In this blog post, I explore the importance of community not-for-profit nurseries, their threatened demise and how they may be conserved. As I come to the end of leading an independent, not-for-profit nursery, now is a good time to reflect.

The importance of not-for-profit nurseries

Charitable childcare providers involve parents in the day-to-day running of provision, funding and overall management. The Early Years Alliance endorses community nurseries, recognising that children achieve more when their parents are actively involved in their learning and development. Volunteering offers parents opportunities to widen social networks. In this way, not-for-profit nurseries play an important role in promoting community cohesion. Within a childcare market, governance requires accountability and transparency. Charities must state their social purposes and consult their users about how these aims are being achieved. I strive to provide ethical leadership by working to keep the provision flexible and inclusive of the most disadvantaged families (Robson & Martin, 2019). We have cocreated an ethos as a team, with our children and families.

Evolution of the sector

Childcare and early years provider surveys show the number of not-for-profit nurseries has fallen from 7,900 in 2018 to 5,900 in 2024, while private providers have risen from 12,900 to 14,200. Penn (2024) notes that the once-vibrant tradition of community nurseries remains in just a few urban areas. She asserts that the most vulnerable children struggle to access places in the current childcare market, as for-profit nurseries are located without reference to local need. Recent research by Victoria University (VU, 2024) has shown that 45 per cent of children and families in Britain reside in a ‘childcare desert’. Access to group-based provision is persistently low and disproportionate in deprived areas. A 2022 report by the Nuffield Foundation highlights that smaller nurseries are being bought up by profit-focused companies without creating more places or reinvesting back into the sector. The corporate investment model is becoming the unquestioned norm, with large companies characterised by debt. This makes them vulnerable to collapse and with financial dealings that are far less transparent than the not-for-profit sector (Penn, 2024).

Inhospitable climate

As a leader, I have faced ongoing challenges in sustaining the nursery; including managing sharp increases in running costs such as staff wages, an increasing gap between delivery costs and funded early education entitlement. Moss and Mitchell (2024) argue for a complete overhaul to a fully integrated, universal public system of early childhood education from birth to six years. I celebrate their visionary aspiration; however, it is hard to override the piecemeal provision in England due to path dependency. Here, path dependence is understood as the inability to break away from past policy decisions that constrain later patterns of delivery. Penn (2024, p. 113) argues there will never be ‘a new dawn’ where the fragmentation and issues in the sector are ‘coherently worked out’.

‘The rise of successful social enterprise models may just keep the not-for-profit setting alive and kicking.’

Conservation or adaption?

Given the neoliberal evolution of the sector and the inhospitable climate favouring large, for-profit entities, I suggest it is time for charitable settings such as mine to adapt. A social enterprise model could be the answer, using a business model where cross-subsidising places and fair fees ensures a higher number of settings operate in disadvantaged areas (Lloyd, 2019). O’Sullivan (2017) suggests that in nurseries operating a social enterprise model, surpluses stay within the business for the benefit of the children and the community. In this way the local community remains at the forefront of nursery provision at the same time as utilising a more sustainable business model. In alignment with Penn (2024), we can advocate for social enterprise business legislation and regulations that curb corporate chains’ fiscal activities, ensuring more transparency.

Not-for-profit nurseries remain vital with their ethical and practical aims, working to fill gaps in provision, keeping community spaces and accountability to the community alive. The rise of successful social enterprise models may just keep the not-for-profit setting alive and kicking.

References

Lloyd, E. (2019). Reshaping and reimagining marketised early childhood education and care systems: Challenges and possibilities. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 65(3), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.3262/ZPB1901089

Moss, P., & Mitchell, L. (2024). Early childhood in the Anglosphere. UCL Press.

Nuffield Foundation. (2022). Nursery sector risks being damaged by large corporate takeovers [Press release]. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jan/nursery-sector-risks-being-damaged-large-corporate-takeovers

Penn, H. (2024). Who needs nurseries? We do! Bristol University Press.

Robson, J. van K., & Martin, E. (2019). How do early childhood education leaders navigate ethical dilemmas within the context of marketised provision in England? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 20(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949119827031

O’Sullivan, J. (2017). A childcare social enterprise. The London Early Years Foundation Model. In L. Miller, N. Barbour, C. Dalli, & C. Cameron (Eds.), The Sage handbook of early childhood policy (pp. 323–337). Sage.

Victoria University [VU]. (2024). England is one of the worst countries in Europe for access to childcare [Press release]. https://www.vu.edu.au/about-vu/news-events/news/england-is-one-of-the-worst-countries-in-europe-for-access-to-childcare