Taking a closer look at child care

today...

Building a Social Change Strategy

Presented by Robin Heather, Chris Johnson, Jessica Nixon, & Lindsay

Poloni

Who are the actors?

Families, Mothers, Fathers

Communities

Employers / Corporations

Government

What are their interests?

Families, Mothers, Fathers, Workers:

Balancing family and financial independence; Having quality, accessible, affordable, acceptable child care which fits work hours

Communities:

Children are safe and protected and are under the responsibility of the family; Property value, taxes, and how limited resources are divided

Employers / Corporations:

Money and power; Maintaining consistent/reliable workforce

Government:

Interests of the population/voters/corporations; Maintaining the status quo; Economy growth

What are their methods?

Families, Mothers, Fathers, Workers:

Choosing/not choosing to have children, Maternity/Parental leave, Accessing various methods of childcare, Altering family structure, latch key kids, (un)supervision of children

Communities:

Establishing social norms and maintaining the status quo

Employers / Corporations:

Mommy-tracking, union/collective agreements which support 50% maternity leave forcing mothers back to work quicker

Government:

Market model or public good model; Policies, work programs

What are the values?

Capitalism / Patriarchy / Sexism

Labour force participation

Focused on economy rather than children/families

Perpetuation of the system

Eurocentric childcare

What does the system fear?

People will not participate in the system

Creating new policies

• Universal support program for children

• Improvements to maternity and parental benefits under EI Act

• Improvements to employment standards governing maternity and parental leave

(Cox & Rose, 2007)

Who has the power? Government & Business

Top-down system. Policy shapes parental benefits, child care options, and funding

Government is influenced by corporations

Communities do not recognize or utilize their power. Myth that communities do not have control over their own systems

(Bishop, 2002)

Who benefits?

Corporations and Employers benefit the most

Government also benefits by saving money, maintaining status quo

Middle/Upper class society benefits - meet the constraints of current system

(Taylor, 2007)

Who loses?

Families and children

Minority populations, single parents, unemployed, First Nations, and rural communities

Child care is a cultural issue – Current Canadian system is oppressive to cultural minority groups due to access, costs, availability, and appropriateness

(Greenwood, 2000)

What is the history?

Industrial Revolution - Children expected to work

1833 & 1844 - Factory Acts

1939-1945 – Federal Government involvement during WWII

1960’s – Canada Assistance Plan

1971 – recognition of childcare costs as an employment expense eligible for tax deduction

1984 – 1995 – 3 attempts to develop a national approach to child care (Trudeau’s Task Force, Mulroney’s Committee on Child Care, and Chretien’s Red Book Election commitment)

1996 – Canada Social Transfer

(Dizard & Gadlin, 1990) (Baker, 2005) (Friendly, Beach, & Turiano, 2002)

Child Care in Canada Today

(Ward, 2006)

What are the problems?

Market model of child care

• Assumes providing child care is responsibility of individual families

• Market model of supply and demand

Market model ignores the broader social and economic issues affected by child care policy

• Promotion of the well being of all children

• Needing a skilled and efficient workforce

• Addressing all forms of inequality

(Doherty, Rose, Friendly, Lero, & Irwin, 1995)

Problems Con’t

Power and hierarchy

Stereotyping – ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ mentality

Assumptions concerning treatment of and access to children, and efforts to separate the oppressed from children and even there own

(Bishop, 2002)

What are the contradictions?

Governments and Business state that families are important, yet policy and practice indicate otherwise

Children are valued

What is the larger context?

Maintaining western society status quo

Maintaining the capitalist system

Individualism

Maintaining a cheap labor force

Ensuring families are so busy trying to maintain their lives that they don’t advocate for change

(Taylor, 2007) (Benson, 2009)

What role is played by race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, &

language?

Gender is only one aspect of social isolation

Women’s care-giving responsibilities critical in understanding higher likelihood of female poverty

Patriarchal model is historically the basis for many income support programs (i.e. social assistance, mat leave)

Canadian policy undervalues women’s unpaid work in the home

Policy compartmentalizes women into workers or mothers, when likely they are both

(Evans, 2001)

What power do we have?

Power to unite

Power to look for other sustainable options

The ability to look at other systems to see if they are working or not

The ability to create social action

(Bishop, 2002)

What are our interventions?

