Tag: financing of child care

Posted on

ONTARIO’S NEW FUNDING FORMULA – AN EVALUATION

Ontario’s new funding formula is, of course, new. To be implemented in January 2025.  So, everyone is feeling around it like the proverbial seven blind men around the elephant.  There are different opinions depending upon which part you are touching.

What we do know for sure is that this is a cost-based funding formula, seeking to take into account the different cost situations facing different child care centres.  It will replace the revenue-replacement model which began in March 2022, which was based only on what parent fees were charged by a centre, not on their costs.  For many centres, the revenue-replacement model failed to cover true costs, driving centres into debt as a result, or forcing them to close rooms.

This evaluation is based only on the funding formula for child care centres, not for home child care.

THE FUNDING FORMULA – A THUMBNAIL SKETCH

Ontario’s new funding formula will deliver operational funding to centres that are in the $10 a day program (CWELCC).  Each centre will have to come up with a projected operating budget that identifies how many licensed spaces they have in each age group, how many of these spaces will be operational in the coming year, whether the centre is located in a community space or a school, the location of the centre, and the number of days of operation for each age group per year.  These data will be fed into a funding formula to determine how much revenue the centre will receive for operations in the coming year (to cover wages, salaries and benefits of program staff and supervisors, food, accommodations, administration, materials and so on).    

The calculated numbers will be affected by the geographic location of the centre, with centres in Toronto getting a boost and many others having their calculated allocation reduced a bit.  This is intended to reflect differences in the costs of operation in different locations around the province.

If the spaces are existing spaces (part of the CWELCC $10 a day program as of August 14th, 2024) and the calculated revenues do not cover their projected costs, they will be eligible for a Legacy Top-Up to revenues.  As long as the centre can show that its projected costs reflect the (relatively high) legitimate historical costs of operating this centre, it will receive this extra revenue through a Legacy Top-Up.  New spaces are not eligible for a Legacy Top-Up, but they will get a Growth Top-Up.  A Growth Top-Up boosts up the amount calculated by the funding formula for new spaces, by different amounts based on geography.

A centre can spend its allocation on any eligible cost, and nearly all costs that are clearly related to the provision of quality child care for children will likely be eligible.

On top of this, there is an allocation for profit or surplus.  It’s called an “allocation in lieu of profit or surplus”. It’s about an 8.5% markup on top of other revenues.  For-profit centres will take this as profit.  Non-profits will take it as a surplus to be used to cover emergency shortfalls in the future or to cover expected repairs and maintenance, or to improve compensation and quality.

Service System Managers (SSMs) are the gatekeepers of the system.  They hand out funding according to submitted budget plans for the coming year.  They will adjudicate issues related to the “eligibility” of certain expenditures.  They will assess the reasonableness of expenditures in an annual cost-review process.  They will also continue to administer the child care subsidy system.  There will no longer be operating grants and wage enhancement grants for spaces that are part of the $10 a day system, but there will continue to be such grants for child care for children 6-12. 

For more details about how the new funding formula works, see my blog from September 23rd, 2024.

OK, on to the evaluation:

POSITIVES OF THE FUNDING FORMULA

Let’s emphasize the positives first.  The Ministry of Education has made a serious attempt to develop a cost-based funding formula – a funding formula that will cover the legitimate costs of operators seeking to provide quality services for children.  It begins the process of developing public management of child care operations with financial accountability for the money spent.  It is not perfect, as you will see below; there are some serious problems that remain.  But first, here are some of the positives:

  1. Finally, we are getting rid of the stopgap “revenue-replacement” funding model which was not based on the true costs of operating a child care facility, but was based on whatever your parent fees for children 0-5 happened to be on March 27, 2022.  For some centres – those who had kept fees low, or those who used higher school age fees to cross-subsidize parent fees for younger children, or those seeking to attract more staff – revenue-replacement was extremely unfair.  These centres went into deficit and many shut down rooms.  So, having a funding model which purports to be based on costs is a big step forward.

2. For those centres seeking to expand and licensees seeking to set up new centres, it is now possible to forecast what your annual revenues will be.  This is indispensable to support growth.

3. For centres that have historically had costs of operation that are higher than the Benchmark Allocation (what the Ministry believes the underlying costs of operation truly are), there is a Legacy Top-Up.  That means that these centres, for their existing spaces, will not go out of business.  Their costs (for existing spaces, but not new ones) will, apparently, be covered at their current level going forward.

4. For centres that have operating costs that are lower than the province’s Benchmark Allocation (apparently 50% of the centres in the province), they will have revenues that are greater than their costs (i.e., they will receive the Benchmark Allocation).  So, these centres could and should spend additional revenues on improving quality, including wages and benefits to attract and retain staff.  If they don’t fully spend their allocation, the surplus will be taken back at the end of the year.

5. There are important measures of financial accountability built into the new funding system – standardized financial reporting, audited financial statements, a cost review process at the SSM level for selected centres and agencies and an external compliance assessment process for a 5% sample of centres/agencies.  Financial accountability is a key aspect of public management.  If 90% of revenues are coming from government, we need to know that these revenues are being spent sensibly improving the lives of children and parents.

6. The new funding formula determines the total amount of revenue a centre will get, but gives a very large measure of flexibility to the centre on how it spends this money.  Instead of having multiple different spending envelopes generated by multiple different granting programs, nearly all centre operating revenues will be in one envelope.  This is positive, because we want centres to have the capability to tailor their programs to the character of their community and the needs of their children and families.  Centres should not have cookie-cutter programs – the same for everyone.  This funding formula enables diversity.

7. There is some limitation on the amount of revenues that can be taken out “in lieu of profit”.  There is a formula for the amount “in lieu of profit/surplus”.  This guarantees operators a minimum amount of profit or surplus but this is also a maximum.  I will have more to say about this below.

NEGATIVES

8. The funding formula is not based on a wage grid.  Instead, there is a wage floor for RECEs – currently $23.86 per hour.  A wage grid would establish wages to be paid to all certification levels of staff, including untrained staff, cooks, supervisors, etc., with increases in this hourly wage based on experience and qualification level.  Many Canadian jurisdictions now have wage grids. 

A wage grid is designed to attract and retain educators and other staff.  The absence of a wage grid means that paying low wages is an attractive competitive strategy for some operators – low wages will potentially leave them surplus revenue to spend in other ways.  For instance, for-profit operators could use these freed-up revenues to pay accelerated mortgage costs so that they end up owning child care assets sooner.

9. Geographic Adjustment Factors (GAFs) and Growth Multipliers (GMs) play a very large role in determining how much annual revenue any centre will get.  And yet the justification for the GAFs and GMs is clouded in mystery.  Geographic Adjustment Factors vary from 0.79 (Kingston, Lennox and Addington, Hastings, Renfrew) to 1.07 (City of Toronto).  In other words, for the same size of centre, a child care centre in Kingston will receive a Benchmark Allocation that is about 74% of the Benchmark Allocation in Toronto ((i.e., (0.79/1.07)*100).  Since wages and benefits are the lion’s share of child care costs, we have to ask whether compensation is that much lower in Kingston than in Toronto.  And if it is, should it be?


For new centres, a Growth Multiplier builds new revenue variation on top of the Benchmark Allocation.  Growth Multipliers are sometimes very small, for instance between 0.00 and 0.03 in City of Cornwall, Lennox and Addington, and Cochrane DSSAB, and sometimes much larger (for example, the multiplier is 0.30 in County of Lanark, United Counties of Prescott and Russell, County of Renfrew).   Lanark and Lennox and Addington are very close to each other.  It’s hard to believe that a centre in Lanark deserves a 30% supplement to its allocation in order to fund new growth, whereas a new centre established in Lennox and Addington has to get by with only a supplement of 2% to the regular Benchmark Allocation.  If you do a bit of math, you can figure that the amount of revenue available to a new centre in Toronto will be over 50% higher than to a new centre in Lennox and Addington.  That seems oddly disproportionate.

10. In the market economy, profit is a reward to the successful entrepreneur.  In other words, it is a reward to the entrepreneur who takes a risk, starts a business, and is successful in selling a product or service that people want to buy.  Not all entrepreneurs will make a profit, but the desire to earn a profit encourages entrepreneurs to spend time figuring out what people want and how to design and produce it for a price that consumers can afford.  That’s the theory, anyway.  And we put up with some producers earning big profits because we believe that profit encourages (some) entrepreneurs to try to satisfy consumer demand.

However, in this funding formula, profit has very little to do with desirable behaviours.  Every provider will earn a profit of something like 8% of revenues as an automatic result of the funding formula.  And that will be true for providers who work hard on improving quality and those who do not know much or care much about quality. 

11. I said above, under the list of positives, that the funding formula limits the amount of profit that can be earned (actually called the allocation “in lieu of profit/surplus”).  Formally, that’s true, but there appear to be other ways that unscrupulous for-profit operators could increase their takings.  For instance, operators that own their own facilities can lease them back to themselves as the centre owner. And, a centre owner can do management and supervisory work in her own centre and get paid for it.  The financial accountability measures in the funding plan are supposed to ensure that the amount of lease payments and the amount of owner’s compensation are reasonable, but that will be a difficult thing to do.

12. The allocation for wages and benefits of supervisory staff does not depend on the size of the centre.  However, large centres need more supervisory staff than small ones do.  A centre with 150 children will need both a supervisor and an assistant supervisor, at least. Therefore the new funding rules, that base the revenues for supervisor compensation only on the number of days of service operation rather than on the number of children, will encourage the licensing of many smaller centres which may not make sense.  It might actually be a more efficient use of resources to encourage larger centres, within reason.

13. The most general and perhaps most serious critique of the funding formula is that it does not effectively incentivize quality improvements by operators.  PEI’s funding formula encourages centres to hire staff with higher levels of qualifications – a centre’s funding gets multiplied when they hire better paid staff.  Quebec’s funding formula gives supplementary funding to centres that have higher costs because staff have greater amounts of experience or higher qualifications.  Ontario’s funding formula ensures that an extra dollar spent on quality or staff wages is a dollar taken away from something else.  As point 4 above notes, there is some encouragement to spend on quality for centres that have costs less than their Benchmark Allocation.  But, there is no encouragement to spend on quality for the 50% of centres that have costs higher than this.

