survive by
sourcing support from external organisations, from voluntary input and via
income from fees, there is significant and growing concern that development
of a quality service has been constrained by a lack of resources. The review
has found that without EOCP assistance, the vast majority of communitybased childcare services would have been unable to survive and depend on
the securing of future funding in order to remain viable on an ongoing basis.
There would seem to be a high degree of additionality evident from the
EOCP interventions, with capital grants creating facilities that would not
otherwise have proceeded or would have proceeded on a much smaller
scale, and staffing grants sustaining their operations.
It was also found that there is scope to increase the value-for-money offered
by these facilities, principally by maximising the income generated from
provision.
Comments
valuable and interesting
It would be useful to get some comment on whether the CCCs
provide Value for Money
Equally, in relation to the NVCOs. Who monitors their performance
and audits their expenditure? How do they account for their grants?
Are there any opportunities for streamlining the delivery process?
2.8
Chapter 8: Costs of Childcare Provision
Using a range of assumptions, this chapter is concerned with estimating the
annualised costs and cost per hour of childcare for the Community and Voluntary
Sector, the Public Sector and the Private Sector under the headings of Land &
Fittings, Staff and ‘Other’.
It then relates the Costs with the Charges to Users.
The following results are obtained:
Community & Voluntary
Public Sector
Private Sector
Estimated Annual Costs €
8,875
8,625
13,320
Estimated Annual Fees €
4,212
6,656
8,230
47
77
62
Fee/Cost %
Page 59
Comments
2.9
While recognising that the whole area of cost analysis is problematic
and that the cost estimates are indicative, I find it difficult to believe,
as the Review suggests, that the private sector is experiencing
ongoing losses. If this was the case, why are there so many private
childcare facilities in place?
Chapter 9: Conclusions and Recommendations
This Chapter takes each of the Terms of Reference and presents argued Findings
and Conclusions in respect of each.
The Chapter also sets out proposed new Performance Indicators and the various
Recommendations arising from the analysis. Two sets of Recommendations are
presented: one set relates to the period 2007 – 2010 and the other set relates to the
period beyond. The Consultants essentially assume that the present broad
“architecture” for childcare provision in Ireland is going to remain as now, i.e. that
none of the radical alternative models which are in principle available are actually
brought into play in practice.
Comments
Funding and cost Performance Indicators should also be provided on
a per unit per project basis for comparative purposes
The average capital grant awards indicated do not tie up with Table
5.4
Indicate if there are any staff, budgetary or training requirements
arising for Pobal
There should be a final sub-section in the Conclusions and
Recommendations section entitled Next Steps and detailing how the
Recommendations should be progressed and tracked
Page 60
3.
Structure and Presentation
In this Chapter, we briefly comment on the structure and presentation of the Review
document and make relevant comments where appropriate.
3.1
Terms of Reference
Detailed Terms of Reference were identified which are appropriate to an Expenditure
Review. The Terms of Reference should include an explicit reference to the Costs of
the Programme.
3.2
Steering Group
The Expenditure Review was overseen by a Steering Group, established in August
2006, comprising representatives from the Office of the Minister for Children and the
Department of Health and Children, the Department of Finance, the Centre for Early
Childhood Development and Education (CECDE) and community based childcare
providers. It met on three occasions during the course of the Review to consider
progress. Further meetings of the Steering Group are scheduled including to review
this Evaluation and to plan for the future.
As noted earlier, the membership should form an Annex.
3.3
Structure
The Review comprises nine chapters as well as two annexes.
In addition to the Table of Contents there is a useful list of Abbreviations as well as a
list of Figures and Tables.
The Report itself is some 121 pages.
3.4
Presentation
The Report is well supported by tables, graphs and footnotes. The tables and graphs
are numbered, and sources are provided.
Page 61
4.
Conclusions
From this assessor’s perspective, a Value for Money or Expenditure Review can also be
considered in terms of primarily three goals:

Does the Programme provide Value for Money?

Has the sponsoring Department got a Performance Management System in place?

