child care expansion – Childcarepolicy.net

July 25, 2024July 25, 2024

Who’s To Blame For Child Care Shortages In Ontario?

Todd Smith is Ontario’s new Minister of Education and he has already decided who he wants to blame for Ontario’s child care shortages – it’s the federal government. So, Todd Smith wants federal minister Jenna Sudds to release Ontario from the agreement it signed back in 2022 that limits expansion by for-profit enterprises to a maximum of 30% of the total expansion. Ontario never wanted to limit for-profit expansion; apparently they only signed the agreement under duress.

The problem of child care shortages is a real one. We need a lot more child care expansion in Ontario and we need it now. We will need even more child care when Ontario drops the parent fee down to $10 a day.

But Todd Smith doesn’t seem to understand why Ontario is facing such a shortage of child care spaces, so he’s coming up with solutions that are antithetical to the high quality universal child care we have been promised. He’s new in his job, so let’s give him a primer:

Ontario knew very well that there would be a huge shortage of child care spaces. The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario told them this in November 2022;
The solutions are well known. Ontario’s officials and politicians were told by many people – including me and the Financial Accountability Office – what steps they needed to take to make child care expansion happen;
Instead of implementing these solutions, Ontario has fumbled and delayed and prevaricated and done nothing, or very little, to facilitate the child care expansion that is needed;

Now, Ontario wants to blame the federal government for Ontario’s failures to provide new child care facilities for parents and children that need it. Some blame is due to the federal government, but Ontario is the one with the responsibility and capacity to fix the shortages;

It is true that for-profit child care providers are quicker to assemble capital funding than non-profits, but there are serious long-term costs. Ontario knows well how to facilitate non-profit and public child care expansion; its current child care system has been built primarily this way.

Quebec’s experience makes it clear that relying on for-profit child care can come at a substantial cost in child care quality, which Todd Smith is ignoring.

Ontario knew there would be a substantial shortage of spaces

In November 2022, the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario (FAO) reported to the Legislative Assembly that at $10 a day, Ontario parents would need 300,000 additional child care spaces. Demand would increase by that much. They compared that to the 71,000 additional spaces that Ontario was planning to add between 2022 and 2026. The FAO’s conclusion was that when parent fees reach $10 a day “…the families of 227,146 children under age six (25 per cent of the projected under age six population of 919,866 children in 2026) would be left wanting but unable to access $10-a-day child care.”

I had published similar estimates in May 2021.

Ontario has promised an additional 86,000 new child-care spaces compared to 2019. As Allison Jones article for Canadian Press tells us, so far there have been about 51,000 new spaces created in Ontario, with only half inside the $10-a-day system.

Ontario knew what to do to expand child care

The FAO, in its understated way, had already identified one key barrier to expansion that Ontario should deal with. Its November 2022 report stated that “…uncertainties over some aspects of the $10-a-day child care program, such as the extent of ministry reimbursement of future cost increases to child care providers, could reduce incentives for child care providers to create spaces.” In other words, if child care providers do not know whether revenues will be enough to cover their legitimate costs, they won’t decide to expand.

Working with Building Blocks for Child Care (B2C2), I wrote and circulated widely a paper and a blog post laying out the steps needed to facilitate the expansion of non-profit and public child care:

A system of capital grants and loan guarantees for not-for-profit and public operators
Creating public planning mechanisms with provincial, municipal, school board and community members
An inventory of publicly-owned lands and buildings suitable for child care expansion
Mandate where possible the co-location of licensed child care services whenever business and housing developments happen
Explore the use of Land Trusts to preserve the preservation of child care assets in public hands for future generations
Use provincial legislation and regulations to control transfers of child care assets and ensure they are not controlled by big-box corporate child care chains
Early guarantees of operational funding and licensing of not-for-profit and public operators that plan expansion following public plans.
Development and implementation of a province-wide salary and benefits grid and much more funding to increase compensation of educators and other staff. Recruitment and retention of qualified educators is Job #1.
Transparent and effective future funding guidelines to support expansion. Assistance to municipalities to implement financial accountability measures in a long-term funding model.
Public funding of organizations such as B2C2 that support not-for-profit operators to negotiate hurdles associated with expansion of child care services

Ontario has done very little to facilitate expansion

Ontario thought that child care expansion would be a natural process, not requiring much government support. Based on what Ministry of Education officials told the FAO “The ministry plans to create 71,000 net new spaces through what it terms natural growth (48,459 spaces) and induced demand (22,406 spaces)” (FAO Report, 2022). Except the “natural growth” has not happened. Here’s why.

