Research and analysis

Executive summary

Published 7 October 2024

Introduction

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) commissioned Ipsos to undertake qualitative research with parents claiming Universal Credit (UC) and working atypical hours. Atypical working hours was defined as working early mornings, evenings, nights, weekends, variable shifts, split shifts and being ‘on call’.

Finding suitable and affordable childcare is vital to support parents into work. The Universal Credit (UC) childcare offer gives eligible parents the opportunity to claim back up to a cap of 85% of their childcare costs. The UC childcare offer can only be used for formal childcare providers (such as nurseries or childminders). These providers typically do not offer evening or weekend childcare. The research sought to explore the experiences of parents claiming UC and working atypical hours to understand whether and how childcare availability or flexibility affected their working hours.

Qualitative interviews were used to provide depth of insight into parents’ childcare needs and their labour market participation. Forty in-depth interviews were conducted with parents working atypical hours and claiming UC. Quotas were used to structure the achieved sample and ensure representation of parents with a range of circumstances. The findings presented in this report reflect only the perspectives of those interviewed and cannot be generalised to the whole population.

Household and work context

• Respondents’ household circumstances affected their ability to work and childcare needs. Important drivers of differences in childcare use were the age of the youngest child in the household and the number of children. Other drivers included whether the family was a single or couple parent household, and whether they lived close to family who provided informal childcare.
• The types of job roles typically undertaken by respondents required them to attend a fixed place of work. Lacking flexibility in working location and patterns meant finding formal childcare to match working hours could be challenging. Good relationships with managers and colleagues supported respondents to voice their preferences for working hours.
• Parents working atypical hours frequently relied on informal childcare to provide flexibility. For couple parents they would stagger their work patterns to fit childcare arrangements.

Childcare preferences and satisfaction

• Participants tended to use a mixture of formal and informal childcare. Participants relied on informal childcare to assist with dropping children off and picking them up from formal childcare providers.
• The cost of formal childcare was critical in determining the number of hours used. Participants sought to minimise their use of formal childcare where they had access to other options, such as regular informal childcare.
• Participants felt they could trust the quality of formal childcare. Participants also felt that formal childcare settings offered benefits to their child’s socialisation, enabling them to engage and play with children of a similar age.
• Participants who worked variable hours appreciated flexibility in opening times offered by childcare providers. Childminders were often seen as flexible. Other formal childcare providers were felt to be less likely to offer extended opening hours, or flexibility to meet the childcare needs of parents working atypical hours.
• Participants arranged childcare to enable regular atypical working. There was concern amongst participants that if arrangements were to change, it would take time and effort to find other options.
• Once established, participants were satisfied with their childcare arrangements. Satisfaction amongst participants was attributed to the quality of childcare provided.

Awareness and use of UC childcare offer

• Participants tended to be aware of the UC childcare offer and had commonly first heard about it via word of mouth. Work coaches were also a source of awareness, however respondents felt that the UC childcare offer usually came up spontaneously and this was not always timely.
• Participants were less aware about the types of childcare providers that UC childcare offer could be used for. Participants presumed it could only be used for childminders or nurseries and were less aware it could also be used for other childcare types such as holiday clubs.
• The UC childcare offer was valued by users for the significant difference it made to their childcare costs. Users found the process of claiming via the UC childcare offer to be straightforward. Participants using the offer reported a preference for the costs to be paid upfront rather than in arrears because they often struggled to make the first upfront payment.
• For participants who were not aware of the UC childcare offer, this was their reason for not using it. Among those that were aware, but did not use it, there was confusion about the eligibility criteria, and a perception that the offer applied only to households on very low incomes. It was not always clear to participants that other childcare offers could be used in conjunction with the UC childcare offer.

Challenges and support

• Workplaces frequently had additional shifts and overtime available to staff. Participants reported that increasing their working hours on a regular basis, or taking overtime, required additional informal childcare due to the lack of availability and affordability of formal childcare, especially at short notice.
• Participants working atypical hours said they would benefit from evening opening hours and weekend availability from formal childcare providers. This would better align with their working shifts and patterns. After school clubs and increased support during school holidays was requested by participants.
• Participants were not always aware about the financial support with childcare costs that was available and said it would help if all the information was in one place. Respondents did not suggest where they might look for this information but saw a role for Work Coaches in explaining and ensuring awareness of the UC childcare offer to all eligible parents. Parents may also benefit from a website which lists all the types of support they could be eligible for as a parent.

Conclusion

• Families sought to minimise formal childcare costs by making use of flexible working arrangements, using informal childcare and in the case of couples, staggering working hours. Participants tended to make working and care arrangements to fit around the availability of formal childcare. Participants working atypical hours wanted more flexibility from formal childcare providers, including longer opening hours and weekend availability. This would enable parents to take overtime or additional shifts should they wish.
• Working participants with school aged children lacked affordable childcare options during school holidays. They would prefer to use holiday clubs, but often noted limited availability and found the irregular costs too expensive.
• Improving awareness among eligible UC claimants that the UC childcare offer can be used to pay for holidays clubs could enable more parents to use them where appropriate. Paying and reclaiming irregular childcare costs was felt to be challenging.
• Participants suggested that information about the available childcare support should be available in one place and given proactively by Work Coaches. This would help to ensure that UC claimants were aware of all the financial support with childcare costs they are entitled to. Work Coaches could also have a role in providing reassurance to working parents about the extent they would be better off if they worked more hours.