BAD BITS

14. The revenue allocation for children of kindergarten age appears to be too low.  I’ve done calculations of the amount of revenue (including parent fees) that the formula allows for kindergarten-age child care.  If you have a centre with 78 kindergarten children, located in a school, the formula gives an average revenue per child per day, from all sources, of only $26.66.  This would need to cover wages and benefits of staff and supervisor and all operational costs. This figure then gets multiplied by the Geographic Adjustment Factor.  So in Toronto, multiplying by 1.07, the revenue for kindergarten-age children would average $28.53 per child.  In Kingston, multiplying by .79, the revenue for kindergarten-age children would average only $21.06 per child.  All other locations will be somewhere in between.

And this daily revenue allocation is the same for the (approximately) 191 days per year when a centre has to pay the costs of part-day care (before-and-after school care) and for the (approximately) 71 days when a centre has to pay the costs of full-day care required on professional development days, March and Winter Breaks, during summer school holidays, and for some statutory holidays.  But clearly, there are many more hours of staff time required for full-day care than for before-and-after school care.  How can it make sense to get the same revenue allocation for both?  Centres will have incentives to shut down any summer programming for sure.  Creating more service shortages.

15. The kindergarten problem with “hours” is also a problem across the system.  The funding formula does not take into account the daily number of hours of service a centre provides.  A preschool that operates only 2 ½ hours per day will get the same revenue allocation as a full-day centre open 11 hours per day.  If a centre cuts its hours to provide 9 hours a day instead of 11 or 12, the funding formula will still give it the same daily revenue.  The funding formula incentivizes cutting hours of care, for no obvious purpose.

This will be particularly problematic for any centre that seeks to provide non-standard-hours care, such as staying open in the evenings, or opening early in the mornings.  The extra hours of service will not deliver any additional revenue to the centre, so centres providing non-standard-hours care will be incentivized to close.

16. The funding formula is silent about what is happening with the child care subsidy system.  As we know, the subsidy system, reduces or eliminates parent fees for families with particularly low levels of income.   Apparently, the Ministry intends to provide sufficient funds to Service System Managers to at least keep the number of subsidized families at current levels, but it would be good to have assurances of this (or better) within the funding formula document itself.

17. The funding formula is similarly silent about the funding of services for children with special needs.  Funding and provision of services to children with special needs is an essential part of a publicly-managed child care system, but it is unclear how this will happen.

18. The funding formula is also silent about funding for professional development of staff.  Professional development is central to maintaining and enhancing quality of services, but is professional development now to be an optional activity for centres that have extra funding available, and not for others?

OVERALL EVALUATION

Designing a funding formula in a complicated province like Ontario is not easy.  And the near complete absence of cost data before the 2023 data collection process did not help.  The Ministry of Education has made a serious attempt to produce a cost-based funding formula that will permit Service System Managers to publicly manage child care centres and family child care agencies in their areas.  Service System Managers have many new roles – providing interpretation of new funding guidelines, judging the appropriateness and reasonableness of expenditures, managing processes of financial accountability, etc. – and will require additional resources to carry them out.

The speed of implementation of this funding formula is causing significant upset and chaos.  Technical documents that explain how benchmarks, adjustment factors and growth top-ups were calculated are not yet available, nor are standardized reporting forms.  Centres are having to plan next year’s budget without sufficient time to understand the new revenue rules.  This is unfortunate and increases the cacophony of criticism of the program, some of which could have been avoided.  However, the revenue-replacement model this replaces was even worse for centres, so we do not want to pause or reverse the transition to a new cost-based formula for centre revenues. In 2025 we will have to do the best we can to implement this new funding system.  There will be mistakes and inconsistencies this year.  There will be, and have been, different interpretations of what costs are eligible from different SSMs.  The Ministry will have to provide enhanced resources to help and to solve problems.

The funding formula would be much better if based on a compulsory wage grid – there would be much less variation in expenditure levels from centre to centre and compensation would be mostly removed as a form of competition between centres.

Revenue amounts for care of kindergarten-age children are too low and will incentivize dropping or reducing these programs.

Failure to take hours of service into account in determining revenue allocations is highly problematic and will incentivize shortening the daily hours of service provided. 

We need information about the funding of subsidies, special needs and professional development.

Many centres have run deficits in the last couple of years due to the shortfalls of the revenue-replacement model.  Is there going to be a special funding program through the SSMs to wipe out these debts, or are they somehow handled by Legacy Top-Up funding?  This is unclear.

The new funding formula is based on providing revenues for individual centres, not for groups of centres.  However, there are a significant number of multi-site providers in Ontario, particularly not-for-profits or municipal providers.  There is no provision in the new funding formula for multi-site planning and operation.  A multi-site agency cannot use surplus revenues in one centre to cover shortfalls or emergency repairs in another.  Going forward, the funding formula will need to be amended to encourage and facilitate multi-site operation rather than to discourage it.

Legacy Top-Ups will allow all current child care centre providers to fund all eligible costs at current levels, which is a way of avoiding immediate crises that would threaten the whole system.  This is a smart feature of the funding formula.  No existing centre will have to go out of business because the funding formula will not cover its current legitimate costs.

I haven’t yet looked at the funding formula as it applies to family child care agencies and family child care homes.  Reportedly, this is a mess, but I can’t know that yet for sure.

The biggest question going forward will be whether there is sufficient funding from this formula to support new spaces.  I have done some modelling that gives me approximate numbers.  What I have done is to look at centres that only have children from one age group and estimate the revenue per child that would be available through the Unadjusted Benchmark Allocation.  The Unadjusted Benchmark Allocation is the calculated revenue available to the centre before Geographic Adjustment Factors are included.  This Unadjusted Benchmark Allocation is different for a centre in a community compared to those centres that are school-based.

When I do these calculations, I find that for infants the total average daily revenue per child is between about $130 and $137 per day (lower for school-based than for community-based).  For toddlers, the total average daily revenue per child is between $87 and $95.  For children of preschool-age, the total average daily revenue is between $65 and $73.  For children of kindergarten-age, the daily revenue is between $26 and $39.  To know for your centre how much funding would be available, these numbers would have to be multiplied by the relevant Geographic Adjustment Factor and, for new spaces, by the relevant Growth Multiplier.  Is this enough funding to support growth of new spaces?  The jury is still out.  We need to compare these revenue figures to expected costs of good quality programs.

If the new funding formula does not support the operating costs of new centres, it is a failure, so this is a central issue.  I am happy to hear from you about whether the funding formula will support expansion in your community.  And, let us not forget that expansion also requires capital funding, which is in very short supply from this government.

Posted on

HALLELUJAH!  ONTARIO FINALLY HAS A NEW FUNDING FORMULA

Hallelujah!  As of August 14th, 2024, there finally is a funding formula to provide some revenue-certainty for child care providers in Ontario. Not a moment too soon, in fact, a year or two too late. As of January 2025, this formula for the provision of operational funding to providers will be implemented to replace the inequitable revenue-replacement model that has existed since April 2022. As the new funding guidelines admit “[w]hile a revenue replacement approach is transparent and simple to implement, it is not responsive to the true cost of providing child care in Ontario.” (p. 7).  Revenue replacement was not equitable and it did not facilitate growth of capacity, so we will not mourn its passing.

This marks a new stage of development of the $10 a day child care program in Ontario.  And, I am sure that other provinces will be looking closely at this example to see if they should model their funding formulas on this one.  Together, we need to assess whether the funding formula is any good and what its strengths and weaknesses are.  As with any funding formula, there are many details and understanding how the system will work is not easy.  This blog post is a start.  In this post, there is a lot of description and only a small amount of opinion.  More opinion will follow soon.

I think a question and answer format will be best.  And, I will, in this blog post, only describe funding for centres, not for home child care agencies.  I will get to family child care in a later post. 

  1. B2C2 and others have called for a funding formula similar to the one in Prince Edward Island; is Ontario’s new funding formula like PEI’s?

Ontario’s funding formula is not like PEI’s.  The allowed costs in PEI are based on the provincial wage grid for child care staff with wages varying by qualification level and experience.  PEI’s formula encourages hiring of staff with higher qualifications because operating funding is increased to cover actual wage costs.  Then, PEI has an allowance of 20% for benefits and there is a provincially-funded pension plan.  And PEI’s formula provides the same revenues across the Island for similar centres.

In contrast, Ontario does not have a wage grid for child care staff.  Ontario’s new funding formula gives flexibility to a centre to spend its allocation in different ways, but does not, in particular, reward the hiring of more staff who are fully qualified RECEs.  Ontario’s benchmark for benefits is only 13.4% for staff and 16.2% for Supervisors and there is no provincially-funded pension plan.  And operational funding for centres under the new funding formula in Ontario will be highly variable across different locations.

2. How is the Funding Formula structured?

The structure of the new Ontario child care funding formula is relatively simple, getting more complex as you get into the details.  The funding formula is based on calculation of what is called a “Benchmark Allocation”.  A Benchmark Allocation, as the Ministry of Education’s funding rules make clear, is supposed to represent “the typical costs of providing quality child care in a geographic region, based on planned operating spaces.”  (p. 9) . One of the Ministry’s goals with the new funding and accountability processes is “to gradually shift the overall cost of providing child care … towards more standardized costs, as represented by the benchmark allocations.” (p. 48).  On top of the Benchmark Allocation, there is also an allocation for profit or surplus.

Benchmark Allocations, which vary across the province, are designed so that about 50% of existing licensees will have their expected eligible costs fully covered.  The other 50% of licensees will not have their costs covered by the regular (benchmark) funding allocation, but legacy centres (those currently and continuously in CWELCC) with higher costs will be eligible for a Legacy Top-Up to this funding.  This top-up formula evaluates the 2023 cost structure of centres, along with 2025 evidence of some fixed costs such as rent, insurance and property tax. There is also a provision for cost increases since 2023.

Calculation of the Benchmark Allocation for a centre involves two parts:

  • Calculation of the Unadjusted Benchmark Allocation (total of four components)
  • This is multiplied by a Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) which can move the total up or down. 

Once adjusted in this way, our calculation is called the “Benchmark Allocation” for your centre. 

3. What About Top-Ups?

That’s not the end of it, though.  When the Ministry canvassed existing centres about their actual costs, they found lots of variation.  To account for this cost variation, the Ontario funding formula includes a Legacy Top-Up to provide additional revenue for legacy centres with costs higher than their Benchmark Allocation. 