In Ontario:

Operators do not know what their future revenues will be or what factors will generate more or less revenue. Their future revenues will be governed by the new funding system which Ontario promised in 2023 and again in 2024 and now will come in 2025. Ontario still has the funding arrangement it invented on-the-fly on day one of the new child care system. Which was to just replace the exact amount of the fee that child care centres charged on March 27, 2022. But as anyone who has lived through the last few years would tell you, the costs of everything have been changing a lot in the last while. And since, in the child care sector, there are substantial shortages, costs of some things have been rising substantially.

There is very little funding support for expansion of child care centres. There is start-up funding to pay for toys and equipment, but no capital grant program for community child care. There has been capital money for new centres on school board premises, first announced in 2019 (i.e., expansion planned before the $10 a day program), but now even expansion in 56 of these school board centres has been cancelled by the Ontario government.

In the midst of a huge shortage of early childhood educators – estimated by the Ministry of Education as a shortage of 8,500 new educators by 2026 – the support by the Ontario Government for staff wages is stingy at best. In Ontario the base wage rate for an early childhood educator is $23.86 per hour, while the average hourly wage of all Ontario employees is $36.14 per hour. In PEI, the base wage rate for an early childhood educator is $28.36 per hour, and the average hourly wage of all PEI employees is the same – $28.36 per hour. There are huge child care staff shortages in Ontario, but not in PEI.

We know that Ontario is able to expand capacity quickly if it were to be a priority. In 2010-2014, Ontario provided expanded classroom space for about 280,000 children who moved from half-day kindergarten to full-day kindergarten. All of that expansion in only 5 years. Because it was a priority. The financial and personnel resources were mobilized to make it happen. But, the expansion of child care for the tens of thousands of Ontario children who want access is clearly not a priority for this government.

Having committed itself to building an affordable, accessible child care system largely with federal money, the Ontario government decided to sit on its hands and let the system fall apart. They did the easy part. They lowered parent fees, initially by 25% and then approximately by another 25%, so that parent fees are much lower than they were. So, demand for child care has skyrocketed.

But the Ontario government has not done the hard parts – reducing workforce shortages by raising compensation, providing substantial capital and management supports for child care expansion, and implementing a funding system to provide guaranteed operating revenues for providers.

So, now there are shortages. And the Ford government has been sitting on its hands, waiting for the crisis to get worse.

Ontario wants to blame the federal government

This was a sweet deal for Ontario, because the federal government committed to turning over a huge whack of money to Ontario to make this happen. In the first year (which was virtually over by the time Ontario had signed the agreement), the federal government provided $1.1 billion for Ontario child care. In every year after that the federal contribution to child care in Ontario has risen and will reach just less than $3 billion in 2025-26. By this time, the federal government will be paying about $3 for every $2 spent by Ontario to support providing child care for Ontario’s children and families.

There are elements of blame that the federal government should wear. The reforms should have been phased in more slowly, so that demand did not ramp up so fast. And, the federal government will need to provide more money – there is not enough to support child care for an additional 300,000 children that the FAO predicts will want child care.

But the federal government has now put over $1 billion on the table in reduced-interest loans and another $625 million distributed to provinces for capital grants to support child care expansion. Ontario will get the largest share of those amounts.

If Ontario does not do the hard work of…

reducing workforce shortages,
providing supports for child care expansion by nonprofits and public agencies, and
providing operating revenues with an equitable and sufficient funding system,
then sufficient child care expansion will not happen in either the for-profit or the non-profit and public sectors.

For-profit expansion is easier but more dangerous

When it comes to growth, for-profit child care providers have structural advantages over not-for-profits. Not-for-profits are frequently unwilling to go into debt, so there needs to be a program of capital grants and encouragement to access low-interest loans to pay for the costs of building new facilities or repurposing existing buildings.

The mission of for-profit businesses is to make a profit, so expansion is a natural fit, particularly when the government is paying 80%-90% of the operating costs and providing a guaranteed demand for services. Shareholders or banks are always willing to ante up when the government is willing to provide guaranteed funding for profit-making businesses. They are not used to providing similar supports for non-profits in the child care sector.

But there are ways around these structural barriers faced by not-for-profits. Not-for-profits need two main things if they are to build new capacity quickly. First, is access to capital. Some of this should come in the form of capital grants to not-for-profits or municipalities or school boards who are willing to move quickly. Some of this can be in the form of low-interest loans, like those that will soon be available from CMHC. Governments should guarantee the loans, but most importantly, the Ontario government needs to ensure that there will be ample operating funding for child care centres to pay back the loans over time.

The second thing that not-for-profits need is a development champion – a development agency that specializes in handling all the details involved in building new capacity or renovating existing capacity. This is familiar territory for co-operative housing or not-for-profit housing developments. There are specialized agencies that handle the housing development and then turn the housing over to co-ops or not-for-profit housing agencies to manage and operate. This should be the case for child care as well.

