How to Track HAF Attendance and Meet DfE Requirements

Accurate attendance tracking is the backbone of HAF reporting. The DfE requires local authorities to report exactly how many children attended, how often, and what their demographic profile was — not just how many booked. Yet attendance tracking is one of the most operationally challenging aspects of HAF delivery, particularly when dozens of providers are recording attendance independently. This guide covers everything you need to know about tracking HAF attendance, from DfE requirements through to practical implementation.

What you'll learn: What the DfE requires in terms of attendance data, how to collect it from providers, and how to ensure the data is accurate enough for Q36 reporting.

Key distinction: Why booking data is not attendance data, and why the difference matters for DfE compliance.

Practical solutions: How digital attendance tracking through platforms like Plinth eliminates the most common data quality issues.

TL;DR — HAF Attendance Tracking

The DfE requires actual attendance data — not booking data — for its Q36 return. This means recording which children physically attended each session, not just who booked. With HAF programmes involving 30–100+ providers across a local authority area, collecting accurate, consistent attendance data is a major challenge. Paper registers returned by email after the holidays result in late data, inconsistent formats, missing information, and hours of manual data entry. Digital attendance tracking — where providers record attendance in real time through a shared platform — solves these problems and provides the HAF team with live visibility of programme reach. Authorities using Plinth report that digital attendance tracking transforms their Q36 reporting from a multi-week exercise into a straightforward process.

Why Attendance Tracking Matters

DfE Compliance

The DfE's Q36 return requires individual-level attendance data for every child who attended HAF. This includes:

• The total number of sessions each child attended
• Attendance broken down by holiday period
• Demographic information for each attendee
• The eligibility basis (FSM, transitional, or discretionary) for each child

Without accurate attendance data, you cannot complete the Q36 return. Inaccurate data leads to DfE queries, resubmissions, and potential scrutiny of your programme's data processes.

Funding Accountability

HAF is publicly funded — over £200 million per year nationally. Attendance data demonstrates that this funding is reaching its intended beneficiaries. Accurate attendance records show how many of the approximately 2 million FSM-eligible children in England are accessing provision through your programme.

Programme Improvement

Attendance data reveals patterns that help you improve your programme:

• Which sessions are popular and which have low take-up?
• Are there demographic groups that are underrepresented?
• Do certain providers have higher or lower attendance rates?
• Are children attending consistently or dropping off after one session?
• What is the no-show rate, and does it vary by provider or session type?

Without accurate attendance data, you are managing your programme blind.

Provider Accountability

Attendance data is essential for provider funding. If providers are funded per place, you need to know actual attendance to calculate payments. If funded per block, attendance data helps assess whether the provider is delivering value.

Attendance tracking is not just a reporting requirement — it is the foundation of effective programme management.

The Difference Between Bookings and Attendance

This distinction is critical and is the source of many DfE reporting errors.

Bookings represent families' intentions — the sessions they have signed up for. Attendance represents reality — the sessions children actually attended.

The gap between the two is significant:

Reporting booking data as attendance to the DfE inflates your figures by 10–20%, which:

• Misrepresents programme reach
• May trigger DfE queries if figures seem implausibly high
• Undermines the credibility of your data
• Creates discrepancies when cross-referenced with other data sources

Always report actual attendance. If your current systems cannot distinguish bookings from attendance, this is the most important improvement to make.

Method 1: Paper-Based Attendance Tracking

Paper registers remain the most common attendance tracking method across HAF programmes nationally. Here is how they typically work and where they fall short.

How It Works

1. The HAF team creates attendance register templates (usually in Excel or Word)
2. Templates are distributed to providers before the holiday period
3. Providers print the registers and record attendance by hand during each session
4. After the holidays, providers return completed registers by email (scanned or photographed)
5. The HAF team manually enters attendance data into a master spreadsheet
6. Data is reconciled with booking data and used for Q36 reporting

Strengths

• Familiar and simple for providers
• No technology requirements at the provider end
• Works offline (no internet needed during sessions)

Weaknesses

Late data return: Providers often return registers days or weeks after the holidays end. Chasing late returns consumes significant HAF team time. Some registers are never returned at all.

Illegible records: Handwritten registers are often difficult to read, particularly when sessions are busy and staff are focused on children rather than paperwork. Names may be misspelled, making matching difficult.

Inconsistent formats: Despite templates, providers often modify registers or record information differently. Some may record just first names, others include additional columns, and some abandon the template entirely.

Missing demographic data: Paper registers rarely capture demographic information (ethnicity, disability status, etc.) that the Q36 requires. This data must be sourced separately, creating additional manual work.

