Debated in Parliament on 14 Nov 2012.
Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how much recurrent grants have been disbursed to each of the non-profit childcare anchor operators for each year since the scheme started; (b) how the amount to be disbursed to each anchor operator in each year is determined; (c) what Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are used to determine on-going eligibility of anchor operators for recurrent grants; and (d) whether these operators are required to submit a regular report on how the recurrent grants have been used and how they measure up to the KPIs required.
Page: 1218
Sir, the anchor operator scheme is aimed at enhancing the affordability, accessibility and quality of childcare in Singapore. Since 2009, a total of $69 million has been disbursed to the anchor operators.
The grants are determined based on the number of centres developed and the manpower to support the centres and their capacity. The disbursement of grants is performance based, and the level of funding depends on the standards met by the operator. Anchor operators are required to submit regular reports and audited statements on the utilisation of the grants.
Since the scheme was introduced, the two anchor operators currently on the scheme have built a total of 132 childcare centres. Apart from expanding capacity, the anchor operators are required to keep childcare programmes fees at these centres affordable, below that of the industry median. Anchor operators also need to meet quality targets. These quality indicators cover areas such as teachers' qualification, kindergarten class size as well as centre quality.
I thank the Acting Minister for the answer. I noted some statistics that have been shared in the press and in previous parliamentary answers. Thirty-nine out of 330 PCF centres are Singapore Pre-school Accreditation Framework (SPARK) accredited. Twenty-seven PCF and NTUC Centres, out of the approximately 210 combined centres, are SPARK-accredited. That is about 12% of all the centres that are owned by these anchor operators. This is way short of the target of 85% of the centres to be SPARK-tested by 2013, as shared in this House in November 2010. The first supplementary question that I would like to ask the Acting Minister: does he feel that these statistics show that the anchor operators have also not met the kind of quality standards that are expected by MCYS?
Page: 1219
The second supplementary question: should there be a greater link between the grant disbursement and certain published objectives? For example, one of the intentions is that the grant allows operators to recruit and retain better staff. But from earlier answers, I have also gathered that there is no direct link between how much they have to spend on various parts of the targets to be met. I hope that the Acting Minister can clarify this.
Sir, in response to the first supplementary question on the SPARK-standards, for those who are trying to achieve the SPARK-accreditation, and that is if they have not met it, we will work with them to see how best they can meet it. We do want to encourage more of our centres to meet the accreditation required.
On the second question, for those centres that do not meet the requirements, we have withheld funding from them until they do so.
Page: 1219
PAPERCUTS