Does Tax Credit Funding Work for Child Care?:  Lessons from Australia

Many Canadians do not seem to realize that funding child care with tax credits would mean having no control over child care fees.  Plus, there would be no financial accountability by operators for the public money they receive.  Right now, child care fees are controlled in Canada – in eight of Canada’s thirteen jurisdictions, the fee is $10 a day.  By April 2026, parent fees will be limited to $10 a day across the country.  If we switched to tax credits (as the Conservative Party recommended in the last election), there would be no limitation on parent fees and no financial accountability for billions of dollars of public money.  Child care operators could charge whatever the market would bear.  And so, for many families, child care would be unaffordable once again.

I’m in Australia right now.  It’s a gorgeous, sunny country with great restaurants, stimulating and dependable coffee, and very friendly people.  But they have problems with their child care system that we can learn from.

You can give money to parents to fund their spending on child care; mostly, that’s what Australia does.  Or you can fund the services to ensure that they will be available and affordable; mostly, that’s what Canada now does.  The first is called demand-side funding.  The second is called supply-side funding. 

Demand-side funding comes under different names – a tax credit or a voucher or a parent subsidy; it amounts to the same thing.  Australia has a Child Care Subsidy; there are bigger subsidies for low-income families and smaller subsidies for high-income families.  The payments are made to the family’s chosen child care provider (from amongst approved child care providers), based on the amount of child care used.  The parents have to pay whatever child care fees are not covered by the subsidy.

Australia has a market-based child care system.  There are standard regulations on employee qualifications, staff-child ratios, health and safety, and so on.  But, there are no effective government controls on the fees that are charged by providers and centres can be established wherever they choose – usually where it is most profitable.  The majority of providers in the system are for-profit corporations and entrepreneurs. 

Australia gives Canadians a chance to see how demand-side funding works in practice.  And, I would argue, Australia gives a “best case” scenario for this approach.  Australians have tried very hard over the years to make this subsidy/tax credit approach work equitably and efficiently for all families and they have done a lot to promote higher quality in child care services.  I would argue that if Australia can’t make a demand-side funding system work effectively to make child care affordable, accessible and of high quality, then no one can.

In this context, the November 2024 report by Dr. Angela Jackson, Lead Economist for Impact Economics and Policy is well worth a read.  The report – Time to Stop Throwing Good Money After Bad – was commissioned by the Minderoo Foundation, a charitable organization founded by Dr. Andrew Forrest (former CEO of the Fortescue Metals Group) and Nicola Forrest.  The report provides an assessment of Australia’s child care funding and management system.

I think the best place to start is to look at two charts that Dr. Jackson features in the report. 

Figures 4 and 5 are copied from her report.  Figure 4 covers the period from 1991 until 2023.  What you see are two lines.  One is relatively straight, showing how the Consumer Price Index has risen pretty steadily over this period of 32 years.  The fiscal year 2011-12 is the base year and gets an index value of 100.  Compared to that, the average price level in the economy has risen from 50 back in 1991 to 140 now.

The second (yellow) line is very jagged. It goes up, then falls, then rises rapidly, then falls.  Again and again.  This line shows the “out of pocket costs” of child care.  Out of pocket costs are the amounts that parents actually pay for child care after accounting for the child care subsidy they receive.  When government increases the subsidy, the out of pocket costs go down.  When fees charged by child care operators rise but the subsidy stays the same, then out of pocket costs rise. 

In the battle between rising child care fees and increasing levels of subsidy, child care fees have been winning.  Overall, the amounts paid by parents have been rising faster than inflation despite subsidy increases. 

In Australia, there were major infusions of funding and reform of child care policy in 2000, 2007, 2008, 2018 and 2023.  In 2020, during the pandemic, child care services became free for those continuing to use them.  We can see each of these events on the chart as a sudden drop in the yellow line.   

But none of these funding infusions have stopped the upward march of child care fees. Out of pocket costs of child care have increased quite a bit faster than inflation over this 32 year period DESPITE many government attempts to improve tax credit/parent subsidy funding arrangements to make child care more affordable.  Child care has become, on balance, less affordable, not more affordable.  In 2023, after Child Care Subsidy is accounted for, the average out of pocket cost of child care for parents in Australia was $44.42 per day (or over $11,500 per full year).