Manual data entry: Every paper register must be manually entered into a spreadsheet. For a programme with 50 providers running 4–16 days of sessions each, this represents hundreds of hours of data entry.

No real-time visibility: With paper registers, the HAF team has no visibility of attendance during the holiday period. Problems (like consistently low attendance at certain sessions) cannot be identified and addressed until after the holidays.

Error accumulation: Each step — recording, scanning, entering, reconciling — introduces opportunities for error. By the time data reaches the Q36 return, it may have passed through 4–5 error-prone steps.

Paper registers are understandable as a starting point but become increasingly problematic as programmes grow in scale and DfE reporting expectations increase.

Method 2: Spreadsheet-Based Digital Tracking

Some authorities have moved to shared spreadsheets (Google Sheets or Excel Online) that providers update during the holidays.

How It Works

1. The HAF team creates a shared spreadsheet with tabs for each provider
2. Providers access the spreadsheet online and record attendance during or after each session
3. The HAF team can view data in near-real-time
4. Data is consolidated from the shared spreadsheet into the Q36 return

Strengths

• Near-real-time visibility for the HAF team
• Eliminates the scanning and data entry steps
• Lower cost than purpose-built software
• Most providers can use basic spreadsheet tools

Weaknesses

Access management: Shared spreadsheets require careful permission management to prevent providers seeing each other's data or accidentally modifying other tabs.

Data integrity: Multiple simultaneous users can cause conflicts, overwrites, or formatting issues. A provider accidentally deleting a row or changing a formula can corrupt data.

Limited validation: Spreadsheets have limited ability to validate data as it is entered. Providers may enter dates in wrong formats, misspell names, or omit required fields.

No booking integration: The spreadsheet does not connect to the booking system, meaning reconciliation between bookings and attendance must still be done manually.

Scalability limits: At scale (50+ providers, thousands of sessions), shared spreadsheets become unwieldy and slow, with tabs growing too large to manage effectively.

No offline capability: If providers have poor internet connectivity at their venues, they cannot update the spreadsheet in real time.

Shared spreadsheets are a step up from paper but still lack the structure and integration needed for efficient DfE reporting.

Method 3: Digital Attendance Through an Integrated Platform

Purpose-built platforms like Plinth provide digital attendance tracking as part of an integrated HAF management system.

How It Works

1. Sessions and bookings are managed through the platform
2. Providers access a simple attendance interface (web or mobile) for each session
3. The pre-populated register shows all booked children — providers mark attendance with a tap
4. Walk-ins can be added to the register on the spot
5. Attendance data flows instantly to the HAF team's dashboard
6. Data is automatically available for Q36 reporting — no manual compilation needed

Strengths

Pre-populated registers: Because the platform knows who is booked for each session, the attendance register is pre-filled. Providers simply confirm who attended rather than writing names from scratch. This is faster and eliminates spelling errors.

Real-time visibility: The HAF team can see attendance as it happens — during the holidays, not weeks afterwards. This enables proactive intervention (for example, if a session consistently has low attendance, the team can promote it or reallocate resources).

Automatic reconciliation: The platform automatically compares bookings with attendance, highlighting no-shows and walk-ins without manual cross-referencing.

Data validation: The platform validates data as it is entered, ensuring required fields are completed and formats are consistent.

Demographic data linked: Because children register with the platform (including demographic information), attendance records are automatically linked to complete profiles — no need to collect demographics separately.

DfE reporting ready: Attendance data feeds directly into Q36 report generation. No manual compilation, no data entry, no reconciliation.

Offline capability: Some platforms offer offline attendance recording that syncs when connectivity is restored — essential for providers in areas with poor internet.

Considerations

Provider training: Providers need brief training on the attendance interface, though purpose-built systems are designed to be intuitive. Plinth provides provider training as part of implementation.

Internet access: While offline capability exists, the primary workflow assumes internet access. Most providers can use mobile data where venue Wi-Fi is unavailable.

Platform dependency: Moving to a digital platform means the HAF programme depends on that platform's availability. Reputable platforms like Plinth provide SLA-backed uptime guarantees.

Comparison Table

Best Practices for Attendance Tracking

Regardless of your method, these practices improve attendance data quality.

Before the Holidays

Agree on standards: Ensure all providers understand exactly what "attendance" means — a child must be physically present for a minimum duration (typically the full session or at least 2 hours) to count as attending.

Distribute clear guidance: Provide written guidance on how to record attendance, how to handle late arrivals and early departures, and how to record walk-ins.

