tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/childcare-entitlements-9685/articlesChildcare entitlements – The Conversation2018-09-12T08:22:53Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1029932018-09-12T08:22:53Z2018-09-12T08:22:53ZNew generation of working parents demand a better deal on shared parental leave<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235842/original/file-20180911-144458-torg4p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">My turn. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-loving-young-man-holding-baby-721480006?src=CRbW_yZuRLpZJ8fNFygfcg-1-5">Rido/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Despite widespread belief that men should be as involved as women in all aspects of childcare, they are both still largely playing traditional gender roles when looking after children, according to a <a href="https://gender.bitc.org.uk/system/files/research/bitc_equal_lives_september_2018.pdf">new report</a> from Business In The Community (BITC).</p>
<p>This is disappointing news for gender equality, and the British government’s initiatives around family-friendly workplace policies, such as shared parental leave.</p>
<p>The BITC report, entitled “Equal Lives”, is underpinned by a survey of 10,000 employees with caring responsibilities. It found that men under age 35 are “significantly more likely” to wish to take a more active role in caring for their children than previous generations of fathers. This finding resonates with the conversations we’ve had in our ongoing research with men and couples who opted to take shared parental leave. Since 2015, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/shared-parental-leave-and-pay">shared parental leave</a> has allowed eligible parents the opportunity to divide up to a year of parental leave between them in a baby’s first year or first year of adoption.</p>
<p>Our interactions with this current generation of parents who’ve had a child since 2015 show just how strongly some hold ideals of parenting equality. For many, family-friendly schemes, such as shared parental leave, are playing catch up with their already-established ideals and beliefs: that parenting is a joint, and equal, venture. As one of the parents we interviewed, Sarada, <a href="https://www.workingfamilies.org.uk/shared-parental-leave-videos/sarada-and-adam/">told us</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I never saw the one-year maternity right as something that automatically applied to every single woman, I saw that as an option and shared parental leave caught up with my mindset.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cnsRVrW2Rl4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Already lagging behind</h2>
<p>Those we’ve interviewed have called into question traditional gender roles, with our research suggesting that shared parental leave policy is already lagging behind this new generation’s progressive thinking.</p>
<p>Parents have told us they find the maternity leave transfer model that underpins shared parental leave unhelpful. An employed woman still has the right to up to 52 weeks of maternity leave, but it’s up to her whether she wishes to swap some of this time for shared parental leave taken with her partner. It is one aspect of the scheme that has been blamed for its <a href="https://www.workingfamilies.org.uk/workflex-blog/shared-parental-leave-opportunities-barriers-sharethejoy-campaign/">poor take up</a>.</p>
<p>Equal Lives finds that many men consider that shared parental leave positions leave as “a woman’s prerogative”. The men in our own <a href="http://www.research.mbs.ac.uk/makingroomfordad/">study</a> felt they were “loaning” leave from their partner. They often described themselves as feeling like a “charity case”, or a “second-class parent”, beholden to their female partner to transfer some of “her” leave. The Equal Lives survey reported that 85% of parents under the age of 35 already consider caring to be an equal responsibility, so perhaps it’s unsurprising that the men we’ve spoken to were indignant about the way shared parental leave works. </p>
<p>Nordic countries are ahead of the game here, all adopting, in some form, a “use it or lose it” quota of leave specifically for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/mar/19/parental-rights-norway-reduce-inequality">dads</a>, and offering a ring-fenced period of time on leave that is reserved for mothers and fathers. Both parents are obliged to take leave from work to care for their child and if they don’t use it, they lose it – a potential policy change which BITC supports.</p>
<p>Yet the UK’s established and comparatively long maternity leave (increased to one year in 2003) is deeply entrenched. And so it’s easy to see why the UK currently operates what is essentially <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/women-and-equalities-committee/news-parliament-2017/fathers-and-the-workplace-report-17-19/">a transferal scheme</a> between parents. </p>
<h2>Fit work around people’s lives</h2>
<p>In working through how couples make caring decisions, it’s useful to see how same-sex couples operate. The Equal Lives survey found that men in same-sex couples were less likely to be concerned with “depriving their partner” of leave that is rightfully theirs.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-shared-parental-leave-gives-adoptive-parents-real-time-to-build-a-new-family-unit-95618">How shared parental leave gives adoptive parents real time to build a new family unit</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, new Swedish research suggests that this is <a href="https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/34/5/471/5056857?searchresult=1">not the case in same-sex female couples</a> involving a birth mother, where those preconceived roles can still linger. The research, comparing parental leave in different-sex and female same-sex couples, finds that the birth mother’s uptake of leave is higher than the partner’s uptake in both same-sex and different-sex couples. Perceived norms still exist, linked to the child’s “need” for its birth mother. </p>
<p>The Equal Lives findings come alongside other calls for the workplace to be reimagined. In early September, Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/10/four-day-working-week-for-all-is-a-realistic-goal-this-century-frances-o-grady">called for a universal four-day week</a> so that employees can benefit from the increased efficiency afforded by technological change.</p>