Neither of these barriers is particularly insurmountable, but they do require governments to facilitate surmounting them. In many cases, public agencies such as municipalities, school boards, and community colleges can help a great deal in supporting not-for-profit and public developments. And the provincial and federal governments should be open to expansions of kindergarten integrated with before-and-after school care.

Ontario shows that rapid expansion of not-for-profit child care services is very possible. Over the 10 years up until 2019-2020, centre spaces increased in Ontario by 198,600. Fully 85% of the increase (168,900 spaces) was in not-for-profit child care.

Quebec shows us the terrible cost of expanding mostly in the for-profit sector

Todd Smith should talk to Mathieu Lacombe, Minister of Families in Quebec from October 2018 to October 2022 in the conservative government of François Legault. Andrew-Gee in the Globe and Mail quotes Mathieu Lacombe: “Allowing for the expansion of private daycare, he said, was the ‘biggest mistake the Quebec government committed in the last 25 years.’”

Of course, Todd Smith could also decide to read the Auditor-General’s report for 2023-24 in Quebec. This report looked at measured quality levels in child care centres serving children 3-5 years of age. It also looked at what percent of front-line child care staff are qualified early childhood educators. The Auditor-General investigated the performance of three types of child care centres – the nonprofit CPEs, the for-profit child care centres that charge a fixed fee, and the for-profit child care centres that are funded by a parental tax credit for child care expenses (and do not have fixed fees).

For-profit operators are always looking for a way to save money and increase profits. In child care, saving money generally means cutting back on staffing, because staffing takes up the large majority of the costs of providing care for your children. Before the pandemic, the required ratio in Quebec was that 2/3rds of front-line staff would be qualified staff – early childhood educators with a diploma. This ratio was lowered to 1/3^rd of staff during the pandemic as an emergency measure but raised to ½ in March 2023. It was supposed to return to 2/3rds by March 2024, but the Quebec government had to delay this due to widespread shortages of early childhood educators.

The table below gives the full story for 2023 in Quebec. It tells us what percent of the three types of child care centres were below three benchmark levels of child care staffing. The first benchmark is one-third of staff who are qualified as early childhood educators. The second benchmark is one-half and the third benchmark is two-thirds of staff qualified as early childhood educators.

As you can see, the nonprofit centres score much better on the percent of early childhood educators than either of the for-profit categories. Shockingly, 19% of the for-profit tax-credit-funded centres do not even have one out of every three staff qualified as an early childhood educator. Over half of these centres do not meet the currently required ratio of one-half of staff being early childhood educators. And 86% of these for-profits do not meet the 2/3rds requirement that Quebec has been trying to re-establish.

Percent of Front Line Staff Who are Qualified Early Childhood Educators in Non-Profit, For-Profit Fixed Fee, and For-Profit Variable Fee Centres in Quebec, 2023

	% of nonprofit centres	% of for-profit fixed-fee centres	% of for-profit tax-credit-funded centres	% of all centres
Less than 1/3rd of staff qualified as educators	1%	3%	19%	7%
Less than 1/2 of staff qualified as educators	5%	19%	55%	23%
Less than 2/3rds of staff qualified as educators	18%	53%	86%	46%

Staffing has a big effect on quality, of course. Quebec has had a program of testing quality in 3-5 year-old classrooms in Quebec centres since 2019. The Auditor-General summarized the results. Over the period 2019 to 2023, 36% of “garderies subventionées” – for-profit child care centres that charge a fixed fee – failed the quality examination. In other words, they showed quality levels that had some important problems and were unacceptably low. Worse than that were the “garderies non-subventionées” – the tax-credit-funded child care centres that are able to set their own fee levels and wages. 47% of these – very nearly half of all centres tested – failed the quality examination over the period 2019-2023. In line with their greater reliance on qualified early childhood educators, only 11% of CPEs – the nonprofit child care centres that are the heart of the fixed fee system – failed the quality test.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Todd Smith should learn that lesson. In the short run, you might save money by relying on for-profit child care expansion, because they will find their own capital money, especially corporate child care with deep pockets and those supported by private equity capital. Pretty soon, however, you will have built a child care system that is offering poor quality services to your province’s children and their parents. And you know that you will end up paying for the for-profit’s capital expansion in the long run, so you might as well do the work now to encourage non-profit and public child care to take up its 70% share.

What we have in Quebec is a demonstration of the pernicious effects of unleashing the profit motive in child care – which is what Quebec did especially from about 2009 onwards. I am not trying to say that all for-profit operators provide poor quality child care or that all of them skimp on child care staffing. Some small for-profit operators provide good quality care and devote themselves to quality improvements. You can have a certain percentage of for-profit providers in a publicly-funded child care system, but there need to be strong measures of public management that limit the ability of for-profit enterprises to extract profit at the expense of quality. The measures of public management are obviously insufficient in parts of Quebec’s child care system. And Todd Smith cannot be trusted to ensure strong public management in Ontario.

