Item 09 Appendix 1
West Dunbartonshire Council · 18 March 2026
Back to Educational Services Committee — 18 March 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
West Dunbartonshire ELC Parental Consultation Report Executive Summary This report presents the findings of a statutory consultation conducted by The Improvement Service on behalf of West Dunbartonshire Council to assess parental views on the provision of Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) across West Dunbartonshire. The consultation was undertaken in line with the local authority’s statutory duty under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which requires councils to consult representative parents and carers on ELC delivery at least once every two years. The consultation ran from 1st to the 30th November 2025 and received 175 responses from current, previous, and prospective users of ELC. Key Findings Profile of Respondents 85% were current ELC users, predominantly with children aged 3–5. 12% had an eligible 2-year-old receiving funded childcare. Council nurseries were the predominant setting (144 respondents), with lower use of partner nurseries and childminders. Access to Services 94% of respondents found accessing funded hours Very Easy or Quite Easy. Reported diƯiculties were uncommon and primarily related to individual circumstances (e.g., online applications, support for children with additional needs). Use of Funded Hours 88% of families reported using their full entitlement. Reasons for not using the full entitlement were mainly personal (e.g., preference for time at home, concerns about readiness). Informal childcare, particularly grandparents, plays a significant role before eligibility begins. Satisfaction with Services High satisfaction levels across all measures: o Access to preferred provider: 92% positive o Securing suitable days/times: 86% positive o Quality of service: 91% positive Appendix 1
Page 2
Preferences for Delivery Council settings were overwhelmingly the first choice (142 respondents). Partner nurseries were the most common second choice. School-day, term-time model was the dominant preference (139 first-choice rankings). Families expressed interest in greater flexibility, including extended hours and wraparound care. Communication and Information 87% felt confident in understanding their entitlement. Confidence was high for Council nursery applications (82%) but dropped to 50% for partner settings. Awareness is largely driven by prior experience and informal networks rather than formal channels. Comments highlighted challenges with delayed eligibility, limited flexibility for working families, and support for children with additional needs. Overall Conclusion The consultation demonstrates strong uptake and satisfaction with funded ELC in West Dunbartonshire. Families value the quality and accessibility of services, with clear preferences for council-run settings and school-day models. While overall experiences are positive, feedback points to opportunities for improvement in communication and support for diverse family needs. 1. Introduction Under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, local authorities have a duty to consult with representative parents and carers at least once every two years on how ELC should be made available. This process helps councils plan services that reflect community needs and expectations. West Dunbartonshire Council conducted its consultation between 1 and 30 November 2025 using an anonymous online Microsoft Form. A total of 175 responses were received. As all questions were optional, response numbers vary throughout the report. 2. Profile of Respondents The largest proportion of responses (85%) were families currently using funded ELC, with 135 respondents indicating they had a child aged 3–5, the core eligibility age group. 12% (21) of the respondents indicated that they currently had an eligible 2-year-old child receiving funded childcare. This confirms that the majority of feedback came from those actively engaged with ELC services. While the number of previous and future users was smaller, some respondents in these categories still had relevant experiences to share. However, conclusions about these groups should be drawn with some caution due to their lower representation.
Page 3
Current ELC users: 148 (85%) Previous users: 7 (4%) Future users: 20 (11%) Responses were received from across the region, with the largest proportions coming from G81, G82 and G83, and a smaller number from G60. Figure 1 Map Showing responses by postcode Council nurseries were by far the most commonly used setting by respondents. These accounted for 144 responses, followed by partner nurseries (7). A smaller proportion of families used blended arrangements combining council nurseries with childminders or partner providers. Only a very small number (2) relied solely on childminders. Figure 2 Provider Types Used 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Council Nursery Partner Nursery Childminder Council Nursery & Partner Nursery Childminder & Council Nursery No Response Provider Types Used Current User Previous User
Page 4
3. Access to ELC Services Across all provision types, respondents reported a strong ability to access funded hours. When combined, 94% stated access was Very Easy (63%) or Quite Easy (31%), with only 6% reporting any diƯiculty. This pattern was consistent across Council nurseries, partner nurseries and childminders, despite smaller sample sizes among the latter groups. Positive experiences were reported across all postcode areas. Among the few respondents reporting diƯiculties, comments highlighted: challenges with online-only applications concerns about reduced hours following room moves for children with additional support needs preference for previous eligibility rules (funding from the month after the child’s third birthday) perceptions of an overly complicated process While these comments represent isolated experiences, they provide valuable insight into the types of barriers a small number of families encountered. Overall, the findings indicate that parents and carers across the region found it easy to access their child’s funded ELC hours, regardless of the type of provider used or the postcode in which they live. Reports of diƯiculty were limited and did not cluster within any particular service type or geographical area. Figure 3 Ease of Access 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Very Easy Quite Easy Quite Difficult Very Difficult Blank response Ease of Access Council Nursery Partner Nursery Childminder Blank response
