News

Parents unlikely to benefit much financially under expanded offer

For a third of parents, the expanded ‘childcare’ offer will save them less than £100 a month due to charges for extras and increased fees outside of the funding, new research suggests.
The latest survey by Pregnant Then Screwed revealed many parents will save little to no money under the expanded offer, PHOTO: Adobe Stock
The latest survey by Pregnant Then Screwed revealed many parents will save little to no money under the expanded offer, PHOTO: Adobe Stock

A survey of 11,100 parents with a child under the age of five, including 6,256 parents eligible for the expanded offer for two-year-olds, reveals that costs for ‘childcare’ and sundry items are increasing for the majority of families, meaning any savings from the new funding are lower than expected.

A quarter of parents surveyed by Pregnant Then Screwed who are eligible for the scheme said their provider if charging ‘large’ sums for sundry items. One in five said their costs are rising by more than 11 per cent. For over half, costs have risen or are about to rise by more than five per cent.

As such, a third of parents eligible for the new offer are considering leaving their job or reducing their working hours.

'I'm going to have to leave my job as I simply can't afford this.'

Danielle, a mother from Cheshire, explained, ‘My little one is two, and we received a letter last week to say that fees will be going up from £65 a day to £86 a day. We are now paying £1,490 a month for four days a week. I’m going to have to leave my job as I simply can’t afford this. The 15-hour funding doesn’t kick in until April, which will help slightly, but what do I do right now as I simply can’t afford it. We’re not going to benefit in the slightest from the new Government scheme, in fact, we’re now worse off.’

Alison, a mother of two from Dorset, commented, ‘My daughter attends nursery four days/week, and the plan was for my son to join her in April when I will go back to work full time. However, we received the payment schedule for April-Sept and cannot afford it. Our nursery has increased costs by £10/day per child for the non-funded hours and increased costs of "extras" for the funded hours by £3/day, almost wiping out any benefit from the free hours my daughter would be entitled to. As a result, we are having to reduce the days they attend nursery, and I will have to give up a day at work because my company does not offer compressed hours.’ 

Issues with codes

The survey also finds that there continues to be challenges surrounding the delivery of the first phase of the expanded offer with just six weeks to go. Almost half of parents surveyed said they had sent their code to their provider, but not had a response to confirm they have a place.

It comes as new data published by the Early Years Alliance finds that half of providers are still waiting to hear from their local authority what funding rates they will receive to deliver the new funded places.

The survey, which ran from Thursday, 15th Feb (the deadline by which all parents should have received their code) - to Sunday, 18th February 2024, found that one in 10 (11 per cent) parents eligible for the scheme either still hadn’t received their code or couldn’t work out how the system worked.

More than half of those eligible say they feel stressed due to issues with the new funding schemes. 

'The new benefit sounded too good to be true'.

Joeli Brearley, chief executive and founder of Pregnant Then Screwed, said, ‘The Government stated that the average saving for parents will be £6,500 a year once the new schemes are fully rolled out, but our data tells a different story.

‘Many providers are increasing costs for sundry items and for childcare outside of funded hours as a desperate attempt to cover their losses from delivering these schemes; this is drastically reducing anticipated savings. The new benefit sounded too good to be true, and for many families, it will make little difference to their outgoings. Once again, parents are picking up the tab due to underfunding from the Government.’