New report from Praxis and IPPR highlights childcare inequalities for migrant parents

A comprehensive report published on Friday by Praxis and the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has highlighted significant disparities in access to childcare for migrant families in the UK, particularly those affected by the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) condition.

You can download the 44-page report here.

The report's findings are based on a survey of 159 parents with experience of NRPF restrictions and at least one child below school age, as well as in-depth interviews with a further 17 parents.

Families with NRPF are entitled to 15 funded hours of care for their three- and four-year-olds, and some may be entitled to care for their two-year-olds, but they denied access to all other forms of support with childcare costs. Praxis and IPPR detail how these restrictions create a double penalty for migrant parents, as they are excluded from support with childcare costs, limiting their ability to work, while also being excluded from access to income top-up from the social security system when their earnings fall short.

The report finds that these challenges lead to migrant parents accessing childcare services and their limited entitlements at much lower rates than the general population. This disparity undermines the Government's goal of having 75% of children school-ready by 2028.

Praxis and IPPR explained: "Our research suggests that although the parents who took part see childcare as an essential enabler of work and a means of ensuring equal access to opportunities for their children, they currently use it at much lower rates than the wider population (55 per cent compared to 72 per cent). According to the parents in our sample, this is primarily the result of cost constraints faced by migrant parents. Cost was the reason given by 72 per cent of those who were not using childcare, compared to just 12 per cent among the general population. Lack of access to childcare that meets families' needs is having profound consequences for parents' – and especially mothers' – ability to work and earn an income, and on children's access to opportunities and readiness to start school. While this is not unique to migrant families, our evidence suggests that they may be particularly negatively impacted."

Only 37% of respondents knew about the universal entitlement for three- and four-year-olds, compared to 93% of parents in the general population. Only 17% of parents in the study accessed the universal entitlement, compared to 94% of the general population. Similarly, just 10% used the 15-hour provision for disadvantaged two-year-olds, despite its 2022 expansion to include low-income families regardless of NRPF status. Parents cited confusion over entitlements and inconsistent guidance from health visitors, social workers, and nursery staff as key barriers to access.

Praxis and IPPR highlighted that the complexity of the rules meant that some migrant parents felt completely lost. Parents often received conflicting or inaccurate information from service providers such as health visitors, nursery workers and local authority staff. Some parents also said they were fearful to claim support in case it might have consequences for their immigration status.

The report notes: "These experiences highlight the complexities of navigating two intersecting and complicated systems – the immigration and childcare systems. Few service providers encountered by parents, whether childcare providers, local authorities or health visitors, were adequately equipped to help families navigate both systems effectively. As a result, migrant parents often struggled to access entitlements that could alleviate financial pressures and support their children's early education."

Based on their findings, Praxis and IPPR recommend urgent change to immigration status-based restrictions on eligibility for childcare entitlements. The report summarises its recommendations as follows: