(Paru dans The Gazette, le 23 octobre 2006, p. A-23)
In prohibiting extra-billing for added activities at subsidized private daycare facilities, the Quebec government is continuing with the centralizing and standardizing moves it began a decade ago in creating $5 daycare (now $7). The perverse effects of this standardized model are being felt increasingly. Are the parents it was intended to help really getting what they need? A study prepared by my colleague Norma Kozhaya provides answers to this question and comes up with some solutions.
A universal and equitable system?
Prior to 1997, parents received universal family allowances. Daycare fees were eligible for refundable tax credits, and the most underprivileged families were fully exempted. In 1997 the government replaced universal family allowances with sliding tax benefits based on family income, and it introduced low-contribution daycare spaces.
Nearly a decade after the reform, calculations by tax specialists show that families with incomes above $60,000 benefit most from the new system. In 2000, more than 58% of children in subsidized daycare came from families with incomes above $60,000 although this group accounted for only 49% of children 0 to 4 years old in Quebec.
Furthermore, parents who do not use $7 daycare are at a disadvantage. In 2004, this encompassed 48% of Quebec families with children aged 0 to 4. It includes those who use other forms of daycare such as leaving children in the care of relatives or at home with persons other than the parents. And most overlooked of all are those who care for their children on their own. Non-users also include parents who lack access to these services because they are stuck on waiting lists.
A costly system
The costs of the new childcare system have risen far more quickly than the development of new subsidized spaces. Subsidies paid to childcare centres and registered daycares leaped from $564 million in 1999-2000 to $1.353 billion in 2004-2005. This is an increase of nearly 140% in five years. The number of spaces rose by just 96% in the same period.
The costs of subsidized childcare services in Quebec are also higher than elsewhere in Canada. In Toronto, caring for a 3-year-old infant is reported to cost $9,600 a year, with the Canadian average standing at $6,300. In Quebec, it costs $11,600 a year for a 3-year-old to be looked after in a childcare centre (including the subsidy and the parents' contribution).
Coming up with solutions
In contrast to Quebec, the great majority of countries with active family policies offer more choice to parents. Two ways of doing this are especially worth considering: vouchers for daycare services and universal family allowances.
If the goal is to make it easier to care for children and to conciliate work and family, the government could pay the parents of each child currently in licensed daycare an amount of about $7,000 in the form of a voucher, based on the budget allocation of $1.353 billion in subsidies recorded in 2004-2005. This works out to $27 per working day. Parents could use vouchers to cover part of the cost of any licensed childcare service. Regardless of stipulations, this system would offer greater choice to parents. By creating healthy competition among service providers, it would also encourage them to meet families' needs and preferences more closely, especially in terms of schedules and programs.
If the aim is to help families in general, whether or not they use childcare services, the government could issue amounts of about $3,700 to parents for each child 0 to 4 years old in Quebec in the form of direct allowances or refundable tax credits. Parents not currently using childcare services would come out ahead under such a system.
Family allowances and vouchers can be combined in many ways. The government could also exempt underprivileged families from daycare fees, in whole or in part, to encourage them to register their infants in childcare centres.
Using these measures would help eliminate the mini-crises that erupt in Quebec politics when the government decides to increase the parental contribution or when a daycare facility offers parents an added service for extra cash. The government would set its contribution, daycare facilities would set their prices freely, and parents would decide freely on the type of care best suited to their children based on the quality-price ratios of various childcare service providers.
Whatever the goals that family policy aims for, there are more effective ways of meeting them. By offering greater choice to parents, Quebec would move closer to other countries with highly developed family policies.
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Famille. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Famille. Afficher tous les articles
lundi 23 octobre 2006
mardi 17 janvier 2006
Give parents power of choice
(Paru dans le National Post, le 17 janvier 2006)
The type of support promised for childcare services is one of the issues that has defined the three principal political parties during this federal election. Stephen Harper's Conservatives have promised approximately $1,200 per year to families for each child under 6 years of age; the Liberals have promised a national early learning and childcare initiative based on the Quebec model of subsidized childcare; and the NDP have promised a Child Care Act that would reserve federal funds for licensed, high-quality, non-profit childcare centres.
Those who support the Liberals' national program cite the example of the childcare centres set up in Quebec after the quasi-nationalization of day care in 1997. Canadians have been led to believe that the Parti Quebecois (PQ) provincial government in power at the time had found the right formula and that all parents have access to a quality service at the affordable price of $7 per day. However, the situation in Quebec is not nearly as rosy.