In addition, there is another revenue top-up that applies only to new spaces or new centres.  This is called a Growth Top-Up and recognizes that the Benchmark Allocation will not necessarily be sufficient to cover operational funding of new capacity.  The Growth Top-Up will provide some increased operating revenues to most centres that are new or growing in capacity. 

Details on the Top-Ups

  • Legacy Top-Up – If you are a legacy centre (you were signed up to CWELCC when this funding formula was born and still are) and your proven costs (according to a formula) are higher than that Benchmark Allocation, your SSM will provide a Legacy Top-Up to cover these supplementary costs. 
  • Growth Top-Up – In the first year of any expansion, you will be eligible for a Growth Top-Up which recognizes the (higher than benchmark) program costs associated with new spaces that come on stream during the year.
  • In years after 2025, a centre that received either of these two top-ups will receive a “Rolling Top-Up” based on the calculated top-ups that were received in 2025.  In other words, these top-ups will become permanent in revenue calculations after 2025.

The “Program Cost Allocation” is the name the new funding system will use to describe the sum of your Benchmark Allocation plus any top-ups for which you are eligible

All of the above calculations are based on an annual operating plan for the coming year that each centre submits to its SSM.  Funding is determined based on the plans for each centre. 

Amongst other things, the operating plan will specify the planned number of operating service days for each age group and the planned number of operating spaces for each age group.  In order to calculate the amount of operating money the SSM will give you, the SSM must then subtract the amount of fee revenue (adjusted for enrollment shortfalls) you expect to receive from parents, or on behalf of parents who receive Child Care Subsidy.

It is important to note that funding is not aggregated across centres that have the same licence-holder, so that the funding allocation for a centre has to be spent on the costs of that specific centre.  This will, no doubt, cause problems for multi-site operations who are used to planning and funding activities across the group of centres, rather than treating each centre separately.

4. More details about Top-Ups

The funding guidelines describe Legacy Costs this way: “Legacy costs are costs that are consistent with legacy centres’/agencies’ 2023 cost structures, adjusted for eligibility, cost escalation, and changes to operating practices and fixed costs.”  Legacy Top-Ups are designed to ensure that Legacy Costs are covered going forward.  In applying for a legacy top-up, centres would provide an audited 2023 Statement of Operations and other financial information to their SSMs to calculate the cost of eligible services (e.g., for children 0-5 rather than 6-12) at the level of an individual licence.  From these costs, ongoing costs would be scaled up to reflect cost increases between 2023 and 2025.   This would allow the calculation of the amount by which Program Cost revenues need to be scaled up  to cover higher costs.  This is the Legacy Top-Up.  The Legacy Top-Up will take account of changes in spaces, days and hours of service over this period.

There is also a Growth Top-Up for all centres that are adding new spaces.  Before the calendar year begins, the annual revenues of each centre are determined by their SSM based on operational plans filed with the SSM.  For centres that expand licensed capacity during the year, an adjustment needs to be made.  This is the Growth Top-Up.  The calculation of revenues for these new spaces is largely similar to the calculation of the Benchmark Allocation, but applied only to the new spaces and with the allocation raised by a Growth Multiplier.  Importantly, there is no Legacy Top-Up on new spaces, even if other centres operated by the same licensee receive Legacy Top-Ups because of elevated costs.   The new Benchmark Allocation is multiplied by a Growth Multiplier.  This Growth Multiplier may add as little as 0% to the funding for these new space (City of Cornwall) or as much as 30% (County of Lanark, United Counties of Prescott and Russell, County of Renfrew, Rainy River DSSAB), based on geography. The typical value of the Growth Multipliers is about 15%.

Once these top-ups are added to the Benchmark Allocation for an eligible centre, the total is called the Program Cost Allocation.

5. What about Profit or Surplus?

The new Ontario funding formula has one more major component.  It builds in a separate allocation which goes as profit for owners or as surplus for non-profit or public child care centres.  Profit/surplus therefore does not depend on good performance, but is a guaranteed payment.  On the other hand, the formula provides a limitation on the amount of profit that can be earned in any year out of the government portion of revenues.

There are three parts to the calculation of profit/surplus (which the Ministry guidelines call “allocation in lieu of profit/surplus”).  There is a base amount, a part that is 3.5% times the amount of the Benchmark Allocation and a part that is 4.25% times the Program Cost Allocation (which is the sum of the Benchmark Allocation and the top-ups).  These three parts are added together to get the total Profit/Surplus allocation.  Both the Benchmark Allocation and the Program Cost Allocation are influenced by the Geographic Adjustment Factor.  That means that the amount of Profit/Surplus is also affected by this GAF.

6. How are the individual parts calculated that make up the Benchmark Allocation?

There are four components that are summed together to get the Unadjusted Benchmark Allocation: the Program Staffing Component (related to the wages and benefits of program staff), the Supervisor Component (related to the wages and benefits of the Supervisor), the Accommodation Component, and the Operations Component (related to all other costs, including wages and benefits of non-program staff).  These are calculated based on the number of licensed spaces for different age groups, the operating capacity this year for different age groups, the proportion of staff in your centre that are delivering CWELCC-eligible services, the number of service-days of child care you provide to each age group over the year and a few other things.  All of these calculations are based on your plans for your child care program in the coming year, not on past numbers.

In effect, each of the four components is adjusted according to a Geographic Adjustment Factor, although this calculation is  done at the end after the four components are summed together.  In other words, if you are in what the Ministry’s data says is a high cost area, the amounts for each element of this allocation will be boosted.  If you are in what the Ministry’s data says is a lower cost area, the amounts for each element of the allocation will be lowered. 

For example, centres in Toronto have a Geographic Adjustment Factor of 1.07; centres in Kingston have a Geographic Adjustment Factor of 0.79.  So, the benchmark revenue allocation in a Toronto centre will be boosted by 7%.  The benchmark revenue allocation in Kingston will be reduced by 21%.  These Geographic Adjustment Factors are said to represent differences in the costs of providing child care services in different parts of the province.

7. Can you provide a  simple example of how the Benchmark Allocation is calculated?

(There are some helpful worked-out examples from page 55 onwards in Schedule D of the Funding Guidelines.  But, the example below provides some additional words of explanation).

As an example, think of a child care centre in a community setting in Toronto that has 48 preschoolers and no other children, just to make calculations simple.  We will assume that the licensed capacity and actual operating capacity of the centre is 48 children.  The per-diem benchmark allowed in the funding formula for 2025 for preschoolers (full day child care for children over 2.5 years) is $39.23.  Assume the centre will be in operation 261 days per year.

To get the amount of the Program Staffing component, we multiply 48 preschoolers X 261 service-days per year X a per-diem of $39.23. X an ancillary costs multiplier (13.4% to cover mandatory benefits like CPP/EI/EHT/WSIB).  In the case of our example, that gives us an amount of $557,330.88. 

To get the Supervisor component of the Program Costs, we multiply 261 service-days per year X a Supervisor per-diem of $301.38 X a Supervisor ancillary costs multiplier (16.2% to cover mandatory benefits).  That gives us a total of $91,403.13.

The allowance for Accommodation costs is based on the number of licensed spaces, independent of current operating capacity.  In our example, there are 48 licensed spaces.  The annual per-space benchmark varies according to the age category of these licensed spaces, but also by whether the centre is in a community setting or is located in a public school.  For preschool spaces in a community setting, the benchmark is $1,735.54 per space.  For this centre, the Accommodation costs component would be 48 X $1,735.54 = $83,305.92.

The Operations Costs component has both a fixed and a variable part to the calculations, and varies according to whether the centre is in a community setting or a public school. The fixed part is based on the number of licensed spaces and the annual number of days of service and this varies by age category of children.  The variable part is based on the planned operating capacity and the number of days of service and this also varies by age category of children.  The community-setting benchmark for fixed operations costs for preschoolers is $15.09 per licensed space-day.  The community-setting benchmark for variable operations costs for preschoolers is $1.64 per operating space-day.  So, for our example, the fixed part of operations costs would be 48 X 261 X $15.09 = $189,047.52.  The variable part of operations costs would be 48 X 261 X $1.64 = $20,545.92.  The total allocation for operations costs would be $209,593.44.

If we sum the allocations for the four components in our example, we get $557,330.88 + $91,403.13 + $83,305.92 + $209,593.44 = $941,633.37.  This is the Unadjusted Benchmark Allocation.

This calculation would be the same for any centre with 48 preschoolers anywhere in the province.  However, the Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) will change this allocation in every location.  Toronto has a Geographic Adjustment Factor of 1.07 (i.e., relatively high typical costs) so multiply the Program Costs number by 1.07 to get $1,007,547.71.  With the GAF applied this is called the “Benchmark Allocation”.  To see the importance of this Geographic Adjustment Factor: if this same centre was in Kingston, the Benchmark Allocation would be $743,890.36.

It is important to note that this allocation can be spent in any way the centre thinks best to provide services for children.  It can pay lower or higher wages,  more or less in benefits, more or less to the Supervisor, more or less in mortgage or rental costs, more or less in the costs of operations, as long as these expenditures are judged to be eligible expenditures.  The flexibility in spending is potentially positive, but without a wage grid (there is only a wage floor for RECEs), it means that unscrupulous operators could cut corners on compensation and quality in order to spend money in other ways.  That would be undesirable, of course.

8. What about the calculation of profit/surplus for this centre?

The base amount of profit/surplus is $6,000 annually.  For our example centre of 48 preschoolers in Toronto, the part based on the Benchmark Allocation would be 0.035 X $1,007,547.71 = $35,264.17.  Because we are assuming no Legacy or Growth Top-Ups for this centre, the Program Cost Allocation is the same as the Benchmark Allocation.  Therefore, the part of profit/surplus based on the Program Cost Allocation is 0.0425 X $1,007,547.71= $42,820.78.  The sum of these three parts is the allocation in lieu of  Profit/Surplus, which is $84,084.95.

The total revenue of this centre during the year would be the Benchmark Allocation of $1,007,547.71 plus the Profit/Surplus allocation of $84,084.95, which equals $1,091,632.66.  Profit/Surplus would be 7.7% of total revenue.  Another way of thinking of it: profit in this example is a markup of 8.3% over the Benchmark Cost Allocation.

Not all of this revenue would come from the SSMs of course.  The planned amount to be received from parents or on behalf of parents (adjusted for enrollment) would be subtracted from this total revenue calculation to get the annual funds received from the SSM.

9. Does the new funding formula provide enough funding?

This, of course, is the big question.  I need you to help me answer this.  I have some examples in the table below and they give calculations of the total amount of revenue centres will have, based on their size and location in the province.  The examples are simple and do not include provision of before-and-after school care for kindergarten children.  There are three centre sizes:

  • 49 children: 10 infants, 15 toddlers, 24 preschoolers
  • 73 children: 10 infants, 15 toddlers, 48 preschoolers
  • 88 children: 10 infants, 30 toddlers, 48 preschoolers

These centres are located in Toronto, Ottawa and Windsor.  Toronto has a Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) of 1.07.  Ottawa has a GAF of 0.94.  Windsor has a GAF of 0.80. These Geographic Adjustment Factors play a big role in the revenue totals that centres will receive and these examples are a good indication of the range of revenue values that will affect centres across Ontario, urban and rural, north and south.   The other factor that affects funding is whether the centre is located in a community or in a publicly-funded school.  This affects funding allocations for Accommodation and for Operations.

This table calculates the total annual revenue of these centres. Total revenue includes both the amount to cover costs and the amount to cover profit or surplus.  Some of total revenue will come in funding from the SSM and some will come from parent revenue (or child care subsidy revenues provided on behalf of parents).  As parent fees go down, a greater percentage of revenues will come from government and a smaller percentage from parents, but the total revenue would remain the same (unless benchmarks are changed).


Table 1: Total Annual Revenues of Centres of Different Sizes and Locations

Under Ontario’s New Funding Formula – Community-Based and School-Based Centres

Toronto Ottawa Windsor
Community-based or School-based centreCommunityCommunityCommunity
Geographic Adjustment Factor - GAF1.070.940.8
Total Revenue – 49 space centre$1.394m$1.226m$1.044m
Total Revenue – 73 space centre $1.884m$1.656m$1.410m
Total Revenue – 88 space centre$2.283m$2.006m$1.709m
TorontoOttawa Windsor
Community-based or School-based centreSchoolSchoolSchool
Geographic Adjustment Factor - GAF1.070.940.8
Total Revenue – 49 space centre$1.291m$1.135m$0.967m
Total Revenue – 73 space centre $1.731m$1.522m$1.296m
Total Revenue – 88 space centre$2.098m$1.844m$1.570m

Notes:

  • Total Revenue figures in the table are in millions of dollars of revenue annually, including both operating funding from governments and parent fees.
  • 49 space centre has 10 infants, 15 toddlers, 24 preschoolers, all full-day
  • 73 space centre has 10 infants, 15 toddlers, 48 preschoolers, all full-day
  • 88 space centre has 10 infants, 30 toddlers, 48 preschoolers, all full-day

Notice that for the same sized centre, a location in Toronto will get revenues which are hundreds of thousands of dollars higher than a location in Windsor (or many other places across the province).  Are true underlying costs that different in different locations? 

And, are these amounts of total revenue enough to operate centres and provide good quality child care?  I don’t have enough evidence yet to draw a conclusion, but I’m happy to hear from centre directors about your example and experience.

These calculations are based on Ontario’s 2025 benchmarks.  Benchmarks can change in future years.  Current centres will be potentially eligible for Legacy Top-Ups.  And, allocations for new centres will be affected by Growth Multipliers (but not Legacy Top-Ups).

10. What is the role of the SSMs?

The SSMs have many roles in relation to planning and operationalizing growth plans and assisting and communicating with child care providers in a range of different ways.

If we focus specifically on their role in relation to funding in 2025, the SSMs have to:

  • Receive operational plans from each operator/each centre.  Operating plans will include planned operating spaces for each age group, planned number of service days for each age group, number of hours of service for each age group, copy of parent handbook. 
  • Collect legacy data from those operators claiming a Legacy Top-Up.  Legacy data in 2025 will include specific evidence of any fixed costs (especially accommodation costs), the operating budget for 2025, 2023 audited financial statements and any related financial reports to support claim.
  • Calculate the Program Cost Allocations for each centre including the Legacy Top-Ups, the Growth Top-Ups and the Profit/Surplus for each centre.
  • Schedule advance payments for each centre based on these calculated Allocations
  • Select centres that will have their reported costs reviewed in a cost review (not the same as the Direct Engagements on Compliance) and carry out cost reviews
  • Accept and process applications for in-year changes in funding
  • Collect spending attestations and standardized financial reports from each centre
  • Compare Allocations to Actual Costs/Spending and promptly recover overpayments to centres and refund these to Ministry.

11. What are the key issues with this new funding formula?

The biggest issue with the funding formula is one that is not yet answered.  In new centres and new spaces, will there be enough funding available for providers to fund the provision of good quality care with educators and other staff that are fairly and reasonably compensated?

The Legacy Top-Ups in the funding formula are designed to ensure that existing centres with costs that are higher than the median will not have to close their doors; their costs will apparently be compensated by revenue supplements that become permanent through Rolling Top-Ups.  That’s obviously a good thing, but Legacy Top-Ups are not available to new centres or even to new spaces in existing centres. 

So, in judging the adequacy of revenues provided by this funding formula going forward, we need to ignore Legacy Top-Ups.  They exist for Legacy centres (i.e., current centres), but not for new centres.  The real question is “for new spaces (growth), will the revenues be adequate to provide good child care?”.   At this point, we don’t have a clear answer.  What we do know is that new spaces will only be eligible for the Benchmark Allocation  plus the Growth Top-Up plus the Allocation in Lieu of Profit/Surplus. 

As for the rest of the key issues with this new funding formula, that’s a topic for another blog.  Coming soon.

Posted on

Affordable Child Care Services vs Money for Parents

Those who oppose the $10 a day program often argue that there is a simple and better program to replace it – give money directly to parents instead.  The logic is, at first glance, persuasive.  If you give parents money, it seems like they should be able to purchase exactly the child care they need.  And competition among different providers should, you might think, keep fees down.  Programs that directly fund child care services, like the $10 a day program, are said to be bureaucratic and inflexible and to create huge shortages and long waiting lists. 

There is some truth here, but much falsehood, and much deliberate ignoring of the evidence on the impact of a “family allowance” approach.  I have just written a report for The Prosperity Project that examines the likely impacts of giving parents money instead of funding and providing child care services that parents can use.  I unearth a lot of new data about families that are using child care in Canada and the number of parents who want access to affordable, accessible, high quality child care. 

The evidence shows that this type of “family allowance” fails as public policy because it:

(a) isn’t what most families want

(b) doesn’t address families’ needs for child care

(c) would be much more expensive than the $10 a day program

(d) would have negative effects on women’s employment and the economy, and would increase the gender-based child penalty that mothers pay with reduced earnings

(e) has been tried before and hasn’t solved child care issues, and

(f) ignores the very large child benefit programs that already provide money to parents.

You should read the report in full (19 pages), or at least its Executive Summary (3 pages).  Below, I provide a few tidbits to encourage you to dig deeper.

  • As of 2023, when Statistics Canada collected large amounts of data from parents about child care and employment, there are 938,000 Canadian children using licensed or accredited child care services – the kind of services supported by the federal government program.  In fact, over three-quarters of children using any kind of child care are in licensed care.   In 8 of Canada’s 13 jurisdictions, average fees for this child care is down to $10 a day or less.  Other jurisdictions have lowered fees by at least half relative to fee levels in 2019-20.  In other words, although the press scarcely covers it, a very large number of Canadian children and families are already benefiting from licensed child care that is subsidized to be affordable and more accessible.
    • Licensed child care is not the only part of the set of services and benefits that will make up a fully developed early learning and child care system.  Many children benefit from full-day or part-day kindergarten at ages 4 and 5 years.  Many children and families benefit from paid maternity and parental leave for up to 12 or even 18 months.  If we put these all together, it is already true that in 2023 over 1.5 million children currently benefit from Canada’s early learning and child care and leave arrangements.  That is about 2/3rds of all children 0-5 years of age.  
    • Some people think that the reason some parents don’t currently use child care is because they don’t want to.  But, outside Quebec, most families (58%) that currently do not use any child care would like to use some type of non-parental child care if they can find what they need and want.  And, of these, the lion’s share – 62% – would like to use licensed child care, largely as a means to join or rejoin the workforce. 
    • Some people argue that it is mostly affluent parents that benefit from universal child care programs and that marginalized families and those from diverse backgrounds are left behind.  That is certainly true of market-based child care systems when fees are not controlled; high parent fees are only affordable by affluent families and many vulnerable families do not qualify for income-based subsidies.  However in fixed-fee systems like the $10 a day program, families from all backgrounds gain access.  I show a series of charts from Quebec making this point.
    • A family allowance program would have to give parents an amount of money that was equivalent, on average, to what they gain by having $10 a day child care.  This family allowance program would cost the federal government just over $28.5 billion annually and its net cost would be three times as much as the cost of providing child care services.  
    • Women who have children suffer substantial losses in earnings after the birth of a child.  Economists have found that mothers’ earnings decrease by 49% in the year of a child’s birth.  Even ten years later, women suffer from an average earnings loss of 34% relative to their earnings before childbirth. Universal child care has been found to substantially reduce these “child penalties”.  In other words, accessible child care services make an important contribution to increasing gender equity.

    Please read the full report and executive summary. 

    Posted on

    Ontario Is Violating the Early Learning and Child Care Agreement

    Most child care in Ontario is provided by non-profit or public operators.  This has been true for years.  A full 70% of the licensed/regulated child care spaces for children 0-5 were non-profit or public back in 2022, when Ontario signed the Canada-Wide Agreement with Ottawa. 

    So, two things are not in doubt.  First, it is obviously possible for non-profit and public child care services in Ontario to grow and expand, given the right conditions.  They have done it successfully in the past, more successfully than the for-profit child care operators.  Second, the Ontario government, with the support of municipal governments and school boards, knows exactly how to facilitate and co-ordinate the expansion of non-profit and public child care, because it has done this in the past.

    So, if non-profit and public child care are not expanding rapidly in Ontario, it must have to do with the failures of Ontario government policy (as described in my recent blog post). 

    • Ontario has failed to fix shortages of early childhood educators.  Starting wages in Ontario are $5.00 an hour less than in P.E.I.!
    • It has failed to provide or enable sources of capital funding for expansion of community non-profit child care. 
    • It has starved child care providers of revenue in the $10 a day program and has failed to provide any certainty about future revenue streams for operators.
    • Ontario has failed so comprehensively that you have to wonder if the failings are deliberate. 

    To cap it all off, we now find that Ontario is deliberately violating the terms of the Canada-Wide Agreement that it signed with the federal government back in March 2022.   Ontario promised to increase child care capacity by at least 86,000 spaces, and it promised that a maximum of 30% of these new spaces would be operated by commercial for-profit operators.  The balance would be community-based or school-based non-profit and public child care.  It also promised that it would prioritize development of child care in underserved areas and amongst families with greater needs. 

    Instead, about 75% of the expansion that has occurred has been in for-profit spaces.  And at least half of the new spaces are in areas of greater profitability rather than areas of greater need.  Half of the new spaces can charge whatever fees they want, rather than being affordable spaces. 

    We know some details about Ontario’s expansion because of good journalism by Allison Jones of Canadian Press.  She has recently written:

    “Ontario’s deal committed the province to 86,000 new child–care spaces since 2019, though the deal was signed in 2022. But so far while there have been about 51,000 new spaces since 2019 for the kids five and under, the age group covered by the national program, only 25,500 of those are within the $10-a-day system.”

    So, let’s do the math:

    • Pretty well all of the new spaces that are outside the $10 a day system (without any controls on fees) are for-profit, so that is already half of the 51,000 spaces. 
    • Much of the growth inside the $10 a day system is also for-profit.  When Ontario published its Action Plan in 2022 it told us that 15,000 spaces had  opened since 2019 and 45% of this was for-profit. 
    • A further 21,200 spaces were said to be “in the pipeline” and 66% of this was for-profit. 
    • I estimate therefore that about half of the growth since 2019 that is inside the $10 a day system is for-profit (the Ministry of Education has these figures and is shy about releasing them, which tells you that they know they have something to hide). 
    • In other words, about 75% of the total of 51,000 new spaces in Ontario since 2019 are in the for-profit sector.

    This is a clear violation of the Canada-Wide Agreement Ontario signed in 2022.  In that agreement it promised that “at the end of this Agreement, the proportion of not-for-profit licensed child care spaces for children age 0 to 5 compared to the total number of licensed child care spaces for children age 0 to 5 will be 70% or higher.” (emphasis added).  The agreement clarifies the purpose of this clause: “to ensure that the existing proportion of not-for-profit licensed child care spaces for children age 0 to 5 will be maintained or increased by the end of this Agreement.”

    In case there was any doubt, the “definitions” section of the agreement refers to the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014 in defining licensed child care.  In other words, it refers to all licensed child care governed by that act.  

    So, Ontario is taking federal money intended to build a publicly-managed, affordable and accessible high quality child care system and it is not doing what is necessary to provide spaces for children and families.

    Of course, parents who are desperate for child care spaces right now don’t care if the spaces are for-profit, non-profit or public.  They  just want a space for their child and they want it now.  The negative effects of relying on for-profit child care without sufficient controls won’t show up for a while. 

    That’s what happened in the early 2000s when the Government of Quebec, under Jean Charest, tried the same trick – relying on for-profit child care for expansion.  The results were disastrous for the quality of child care services, with nearly half of the new for-profit centres failing quality assessments sponsored by the Quebec Government.  Similar quality problems are what led  Mathieu Lacombe, the Quebec Minister of Families from 2018 to 2022 to say that allowing for the expansion of private daycare, was the ‘biggest mistake the Quebec government committed in the last 25 years.”  

    As I wrote in that recent blog:

     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. 

    That was the spirit of the Agreement that Ontario signed up to  in 2022.  If Ontario were to implement this agreement in good faith, it would adopt a generous funding formula to cover actual costs, it would make expansion of child care into an all-of-government priority with a range of provisions for capital financing, it would develop a wage grid for child care educators that is at least as generous as the one in PEI and it would implement the agreement it signed on the balance of non-profit and for-profit expansion.  Ontario’s parents and children need the $10 a day child care system they were promised.

    Posted on

    Supply-Side or Demand-Side – A Contribution to the Australian Discussion

    John Cherry, from Goodstart Early Learning, has written an evaluation of child care in Quebec and New South Wales.  Apparently his purpose is to determine whether supply-side funded systems (like Quebec’s) are better or worse than demand-side funded systems (like in Australia). 

    To summarize briefly, John finds that Quebec does better on workforce participation and affordability, NSW does better on child care accessibility and quality.  So, John concludes that Australia’s system is pretty good.  His conclusion appears to be that Australia shouldn’t flirt with Quebec’s fixed-fee, supply-side-funded system. 

    It’s a problematic paper for several reasons.  First, some of the details about Quebec are wrong.  Second and more fundamentally, only part of Quebec’s child care system is supply-side funded and charges parents a fixed fee of approximately $10 a day.  The other part (about 20% of the total) is demand-side funded like in Australia.  In the demand-side-funded part, child care providers can set whatever parent fees the market will bear and some of this later gets reimbursed to parents.  So, some of John’s comparisons, particularly on affordability and quality, are actually comparing a mixed system (Quebec) to a demand-side-funded system (New South Wales).  These comparisons don’t tell us much about how a supply-side funded system would perform in Australia.  Third, John does not explain how a demand-side funded child care system can deliver what we want from a universal child care system – dependably low fees, financial accountability for public funds, and planned expansion of capacity according to need.  Let me explain.

    Much of John’s paper is captured in Table 1 – Summary of ECEC Indicators.  There’s a column for Quebec and one for New South Wales, comparing results on different indicators of ECEC health.  I reprint it below.

    Workforce Participation
    John agrees that Quebec does a better job than New South Wales in workforce participation.  Absolutely true.  85% labour force participation for Quebec mothers with young children vs 71% in Australia.  Add on top of that the fact that most Quebec mothers work full-time vs. Australian mothers mostly part-time and it does appear that a fixed low parent fee really does have a very substantial impact on mothers’ employment. 

    Affordability
    John then presents comparisons of affordability, but his numbers are too generous to New South Wales and not generous enough to Quebec.  The differences in parent fees between supply-side funding and demand-side funding are much bigger than he admits.  On NSW, John calculates that for a family with average income, the parent fee for a first child is $29.50 per day and for a second child it is $10.05 per day.  In fact, the Productivity Commission draft report says that the average per child out-of-pocket parent fee across Australia (and therefore likely in NSW) is just shy of $45 per day. That includes the extra charges for centres open more than 10 hours per day, where parents have to pay the full fee for these extra hours even though they don’t use them.

    And the Quebec numbers on parent fees are too high.  In the supply-side funded centres and family homes, the daily fee for every child in 2024 is CA $9.10 (or about AU $10).  The figure John quotes for Quebec of  CA $17.20 per day includes the children who pay $9.10 but it also includes the high parent fees paid by demand-side funded parents before the tax credit reimburses them.  In a fair comparison, Quebec’s child care is cheaper than in NSW by a considerable amount, not just by a little bit.  That helps us understand why mothers’ employment has been so responsive in Quebec.

    Accessibility
    Then there is accessibility.  According to John, NSW scores high on accessibility of child care.  But, he chooses a strange way of measuring it.  He chooses the growth in the number of centre-based child care spaces in the last 5 years.  NSW has added more child care spaces so therefore he concludes that accessibility is better in NSW.  

    A much better measure of accessibility would have been the coverage rate – what percent of the child population could be accommodated in approved services (licenced services in Canada).  John provides these numbers on page 6 of his paper, but not in Table1 and not in his conclusions about accessibility.  In fact, as he records, about 75% of  children 0-5 in Quebec are in early childhood services.  This compares to about 60% in New South Wales.  John makes a big deal about services growing in New South Wales and not growing in Quebec.  Of course, that’s what you would expect if accessibility was already better in Quebec; it wouldn’t need to grow its services as fast.  The current rate of growth of services is not a good measure of current accessibility.

    And if you compare the number of days of child care attended in Quebec and NSW, the accessibility in Quebec is even stronger.  Over 90% of the children in Quebec who attend ECEC do so on a  full-time basis, compared to about 30% in Australia (with another 25% in Australia attending 4 days a week).

    Quality
    Finally, we get to a part of the comparison between Quebec and NSW on which John and I agree.  The quality of child care in Quebec is lower than it should be, and probably is lower than it is in NSW.  The most obvious indicators of this are the child-staff ratios.  5 children to 1 staff member for very young infants in Quebec vs. 4 to 1 in NSW.  Personally, I think both of these ratios are too high for the very young, but I agree that a 5 to 1 ratio is shocking.  As is a ratio of 8 to 1 in Quebec after children turn 19 months of age. 

    Quebec is an outlier here in Canada too.  In Ontario, the required ratios are 10 children to 3 staff members for children 0-17 months, 5:1 for children 18 months to 35 months, and 8:1 for children 3 years to 6 years (except for before-and-after school care for kindergarten children).  NSW’s ratios are comparable to Ontario’s. 

    Similarly, the wage rates paid to educators in Quebec are worse than in New South Wales.  John is right on this.

    John overstates the differences in percent of educators required to be qualified.  He says it is 50% in Quebec and 100% in New South Wales.  The regulated percent in Quebec is really 66.6% or 2/3rds.  It was temporarily lower due to staff shortages during the pandemic. And the requirement in NSW is for 100% of front-line staff to be certified.  But this is a bit misleading because only 50% of the front-line staff in NSW must have an ECE Diploma or above.  The other 50% can have a Certificate III which is a qualification well below what is needed to provide good quality care for children on one’s own.

    However, the inadequate quality of Quebec’s child care system is not really evidence that supply-side funding does not work.  Instead it is evidence that Quebec services have not been adequately funded.  The history of Quebec’s system explains this.  Back in the 1990s, Quebec struck out on its own to build a universal child care system, without any funding from Canada’s federal government.  Relying only on its own funding, Quebec ended up cutting corners on quality.  If New South Wales were operating either a demand-side funded or a supply-side funded system with no Commonwealth funding – relying only on state funds – I am sure that quality would suffer too.  But Quebec’s history is not New South Wales’ inevitable destiny.  With strong Commonwealth commitment to spending on universal child care, New South Wales can have both supply-side funding and good quality care.  As you can see in John Cherry’s Table 1, public funding of child care in New South Wales is already 50% higher than in Quebec – AU $5.7 bn vs. AU $3.7 bn annually.