Who’s to blame for child care shortages in Ontario? Look in the mirror, Mr Smith.

May 30, 2024

New Support for the Economic Benefits of Universal Child Care

I met Sebastien Montpetit at the Canadian Economics Association meetings in Winnipeg last year. He is a Canadian and Quebecer who has been studying for his PhD in economics at the University of Toulouse. And he, with co-authors, has come up with a really fascinating analysis of the impacts of Quebec’s universal child care program ushered in the late 1990s and the early 2000s.

The paper is complex, has multiple parts, and the latest version of it is available here. It has been selected as one of three finalists for the Canadian Labour Economics Forum prize at the upcoming Canadian Economics Association meetings in Toronto. I’ll give you the main take-home points right away, and then delve into where the results come from.

Sebastien’s main conclusions?

The importance of the supply of child care services has been underrated. Greater supply of child care – availability – is as important as improvements in affordability. In Quebec, the regions that had the largest increases in child care supply had the biggest impacts on mother’s employment and increased child care use. Lowering fees without increasing coverage has modest effects on the benefits to families. The bottom line: increasing local child care supply is key to the effectiveness of child care reforms.
The economic benefits from improved maternal labour supply in Quebec have been well studied and Sebastien confirms them. But, there are very substantial non-monetary benefits for mothers too. Think of this as work-family balance, things like the reduced search time for child care, the shorter distances that have to travelled each day when child care is much more available and affordable.
When all the benefits are summed, benefits total more than 3.5 dollars of benefit per dollar of net government spending – more than twice the benefit that comes from looking only at increased mothers’ earnings.

Earnings gains for mothers impacted by Quebec’s child care reforms are concentrated in the fifth through the eighth decile of income. In other words, many of the fiscal benefits to governments of a universal child care reform come from mothers who can earn moderate to reasonably high incomes. These are mothers who will not be reached by a targeted approach to child care spending. A universal approach may therefore be more fiscally responsible than targeted child care initiatives.

Michael Baker, Kevin Milligan and Johnathan Gruber became renowned for their paper concluding that there were a range of negative effects on children who lived in Quebec during the early years of Quebec’s child care reforms (and may have participated in child care). Sebastien looks at data on those children many years later and assesses whether their educational development was negatively impacted. He finds no evidence of this; educational attainment of students in Quebec and the rest of Canada is very much the same.

Michael Baker, Kevin Milligan and Johnathan Gruber gained some additional notoriety for a follow-on paper that found increased juvenile criminality amongst Quebec children who were exposed to Quebec’s child care reforms. Sebastien Montpetit looks at the evidence on juvenile crimes and finds that most of the increased juvenile crime that may have occurred was very minor and that the societal cost is relatively small.

The main data source for all of his analyses is the National Longitudinal Study on Children and Youth. He also uses data from the Canadian Censuses of 2016 and 2021.

There are four types of analysis that compose this complex paper. First, with new data on regional child care coverage rates, Sebastien uses a difference-in-differences approach to compare mothers in Quebec to those in the rest of Canada. He finds that in regions where child care supply increased the most, employment and child care use increased much more when other factors are controlled.

In particular, in regions where child care supply expanded more, the child care reforms boosted mothers’ labour force participation by 40% more than in other regions

Further, Sebastien finds that mothers with low levels of education also respond more in these regions with high levels of expansion.

Results suggest that for high educated mothers with a post-secondary qualification, the main incentive to take up employment was the fee reduction. For mothers without a post-secondary qualification, access to a space was key.

Sebastien uses a non-linear difference-in-differences model to estimate earnings gains across mothers’ income distribution. Mothers’ earnings gains from the child care reforms are found to amount to $1.42 per $1.00 of net government spending.

Baker, Gruber and Milligan found that eligible children in two-parent families experienced worse developmental outcomes and lower consistency in parenting. Other researchers found substantial heterogeneity in these results. Haeck et al (2015,2018, 2022) found that most negative impacts on children and parental behaviour fade away over time.

In order to look at children’s educational attainment later in life, Sebastien employs a triple-difference model which compares education levels of same age individuals born before or after the reforms in Quebec to similar individuals in the rest of Canada.

The paper concludes: “We find no evidence of negative effects on educational attainment of eligible children in the long-run. This pattern is true for each educational level, namely for university, high school, and college completion….

As a result: “…the negative impacts on child behavior documented by Baker et al. (2008, 2019) do not translate into depressed economic outcomes later in life.” (p. 2) “…this evidence thus suggests the absence of negative fiscal impacts stemming from eligible children’s economic outcomes in the long run.” (pp. 2-3).[1]

Triple-difference estimator compares same-age individuals who vary in eligibility status based on the census year and their province of birth. He finds no evidence of negative effects on educational attainment of eligible children in the long run. This pattern is true for every educational level.