The Quebec childcare reform decreased outlays for parents from about $25-30 per day to $7, effectively eliminating cash-flow issues for lower-income families. But the drop in price increased demand and resulted in a shortage of spaces (given the government's limited budget capacity), as well as waiting lists of up to 2 years for subsidized spaces. While waiting, parents who need childcare continue to pay the market price. This has effectively created a system where access to a subsidized space depends neither on parents' financial circumstances, nor on the needs of children who may require special help to prevent learning difficulties later. The only factor that now plays a role is the rank of a child on a waiting list, i.e., bureaucratic convenience.
The way funding is channeled to these childcare centres explains many of the shortcomings of the 1997 reform. Quebec shifted from a system that helped parents buy childcare services to a system of subsidies to the providers of those services. The PQ government limited the purview of childcare centre administrators and began setting the pay of childcare workers. So the salary demands of those workers were then directed to the public treasury rather than to the childcare centre administrators. The negotiation of sector-wide collective agreements has led to strikes, which have caused the loss of 73,000 person-days of work since 1997, more than double the 34,000 person-days lost between 1990 and 1997.
In addition to fostering labour disputes, this system of funding providers instead of parents has also limited parental choice. The childcare centres certainly meet the needs of many parents. But with the growth of freelancing, telework, and sporadic and part-time work, an increasing number of parents are looking for flexible options that these childcare centres are hard-pressed or unwilling to provide.
Several surveys have shown that many Canadian parents prefer to care for their children themselves. Among specialists in early childhood development, some advocate early socialization in group childcare venues, some favour parental care at home at least for children who do not face any specific challenge. Yet all forms of support for childcare by a third party ignore the needs of parents who choose parental home care, for reasons related to their values or their individual economic circumstances.
How can we better acknowledge the range of parental preferences? What would reduce the potential for labour disputes in publicly funded childcare centres? The key is in the allocation of public funds for childcare among the different types of support. If the government simply wants to redistribute wealth to families, cash transfers and tax rebates suffice; there is no need to fund childcare specifically. If government wants to increase the labour supply, then it can help parents purchase childcare services without any restriction as to the type of services provided. If government believes that early socialization is beneficial for children, then it can help parents buy childcare services in centres that have appropriate early learning programs. But none of these policy objectives requires channeling funds directly to childcare service providers.
When purchasing power remains in the hands of those who benefit from a service, providers remain responsive to user needs. When funding for that same service comes from a central authority, conformity to norms often takes precedence.
In the end, there are several good reasons to empower parents through cash transfers, vouchers, or tax rebates for childcare rather than directly subsidizing childcare service providers.
The type of support promised for childcare services is one of the issues that has defined the three principal political parties during this federal election. Stephen Harper's Conservatives have promised approximately $1,200 per year to families for each child under 6 years of age; the Liberals have promised a national early learning and childcare initiative based on the Quebec model of subsidized childcare; and the NDP have promised a Child Care Act that would reserve federal funds for licensed, high-quality, non-profit childcare centres.
Those who support the Liberals' national program cite the example of the childcare centres set up in Quebec after the quasi-nationalization of day care in 1997. Canadians have been led to believe that the Parti Quebecois (PQ) provincial government in power at the time had found the right formula and that all parents have access to a quality service at the affordable price of $7 per day. However, the situation in Quebec is not nearly as rosy.
The Quebec childcare reform decreased outlays for parents from about $25-30 per day to $7, effectively eliminating cash-flow issues for lower-income families. But the drop in price increased demand and resulted in a shortage of spaces (given the government's limited budget capacity), as well as waiting lists of up to 2 years for subsidized spaces. While waiting, parents who need childcare continue to pay the market price. This has effectively created a system where access to a subsidized space depends neither on parents' financial circumstances, nor on the needs of children who may require special help to prevent learning difficulties later. The only factor that now plays a role is the rank of a child on a waiting list, i.e., bureaucratic convenience.
The way funding is channeled to these childcare centres explains many of the shortcomings of the 1997 reform. Quebec shifted from a system that helped parents buy childcare services to a system of subsidies to the providers of those services. The PQ government limited the purview of childcare centre administrators and began setting the pay of childcare workers. So the salary demands of those workers were then directed to the public treasury rather than to the childcare centre administrators. The negotiation of sector-wide collective agreements has led to strikes, which have caused the loss of 73,000 person-days of work since 1997, more than double the 34,000 person-days lost between 1990 and 1997.
In addition to fostering labour disputes, this system of funding providers instead of parents has also limited parental choice. The childcare centres certainly meet the needs of many parents. But with the growth of freelancing, telework, and sporadic and part-time work, an increasing number of parents are looking for flexible options that these childcare centres are hard-pressed or unwilling to provide.
Several surveys have shown that many Canadian parents prefer to care for their children themselves. Among specialists in early childhood development, some advocate early socialization in group childcare venues, some favour parental care at home at least for children who do not face any specific challenge. Yet all forms of support for childcare by a third party ignore the needs of parents who choose parental home care, for reasons related to their values or their individual economic circumstances.