    What Conclusions Should We Draw From This Comparison?
    I understand John Cherry and Goodstart’s hesitation about a switch to supply-side funding.  It would be a big transformation of funding arrangements and would constrain the power of child care operators to set their own fee levels.  If it was done badly, it could have negative effects. 

    However, I think John and Goodstart need to explain how they will build a publicly-accountable universal low-fee high-quality child care system on Australia’s existing demand-side funding base.  In my opinion, they need to answer (at least) three questions.  How would they guarantee that the system will have low child care fees in the future?  How can they build financial accountability for public funds into the existing system?  And, what mechanisms of public planning for location of new services can ensure an equitable and efficient growth of new services in Australia?

    Australia has seen parent fees rise consistently as public funding has increased over the years.  The average parent fee per child is now about AU $135.00 per day.  Every time the Commonwealth government pours more money into the system, out-of-pocket child care fees fall temporarily.  After a short while, these out-of-pocket costs gradually rise back to previous levels.  Nothing has worked to keep fees down in the long term.  Supply-side funded systems guarantee low dependable out-of-pocket fees.  Until Australia’s demand-side-funded child care system can provide the same guarantee, it cannot be considered a good basis for a universal system.

    In a universal child care system, the vast majority of operator revenues come from governments.  It is unacceptable to continue to have no public accountability for these substantial amounts of public funds.  Currently, child care operators do not have to justify the fees they charge or show that public moneys are spent on legitimate costs of service provision.  Goodstart should explain how this will be remedied in their plans for a universal child care system built on the existing demand-side foundations.

    Finally, an equitable universal system of child care services needs to plan where new child care services will be located.  It cannot leave this to the whims of private investors who all want to crowd their new services into higher income areas.  How will this be accomplished within Australia’s demand-side funded system?  These are the tough questions that need to be answered by the champions of a continuation of demand-side funding for Australian child care. 

    Posted on

    What  the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Can Tell Us About For-Profit Child Care

    What would Canada’s child care system look like if we let it be dominated by for-profit child care providers?  Particularly with Pierre Poilievre lurking in the wings, it’s an interesting question to ask.

    So, into my inbox arrives a fascinating study from what they call the “A triple-C” (ACCC) or Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.  When the new Labor Prime Minister of Australia – Anthony Albanese – arrived in office in 2022, he commissioned two big studies of child care.  He asked the ACCC to examine how well or badly the market for child care was working.  And he asked the Productivity Commission – a permanent body rather like the old Economic Council of Canada – to report on how best to make child care universally accessible and affordable in Australia.

    Both of these bodies have now produced Interim Reports.  This blog post will comment on the one from the ACCC.  The ACCC report focuses on the cost of producing child care services, the nature of competition in child care markets and the effectiveness of Australian government attempts to regulate child care fees.

    You don’t want to read the whole report, so let me cherry-pick some findings for you.

    • The cost of child care in Australia is pretty high.  Centre-based child care fees per hour (averaged across ages 0-5) were $11.72 in 2022 or $117.20 for a 10-hour day. 
    • Australia’s Child Care Subsidy system (like a tax credit for child care expenses) costs the government a lot but does not make child care affordable.  For a couple on average wages with 2 children (aged 2 and 3) in centre based day care full-time, net child care costs came to 16% of net household income in 2022. In contrast, the average for OECD countries was 9%, with Australia ranked 26th out of 32 countries. This is despite the Australian Government contribution to fees being significantly higher than most other OECD countries – 16% in Australia compared to the OECD average of 7%.
    • From 2018 to 2022, gross fees in Australia increased by 20.6% in comparison to the OECD average of 9.5%.
    • Looking at detailed data on the cost of producing centre-based child care for children younger than school age, 69% was accounted for by labour costs, 15% by land/occupancy, and 9% by finance and administration costs.  But these proportions are quite a bit different for for-profit and not-for-profit providers.  69% of centre-based child care services in Australia are provided by for-profit operators.
    • Land and occupancy costs are about 18% of the total of all costs for large for-profit providers compared to about 10% for large not-for-profit providers. This is not due to what the Aussies call “peppercorn rents” (i.e., below-market rents provided on a goodwill basis).  As the ACCC report says, this may be due to non-arms-length transactions in land rental of for-profit providers (to be investigated in the final report).
    • Not-for-profit child care operators pay a higher proportion in labour costs for two reasons.  They are much more likely to pay “above-award” wages – in other words, wages that are above the minimums set by the Fair Work Commission wage grid.  About 95% of the staff in not-for-profit centres are paid “above-award” compared to 64% in for-profit centres.  The second reason is that not-for-profit providers are much more likely to hire their staff on a full-time basis, whereas for-profit providers primarily rely on part-time staff.  As the report suggests: “large not-for-profit centre-based day care providers invest savings from lower land costs into labour costs, to improve the quality of their services and their ability to compete in their relevant markets.”  The ACCC finds that centre-based day care services with a higher proportion of staff paid above award and with lower staff turnover have a higher quality rating under the National Quality Standard. 
    • The ACCC finds that parents and guardians typically prefer centr- based day care services located close to their home. Most households travel a short distance to child care – between 2 and 3 kilometres.
    • Parents’ and guardians’ perception of quality is a key factor driving decisions for selecting a child care service. As child care is an ‘experience good’, meaning it is difficult to accurately determine quality of a child care service without having used it, parents and guardians appear to rely on informal measures of quality over formal National Quality Standard ratings.
    • Providers’ decisions to establish child care centres are highly influenced by expectations of profitability within a particular area or market, which are driven by expectations of demand and willingness to pay. The willingness to pay for child care within a local area is heavily influenced by household incomes, as this influences the opportunity costs of not using child care services. These factors encourage supply to markets where demand for child care is highest, and parents and guardians are likely willing to pay higher prices. In particular, for-profit providers are more likely to supply these markets as the opportunity for profit is greater.
    • These markets tend to be in metropolitan areas of higher socio-economic advantage. This higher demand and greater willingness to pay explains why we find operating margins are higher in areas of higher socio-economic advantage and Major Cities of Australia.  The child care sector is widely viewed as a safe and strong investment with guaranteed returns, backed by a government safety net
    • While providers’ supply decisions are generally driven by considerations of viability, we note that there are providers that supply some services at a loss. This reflects that – like many other human services – child care plays an important societal role. This results in not-for- profit providers accounting for a greater proportion of services in areas of very low advantage.
    • The nature of child care markets and the role played by price, as well as the impact of the Child Care Subsidy, also mean it is unlikely that market forces alone will act as an effective constraint on prices to ensure affordability for households (including households with low incomes and vulnerable cohorts) and to minimise the burden on taxpayers.
    • Large for-profit providers of centre based day care have consistently had higher profit and operating margins than not-for-profits since 2018. The average profit margin for large centre based day care providers was about 9% for for-profit providers and about 6% for not-for- profit providers in 2022.

    In conclusion, the ACCC sees substantial benefit in a detailed consideration of supply-side models, the role of market stewardship and direct price controls for child care services. There will be a final report from the ACCC soon.

    Posted on

    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

    ProvinceNumber fully-qualified incl directors/ supervisorsNumber of less qualifiedTotal program staffTotal FTE program staffCurrent annual wage bill ($ mil)Cost of 25% increase for fully-qualified ($ mil)
    BC16,8006,80023,60020,600$1,005.4+$208.0
    AB13,00010,75023,75021,000$965.8+$155.9
    SK1,6501,3002,9502,600$90.7+$15.5
    MB3,4003,0006,4005,700$215.3+$34.9
    ON35,00020,00055,00051,000$2,183.0+$391.7
    QC (0-4)29,00010,30039,30035,000$1,576.0+$315.9
    NB2,7002,0004,7004,300$186.0+$29.9
    NS2,6008003,4003,200$142.4+$29.9
    PE7004001,100950$42.3+$7.3
    NL8254001,2251,100$48.2+$8.9
    CANADA105,67555,750161,425145,450$6,455.1+$1,198.0
    CA – QC76,67545,450122,125110,450$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.

    Posted on

    British Columbia’s New Spaces Funding Program

    My opinion of British Columbia’s New Spaces Fund is shaped by the context.   It’s a valuable, if imperfect, source of capital funding for the expansion of not-for-profit and public child care.

    The context is that we’re not doing a good job in expanding the availability of child care services in Canada.  That’s disappointing, of course, but also a danger to the ultimate success of the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care program. 

    Without rapidly expanded capacity, most parents will not be able to benefit from $10 a day child care.  Women will not be able to enter the labour force.  The economic growth benefits of child care will not happen.  Parents will be angry and frustrated at governments that have promised them services they can’t deliver.  A new government may come in and turn everything over to the for-profit sector, loosening staffing regulations, and allowing operators to surcharge parents for “extras” to make providing child care more profitable. 

    The decision of federal and provincial/territorial governments to rely on the not-for-profit and public sectors for child care capacity was good for the long-run, but it’s having lots of problems in the short run.  Not-for-profit and public services are typically of higher quality with better effects on children’s lives.  Not-for-profit and public services become trustworthy community assets, here for the long term, in a way that for-profits do not, always anxious to sell assets or property to the highest bidder. 

    But, not-for-profits need more help to expand than the for-profits do. For-profits have better access to capital funding from the private sector than not-for-profits do; many banks and financial institutions are unwilling to make construction loans and mortgages to not-for-profit organizations.  Most not-for-profit organizations find it too risky to make expansion promises until future on-going operational funding arrangements for services are settled;  some for-profit organizations are willing to take a gamble that future operational funding will be generous, or that costs can be slashed to ensure a profit.   On top of all this is the shortage of qualified early childhood educators.  Not-for-profits are typically unwilling to expand until they can hire enough fully-qualified educators to run good-quality programs.  For-profits are often willing to plan to operate without a full complement of trained staff, hoping they can get exemptions from government regulations and be able to operate with unqualified staff.