By how much have child care fees risen over this time period?  Figure 5 provides this information.  It includes the two lines from the previous figure but adds a new one.  This third (red) line, rising above the other two shows the amount by which the cost of child care to parents would have risen had there been no improvements in child care subsidization. The underlying costs of child care have risen by 499.9% over this period – much much faster than the rise in consumer prices!  In 2023, before subsidy, the average child care fee for full-day care in Australia was $133.96 (or nearly $35,000 for a full year).

This pattern continues to this day.  As Dr. Jackson notes, over the last 12 months child care fees have increased by 10.6%, which has eroded the benefits of the new $5 billion child care expenditure program begun in July 2023.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which held an inquiry into costs and prices of child care providers in 2023, described this repeating pattern accurately:

 “when government subsidies increase, out of pocket expenses decline sharply in the immediate term, but then quickly revert to levels preceding the subsidy change.”

Is this pattern a glitch?  Or is it a feature that we should expect to observe if Canada were to adopt a tax credit system for funding child care?  Those who support tax credits emphasize parent choice and flexibility.  What they do not tell you is that tax credit systems mean that there is NO CONTROL over the fees charged by child care providers.  There is no regulation of the decisions that corporations and entrepreneurs make about where to locate their services.  And further, there is no requirement that child care providers account for the ways in which they spend the billions of dollars of government money they will be receiving when subsidized children attend their facilities.

With a tax credit system, additional government spending largely benefits providers, not families.  True enough, this very generous funding system has encouraged providers to expand.  There were enough centre-based spaces for only 7% of Australia’s children 0-4 years of age back in 1991 and there is now coverage for 42% in 2022.

Since there is little control over where providers locate, access to child care is concentrated in wealthier areas where providers can charge higher fees.  24% of Australia’s households with children are located in child care deserts.

The large majority of providers in Australia are for-profit enterprises.  And for-profit providers have been found, in Australia as elsewhere around the world, to provide lower quality child care on average.  Australia has put a lot of resources into measuring quality of services.  Their quality rating system has five result categories: Significant Improvement Required, Working Towards National Quality Standard (NQS), Meeting NQS, Exceeding NQS,  and Excellent.  35.4% of not-for-profit providers are rated as Exceeding NQS or Excellent.  Only 12% of for-profit providers reach the same levels.  Further, for-profit providers have been found to be half as likely to increase their quality ratings over time as the not-for-providers are.

Viewing the Australian experience with a Canadian lens, the tax credit approach has many weaknesses.  In a tax credit system, the only way to make child care affordable for parents is through substantial infusions of government funding.  However, if substantial government funding is combined with providers having the freedom to set and change their own fee levels, then the result will be rapidly rising fee levels and reduced affordability. On top of that, there is no requirement for child care operators to account for how public money is spent.

In theory, competition among providers is supposed to bring fees down and force providers to offer better quality of care.  In practice, competition is very imperfect, partly because child care markets are very localized, so few providers compete directly with each other.  Competition is also imperfect because parents can only perceive and evaluate child care quality imperfectly. 

So a tax credit or voucher system pushes up child care costs, profits and fees but delivers child care that is expensive for governments, unaffordable for many families and very uneven in quality.  Governments get into a cycle of additional spending to bring out of pocket costs down, then watching as provider fees rise to make child care unaffordable once again.  Whatever its growing pains, $10 a day child care is a much better bet than tax credits to provide affordable, accessible, quality child care.

*********************************************************************************

However, Supplementary Subsidy Funding Plays A Positive Role
Most Canadian provinces and territories have child care subsidy systems that are supplementary to their main way of funding child care.  The effect of this is positive.  The main funding is on the supply side – funding to operators in exchange for child care services made available to families.  On top of that, most provinces and territories have a subsidy system that can lower the parent fee from $10 a day (or, currently, a higher fee in five Canadian jurisdictions) for low-income or multiple-child families that cannot afford $10 a day.  Most of these subsidy systems are imperfect, but they serve the very important purpose of ensuring affordability for all families, even those who cannot afford current reduced fees.

