Evaluering af coronainitiativerne for børnepasning og nødopbevaring.

Under corona pandemic, the childcare in the Netherlands has been (partially) closed up to three times. Emergency care was still provided for specific target groups during these closures: children of parents/caregivers with essential professions and vulnerable children. The closure of childcare facilities naturally posed the risk that parents/caregivers might not want (or be able) to continue paying for childcare. This could have led to bankruptcies of childcare institutions, a reduction in the number of available childcare spots (once closures were no longer necessary), and parents/caregivers losing their child's spot. Therefore, efforts were made during this period to maintain stability in the sector and provide parents/caregivers with assurance of continued availability. This was done with the help of a financial compensation from the government to parents/caregivers for their childcare costs through the TTKO, TTKZO, and municipal schemes. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (Ministerie van SZW) has asked Dialogic and Oberon to evaluate the TTKO, TTKZO, municipal schemes, and emergency care. The evaluation focuses on implementation, efficiency, effectiveness, and reach. To conduct the evaluation, surveys were used among parents/caregivers (n=977), childcare organizations (n=399), and municipalities (n=13), interviews (n=26), literature study, focus groups (n=3), and an international comparison. The evaluation shows that the childcare sector remained stable and resilient during and after the corona period. Without these schemes, a significant portion of companies in this sector would have gone bankrupt or faced (very) serious financial issues. Moreover, a majority of parents/caregivers were able to retain their childcare spots after the lockdowns. One explanation for the high effectiveness of the schemes is the great importance that our society places on this sector. This led to a lot of intrinsic motivation among all involved parties to keep childcare afloat. For parents/caregivers, this motivation increased because they were fully or to a large extent compensated for continuing to pay for childcare. However, some childcare organizations found it challenging to maintain sufficient staffing levels in groups during and after the lockdowns due to various external factors. Emergency care also had a positive effect on the sector's stability. This allowed locations to remain operational during the lockdowns, making it relatively easy to resume regular operations. The provision of emergency care was excellent. Emergency care was offered in almost all municipalities (98%). A significant portion of parents/caregivers with essential professions were able to (well) carry out their work. Generally, the cooperation between the Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG), GGD GHOR, and SZW is rated very positively, with quick and concrete agreements reached on ensuring safe emergency care. The communication from the national government to parents/caregivers about emergency care was sufficient to convey the message that emergency care was available for parents/caregivers with essential professions and children in vulnerable positions. Childcare organizations also reported being adequately informed about the expectations regarding the organization of emergency care. However, there was some uncertainty about when new measures would take effect and to what extent the childcare organizations had interpreted the measures correctly. It was also challenging for childcare organizations to decide whether or not to admit children to emergency care. A large proportion of families (60-65%) were entitled to emergency care because at least one of the parents had an essential profession. Almost all these entitled individuals knew they could use emergency care. During the first lockdown, 20% of these entitled individuals used emergency care, increasing over time to about half of those entitled. The main reasons for limited use of emergency care were (1) parents/caregivers did not need it because they could work from home and (2) fears of infections in childcare. The decreasing fear of infections may explain the growth in usage. For childcare organizations, it was challenging to determine who could and could not use emergency care. This was partly because they had to rely on parents/caregivers to inform them if they had an essential profession and found it difficult to assess whether this was actually the case. Additionally, the list of essential professions changed regularly. Lastly, it was difficult for childcare organizations to enforce strict measures towards parents/caregivers suspected of not actually having essential professions. The municipality and childcare organization provide customized care for vulnerable children in childcare. Emergency care clearly reduced the risk of deterioration in the position of vulnerable children, but determining the extent of the effect is challenging because it is unclear to what extent children in vulnerable positions were actually reached, although there are positive indications. The evaluation identified several side effects where emergency care, on one hand, placed childcare in a positive light, allowing them to play a crucial role for parents with essential professions. On the other hand, a negative side effect was that the mental burden on parents/caregivers without essential professions increased due to the need to balance work, care, family, and educational tasks as they were excluded from emergency care. The efficiency of each scheme is detailed in the report. Recommendations The collaboration within the childcare sector was very good and contributed to the successful realization of these measures. It is crucial to maintain these networks well so they can be utilized again in the future. Collaboration with parties outside the sector, such as parents/caregivers and schools, was very complex. The responsibility for communication and coordination with parents/caregivers and schools often fell on childcare organizations. These communication and coordination structures often did not exist. Improving these networks, making agreements on responsibilities, and focusing on a more integrated approach for children is advisable. Such an approach for children during a crisis requires clear coordination of responsibilities between the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Furthermore, there is no available data (such as numbers) on vulnerable children per municipality. It is recommended to gather more data on this target group to evaluate policies for them effectively. Several side effects of the lockdowns on the physical and mental health of children, parents/caregivers, and childcare employees were observed, which emerged in almost all interviews and surveys. These included mental pressure from uncertainties and the adjustment period for children following opening or closing of childcare facilities. It is vital to take early signals of possible side effects seriously in a crisis and communicate them to the relevant ministers and consider them in policy decisions. The research report was presented to the House of Representatives on 18 November here.