“The happiest society is one in which there is a balance- where both welfare of the individual and the community are respected and promoted, and where that is reflected in the social policies and the values that are promoted in that society” (Lama & Cutler, 2009)

Individual Interventions

Job share, flex time, moving to part-time work, flexible work schedules

Networking – Parent Link Centre, Lamaze classes, etc.

Work-site/Employer-funded daycare centres

Flexible hour child care

Kin Care Subsidy Program

Supports families looking after each other however requires them to adhere to the government terms if they seek financial support

Payments are lower than for daycare centers ($400/month)

Family caregiver must live outside the home and parents must require 50 hrs a month of care if the child is under 5

Families are still not free to choose who looks after their children if they access funding

Financial compensation and not reuniting the family is the focus

(Government of Alberta, 2000)

Community Building

Goal: To end extreme individualism, moving to more collectivism. Switching to bottom-up models

• Step ONE: Awareness of benefits

• Step TWO: Awareness of ways that we are connected

• Step THREE: Increase personal contact

(Lama & Cutler, 2009)

Social Policy

Policy requires “a sensitive evaluation of the impact of policies on women’s independence that does not at the same time hold them hostage to expectations that are in advance of the realities of women’s lives”.

Margrit Eichler suggests a “social responsibility” model that includes accessible and affordable child care

To work towards public good in Canada, there are 3 options:

• Publicly operated child care system

• Government regulated private system

• Public funding that may be used for unregulated child care arrangements

(Doherty, Rose, Friendly, Lero, & Irwin, 1995) (Evans, 2001)

Quebec’s Child Care Program

1997 Quebec – Early Childhood and Childcare Strategy

• Subsidized child care program $5/day

• Present cost of the program is now $7/day

Refundable tax credits and financial assistance program available to parents unable to make use of spaces at $7 rate

2001, roughly 40% of Canada’s regulated childcare spaces were in Quebec

(Baker, 2005) (Friendly, Beach, & Turiano, 2001)

International Interventions

What’s working in other countries?

COUNTRY TYPE OF LEAVE PROVIDED

TOTAL DURATION (months)

PAYMENT RATE

United States 12 weeks family leave 2.8 Unpaid

Canada 17 weeks maternity leave10 weeks parental leave

6.2 15 weeks at 55% of prior earnings55% of prior earnings

Denmark 28 weeks maternity leave1 year parental leave

18.5 60% of prior earnings90% of unemployment benefit rate

Finland 18 weeks maternity leave26 weeks parental leaveChildrearing leave (until age 3)

36.0 70% of prior earnings70% of prior earningsFlat rate

Norway 52 weeks parental leave2 years childrearing leave

36.0 80% of prior earningsFlat rate

Sweden 18 months parental leave 18.0 12 months 80% of prior earnings3 months flat rate, 3 months unpaid

Austria 16 weeks maternity leave2 years parental leave

27.7 100% of prior earnings18 months unemployment benefit rate, 6 months unpaid

France 16 weeks maternity leaveParental leave (until age 3)

36.0 100% of prior earningsUnpaid for one child; paid at flat rate (income tested) for 2+

Germany 14 weeks maternity leave3 years parental leave

39.2 100% of prior earningsFlat rate (income tested) 2 years, unpaid for 3rd year

Italy 5 months maternity leave6 months parental leave

11.0 80% of prior earnings30% of prior earnings

United Kingdom 18 weeks maternity leave

13 weeks parental leave

7.2 90% for 6 weeks, flat rate for 12 weeks, if sufficient work history; otherwise, flat rateUnpaid

Source: (Kamerman, S.B., 2000, as cited in Waldfogel, 2001)

Sweden Model

Swedish law entitles parents to a leave of absence from work in connection to both children’s births and illnesses

Enables both men and women to combine parenthood and employment (or parenthood and education)

Child care programming offered from age 12 months to 12 years, school starts at age 7; before and after school programming is offered

Parents are entitled to take up to 120 days per year off for child illnesses

Most parents return to work after parental leave

(Anonymous, 1998)

Sweden Con’t

Municipal authorities are obligated to provide child care for ages 1-6, before and after school care for children 7-12 if parents are working or studying