A NEW STATISTICS CANADA REPORT ON CANADA’S CHILD CARE WORKFORCE

One of the main barriers to expansion of child care supply is a widespread shortage of qualified educators.  This is mostly due to wages and benefits that are insufficiently high to attract and retain staff.  As a result, there are long waiting lists to get into licensed child care (115,000 children with mothers whose main activity is paid work). 

We do not have much good current data on our child care workforce, but Statistics Canada is attempting to begin to fill that hole.   Towards the end of December last year, Leanne Findlay and Thomas Charters from Statistics Canada published a report on child care workers who care for children 0-5 years of age.  The data is from 2021-22 and its source is the 2022 Canadian Survey on the Provision of Child Care Services (CSPCCS).

The authors restrict the sample to look only at centres who provide child care to children 0-5 years of age, and they address several issues:

  • Centre employees –  hours, training and roles
  • Typical rates of pay
  • Numbers hired, departed and staff vacancies
  • How all of the above vary by auspice and organizational structure

There are some important findings and observations in this study.   The study reports on weighted results for nearly 12,000 centres serving children 0-5.  Nearly half (48.6%) of child care centres serving children 0-5 are for-profit.  Centres employ nearly 137,000 staff, including full-time and part-time, program staff, supervisors, and support staff.  Nearly 90,000 of these employees are in Ontario and Quebec, and close to 15,000 each in Alberta and B.C. About 38% of these staff are hired in multi-site centres and about 62% in single-site centres.

A typical centre has about 56 children and close to 12 staff.  About 8 of these are front-line program staff.  There are either 1 or 2 supervisors and between 1 and 2 support staff.

Staff Qualifications

Most centres (83%) have a supervisor with an ECE certificate, diploma or degree.  For-profit single-site centres are below this average at 77%.

50% of centres have at least one staff member with no ECE training, and in those centres on average there are 3.7 staff members with no training.  47% of centres have at least one staff member with training of less than one year and on average in those centres there are 3.1 staff members with this modest level of training.  88% of centres have at least one staff member with a one-, two-, or three-year ECE certificate or diploma and these centres have on average 6.5 staff members with this level of training.  Finally, 17% of centres have at least one staff member with a four-year ECE degree or higher and on average these centres have 4 staff members with this level of training/education.

Wages

Survey respondents provided information about the most typically paid hourly wage rates for different categories of staff.  The average for supervisors was $27.80 per hour, but for-profit centres paid between $25 and $26 typically, and not-for-profit centres on average paid between $29 and $32. 

The same pattern was seen for wages of staff with an ECE credential – the for-profits paid an hourly average wage of between $20.50 and $21.50.  The not-for-profits paid between $22.50 and $23.00. 

Unfortunately, the wage question asked respondents to include wage enhancements but not provincial top-ups when reporting on staff wages.  This may have resulted in underreporting of wages in some centres.     In any case, it is obvious that typical wages in the sector are rather low.

Benefits

Amazingly, only about 76% of centres report that they provide any benefits at all to centre employees!  Those benefits include supplementary health and dental plans, life or disability insurance, pension plan contributions or group RRSPs, paid sick leave, paid vacation leave and financial assistance or paid time for training. 

The provision of benefits varies a lot by auspice and organizational structure.  Only about 62% of the single-site for-profits have any employee benefits.  Between 78% and 79% of both the multi-site for-profits and the single-site non-profits offer some employee benefits.  On the other hand, 93% of multi-site non-profit centres have at least some employee benefits. 

The biggest gap appears to be in pension benefits.  Only about 20% of for-profit centres of either kind have some pension or RRSP benefits.  About 46% of single-site non-profits have these benefits and 63% of multi-site non-profits do, as well.

Vacancies

The survey also provides information about job vacancies experienced by centres.  In April 2022, there were 7,560 vacancies in centres for ECE positions and another 2,960 vacancies for non-ECE positions.  In other words, nearly 8% of staff positions were vacant.  No wonder expansion of services has been slow and difficult.  In fact, 35% of centres had at least one vacancy for an employee with ECE credentials or training.