Page 5
4. Use of Funded ELC Hours The majority of respondents (88%) reported using their full funded entitlement. A small proportion (6%) did not, with reasons typically relating to personal family preferences or concerns about readiness for full-time hours. Figure 4 Are Families using their full funded entitlement? Parents and carers cited a range of reasons for using funded ELC, with the most common being to help get their child ready for school and to give their child new experiences and opportunities, which frequently appeared together in parents of the 3-5 age group. Many respondents also highlighted the need to enable work or job-seeking, making this a significant practical driver. The results were the same across responses for eligible 2-year-olds also. A small proportion indicated that they were not using all of their hours (6%). Among the few who did not use their full entitlement, reasons given (10) were highly individual, such as preferring more time at home, concerns about children being too young for full-time hours, particular the eligible 2-year- olds. These isolated circumstances help explain some of the No and Don’t Know responses but do not alter the overall finding that the vast majority of families are able to make full use of their funded ELC hours. Informal childcare was common for families with younger children not yet eligible for funded ELC: Grandparents supported 75 families. Smaller numbers relied on partners (10), private nurseries (10), relatives (4), or friends/neighbours (2). 74 families reported using no additional childcare. 3% 6% 88% 3% Are Families Using Their Full Funded ELC Entitlement? Don't Know No Yes Not applicable
Page 6
Figure 1 Other Childcare Arrangements 5. Satisfaction with Services Overall, respondents expressed very high levels of satisfaction with the availability, suitability and quality of the ELC provision they accessed. Excluding the 22 blank responses for each item (leaving 153 valid responses), the majority of parents and carers strongly agreed or agreed with each of the three statements. Access to preferred provider: 92% positive Securing suitable days/times: 86% positive Quality of service: 91% positive Only a small minority expressed neutral or negative views. Comments reflected appreciation for staƯ and the benefits of ELC for children. Figure 2 Satisfaction with current services 2% 74% 10% 10% 4% Other Childcare Arrangements Friend or neighbour My child's grandparents Partner Private nursery Relative 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Blank Satisfaction with Services I am happy with the quality of the Early Learning and Childcare service I use I was able to secure attendance on days and at times that suit my needs I was able to access my preferred Early Learning and Childcare provider/nursery
Page 7
6. Preferences for Delivery To explore potential cross-boundary delivery, respondents were asked whether accessing all or part of their child’s entitlement in another local authority would be helpful. The majority (81%) said no this would not be helpful, while 18% indicated yes and 15% responded maybe. Respondents were also asked to rank their preferred options for accessing the 1,140 hours of funded Early Learning and Childcare. Ranking data shows a strong preference for: Council settings as the first choice (142 respondents) Partner nurseries as the most common second choice Childminders, playgroups and mixed provision were generally ranked lower, suggesting these models meet more specific needs rather than broad demand. Figure 6 Heat Chart showing Preferences by Provider Respondents were also asked to rank their preferred delivery model for ELC.
Page 8
Figure 7 Heat Chart showing Preferences for Delivery Hours Families expressed a clear preference for school-day, term-time provision, ranked first by 139 respondents. All other models attracted significantly fewer first-choice rankings. Additional comments (29 respondents) highlighted: Need for flexibility (11 respondents): earlier/later times, extended hours, wraparound care, willingness to pay for additional hours Desire for funded hours from the child’s third birthday (7 respondents) Need for improved options for children under three (5 respondents) Interest in alternative weekly/yearly structures (4 respondents), e.g., shorter summer breaks
Page 9
9. Communication and Information Most respondents (87%) felt confident in understanding their ELC entitlement. Confidence in applying to Council-run settings was high (82%), but only half (50%) felt confident in applying to partner nurseries, playgroups or childminders. Almost one-third (30%) felt unclear about how to apply. Figure 8 Application Process Awareness Awareness of ELC entitlement mainly came from: Previous experience (39%) Health Visitors (27%) Family and friends (26%) Formal sources such as the Council website (12%) and nurseries (14%) played a smaller role, suggesting scope to strengthen oƯicial communication channels. Figure 9 Where people heard about ELC 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Awareness I know how to apply for funded ELC hours in a partner nursery, playgroup or with a childminder I know how to apply for funded ELC hours in a Council nursery I understand my entitlement to funded ELC 68 48 45 24 20 4 4 2 Already aware from ELC with an older child Health Visitor Family or Friends Nursery Council website School Social Media Work in early years. Common knowledge
Page 10
Although only 16% of respondents (29) provided free-text comments, several themes emerged. 12 highlighted concerns about delayed eligibility (term after turning three) 10 raised issues for working families, including lack of flexibility and wraparound care 5 referenced limited support for children with additional support needs 4 requested clearer communication on eligibility and applications 7 oƯered positive feedback about nursery staƯ and quality of provision 10. Conclusion The consultation provides a comprehensive overview of parental experiences and expectations in relation to ELC in West Dumbartonshire. Overall satisfaction is high, with strong uptake of funded hours and clear preferences for council-run, school-day, term-time provision. These findings oƯer valuable insights into the current state of ELC services and parental views within the local area.