Sebastien Montpetit takes Baker and colleagues’ estimates of increases in youth criminal activity (2019) and estimates what the victimization costs and productivity losses would be. Using recent estimates of the costs of crime, he finds that these social costs are small.

Difference-in-differences estimates seek to use good control groups to help judge the effectiveness of some policy change. So, for instance, children 0-4 years of age in the rest of Canada where there was no major child care reform, might be considered to be a good control group to compare to what happened with children 0-4 or the mothers of those children in Quebec. Why is it called difference-in-differences? Because this statistical technique does not compare the level of a variable (like mothers’ labour force participation) in Quebec to the same level in Canada. Instead, it compares the change in mothers’ labour force participation (called a difference) in Quebec to the change over a few years (another difference) in the mothers’ labour force participation in the rest of Canada. This analysis is done in a regression framework including other variables, so that we can see the impact of those variables on the policy result.

Montpetit then estimates a structural model of maternal labour supply and child care choice in order to make inferences about the size of the non-monetary benefits that mothers receive from Quebec’s universal child care system. The non-monetary benefits are found to be substantial. Using the model to do additional simulations, Sebastien concludes that these non-monetary benefits are particularly closely related to the availability of child care services in the local area. He concludes that universal child care policies for children 0-4 can generate substantial social returns. And he concludes that increased availability of child care is particularly important to these returns.

Sebastien notes that the quality of Quebec child care in this period was very uneven with CPEs having higher quality and other child care centres having lower quality. Sebastien is not able to include quality measures in his analyses.

Altogether a very interesting, carefully crafted and timely paper. Congratulations Sebastien and co-authors!

[1] Montpetit, S., Beauregard, P., & Carrer, L. (2024). A Welfare Analysis of Universal Childcare: Lessons From a Canadian Reformhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1dDWvj2e08YodXAWd5zdmBKP3j-kxt1Uj/view

February 19, 2024

The Fraser Institute’s Evaluation of the $10 a Day Child Care Reforms

This is not his best work. Phillip Cross has had a notable career at Statistics Canada. He’s an expert in macroeconomic trends. But, one thing that he knows very little about is child care. Unfortunately, he has written a short paper for the Fraser Institute evaluating the success or failure of the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care reforms so far.

It’s bad. Almost everything in the paper is either wrong or misleading.

So what does Phillip Cross say?

He says that the Canada-Wide early learning and child care program had 3 goals:

(1) providing more jobs in the child care industry,

(2) enabling mothers to join the labour force, and

(3) providing better care for young children.

His paper will look at the first two.

He looks at some evidence and concludes that there has been no change in the employment trends in child care staff.
Then, he looks at evidence about women’s labour force participation and concludes that it has hardly changed since 2015.
Having concluded that the Canada-Wide child care reforms are a failure, he goes on to take pot shots at Quebec’s child care system concluding that its universal child care system doesn’t really help low-income families, wasn’t really responsible for the boost in its labour force participation, has long waiting lists due to inadequate supply, and isn’t really universal.

Phillip Cross is wrong on all counts, contributing yet more false information to child care discussions in Canada. There are many problems with the rollout of the Canada-Wide program across the provinces and territories – particularly slow rates of growth in child care capacity. However, the Fraser Institute paper does not grapple with real issues and propose real solutions.

Phillip Cross, believe it or not, ignores improving the affordability of licensed child care in his list of goals of the Canada-Wide program. This, of course, is the greatest success of the program so far. Hundreds of thousands of children and families have benefited from less expensive child care. Their very high child care costs have been cut by half or more. These parents are very happy with the marvellous success of the program.

Employment in the Child Care Industry

There has been substantial growth in employment in the day care industry (NAICS Code 6244) since April 2021 when the Canada-Wide program was announced. By my reckoning, the number of persons employed in Canada outside Quebec has risen by 36.9%, a total of 32,885 additional persons employed. Phillip Cross hides this growth in two ways. First, he looks at Canada including Quebec, which is inappropriate. Quebec has a mature child care system and its employment of child care staff is not growing quickly. The focus of growth in the Canada-Wide program is on the provinces and territories outside Quebec.

Second, Phillip Cross ignores the collapse of child care employment during the pandemic and assumes that child care employment should have grown as if the pandemic did not happen. In fact, child care employment in Canada outside Quebec collapsed from over 100,000 at the beginning of 2020 to less than half of that a few months later. Employment did not climb above 100,000 until March of 2022. So, the Canada-Wide program has helped the revival of employment in the child care industry and gone well beyond. We should celebrate this, rather than hiding it. This evidence can be found in Statistics Canada CANSIM Table 14100201.