Are the Recommendations sensible and capable of being implemented?
We define Value for Money as a function of Efficiency (maximising performance with the level
of resources available), Economy (obtaining the outcome at the lowest possible cost), and
Effectiveness (ensuring that the intended outcome is achieved). Under these three headings,
we now consider their achievement.
4.1
Efficiency
Capacity issues among community and voluntary organisations caused delays,
particularly in the management of capital projects and it was noted that further
technical expertise was required to progress these projects effectively.
The Review also notes that there was some concern at what appeared to be a
relatively unwieldy application process, and at the lack of transparency in the
process, with applicants unable to track an application through the process or obtain
information about when a decision might be forthcoming.
The more streamlined application process in place for the NCIP should prove more
effective and efficient, with fewer administrative requirements to be met prior to
submission.
Establishment of the City and County Childcare Committees has been a notable
development.
Pobal has played an overall effective administrative role in ensuring that the
programme was well structured and appropriate financial controls were in place to
ensure accountability, although there are mixed levels of satisfaction with the agency
at local stakeholder level.
4.2
Effectiveness
The stated objectives of the EOCP were

To improve the quality of childcare in Ireland;

To increase the number of childcare facilities and childcare places;

To introduce a coordinated approach to the delivery of childcare services.
As the Review notes, there is a view that the quality objective of the EOCP was
somewhat overshadowed by a more quantitative-based approach targeting
maximisation of the supply of childcare places. However, the quality aspects of
provision have received more attention in the latter years of delivery. The need for
Page 62
quality childcare provision is now explicitly stated within the NCIP objectives and is
expected to be a critical focus of the new Programme. In addition, the national policy
focus on the quality aspects of childcare also became apparent during the life of the
programme with the establishment of CECDE and their role in developing the
National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Development and Education.
Almost 31,750 new childcare places have been provided, with 4,039 full-time and
4,613 part-time childcare staff positions supported. In addition, City/County Childcare
Committees have delivered 322 accredited courses with 3,888 participants, while
National Voluntary Childcare Organisations have delivered 89 accredited courses
with 1,220 participants.
In terms of improving the coordination of childcare interventions, the setting up of City
and County Childcare Committees and via investment in the NVCOs has facilitated a
more coordinated approach.
However, it is also clear that there is a national economic benefit to be achieved from
the Childcare Programmes arising on the impacts on both the parents and the
children themselves, and it would be interesting to establish what that broad
economic impact is.
Edward C Melhuish of the Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social
Issues, Birkbeck, University of London, in an Appendix to the UK National Audit
Office ‘Early Years’ Report cited earlier found that ‘the results of the few cost benefit
analyses undertaken are unambiguous in showing substantial benefits. These
analyses have been applied where high quality childcare has been used as a form of
intervention for disadvantaged families. A striking feature of these results is that the
size of the benefits allows a very substantial margin of error and interventions would
still be economically worthwhile. However the applicability of these indications of
savings to the general population is open to considerable doubt in that so much of the
benefit in these studies of disadvantaged populations derives from reductions of
negative outcomes e.g. crime, remedial education, unemployment, where the
incidence of these negative outcomes is dramatically less in the general population
and therefore the scope for savings is similarly dramatically less. However the
'prevention paradox' is relevant in considering poor outcomes such as learning
difficulties or behaviour problems, in that while the rate of incidence is greater for
disadvantaged populations, the absolute number of cases is greater in the general
population.’
At a broader level, PwC prepared a Discussion Paper in 2003 entitled Universal
Childcare Provision in the UK – towards a Cost Benefit Analysis. It offered a
methodological framework which examined the benefits in terms of
Page 63

Short-term benefits (parents)

enhanced earnings

productivity increases

associated tax revenues

lifetime earnings potential
Long-term benefits (children)