All of these issues are good ones to look at and the authors have done a good job with the data, but there are problems that affect interpretation and clarity.  In particular, the data is cross-Canada data; the sample size was too small to break responses down by province and territory. 

Further, CSPCCS is not a survey of members of the child care workforce, with questions answered by each staff member.  Instead, the CSPCCS is a survey of centres, so the respondent is some representative of the centre, and the responses are statements about the whole centre, not about the individual staff member.  So, there is less detail than you would like in some answers.  As an example, the categories for staff qualifications are (1) No ECE-related training, (2) ECE training of less than one year, (3) one, two or three year ECE certificate or diploma, (4) Four-year ECE degree or higher.  So, we can’t see how many staff have certificates vs. diplomas.  That’s potentially a very important difference.

The information is useful, but we still need a workforce survey where the respondents are individual supervisors, educators and assistants (and perhaps support staff as well).  That kind of survey, with a large enough sample, would allow us to get more detailed information about qualifications, remuneration, and recruitment and retention issues. 

Give Them an Inch and They’ll Take a Mile: The Story of For-Profit Child Care in Ontario

The Ministry of Education in Ontario is beginning to understand that they really can’t satisfy for-profit child care providers with anything less than the full cake and eat it too.  The Ontario government has bent over backwards to accommodate the for-profit child care operators; they want them to opt into the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care (CWELCC) system.  What has the Ministry done so far for the for-profit operators?

  • It changed the regulations so that municipalities (mandated to be Service System Managers) no longer have the discretion to sign purchase-of-service agreements only with not-for-profit providers (16 of the 47 had this type of provision);
  • It changed regulations so that measurement of quality in a centre could not be used as a criterion for eligiblity for CWELCC sign-up;
  • It completely gutted the new Management and Funding Guidelines for 2022 which the Ministry itself had established back in April.  The April version of the guidelines affirmed that municipalities should judge whether the funds given to operators in 2022 were based on actual costs.  In other words, the municipalities should judge whether operators had ineligible expenditures or excesssive profit claims.  The August Guidelines eliminated these provisions.
  • It ordered municipalities to collect very little financial data from operators.  The April version of the Guidelines said that “CMSMs/DSSABs are required to collect sufficient and detailed financial information from Licensees…. CMSMs/DSSABs will review all financial components including cost and expense line items for reasonability and eligibility, while ensuring CWELCC System objectives will be achieved….”  The August version of the Guidelines said “Information collected from Licensees to support implementation should be kept to the minimum amount necessary to meet the reporting requirements outlined in the CWELCC Guidelines….”

As of October 18th, the Ministry of Education has announced that the August 2022 Guidelines will continue for 2023; there will be few controls over how child care operators spend the revenues they receive from the CWELCC program.  Information collection will be kept to a minimum.  All of this despite the fact that, with a 50% cut in fees at the end of 2022, more than twice as much government money will be going to operators.

Ontario’s Action Plan (part of the CWELCC Agreement with the federal government) said there would be a revised allocation methodology in 2023.  That didn’t happen. Now, the new costs-based funding system will be in place for 2024.

But that’s not enough concessions as far as the for-profit operators are concerned.  They want more.  Sharon Siriboe, the director of the Ontario Association of Independent Childcare Centres wants guaranteed funding rules before for-profit operators will join the system.  “How can any small business remain viable and be asked to make such significant changes with only 14 months of clarity?”

What is the problem here?

Ontario signed an agreement with the federal government back in late March of 2022 – the Ontario-Canada Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement.  In it, Ontario committed itself to the vision of building a largely not-for-profit system of accessible, affordable, inclusive child care services of high quality with federal money – $10 Billion of it over 4 years.

In Section 4.1 of that agreement, it states that “Ontario intends to maintain and build upon its existing robust accountability framework by introducing a further control mechanism. Ontario proposes to implement a cost control framework following the signing of the agreement that will be in place for all providers that opt into the Canada-wide ELCC system. The Parties are interested in approaches to ensure the sound and reasonable use of public funds, ensuring that costs and earnings of child care licensees that opt-in to the Canada-wide ELCC system are reasonable and that surplus earnings beyond reasonable earnings are directed towards improving child care services.”  