Unemployed parents are entitled to 3 hours per day of preschool activity

Programming fundamentally exists for all children

Social Services Act (section 12) defines municipal responsibilities as “the social welfare committee shall endeavor to ensure that children and young people grow up in good and secure conditions; acting in close cooperation with families to promote development and favorable physical and social conditions of children and young persons”

(Anonymous, 1998)

Danish SystemAccess to child care is a basic right

2/3’s of cost covered by federal government; Child care governed from bottom-up

Each centre is unique, run by an elected parent board; might be run by a church, cultural group, school, or corporation

Parent board determines philosophy of the centre and how it is to be managed; standards of care set by each parent board

Umbrella group formed by representatives of each centre - determine where funding is allocated based on need

Centers mix ages of children; operates like a family - extra support for children with disabilities or special needs

(Lowe, 2000)

Tibetian Settlements in South India

Neighbours look after one another

Sense of cooperation, if family cannot provide, the community takes over

Based on individuals and families making an effort to get to know one another

(Lama & Cutler, 2009)

Discussion Questions

What level of intervention will be easiest? Most effective?

Looking at international interventions, how does Canada rate in terms of child care?

Where do we go from here? How do we engage the system?

ReferencesAnonymous. (1998). Child care in Sweden. International Journal of Early Childhood, 30:1. 20-26.

Baker, M. ( 2005). Families: Changing trends in Canada. Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Beaujot, R. (1997). Parental preferences for work and childcare. Canadian Public Policy – Analyse de Politques, 23:3. 275-288.

Benson, J. (2009, Apr. 8). Fight back against women’s oppression! In Socialist Appeal. Retrieved March 6, 2010 from the World Wide Web: <http:www.socialistappeal.org>

Bishop, A. (2002). Becoming an ally: breaking the cycle of oppression in people (2nd Ed ed.). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

Cox, R. & Rose, R. (2007). Improving maternity and paternal benefits for women outside of Quebec: Proposals for law reform. NAWL Workshop group on maternity and parental benefits. Ottawa, ON.

Dizard, J. & Gadlin, H. (1990). The minimal family. Massachusetts: The University of Massachusetts Press.

Doherty, G., Rose, R., Friendly, M., Lero, D., & Irwin, S. (1995). Child care: Canada can’t work without it. Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

Evans, P. (2001). Women in social welfare: Exploring the connections. In J.C. Turner & F.J. Turner (Ed.), Canadian social welfare (4th ed., pp. 140-152). Toronto, ON: Pearson Education Canada Inc.

Friendly, M., Beach, J., & Turiano, M. (2002). Early childhood education and care in Canada 2001. University of Toronto: Childcare resource and research unit.

Government of Alberta. (2000). Social care facilities licensing act. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from the World Wide Web : <http://www.child.gov.ab.ca/home/535.cfm>

Greenwood, M. (2000). Aboriginal child care in review. Interaction. (Winter 2000). 15-18.

Lowe, E. (2000). Quality child care, Danish style. Interaction. (Winter 2000). 19-20.

Miller, D. (1989). Poor women and work programs: back to the future. AFFILIA: Journal of Women and Social Work, 4:1. 9-22.

Peterson, L. & Albrecht, T. (1999). Where gender/power/politics collide: Deconstructing organizational maternity leave policy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8:2. 168-181.

Senkiw, A. (2002). Quebec’s child care policy: Saskatchewan Economics Journal. Saskatoon, SK: University of Saskatchewan. 15-24.

Taylor, F. (2007, Apr. 27). Women and oppression today. In Socialist Alternative . Retrieved March 6, 2010 from the World Wide Web : <http://www.sa.org.au>

Waldfogel, J. (2001). International policies toward parental leave and child care. The Future of Children, 11:1. 99-111.

Ward, M. (2006). The Family Dynamic: A Canadian Perspective (4th Edition ed.). Toronto: Thomson Nelson

Weiss, S. (2007, Jun. 18). How women’s oppression began – and how it will end. In Socialist Voice: Marxist Perspectives for the 21st Century. Retreived March 6, 2010 from the World Wide Web: <www.socialistvoice.ca>

White, L. (2001). Child care, women’s labour market particpation and labour market policy effectiveness in Canada. Canadian Public Policy – Analyse de Politques, 27: 4. 385-405.