Mothers in the Labour Force

Phillip Cross concludes that the Canada-Wide program has also shown no progress in supporting mothers to enter the labour market. According to him, labour force participation hit its peak in 2015 and even after all this money spent on child care, it has only just about reached the same level. As he notes, the participation rate was 61.7% in 2015 and now it is just 61.5%.

But, Cross is not looking at the right statistics. He is looking at the labour force participation of all women 25-54 years of age. However, most women do not currently have a child 0-5 years of age. Women without young children would not have their labour force participation affected by the Canada-Wide child care program.

The Fraser Institute report should instead be looking at labour force participation of mothers with children 0-5 who are the target of the program. Here, participation rates are up by several percentage points from April 2021 to now (from 76.9% to 79.9%) even though expansion of child care has been slower than it should be. And compared to 2015, which the Fraser Institute cites as the high water mark, the labour force participation of mothers with children 0-5 is over 6 percentage points higher now than it was then. So this evidence of “failure” is false news and should not be left to become conventional wisdom. This data can be found in Statistics Canada CANSIM Table 14100397.

Quebec’s Universal Child Care System

Phillip Cross would presumably be very surprised to hear that Quebec’s child care system is very popular with parents and with the Quebec government. He believes that low-income families have been squeezed out of access to child care. In fact, there is good evidence that a much higher percentage of low-income families in Quebec have been able to access child care than was true for low-income families in the rest of Canada in the period before the Canada-wide system[1]. The universal system of child care in Quebec encouraged many more low income mothers into the labour force and into using child care. It is true, and a problem, that on average low-income families are more likely to have their children in the lower-quality for-profit child care services. The Quebec government is expanding not-for-profit centres as a partial remedy.

Cross claims that Quebec’s child care system is not universal. His evidence for this seems to be that there are 51,000 families on a waiting list for child care services. Here his lack of child care knowledge is really showing. This is a waiting list to get into one part of their child care system – the preferred part with a fixed fee and many better quality services.

There is no overall shortage of child care spaces in Quebec; in fact there are many empty spaces in the for-profit child care services funded by a tax credit. But parents don’t prefer these for-profit spaces where there is no guaranteed parent fee. These services have been shown to be much poorer quality than the not-for-profit spaces in CPEs (early childhood centres). So, yes, there are 51,000 children on a waiting list to get out of these tax-credit-funded spaces and into the fixed-fee services that they prefer.

Finally, Phillip Cross tries to deny that the universal child care system in Quebec has been responsible for dramatic increases in labour force participation of mothers. He writes that “proponents attribute the increase in female participation in Quebec to its childcare program” and “Clearly, some determinants of female labour force participation are not understood by researchers, who nevertheless loudly endorse Quebec’s initiative.” This is a bit strange, because if there is one thing that all economic studies of the Quebec child care program are agreed upon, it is that there was a substantial boost to mothers’ labour force participation and hours of work as a result of universal child care.

A summary of the results of one of the many studies goes like this: “Lefebvre and Merrigan[2] (2008) use Statistics Canada’s Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID) annual data from 1993 to 2002. Using the sample of all Canadian mothers with at least one child aged 1 to 5, they find that the policy had substantial effects on a diversity of labour supply indicators (participation, labour earnings, annual weeks and hours worked). In 2002, the effects on participation, earnings, annual hours and weeks worked of the childcare policy are respectively between 8.1 and 12 percentage points, $5,000 to $6,000 (2001 dollars), 231 to 270 annual hours at work, and 5 to 6 annual weeks of work.“

The Fraser Institute is not noted for the complete accuracy of its studies, but this is a bit ridiculous. As an evaluation of the success or failure of the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care program, the Fraser Institute study is worse than useless. It is, perhaps deliberately, misleading.

Instead, we should conclude that:

Hundreds of thousands of children and families have benefited from more affordable licensed child care
There are now nearly 33,000 more persons working in the day care industry than there were when the program was announced in April 2021 – an increase of nearly 37%. Many more qualified educators are needed, but this is a good start.
Even though the growth in the number of child care spaces has been too slow, there has still been a rise of 3 percentage points in the labour force participation rate of mothers with children 0-5 since April 2021. Again, only a start, but definitely a start.
Quebec does have a universal child care program and many families access child care for less than $10 a day. It is a very popular program with families. There is no overall shortage of child care spaces in Quebec, but many families want to get into the fixed-fee part of the child care system, especially the better-quality not-for-profit CPEs. Many of these families are on a waiting list. A large number of low-income families have benefited from the universal child care program in Quebec, a much larger percentage than benefited from Canada’s targeted child care assistance. There is still important work to do to ensure that low-income families also benefit equally from better quality in child care services.

