Targeted approach to child care called for in C.D. Howe report.

The C.D. Howe Institute calls for a "cautionary" and targeted approach to publicly supported child care in Canada. It does not support a universal child scheme as set out by the Liberal government in 2005. It also does not support the current conservative government's system of direct payments to parents which is supposed to help parents choose care for their children, at home or elsewhere. (In most policy matters C.D. Howe usually supports the conservatives.)

The report, Let's Walk before We Run." Cautionary Advice on Childcare, argues for a system that supports child care services for children in low-income families, urban ghettos, and other "high risk" situations. It calls for a focussed approach to federal spending on child care rather than a universal system that had been proposed by the Liberal government in 2005.

Martha Friendly, co-ordinator of the Childcare Resource and Research Unit of the University of Toronto, said that although she agrees with the creation of regulated child care, it should be universal rather than targeted. Middle-income families can't necessarily afford quality child care, she argued.

Based on studies in the United States, the authors claim that child care programs make little difference to children of middle and high income families. It has little effect on their later school and performance and general behaviour. They claim that it is the quality of parenting (including the fact these children have two parents at home) that makes the difference among these families.

However, the report argues on the basis of the same U.S. studies, that the quality of parenting among lower income and other disadvantage groups is poorer and that early childhood programs have made a considerable difference, improving the school performance and reducing behavioural problems. Therefore, federal and provincial programs should be focused on low-income and single parent families, urban ghettos and troubled neighborhoods, and other high risk groups.

Martha Friendly disagrees. She says that research shows that low- and middle-income children in quality preschool programs benefit socially and cognitively.

They point to studies showing that Quebec's universal child care program does not adequately target low-income families and neighborhoods. They cite analysts which have reported that better-off families have been more adroit at gaining access to the spaces available rather than the less affluent. One study found that, among families with annual income above $60,000, nearly 3 in 10 of their pre-school children were in subsidized spaces; among families with incomes below $40,000, only 1 in 10. Another study reported a similar problem of access by the poor. Families that used childcare enjoyed higher status than the families that did not.

Charles Pascal, a former deputy minister of education also disagrees with the targeted approach. "Like so many other attempts at supporting human progress, programs for the poor are usually poor programs that are politically unsustainable.

Ontario Coalition for Better Chiled Care President Shellie Bird told Community Action. "This report perpetuates the false notion that it is access to child care that makes women enter the workforce instead of acknowledging that it is because so many women are in the paid workforce that child care is such a pressing issue for women and for families."

The main recommendations of the C.D. Howe report are:

* the provinces should assure access to reasonable quality childcare programs for targeted categories of families likely to be disadvantaged in terms of preparing children for formal K-12 schooling;

* childcare centres should be located in neighbourhoods with high ratios of "at risk" families, whose children are most likely to benefit;

* families eligible for childcare subsidy should be able to choose among state-sponsored centres, licensed centres operated by charitable, religious, or nonprofit societies, or approved for-profit firms.

"Targeting is hard to do well," the authors admit. They suggest that if childcare centers are located in low-income neighborhoods, then low-income parents would have easier access. If family income is used to reach the target groups, "clawback of fee subsidies should probably not occur below an annual family income level of $30,000."

John Richards and Matthew Brzozowski are authors of the report.

www.cdhowe.org