I don’t really like calling it a “cost control framework”.  It would be better to call it a “wise spending of public dollars” framework.  The objective is not to have costs that are as low as possible; the objective is to spend public dollars sensibly to achieve the objectives of affordability, accessibility and quality.  Ontario has agreed with the federal government that there will be a mechanism that ensures that all providers spend public funds wisely and that both the costs claimed by these providers and the earnings (profit) claimed by these providers are reasonable in achieving the objectives of this new child care system.

What is this new cost control/wise spending of public dollars framework?   Ontario tries to claim they have one already, but they don’t.  They have what we could call a fee control framework.  In other words, base fees for every operator are frozen at whatever their value was on March 27, 2022.  Each operator will get revenue from government equal to 25% of this base fee if they join CWELCC in 2022.  The operator will use these funds to backdate a 25% fee reduction to parents.  There will be another cut to fees at the end of December.  This will take fees down by 50% compared to the level they had in 2020. And, in 2023, operators will get revenues from government to cover these fee reductions for parents.  These rules control the fees charged by operators, but they in no way validate the costs and earnings that are covered by the new government revenues.  There is effectively no reporting on what these costs and earnings are.  There is no way to calculate the amount of surplus taken by operators, or to see how it is used.

That’s the way the for-profit operators like it.  No requirement for reporting on how the public funds they receive are spent until well into 2024.  Even then, only a requirement for an annual audit. No need to justify the salaries paid to management.  No need to justify the profits they claim each year, which are built into the fees they charge.  We know from the CCPA fees survey that for-profit operators in cities across Ontario charge higher fees than not-for-profits.  Their median fees are between 8% and 40% higher than the not-for-profits, depending on the municipality. Why?  Are these fee (and revenue) differentials justified?  The for-profit sector would prefer not to tell.  They don’t want detailed accountability for the public funds they receive.

I have recently argued that the Ministry of Education should be requiring all operators in 2023 to submit detailed budgets of planned expenditures.  These would be reconciled against actual spending (and profit) at the end of the year.  This, along with related operating data, could provide the detailed costs and spending information the Ministry of Education would need to design a new costs-based funding system.  But the Ministry doesn’t want to do that.  Instead they are giving the for-profit child care operators a free pass for another year.  The Ministry plans to develop a new costs-based funding system for 2024 with virtually no costs data upon which to build it.  And, the for-profit operators are even objecting to this.  They apparently want the free pass to continue for ever.

Why, you might wonder?  From an economic point of view, the position of the for-profit operators is quite rational.  They have a licence to provide child care services in Ontario and many of them make good money providing these services.  From now on, having a licence to provide child care services to children 0-5 in Ontario is going to mean receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in guaranteed government funding; by September 2025, government-provided revenues will cover over 80% of the per-child costs of most centres. Access to this kind of government funding is scarce; not everyone can get a licence   In a similar situation in Quebec, some fixed-fee centres have been able to sell their licences to new operators for over a million dollars.  That’s not selling equipment or real estate; that’s just the price of buying the licence.  In Ontario, the fewer the reporting requirements, the fewer the controls over how operators spend their money, the fewer the controls on profit, the higher will be the price when you come to sell your licence.  Large big-box for-profit child care chains may be willing to pay top dollar for existing licences of small for-profit operators if there are very few controls on the reasonableness of costs and earnings.  So, the demands of the for-profit operators are rational; they’re just not very good for Ontario children, families and for the building of a financially accountable child care system.

My Recent Presentation on Child Care Affordability

The Institute for Gender and the Economy recently sponsored a workshop on Care Work in the Recovery Economy. I did a short presentation with slides looking at Alberta’s new child care policies – following on the funding agreement with the federal government. Do the new policies get us to $10 a day? Are low-income families still disadvantaged with the burden of child care costs? I thought you might like to see the slides and draw conclusions.

And how about this neat graphic provided to me after the workshop by the workshop organizers!! It summarizes some of my main themes.