    British Columbia’s New Spaces Fund is not perfect.  Yet, in the context I’ve just described, it provides some important support for child care expansion to not-for-profit and public organizations in B.C.  And that’s a lot more than I can say for most of Canada’s provinces, outside Quebec.  The New Spaces program provides capital grants only to not-for-profit and public organizations who are willing and anxious to expand the supply of child care services.  Previously, it was available to the for-profit sector who did not need it; that was a big mistake that has since been corrected. The budget last year was $292 million, about $84 million from provincial funds and the rest from federal funding under the Canada-Wide ELCC program. 

    Some of the projects are for minor renovations, some for equipment only, but some are for much bigger projects.  The new Ministry of Education and Child Care prefers to have projects that are funded for $40,000 or less per space, but this restriction can be waived.  Since, construction costs have been rising rapidly, $40,000 per space is now below full cost for many projects.  And applicants are expected to come up with 10% of the entire project cost from other sources. 

    It’s also a one-time capital grant, so you have to know a lot of detailed cost and design elements up-front when you apply.  At the time you apply, you are guessing at much of this.  This is a disadvantage.  A capital program, instead of a one-time capital grant, can be more flexible.

    Eligible costs for the New Spaces program include project management, design/engineering costs and site evaluations, architect and accountant fees, and business planning development (business case model and analysis).  Also eligible are infrastructure costs – water, sewer, roads, sidewalks.  And equipment. And GST/PST and a 10% contingency.)  Not included are costs of purchasing real estate, or buildings or commercial space (however, modular buildings to be erected on site are an eligible expenditure).

    Many of the applicants for New Spaces funding are local governments, school boards, health district authorities, public post-secondary institutions, and First Nations. This is a great use of the program.  Many of these bodies may have access to land for building, and many will have considerable experience in managing large development projects.

    The New Spaces Fund is application-driven.  In other words, organizations have to take the initiative and plan child care expansion and apply for capital funding.  The New Spaces Fund is therefore a capital grants program, it is not part of a program of capital expansion.  In many ways, this is a weakness and this feature has been criticized.  Advocates say that B.C. needs planned child care expansion, focused first on areas of higher need, with support for many aspects of expansion – not just capital grants.  Most child care centres do not have the resources to take on major capital development, raising millions of dollars of capital funding and managing multi-year expansion projects.  Capital expansion requires more than just money. It needs organizations that will take responsibility for development; it needs architects with knowledge of child care,  it needs design standards.  It also needs a much longer guarantee that facilities will stay in place than the current 10-year requirement of the New Spaces Fund.   Manitoba’s Ready-to-Move program is a model to look at for how resources of different actors can be mobilized for child care expansion.

    While that’s true, let’s give B.C. some kudos for having a program of capital grants at all.  Believe it or not, most provinces apparently believe that (capital) money grows on trees (for not-for-profit and public organizations).   Alberta offers $5,000- $6,000 per space.  Ontario offers about $7,000 per space.  In the context where the cost of new-build construction is often more like $50,000-$60,000 per space, that’s not a serious amount of capital assistance.

    B.C. has much to do.  They are planning development of a wage grid to attract early childhood educators, but there is no deadline for when this will happen. 

    B.C. has not yet developed a funding formula for the provision of operational funding when parent fees are an average of $10 a day for everyone.  This means that future revenue streams are uncertain, so the planning of child care expansion for not-for-profit and public services is more risky than it needs to be.

    B.C. has not yet developed mechanisms for planning and guiding the child care expansion that will have to happen.  Based on current use patterns in Quebec where parent fees are now $8.75 a day, we can expect that B.C. will need to have  spaces for 174,180 children 0-5.  That would mean a need for about 77,750 additional child care spaces compared to 2021.  So, B.C. needs to get its game on.  As many other provinces do.

    Posted on

    Ontario’s 2024 Funding Formula

    Ontario’s new funding formula should be providing clarity about guaranteed operating funding going forward.  It should provide for significantly increased staff compensation to deal with the obvious crisis in retention and recruitment.  It should give guarantees of sufficient future funding to make possible the rapid growth in not-for-profit and public facilities.  It should provide spending discretion to operators to spend funds in ways that are most appropriate to their program and community.  It should make clear that there will be ongoing and detailed financial accountability at the end of the funding year. 

    Further, the funding formula should be designed to give a key role to CMSMs and DSSABs to adjust annual funding of services to meet local priorities.  And, the funding formula should ensure that child care services serving low-income, prioritized and underserved communities have the extra resources needed to serve them equitably.  Otherwise, access to child care services may be monopolized by more affluent families.

    However, it is not clear that any of these objectives will actually be met.  Comments on the proposed funding formula can be made here until May 5th 2023.


    What’s Wrong or Unclear About the Proposed Formula

    • It would be preferable to base the funding formula on its outputs rather than on its inputs.  In other words, the funding should be based on a target per diem for projected annual enrollment of infants, toddlers, preschoolers, kindergarten children etc., with funding adjustments for facilities with extra costs and unusual situations.  The proposed funding formula, which is based on inputs, is excessively bureaucratic and does not give much discretion to operators about how best to spend money to achieve desired goals in their circumstances.  Hopefully, this current proposed funding formula is a step along the road towards a better design.  However, a better funding formula based on a target per diem requires that wage rates and other compensation are reasonably uniform across all operators – that means that operators are paying staff according to a wage grid.  This is where the future of the funding formula should lie.
    • It is unclear what the meaning of “average base wage rate” is for RECEs and non-RECEs.  Is this some kind of average across the CMSM/DSSAB?  That would not make any sense; for many operators, it would not even cover current costs.  Instead, it seems to be the facility-specific current average wage before any wage supplements as reported on the most recent child care operator survey. 
    • The first problem is that these average wages have not generally been reported on the child care operator survey.  Instead numbers of staff in different wage ranges are reported. The new operator survey with responses due in early May has narrower wage ranges for reporting.  Is this going to be used to calculate average wages?  In any case the average wage should be taken only across staff providing care for children 0-5, and this is probably not the case on the most recent operator survey.  And the average wage should be calculated as a weighted average wage for RECE staff with the weights being the different number of hours worked by different staff.  That would be more appropriate than a simple average, but the proposed funding formula ignores this.
    •  The second problem is that there are clearly very significant retention and recruitment issues at prevailing wage and benefit rates.  Average wage rates for ECEs in Newfoundland and Labrador will be considerably higher than in Ontario for the foreseeable future!  This is ridiculous and unsustainable, as the cost of living is much higher in Ontario.  The funding formula should be based on a target wage grid at considerably higher wages than currently and operators should be invited to calculate compensation costs based on this wage grid.
    •  The program staffing grant funding formula is based on 260 days rather than 261. In fact, 2024 will have 262 days of operation.
    •  The staffing grant is not based on the expected number of hours worked but on the expected number of hours and days that the centre will be open.  This is an issue for kindergarten children where the formula seems to assume full-year attendance though many children of this age do not actually attend during summer hours and days.  In general, the government’s proposed formula will advantage centres where children attend less than full-time hours because the formula will pay for the number of staff required as if the child was present for all hours the centre is open.   
    •  The annual wage cost increase is part of the formula but has not been specified.  This should be inflation plus some percentage. Of course, some collective agreements and other commitments made by School Boards will already specify an annual increase that needs to be respected.
    •  The program staffing grant formula is based on the percentage of program staff who are RECEs and the percent that are not RECEs.  Instead, it should be based on the percent of the projected number of hours worked by RECEs and by non-RECEs, not the simple numbers of staff of each kind.  Variations in staffing costs are based on hours worked, not just the numbers of staff hired.
    • Are director’s approvals staff working in RECE positions considered to be RECEs for wage calculation purposes?  Is this an incentive for operators to seek director’s approvals in future hiring?
    • The program staffing grant does not include any allowance for training and professional development, or covering absences for professional development.  It is important to provide strong incentives in the funding formula towards increased and regular professional development.
    • The program staffing grant does not make any explicit allowance for planning time for RECEs and staff meeting time.
    • Only one FTE supervisor is allowed (e.g., for 7.5 hours per day) and no assistant supervisor.  This does not account for all the hours a centre is open in a day, let alone the need for more supervisory staff in larger centres.
    • There is no allocation for pedagogues that are above required ratios.
    • The supervisor’s wage appears to be based on some kind of average across centres in a previous survey, rather than the past wage or necessary future wage received by the supervisor in this centre.  In the future, there will need to be a salary scale for supervisory staff.
    • The accommodation grant formula is based on gross floor area.  Does this include playground space?   
    • How will this accommodation formula take into account capital renewal and capital maintenance?  Will the typical rental rate be based on new facilities, old facilities or what?
    • The accommodation (i.e., occupancy cost) formula should distinguish between for-profit and not-for-profit auspices.  For-profits may own their own building or may have an non-arms-length interest in the value of the property.  Accommodation funding may increase the value of their real estate in private hands.  Not-for-profits do not accrue these increases In value because their assets stay in public hands.  This suggests there should be very tight rules on accommodation grants for for-profits that have any financial interest in their premises, and looser rules on accommodation grants for not-for-profits.
    • There does not appear to be any recognition of the considerably larger costs going forward that are due to administration and reporting requirements.  This should be an explicit part of the operating grant.
    • The funding formula is silent on what will happen to future funding for children whose families receive child care subsidy.  This is a big problem.  There is no explicit commitment in the funding formula about the amount and distribution of money or number of families who will benefit from child care subsidies directed at low-income families and families otherwise in need.  We know that as the parent fee for licensed services is lowered, a larger and larger percentage of available spaces will be taken by families whose incomes are above subsidy-eligible levels. We also know that providing high quality care for subsidized children may take extra staff time and result in higher costs.  If the funding formula does not reward centres who take subsidized children with extra funding, subsidized children will tend to get squeezed out.  It may also be necessary to take other measures, such as reserving spaces for subsidized children, to ensure that children receiving child care subsidies and other prioritized children are at the front of the line for available spaces.
    • The proposed funding formula makes CMSMs and DSSABs into flow-through agencies for the distribution of funds, rather than service system managers.  Previously, CMSMs and DSSABs have played a key role in defining and funding local child care priorities.  The new funding formula should restore some of this local funding discretion, allowing municipalities with long subsidy waiting lists to direct more funding to these families, allowing other municipalities to direct more funding to children with special needs, to centres serving Indigenous children, to centres increasing accessibility for rural families, etc.

