Summary
In terms of survey results, not a lot has changed from last year, which suggests that not a lot has been done in the interim. What is clear from the responses we received is that childcare remains a significant driver in dictating how many RAF families live: Whether or not a non-serving spouse is able to work; how families cope with childcare during deployments; how dual-serving families cope with the particular challenges of managing two Service careers and the need for often extensive childcare as a result.
Cost remains a real issue for many, especially in the south and south east. Given a rough estimate that around 70% of the RAF is based in the southern half of the UK, this is significant. Childcare by its very nature will always be expensive and it is not always fair simply to blame high prices on the providers. The reality is more complex and the critical need to provide appropriate safeguarding, while delivering high quality childcare, quite rightly means that it should never be provided ‘on the cheap’. We would also acknowledge that, in general, RAF Families are not disadvantaged when compared to the civilian community on a pure cost comparison basis. The cost of childcare as a proportion of wages, especially in relation to the low paid or the second-income earners is a national problem. There’s more of a case to argue that our people are told where to serve and frequently have no choice in the matter; that deployments and the exercises and training that go with them, mean that the serving person is absent from home far more than their civilian counterparts and that dual-serving parents face particular problems with childcare. And yet, in an increasingly mobile society, where business relocations and subsequent “move or be made redundant” scenarios are common, we need to acknowledge that many civilians face similar problems.
It is thus difficult to justify this as purely a Covenant issue – we’ve tried and failed (so far). Nevertheless, the variability of costs that can occur between on base and off base provision and, especially, by region is quite staggering and many families, who have had no say in where they are assigned, inevitably feel disadvantaged when compared with others accessing the same childcare but at half the cost.
AFCAS 2016 reported that of those RAF families that responded to the survey and require childcare (639 responses), 56% were satisfied with the locally provided facilities, 18% were neutral and 26% were dissatisfied, this latter number an increase of 4% on the 2015 survey.
Our own survey this year suggests that there are two, pretty obvious, ways our people access childcare:
• Provision by the parents and the supporting family network, which can be affected by and impact on: - Spouse employment opportunities. - Inability of extended family members to assist, due often to location. - The lack of a policy that reflects modern lifestyles. - Family finances.
• Provision by Nursery/Childcare Centre/Childminder, which can be affected by and impact on: - Hugely varying costs – principally by region – impacting affordability and the associated risk of debt.
- Varying levels of availability – especially ‘out of hours’ cover. - The need to incorporate childcare factors into the Future Engagement Strategy (FES). - Spouse employment – full career opportunities, employment that properly reflects qualifications and skills.
wwww.raf-ff.org.uk ww.raf-ff.org.uk 4 5
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
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