Test the system: Run a trial with a few providers before the holiday period to identify and resolve issues.

During the Holidays

Monitor in real time: If using digital tracking, review attendance data daily during the holidays. Follow up on anomalies immediately rather than leaving them until reporting time.

Support providers: Be available to answer questions and troubleshoot issues. The first day or two of each holiday period typically generates the most support requests.

Spot-check: If possible, visit providers during sessions to verify that attendance recording matches reality.

After the Holidays

Close the data quickly: Set a firm deadline for attendance data submission (if not captured in real time) and chase providers who miss it. The longer the gap, the less accurate the data.

Reconcile and validate: Compare attendance with bookings, check for duplicates, verify that demographic data is complete, and flag any anomalies for investigation.

Generate reports promptly: Compile DfE returns as soon as data is complete, while the information is fresh and queries can be resolved quickly.

Frequently Asked Questions

What counts as "attendance" for DfE purposes?

The DfE counts a child as having attended a session if they were physically present for a meaningful portion of the session. The exact threshold can vary, but generally a child should attend for at least 2 hours of a 4-hour session to be counted. Very brief appearances (signing in and leaving) should not count. Local authorities should set clear guidance for providers on this and apply it consistently.

How do we handle children who attend multiple providers?

This is a common data challenge. A child who attends sessions with three different providers should appear once in your Q36 return with their total sessions aggregated. With paper-based systems, deduplication requires manual matching. With integrated platforms like Plinth, each child has a single profile, and attendance across all providers is automatically consolidated — eliminating duplicate counting.

What is a good attendance rate for HAF sessions?

Attendance rates (as a proportion of bookings) typically range from 75–90% for HAF. Rates vary by session type, provider, and holiday period. Summer holiday sessions tend to have slightly lower attendance rates than Easter and Christmas due to family holidays. An attendance rate below 70% may indicate issues with the booking process, provider communication, or session quality. An attendance rate consistently above 90% suggests strong engagement and effective booking management.

Should we track attendance at the individual session level or the daily level?

The DfE Q36 requires the total number of sessions attended by each child. If your programme runs multiple sessions per day (for example, a morning and afternoon session), you need to decide whether each counts separately. Best practice is to track at the individual session level, which gives you maximum flexibility for reporting and analysis. Integrated platforms handle this automatically.

How do we record walk-in attendance?

Walk-ins — children who attend without a prior booking — occur in most HAF programmes. They should be recorded in the attendance register with the same level of detail as booked children. If using a digital platform, the provider should add the child to the register at the point of attendance. Eligibility should still be verified for walk-ins, either at the point of attendance or retrospectively. Walk-ins count towards your DfE attendance figures.

What about provider-run activities where we do not control the register?

In decentralised models, providers may use their own attendance systems. While this can work, it creates data quality challenges. If you cannot require providers to use a central system, provide standardised templates and clear data format requirements, and set firm deadlines for data submission. However, the most reliable approach is to provide a central system that providers use — the data quality improvement is significant.

Conclusion & Call to Action

Attendance tracking is not the most glamorous part of HAF delivery, but it is one of the most consequential. Accurate attendance data is the foundation of DfE compliance, funding accountability, and programme improvement.

Bookings are not attendance: The single most important improvement many programmes can make is to start tracking actual attendance rather than relying on booking data.

Digital beats paper: Moving from paper registers to digital tracking — whether through shared spreadsheets or an integrated platform — significantly improves data quality and reduces the time needed for DfE reporting.

Integration is key: The greatest benefits come from platforms like Plinth that integrate attendance tracking with booking, eligibility checking, and DfE reporting, creating a seamless data flow from session delivery to statutory returns.

Investing in better attendance tracking pays dividends across every aspect of HAF programme management — from daily operations to annual reporting.

Want to see digital attendance tracking in action? Book a demo of Plinth to see how providers record attendance and how data flows through to DfE reporting.

Recommended Next Pages

• What Is the HAF Programme? – A comprehensive overview of the Holiday Activities and Food programme.

• How to Complete HAF DfE Reporting – How attendance data feeds into Q36 and Q38 returns.

• Best Booking Systems for HAF Programmes – Why integrated booking and attendance tracking matters.

• FSM Eligibility Checking for HAF – Ensuring eligibility data is linked to attendance records.

• HAF Management Software vs Spreadsheets – The broader case for integrated platforms.

• How to Onboard HAF Providers – Setting up providers for effective attendance recording from day one.

Last updated: February 2026

For more information about HAF attendance tracking with Plinth, contact our team or schedule a demo.