June 2001
Children's Dilemma: Who Cares More?
by Claudia R. Hepburn
The National Children's Agenda seeks the best for Canadian children. Just as surely, parents want the best for their own children. But when the two disagree about what's best, whom should we trust?
The National Children's Agenda has attracted political rhetoric and action across the country. At the 41st Annual Premier's Conference last summer, premiers "reaffirmed their commitment to the well-being of children." The following month the federal government matched this affirmation with a $2.2 billion boost in transfer payments to the provinces, aimed at early childhood development. Much of this federal funding is being directed into public day care subsidies.
Not surprisingly, this agenda has produced a flurry of provincial fervour for day care subsidies. A Manitoba report released this spring by the Manitoba Child Day Care Regulatory Review Committee calls for major changes to the way day care is funded in the province, including following Quebec's and Europe's lead in providing subsidized child care to make it more accessible for low-income families (Global TV). Before Alberta's spring election, the Klein government said it would review its decision to replace subsidies to day care centres with direct subsidies to parents. In British Columbia this March, the government introduced a bill to establish publicly-funded child care, available to every working parent for no more than $14 per day by 2004. In April, New Brunswick announced $7.3 million for an early childhood development agency and $3 million dollars for day care. That is an increase on the $26.5 million that province already spends on programs for children.
As proponents of these new programs are quick to point out, more and more Canadian mothers are working outside the home. Seventy-four percent of married couples earned two incomes by 1997, and 86 percent of working mothers were back at work within a year of giving birth. With so many women wanting or needing to work, surely the government should ensure their children have safe, licensed programs to care for them. Who could disagree?
Perhaps surprisingly, dissent is strongest among those the programs seek to help: families. According to a 1998 poll sponsored by the National Foundation for Family Research and Education, 89 percent of parents would prefer home care for their children over professional day care if only it were affordable. Ninety percent of parents believe it is better for young children to be cared for in the family home rather than in a day care.
Furthermore, 77 percent of Canadians agree that the individual or family, rather than the government, should have primary responsibility for child care. This is not what government activists and child advocates would have us believe.
The distinction between what government and professional advocates recommend and what parents and the public want is disconcertingly large. According to the organization Public Agenda, 7 in 10 "children's advocates" say the best direction for government policy is to move toward a universal, national child-care system (Olsen). A discussion paper from Health Canada's Childhood and Youth Division claims that it is "unrealistic to expect that parents can undertake the task of ensuring early childhood development outcomes without systematic and structured support. The tasks are just too complicated and the competing demands on parents too engaging" (National Post). These patronizing views assume that Canadian children are languishing in the care of their parents and private caregivers. This is ridiculous.
The truth behind this Health Canada report and the demands of child advocates is that Canadian families with young children face many pressures. These pressures often include a shortage of time and money, and difficulty in balancing demands of home and work. Child advocates fail to recognize that what they propose—subsidized public day care—cannot hope to solve these problems. Their solution is misguided because it ignores two facts: first, that the balance of work and child care that suits each family is unique and, second, that parents resent the attempts of anyone—lobbyists or elected politicians—to influence their choices.
What would help families is less government interference in child care decisions. Policies that treat evenhandedly a variety of work, child-rearing, and child care arrangements would help parents make the best decisions for their family's unique needs. The government's current offer of employment insurance benefits for up to a year of parental leave and a Child Care Expense Deduction for paid child care are far more efficient and less intrusive than subsidized public day care.
Parental leave and child care deductions benefit many families (particularly those with employee parents) and do not presume to favour one child care arrangement over another. They encourage parents to find the most trusted and helpful people to look after their children when they need help, rather than turning to the public facility because it has been subsidized. For some parents, this will mean dropping the children off at a grandmother's house on the way to work. For a parent working part-time from home it might mean hiring a student for a couple of hours each day. A third family might take the child to a workplace day care or a neighbouring family's house, while still others will choose to work flexitime, so that one parent can always be with the children.
A universal, subsidized day care program will squash the initiative of parents, family, friends and employers to work together for mutual benefit. It will reduce the incentive for employers to offer benefits, such as flexible working times, or a cooperative on-site child care facility, that might be more valuable to parents and less costly to supply than a publicly-subsidized day care.
A taxpayer-funded program would also be an unwelcome influence on family decisions in that it would increase the relative cost either of using private child care or of staying home. For instance, without such a program, many families choose to have one parent stay home with the children—both because they believe parental care is the best care and because the difference between the second income and private child care costs is small. If subsidized day care became available, these families might be tempted to substitute it for parental or other home care and send the second parent out to work, not because they thought the public facility was better for their children, but because it cost the family less in lost income. A public day care program would, therefore, be expensive not only for taxpayers, but also for the children served by it.
The best solution would, of course, be to put more money in the hands of parents by cutting taxes. Tax cuts would empower parents to spend or save more of their money for the long-term benefit of their children. It would make it more affordable for working and stay-at-home parents alike to pay for the good things they want for their children.
Governments and child activists itchy for new programs should remember that parents need more freedom to choose, not less. They do not need their options limited and resources hijacked by anyone, no matter how good their intentions or how grandiose their plans. Strange as it may seem to the professionals, letting parents parent is exactly what parents want.
References
Olsen, Darcy Ann (2000). "Gore Federalizes Early Childhood: And Bush Lets Him Get Away With It." Cato Institute. Digital document: http://www.cato.org/research/ education/articles/gorefedchild. html
The National Post (1999). "Good Child Care Begins At Home," July 30. Editorial.
Global TV (2001). "To Subsidize or Not to Subsidize Day Care." Report. Feb. 3. Reproduced at http://www.childcarecana- da.org/ccin/2001/ccin02_02_01.htm.
Claudia R. Hepburn (claudiah@fraserinstitute.ca) is Director of Education Policy at The Fraser Institute, and a former teacher. She has a B.Ed. and an M.A.from the University of Toronto. She works in Toronto.
info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.