    Principles Upon Which the Funding Formula Should Be Based

    The funding formula should:

    • cover all the legitimate operating costs of a centre providing quality licensed child care services at or above regulatory minimums for children 0-5 across Ontario;
    • cover compensation costs for Registered Early Childhood Educators and assistants at wage and benefit rates that are competitive with other occupations requiring similar education, training and practicum requirements such that early learning and child care in Ontario is not characterized by staff shortages and widespread director’s approvals;
    • reward and encourage ongoing professional development and increased educational qualifications of both early childhood educators and assistants;
    • provide for extra compensation for early childhood educators with special qualifications such as special needs qualifications and pedagogue qualifications;
    • give operators discretion in decisions about the expenditure of allocated funds (ability to transfer funds across grant categories), but also require operators to report in detail at year-end about how funding has been spent, and adjust funding amounts as necessary;
    • adopt a desired wage grid and, perhaps, a timeline over which to achieve it.  The funding formula should reward operators who pay wages and benefits according to the timeline of recommended wage and benefit rates;
    • recognize sources of additional legitimate costs, such as providing care to a large number of children with special needs, even if not diagnosed, or caring for a large number of subsidized children living in disadvantaged circumstances or providing extended hours of care;
    • recognize higher costs per child that come from operating a small centre in a rural or remote area;
    • distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate reasons for having higher than normal occupancy costs;
    • encourage expansion, especially within existing facilities.  So, for instance, the formula should be based on either licensed capacity or the expected number of enrolled spaces over the next year as opposed to past enrollment (i.e., past operating capacity).

    General Comments on the Funding Formula

    The agreement signed between Ontario and Canada sets Ontario on the path to charging approximately $10 a day for licensed child care by 2025-26.  For those operators who have chosen to become part of the CWELCC system, fees charged to parents are already more than 50% lower than the fees charged on March 28th, 2022 when Ontario signed the agreement.  It is likely that all providers will charge a regular parent fee of $12 per day in 2025-26.  Because the fees for children in low-income subsidized families will be at or close to zero, the average parent fee across the province will average $10 per day.

    The agreement moves licensed child care in Ontario towards a public service largely funded by government, so that it is affordable to families.  Over time, the amount of licensed child care for children 0-5 in Ontario will expand, so that the service is essentially universal.  However, right now, there are supply shortages of all types of care in all parts of the province.

    The purpose of a funding formula is to determine the amount of funding needed by each participating operator in each facility to cover the reasonable costs of providing child care services to children 0-5.  These services will include full-day and part-day care for infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and children of kindergarten age.  There will be some services that are open for non-standard hours or perhaps even overnight.  There will be special support for children with special needs.  There will be some centres that offer a forest school experience or services that are enriched in other ways. 

    There are two components of the cost of providing child care that are highly variable across operators – costs of compensating staff and accommodation costs.

    In other jurisdictions that have wage grids, either bargained by unions or through an awards system or by government fiat, compensation levels are more similar across different providers.  This makes it easier to, for instance, work out the approximate variation in costs of providing care for infants, toddlers, preschoolers etc.  If there is a wage grid, as in Quebec, a funding formula will be based on the services delivered, with a standard amount of funding for each unit of service.  In Quebec, the largest component of the funding formula is based on projected enrollment in spaces for each age category.   There are adjustments to these gross amounts to take account of higher costs in centres with higher wage and benefit levels, differences in enrollment and attendance, etc.

    Ontario does not have a wage grid that defines expected wage and benefit levels and it has not historically collected information about legitimate variations in costs across providers.  As a result, Ontario has chosen to design a funding formula based on expected or current staffing costs, rather than on the amount and detail of services provided. The 2024 Funding Formula Discussion Paper indicates that there will be four separate grants relevant to the costs of child care centres:

    • The program staffing grant
    • The program leadership grant
    • The operations grant
    • The accommodations grant

    In addition there will be a home child care grant and a grant to cover the administration costs of service system managers.

    All of these grants refer only to CWELCC services for children 0-5 in facilities that have become part of CWELCC.  They will not fund services to children 6-12 or the staff that care for them.  They do not explicitly cover the financing of child care subsidies and there is no commitment in the funding formula to maintain and expand the number of children who receive additional subsidized assistance with child care costs. They do not cover funding of facilities that have not joined CWELCC.  All of the existing grants including wage enhancement and other grants for services covering children 0-5 are rolled into the new funding formula and disappear as separate grants.

    The new funding formula will have to cover staffing costs, operating costs and occupancy costs for child care facilities across the province in very different situations.  The funding formula is not intended to cover capital costs of expansion or start-up costs.  However, the funding formula is intended to provide a guarantee of future funding amounts upon which a child care facility’s decisions about expansion will depend.

    The funding formula paper is supposedly a formula for determining the amount of funding that will be allocated to each CMSM/DSSAB.  However, the funding directed to CMSMs and DSSABs is based on the aggregation of the amounts of funding that facilities in the CMSM or DSSAB will get.  So the funding formula apparently determines funding both at the level of the individual facility and of the CMSM/DSSAB.

    The Ministry sponsored a mini-survey of child care costs designed to help calculate amounts needed to cover the costs of each facility.  The degree of detail on costs collected is insufficient to fill holes in the funding formula.  However, the funding formula paper says that this mini-survey is “foundational to building this cost-based model” and that “Those cost structures, including their variability, are captured through weighted averages and benchmarks at the CMSM and DSSAB level in the funding formula.”   In apparent contradiction to this talk about data at the CMSM and DSSAB level, the document also says that “Funding from CMSMs and DSSABs to licensees would consider the cost structure of each individual licensee and, since the formula captures high and low cost structures, the funding allocations would support the financial viability of licensees.”  Greater clarity is needed about these apparent conflicts in description.

    The formula for the Program Staffing Grant is described in simple terms as “multiplying the number of program staff working hours by the compensation cost per hour, and adding a supply staffing allocation (for coverage during absences).  This calculation would be done at the child care centre level and then aggregated to derive the program staffing grant amount for each CMSM/DSSAB….”

    The actual formula looks somewhat different to this simple description, however.

    Instead of actual hours worked by staff, the formula calculates the number of staff that should be required (according to legislated child-staff ratios) times the number of hours the centre would be open if it were open every day of a 260 day year.   That means if a centre is “over-staffed”, the extra staff is not included in the funding formula.  If the centre is located in a particularly disadvantaged area or has children with substantial extra needs, you can easily imagine a centre being staffed above the ratios.  This might be an issue in rural areas with small centres where the required number of staff is fractional.  The formula does not account for this.

    The formula presumes that all children attend the centre for the full number of hours it is open each day (e.g., 11 hours per day), rather than some arriving after opening and some leaving before closing.  It is presumed that the total number of operating days per year is 260 (rather than 261 or 262).  And it assumes that the daily staffing costs do not vary on statutory holidays, when the centre may be closed, which could be an issue especially for workplace-based extended-hours care.  Further, the formula is based on “operating capacity”.  The glossary defines operating capacity as “the number of children the centre/home child care is planning to serve as per the licensee’s staffing complement and budget, to a maximum ceiling of the licensed capacity.”  In other words, it is the capacity that the centre is staffed for.  Operating capacity is an intention or plan.   It is not clear how operating capacity is related to enrolment.  The actual costs of staffing are likely to be closely related to enrolment.

    This calculation of the number of hours of staffing required (which is calculated separately for different age categories with special complications for children of kindergarten age), is then multiplied by a composite average compensation amount per hour.  This average compensation amount per hour is calculated as the sum of (a) average wage plus benefits of RECE program staff in the centre times the percent of staff that are RECE and (b) the average wage plus benefits of non-RECE program staff in the centre times the percent of staff that are non-RECE. 

    This calculation of the average program staff compensation per hour has many problems.  First, it is said to be based on average wage information from the most recent child care operator survey.  However, the annual operator survey in Ontario does not collect information about average wages; instead it collects information about the numbers of staff whose hourly wage is in different ranges (e.g., $17.50 to $20.00 per hour).  The mini-survey did not collect this information either.  So, there is apparently no accurate basis for calculating the average wage or average compensation in a centre from existing provincial data.

    Second, it is based on the percent of RECEs and non-RECEs in the centre.  It should be based on the number of hours worked by RECEs and hours worked by non-RECEs.  And, as long as there are going to be presumed RECEs based on Director’s Approvals that generally earn less per hour than RECE’s, there probably should be three categories of average compensation levels.  And, there does not appear to be any recognition of the need for specialized staff, whether they be related to children with special needs or whether they be pedagogues supporting other staff.  Where does the compensation of these staff fit in?  And where does planning time fit in?

    Calculating the average compensation per hour for different groups will not be trivial.  The hourly base wage for each staff member (presumably this means the actual wage directly paid by the operator to each staff member) may be reasonably straightforward if staff are hourly paid, but a little less straightforward for staff earning a salary.  On top of this needs to be layered the various wage enhancement grant amounts whether part of CWELCC or from before.  Then there will be an annual wage cost increase allowed.  Plus the cost of benefits.  And all of this has to be stated as an average per hour compensation amount for each program staff and then this hourly amount will be averaged over all the RECE staff and the non-RECE staff separately.  The cost of many benefits does not necessarily vary directly with hours worked, so that can be a problem.  

    And then there is an allocation for supply staff, based on a benchmark somehow calculated.  What about coverage for staff who go on maternity/parental leave, or disability leave, and top-ups paid for these leaves in some centres?  How does a general benchmark cover this?

    There is no discussion in the formula about how to handle rising wage costs over the course of the year, presumably related to the rising wages that need to be paid to recruit new staff.  This will be a real problem if expansion is to occur. 

    In general, it is unclear how new centres will be funded.  There is no existing base of wage information for these centres on which to base staffing grants.  Their wages and costs are likely to be higher than other centres because (a) they have to recruit staff in a situation of labour shortage and (b) many new centres are located in underserved communities where per-child costs may be high.  How can expansion happen if there is no clarity about future funding guarantees?

    Amongst other things, It is obvious that the province should have been collecting much more detailed financial data from operators before trying to design a funding formula.  It will need to ensure the collection of detailed financial data going forward in order to make changes to the funding formula over time.

    Gordon Cleveland

    April 21st, 2023