How can we better acknowledge the range of parental preferences? What would reduce the potential for labour disputes in publicly funded childcare centres? The key is in the allocation of public funds for childcare among the different types of support. If the government simply wants to redistribute wealth to families, cash transfers and tax rebates suffice; there is no need to fund childcare specifically. If government wants to increase the labour supply, then it can help parents purchase childcare services without any restriction as to the type of services provided. If government believes that early socialization is beneficial for children, then it can help parents buy childcare services in centres that have appropriate early learning programs. But none of these policy objectives requires channeling funds directly to childcare service providers.
When purchasing power remains in the hands of those who benefit from a service, providers remain responsive to user needs. When funding for that same service comes from a central authority, conformity to norms often takes precedence.
In the end, there are several good reasons to empower parents through cash transfers, vouchers, or tax rebates for childcare rather than directly subsidizing childcare service providers.
vendredi 9 septembre 2005
Conflit de travail dans les CPE - Le gouvernement devrait soutenir la demande plutôt que l’offre
(Paru dans La Presse, le 09 septembre 2005)
Le spectre d'une grève générale dans le réseau des 310 Centres de la petite enfance (CPE) affiliés à la CSN – avec les tracas et les pertes de revenus qu'il cause aux parents – représente le fruit amer de la quasi-nationalisation des garderies en 1997. Depuis lors, la négociation d'une convention collective à l'échelle du Québec a engendré des grèves causant la perte de 73 000 jours personnes de travail, soit plus du double des 34 000 jours personnes perdus de 1990 à 1997 inclusivement.
C’est le moyen choisi en 1997 pour acheminer l’aide financière qui explique largement la détérioration des relations de travail. Nous sommes alors passés d’un régime d’aide aux parents pour l’achat de services de garde à un régime de subvention à des offreurs de ces services. Le gouvernement s’est substitué aux conseils d’administration des garderies et s’est mis à déterminer les conditions de travail des éducatrices.
En plus de détériorer les relations de travail, l’instauration d’un tel régime a aussi restreint la liberté de choix des parents. En 1997, à l’instigation de la ministre responsable du dossier Pauline Marois, le gouvernement a concrétisé sa préférence pour un type de garde précis, soit la garde en CPE). En 2003, le nouveau gouvernement s’est tourné vers la garde en milieu familial (rattachée aux CPE) pour compléter le développement des 200 000 places promises.
Toutefois, les haltes-garderies et les jardins d’enfants, ainsi que la garde en milieu familial par un tiers rémunéré non rattaché à un CPE, demeurent mésestimés des autorités gouvernementales. Ce qui est déplorable puisque avec l’essor du travail autonome, du télétravail, du travail occasionnel et du travail à temps partiel, de plus en plus de parents recherchent des solutions de garde flexibles en dehors de l’offre à temps plein traditionnelle.
L’orientation gouvernementale se traduit dans le niveau de l’aide financière: pour un enfant bénéficiant d’une place à contribution réduite, (et en supposant un revenu familial net moyen de 60 000$), le gouvernement débourse plus du double de la valeur du crédit d’impôt qu’il consentirait à ses parents s’ils le faisaient garder par une gardienne. Toutes les aides financières à la garde par un tiers rémunéré ignorent l’intérêt des parents qui, en fonction de leurs préférences personnelles et d’un calcul économique propre à leur situation, choisissent de s’occuper eux-mêmes de leur jeune enfant. Pourtant, selon plusieurs enquêtes d’opinion, un grand nombre de parents préféreraient garder eux-mêmes leur enfant.
Comment faire pour mieux respecter la diversité des préférences parentales et pour réduire la propension aux conflits de travail dans les CPE? Si le gouvernement veut simplement redistribuer la richesse au profit des familles, alors il suffit de leur accorder des transferts monétaires ou des avantages fiscaux; pas besoin de soutenir la garde d’enfants en tant que telle. Si, dans le cadre d’une politique de main-d’oeuvre, il veut favoriser la participation des deux parents au marché du travail, alors il peut les aider à acheter des services de garde, sans restriction quant au type de service. Si le gouvernement cherche à hâter la socialisation des enfants, alors il peut soutenir l’achat par les parents de tous les types de services de garde en groupe, dans la mesure où l’établissement s’est doté d’un programme éducatif convenable. Bref, aucun de ces objectifs ne justifie le financement direct des offreurs de services de garde.
Le bon de garde peut être l’instrument de cette autonomisation des parents. Ceux-ci pourraient l’échanger contre des services dispensés par des personnes ou des établissements accrédités. Lorsque le pouvoir d’achat réside entre les mains des bénéficiaires d’un service, les fournisseurs deviennent plus attentifs à leurs désirs. À l’inverse, lorsque le financement provient d’une autorité centrale, c’est la conformité aux normes qui prend le dessus.