[1] Cleveland, G. (2017) “What is the Role of Early Childhood Education and Care in an Equality Agenda?” pp. 75-98 in Robert J. Brym ed. Income Inequality and the Future of Canadian Society ISBN-13:978-1-77244-044-7 Oakville, ON: Rock’s Mills Press. Proceedings of the inaugural S.D.Clark memorial symposium. That study found that:” In Quebec, 61.8 percent of children 1-5 years with an employed or studying mother with a high school education or less use licensed child care. Including children with a mother who is not employed, 43.1 percent of Quebec children whose mother has a high school education or less are using licensed child care — about 30 percentage points higher than the comparable figure in the rest of Canada.“

[2] Lefebvre, P., Merrigan, P. (2008). Childcare policy and the labor supply of mothers with young children: a natural experiment from Canada. Journal of Labor Economics 23, 519–548.

December 5, 2023

The story coming from the CSELCC survey – I don’t think we’re going to make it…not even close!

We know that child care affordability is improving dramatically because of the $10-a-day program (otherwise known as CWELCC or the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Program). But what about access and availability? It’s difficult to know. There is some activity, and lots of announcements, but are there actually more children using licensed child care? A really important question, because most of the social and economic benefits of the $10-a-day program come from improving access to children and families that haven’t used child care before.

Finally we have some solid answers. Statistics Canada just completed a massive survey of parents across the country that tells us how many children have access to centre-based child care (the overwhelming bulk of licensed child care in the CWELCC program is in centres). We can compare this to the situation before the pandemic in 2019. Unfortunately, the picture is not positive.

Looking only at the provinces and territories that are part of the CWELCC program (i.e., leaving out Quebec), there are 521,800 children 0-5 using centre-based child care in 2023. There were 483,200 children 0-5 using centre-based child care in 2019. That’s an increase of centre-based spaces in the provinces and territories participating in CWELCC of 38,600 spaces over the course of the last 4 years, an increase of about 8%.

However, the agreements signed between the federal government and the provinces and territories promised that there will be 250,000 additional child care spaces available by March 31^st, 2026. That would be an increase of over 50% compared to the spaces that were available in 2019. That’s just over two years away. I don’t think we’re going to make it. Not even close!

The CSELCC survey indicates that 49% of parents using child care reported difficulty finding it. Up from 36% in 2019.

In 2023, 26% of parents with children 0-5 who are not using child care reported that their child is on a waitlist for child care, up from 19% in 2019. Almost half (47%) of infants younger than one year who are not using child care are on a waitlist!!! That’s up from 38% in 2022.

Yes, the affordability problem has improved. But availability or access is either worse or not much better depending on your point of view. And accessibility is improving at a snail’s pace compared to the promised additional 250,000 spaces. Hurray for Statistics Canada giving us a clear picture of this problem. Now federal and provincial/territorial governments have to seriously address the problems of how to grow our wonderful child care system in the not-for-profit and public sectors that are the priority.

August 17, 2023August 20, 2023

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST TO RAISE THE WAGES OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS?

It is now widely acknowledged that the pay of early childhood educators is too low. Comparisons of ECE hourly wages to those in other competing occupations show that educators are paid as if they had a high school education rather than a college certificate or diploma. We can see the effects of this in the extreme shortages of fully-qualified ECEs for existing and new child care facilities. In most Canadian provinces and territories, growth in spaces is held back as much by the lack of staff as it is by the lack of organizational and financial support for planned and funded expansion.

The big questions for governments are (1) how much will it cost to raise wages? (2) how should they do it? and (3) who will pay?

Up till now, it’s been hard to answer the “cost” question because we haven’t had good data on how many program staff work in licensed services and what their average wages are now.

I’ve spent a large amount of time pulling together and analyzing the best publicly available data on this, province by province (sorry, I haven’t done the Territories yet). The details of this (staff numbers and typical wages by qualification level for each province) will appear in another blog on this site once I have finished crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s (lots of numbers and boring reading for most people). But, using those numbers, I can now make estimates of how much raising ECE wages will cost. If you have better numbers, I’m happy for you to send them to me so I can make revisions.

The table below shows my estimates of how much it would cost to raise the wages of fully-qualified ECEs across the country by 25% from whatever their current level is. For the average ECE, that would mean a raise of $5 to $7 an hour from current levels. I’m not trying to say that’s enough, or that this is the right way to raise ECE wages. If I look at the data on wage comparisons to other occupations, it very likely isn’t enough. But, it may begin to move the needle on the supply of early childhood educators. It may encourage more new ECE graduates and existing ECEs to stay in the sector.

Have a look at the last column province by province. Each cell shows the overall cost of raising qualified ECE hourly wages by 25% compared to what they are now (including the effects of wage grids, wage grants and wage supplements).

This is simply a simulation to give us all an idea of how much it will cost to have a significant rise in ECE wages. It is not a carefully thought out design for wage increases. What is needed will vary from one province to another; some provinces have done a lot already, others have done little. In provinces with generally high wage levels for all types of workers, a 25% rise in ECE wages may not do very much. In provinces that have already done a lot to raise wage levels and establish wage grids, a 25% wage rise might be very significant.