enhanced earnings

productivity increases

associated tax revenues

lifetime earnings potential

Economic Multipliers

Reduced Social Welfare Payments

Impact on Health, Crime and Remedial Education Requirements
A variation on the PwC model to establish a broad, initial and high-level return could
be explored if the time and budget were available.
4.3
Economy
The Consultants note that, In terms of overall efficiency, it is likely that the ECOP
model, with its strong Community & Voluntary focus to date, has delivered childcare
places at an overall cost level that is broadly in line with or below alternatives. They
also note that the sector has not proven a hugely cheaper option overall against
comparable alternatives such as private provision or contracted out places in the
public sector.
No details were provided for the cost of the delivery of the Programme other than that
some €20 million in Technical Assistance was provided primarily to cover the Pobal
administration costs of delivering the EOCP over the 2000-06 period.
The OMC has advised that the salary costs for the Childcare Directorate for 2000 2006 is approx €4.2 million. This figure includes all wages, employers PRSI and
overtime (see Appendix 1 for Division of Responsibilities Final Beneficiary
(Pobal)/Implementing Body (Office of the Minister for Children).
Of the €4.2 million,
about €3 million was spent on managing the EOCP.
In addition, according to Pobal, about 21 per cent of the funding for Sub-Measure 3,
Quality Improvement, (€83 million) was for the administration of the CCCs and
NVCOs and can be considered a cost for the administration of the Programme. This
cost is estimated at €13 million.
The total cost for managing the Programme, therefore, is estimated at some €36
million.
Page 64
On that basis, the cost of administering the EOCP over the seven year period was of
the order of 10 per cent of the cost of Sub-Measures 1 and 2 (€285 million as per
Table 5.8) and of the Operational Aspects of the Quality Improvement Sub-Measure
(€70 million).
4.4
Performance Management
It is clear that there is a Performance Management System in place operated by
Pobal as well as the Monitoring Committees of the two Regional Assemblies. A
range of Performance Indicators are in place to monitor performance.
From a Value for Money perspective, the various Performance Indicators, if time was
available, could be classified along the following lines:
Input
Output
Outcome/Impacts
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Economy
This table could then be used to record base-line values, targets or budgets, and
actual.
Inputs relate to such areas as Programme Budget and Number of Applicants.
Outputs relate to the actual number of childcare places provided and number of staff
supported while Outcomes/Impacts relate, primarily, to the increase in the number of
parents entering the workforce or undergoing training and, by extension, the
economic impact arising from the provision of extra childcare facilities.
4.5
Expenditure Review Recommendations
The Review has made fourteen administrative and other recommendations to cover
the period 2007 – 2010, as well as a number beyond that time period. They are all
valid, appropriate and capable of being implemented.
There should be a recommendation that future EOCP Annual Beneficiary Surveys
have an explicit question that looks at the number of parents that have entered
employment, education or training as an aid to measuring additionality.
Page 65
Appendices
Appendix 1: Division of Responsibilities Final Beneficiary (Pobal)/
Implementing Body (Office of the Minister for Children)
Implementing Body: The principle roles and responsibilities of the Implementing Body (Childcare
Directorate of the Office of the Minister for Children) are set out below:•
Receipt and initial handling of EOCP applications from childcare service providers
•
Provide public funding to Pobal for disbursement of grants to Grant Beneficiaries
•
Report at project level to the NDP Information System quarterly in arrears
•
Elaborate Government policy in relation to childcare
•
Host the Programme Appraisal Committee and submission of recommendations to the
Deciding Authority
•
Notify applicants of the success or otherwise of their applications for funding
•
Report on progress to the Monitoring Committees for the Regional Operational Programmes
bi-annually
•
Oversee the disbursement of grants to successful applicants and the reporting of
Programme level data by Grant beneficiaries
•
Verify and Certify Co-Financed Expenditure to the Managing Authority (B2 Level)
Final Beneficiary: The principal roles and responsibilities of the Final Beneficiary (Pobal formally
known as Area Development Management Limited) are set out below:•
Carry out a detailed assessment of each application/proposal against the eligibility criteria
established under the Programme (including an independent assessment by a building
specialist for larger capital projects as appropriate)
•
Present draft recommendations on funding to the Programme Appraisal Committee
•
Manage contractual arrangements with all Grant Beneficiaries
•
Disburse grants, in agreed instalments, to all Grant Beneficiaries
•
Capture and record of Programme level data on the Childcare Programme Database