Les CPE devraient aussi retrouver le droit de fixer le tarif demandé aux parents, ainsi que celui de négocier localement avec le syndicat. Les CA sont les mieux placés pour trouver le point d’équilibre entre les demandes budgétaires de l’établissement et la capacité de payer des parents. En soutenant la demande plutôt que l’offre, le gouvernement changerait ainsi la donne qui engendre les conflits de travail.
Le spectre d'une grève générale dans le réseau des 310 Centres de la petite enfance (CPE) affiliés à la CSN – avec les tracas et les pertes de revenus qu'il cause aux parents – représente le fruit amer de la quasi-nationalisation des garderies en 1997. Depuis lors, la négociation d'une convention collective à l'échelle du Québec a engendré des grèves causant la perte de 73 000 jours personnes de travail, soit plus du double des 34 000 jours personnes perdus de 1990 à 1997 inclusivement.
C’est le moyen choisi en 1997 pour acheminer l’aide financière qui explique largement la détérioration des relations de travail. Nous sommes alors passés d’un régime d’aide aux parents pour l’achat de services de garde à un régime de subvention à des offreurs de ces services. Le gouvernement s’est substitué aux conseils d’administration des garderies et s’est mis à déterminer les conditions de travail des éducatrices.
En plus de détériorer les relations de travail, l’instauration d’un tel régime a aussi restreint la liberté de choix des parents. En 1997, à l’instigation de la ministre responsable du dossier Pauline Marois, le gouvernement a concrétisé sa préférence pour un type de garde précis, soit la garde en CPE). En 2003, le nouveau gouvernement s’est tourné vers la garde en milieu familial (rattachée aux CPE) pour compléter le développement des 200 000 places promises.
Toutefois, les haltes-garderies et les jardins d’enfants, ainsi que la garde en milieu familial par un tiers rémunéré non rattaché à un CPE, demeurent mésestimés des autorités gouvernementales. Ce qui est déplorable puisque avec l’essor du travail autonome, du télétravail, du travail occasionnel et du travail à temps partiel, de plus en plus de parents recherchent des solutions de garde flexibles en dehors de l’offre à temps plein traditionnelle.
L’orientation gouvernementale se traduit dans le niveau de l’aide financière: pour un enfant bénéficiant d’une place à contribution réduite, (et en supposant un revenu familial net moyen de 60 000$), le gouvernement débourse plus du double de la valeur du crédit d’impôt qu’il consentirait à ses parents s’ils le faisaient garder par une gardienne. Toutes les aides financières à la garde par un tiers rémunéré ignorent l’intérêt des parents qui, en fonction de leurs préférences personnelles et d’un calcul économique propre à leur situation, choisissent de s’occuper eux-mêmes de leur jeune enfant. Pourtant, selon plusieurs enquêtes d’opinion, un grand nombre de parents préféreraient garder eux-mêmes leur enfant.
Comment faire pour mieux respecter la diversité des préférences parentales et pour réduire la propension aux conflits de travail dans les CPE? Si le gouvernement veut simplement redistribuer la richesse au profit des familles, alors il suffit de leur accorder des transferts monétaires ou des avantages fiscaux; pas besoin de soutenir la garde d’enfants en tant que telle. Si, dans le cadre d’une politique de main-d’oeuvre, il veut favoriser la participation des deux parents au marché du travail, alors il peut les aider à acheter des services de garde, sans restriction quant au type de service. Si le gouvernement cherche à hâter la socialisation des enfants, alors il peut soutenir l’achat par les parents de tous les types de services de garde en groupe, dans la mesure où l’établissement s’est doté d’un programme éducatif convenable. Bref, aucun de ces objectifs ne justifie le financement direct des offreurs de services de garde.
Le bon de garde peut être l’instrument de cette autonomisation des parents. Ceux-ci pourraient l’échanger contre des services dispensés par des personnes ou des établissements accrédités. Lorsque le pouvoir d’achat réside entre les mains des bénéficiaires d’un service, les fournisseurs deviennent plus attentifs à leurs désirs. À l’inverse, lorsque le financement provient d’une autorité centrale, c’est la conformité aux normes qui prend le dessus.
Les CPE devraient aussi retrouver le droit de fixer le tarif demandé aux parents, ainsi que celui de négocier localement avec le syndicat. Les CA sont les mieux placés pour trouver le point d’équilibre entre les demandes budgétaires de l’établissement et la capacité de payer des parents. En soutenant la demande plutôt que l’offre, le gouvernement changerait ainsi la donne qui engendre les conflits de travail.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
Articles