To see all of the columns, view the table below in a new window

ESTIMATED STAFF NUMBERS (0-12), CURRENT WAGE BILL, AND COSTS OF WAGE INCREASES FOR FULLY-QUALIFIED ECEs

Province	Number fully-qualified incl directors/ supervisors	Number of less qualified	Total program staff	Total FTE program staff	Current annual wage bill ($ mil)	Cost of 25% increase for fully-qualified ($ mil)
BC	16,800	6,800	23,600	20,600	$1,005.4	+$208.0
AB	13,000	10,750	23,750	21,000	$965.8	+$155.9
SK	1,650	1,300	2,950	2,600	$90.7	+$15.5
MB	3,400	3,000	6,400	5,700	$215.3	+$34.9
ON	35,000	20,000	55,000	51,000	$2,183.0	+$391.7
QC (0-4)	29,000	10,300	39,300	35,000	$1,576.0	+$315.9
NB	2,700	2,000	4,700	4,300	$186.0	+$29.9
NS	2,600	800	3,400	3,200	$142.4	+$29.9
PE	700	400	1,100	950	$42.3	+$7.3
NL	825	400	1,225	1,100	$48.2	+$8.9
CANADA	105,675	55,750	161,425	145,450	$6,455.1	+$1,198.0
CA – QC	76,675	45,450	122,125	110,450	$4,879.5	+$882.1

To see all of the columns, view the table above in a new window

Fully-qualified refers to ECEs with a 1-year college ECE certificate or a 2-year college ECE diploma, or more.
These calculations are produced by Gordon Cleveland, based on the estimated wages and staff numbers in Estimates of Staff Numbers and Wages in ELCC Centres, by Province, August 16, 2023. Numbers for the Territories are not yet included.
It is assumed that wages would have to rise equally for ECEs caring for children 6-12 years of age. However, in Quebec where fully-qualified staff caring for children 5-12 years are employed by the school system, numbers refer only to staff caring for children 0-4.

These numbers do not include the extra cost of compulsory benefits like contributions to pay for EI and CPP/QPP and vacation pay. That would add another 15%-18%, perhaps. However, these estimates do include an allowance for supply staff.

There is no magic in this 25% wage rise simulation. But, now, with data on current numbers of staff and on current wage levels, we can do whatever simulations we think are appropriate and estimate the costs of taking action (and compare them to the costs of inaction). That, I think, is a big step forward.

With these simulations in hand, we can turn to the next two questions. Question #2 was how exactly we should raise wages. That debate is too big for this blogpost, but let me make some observations. I believe that the big staff supply problem is centred in the inadequate supply of fully-qualified early childhood educators, whether that is a one-year ECE college certificate or a two-year ECE college diploma. Recruiting untrained staff or recruiting staff that need to take only an orientation course or two is not where the problem lies. That means we need to concentrate our scarce funds on raising the wages of qualified educators.

And once we have decided to concentrate our wage-raising efforts on fully-qualified staff, we need to avoid the Ontario mistake. Ontario decided to raise wages by concentrating their efforts on low-paid educators. In 2022, they boosted all early childhood educators earning less than $18 an hour up to $18, but they did nothing for anyone else. In 2023 and beyond, they are raising the pay of other educators by $1 per hour each year, but only if the educators currently earn less than $25 an hour; $25 is the top wage for this program. This focus only on low-paid educators ensures that ECE will continue to be a low-paid profession; even $25 an hour will keep educators well below competing occupations.

And, the Ontario wage supplement design ensures that most of the wage assistance will go to centres that previously were underpaying their workers, disproportionately those in the for-profit sector. The Doug Ford government is developing a bit of a reputation for favouring for-profit friends, whether it be the Greenbelt or child care, but this kind of wage supplement design will not do a good job of retaining the best-qualified and most experienced staff and making ECE an attractive profession.

Finally, there is the question of who will pay. I would be overjoyed if the federal government decided to come up with a billion dollars of extra annual funding, but I don’t think that will happen very soon, and wage rises do need to happen very soon. Some provinces may be willing to up their spending to solve wage problems, and that is welcome. But the most obvious immediate place to get funding for educator wages is to change priorities for the expenditure of federal dollars under the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreements. The very large majority of the federal funds under current Action Plans goes to lowering parent fees. Right now, many provinces are renegotiating Action Plans to cover the next three years. Why not allocate a larger portion of money in the next three years to cover wage increases for fully-qualified early childhood educators? And there should be provincial contributions to cover the wage increases for staff caring for 6-12 year-olds.

The numbers in the table above tell us about how much reallocation of dollars is needed in each province. Let’s get it done, or expansion will not happen and access to affordable child care will continue to be a dream for most families.