•
Verify operations on-the-spot at Grant Beneficiary level
•
Verify and Certify Co-Financed Expenditure to the Implementing Body (B1 Level)
68
Appendix 2: County Childcare Committees Mid Year 2006 Indicators
BMW Total
Indicator
SAE Total
National
Total
% National
Annual Total
Target
1. Quality
Number of Providers supported in developing policies
311
646
957
93%
97
96
193
135%
Number of Providers supported at pre-development
stage
276
358
634
77%
Number of Expression of Interest forms received
414
648
1,062
160
252
412
87%
54
85
139
34%
93
207
300
47%
916
2,048
2,964
96%
525
722
1,247
86%
Number of full day places in the county/city*
13,162
24,342
37,504
114%
Number of part time places in the county/city
16,513
35,724
52,237
99%
Number of research initiatives/audits/needs analyses
completed
17
48
65
83%
Number of publications completed
30
36
66
51%
Number of information sessions held
86
103
189
54%
40
87
127
96%
889
1,291
2,180
91%
47
71
118
83%
878
1,277
2,155
67%
and procedures
Number of actions/initiatives aimed at increasing the
range of childcare services in the county/city
2. Support and Development
Number of applicants supported to prepare a formal
proposal for funding “
Number of providers assisted by CCC who submitted a
formal proposal for inclusion in the CCC portfolio”
Number of providers supported to meet Childcare Prog
reporting requirements”
No target set
3. Facilities/Places
Total number of private childcare facilities operating in
the county/city
Total number of community c/care facilities operating in
the county/ city
4. Information
5. Networking
Number of provider networks supported by the CCC
Number of providers affiliated to CCC supported
networks (excl. childminders)
Number of parent networks supported by the CCC
Number of parents affiliated to CCC supported networks
69
Number of inter agency collaborative actions/initiatives
(excl. other CCCs)
Number of collaborative actions/initiatives with other
CCC(s)
79
100
179
55%
34
66
100
76%
50
64
114
75%
179
301
480
80%
43
54
97
56%
6. Social Inclusion
Number
of
initiatives
focused
specifically
on
disadvantaged groups
Number of providers from disadvantaged areas given
advice/support
Number of providers from disadvantaged areas who
were supported by the CCC and who submitted
applications to the Childcare Prog,
70
Indicator
7. Equality and Diversity
BMW
TOTAL
SAE Total
National
% National
Total
Annual Total
Number of initiatives specifically aimed at promoting
20
49
69
88%
15
33
48
66%
225
481
706
66%
182
504
686
48%
Number of accredited training courses
84
106
190
98%
Number of other (non-accredited) training courses
90
212
302
119%
9,270
11,034
20,304
88%
741
1,535
2,276
64%
greater participation in childcare by children with special
needs
Number of initiatives specifically aimed at promoting
greater participation in childcare by members of ethnic
minorities/Travellers
Number of providers (new/existing) given advice/training
on special needs
Number of providers (new/existing) given advice/training
on equality/ diversity issues (other than special needs
issues)
8. Training
Number of training hours (total from all courses)
Number of people referred by the CCC to other agencies
for training
Indicator
SAE
BMW
M
F
Total number of participants on training courses (excl.
childminders)
19
2,221
Number of participants on accredited training (excl.
4
2
M
TOTAL
%
F
M
F
36
3059
55
5,280
76%
1,088
10
793
14
1,881
71%
855
4
432
6
1,287
63%
childminders)
Number of participants who completed accredited
training (excl. childminders)
9. Capacity Building (CCC Board and Staff)
SAE
TOTAL
63
91
154
60%
163
178
341
74%
20
20
40
65%
48
45
93
76%
77
72
149
18%
BMW
Number of full committee meetings held
Average attendance at committee meetings
Number of facilitated capacity building sessions for the
%
committee
Number of training courses completed by CCC staff
members
10. Childminding
Number of Childminder Development Grant applications
received
71
Number of Childminder Development Grants approved
77
64
141
19%
1,097
1,642
2,739
73%
Number of Childminder networks supported by the CCC
29
29
58
77%
Number of Childminders affiliated to CCC supported
308
1,311
1,619
77%
252
657
909
92%
67
72
139
125%
Number of Childminders operating in the county/city
known to the CCC
networks
Number of Childminders in the county/city notified to the
Health Board HB
Number of information sessions for Childminders
72
Indicator
SAE
BMW
M
F
CCC
32
636
Quality
22
Number of Childminder participants on accredited
Number
of
Childminder
participants
in
M
TOTAL
%
F
M
F
4
910
36
1,546
63%
168
6
470
28
638
48%
18
155
1
170
19
325
41%
6
124
0
131
6
255
33%
run/facilitated training
Number
of
Childminder
participants
in
Awareness Programme
training
Number of Childminders who completed accredited
training
*2 CCC’s did not breakdown their total places on their Annual Target Sheet or Mid Year Indicator Sheet into full
time and part time and have been counted in the full time section
“Different wording used on Annual Target Sheet
73

Value for Money Review of the Equal Opportunities Childcare

Transcription

Similar documents

Family Budget Form

TeacherCare - Evaluating Childcare Options

2Samen Childcare

January

For information on the Buntús Programme for Pre

Untitled