<p>Such a call also recognises that work needs to fit with peoples’ lives – and it provides food for thought about other ways to facilitate a more equal sharing of childcare. The Equal Lives report shows it’s time for employers and society to recognise more fully the importance of supporting employees to have lives outside work.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102993/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emma Banister receives funding from Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and British Academy/Leverhulme</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Kerrane receives funding from British Academy/Leverhulme and ESRC. </span></em></p>Men under 35 want to take a more active role in caring for their children than older generations.Emma Banister, Senior Lecturer, University of ManchesterBen Kerrane, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/750462017-03-27T05:21:51Z2017-03-27T05:21:51ZPolicyCheck: the government’s new child care plan<p>The government’s new child care plan has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-23/governments-childcare-reforms-passed-the-senate/8381908">passed the Senate</a>, subject to last minute amendments passed by independent Senator Derryn Hinch. The bill, known officially as the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_LEGislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5696">Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016</a>, will now return to the lower house. It is expected to pass, and implementation to begin in July 2018. </p>
<p>This new law will change the way that families are given assistance with paying for child care.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/jobsforfamilies">main changes</a> include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Replacing the Child Care Benefit and Child Care Rebate with a new Child Care Subsidy. The new subsidy will have eligibility rules and be subject to means testing. Total Child Care Subsidy payments will be capped at A$10,000 for wealthy families and there will be zero subsidies for families earning more than A$350,000.</p></li>
<li><p>Introducing an hourly fee cap on the subsidies that governments will pay in an attempt to control child care price increases.</p></li>
<li><p>A new activity test, meaning that families will be eligible for either 36, 72 or 100 hours of subsidised care per fortnight depending upon the combined hours of work, training, study or other recognised activity undertaken. Both parents must work or study at least eight hours a fortnight to receive the new subsidy.</p></li>
<li><p>A new A$1 billion Child Care Safety Net aimed at helping families on less than A$65,710 who do not meet the activity test. These families will be able to get up to 24 hours per fortnight of subsidised care.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Before: two complicated payments</h2>
<p>Families in Australia currently receive two types of support for child care: the Child Care Benefit and the Child Care Rebate (originally called the <a href="http://guides.dss.gov.au/family-assistance-guide/1/2/7">Child Care Tax Rebate</a>). </p>
<p>The Child Care Rebate covers 50% of families’ out-of-pocket costs of childcare up to A$7,500 per child – after you hit the A$7,500 threshold, you don’t get any more rebate.</p>
<p>The Child Care rebate is not means tested but the Child Care Benefit is.</p>
<p>How much Child Care Benefit you get depends on whether children are school-aged or pre-school aged, on the family’s current year income, the number of children in care and on the hours of care used.</p>
<p>Child care providers typically charge anywhere between around A$100 and around A$150 per day per child.</p>
<h2>Now: a single payment</h2>
<p>Under the new plan, the old Child Care Rebate and Child Care Subsidy will be rolled into a single new payment called the Child Care Subsidy.</p>
<p>Instead of a flat 50% rebate rate on what they pay, families with a household income of up to A$65,710 will get up to 85% of what they pay. The rate tapers down from there.</p>
<p>Families receiving more than A$185,710 in household income will also be subject to a cap of $10,000 on total Child Care Subsidy payments.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162587/original/image-20170327-3283-994gq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162587/original/image-20170327-3283-994gq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162587/original/image-20170327-3283-994gq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=202&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162587/original/image-20170327-3283-994gq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=202&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162587/original/image-20170327-3283-994gq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=202&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162587/original/image-20170327-3283-994gq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162587/original/image-20170327-3283-994gq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162587/original/image-20170327-3283-994gq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/a3_overview_16_feb_2017_1.pdf">Department of Education and Training</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162589/original/image-20170327-3308-9oycmo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162589/original/image-20170327-3308-9oycmo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162589/original/image-20170327-3308-9oycmo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162589/original/image-20170327-3308-9oycmo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162589/original/image-20170327-3308-9oycmo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162589/original/image-20170327-3308-9oycmo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162589/original/image-20170327-3308-9oycmo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162589/original/image-20170327-3308-9oycmo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/a3_overview_16_feb_2017_1.pdf">Department of Education and Training</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>New hourly fee cap</h2>
<p>An additional layer of complexity is added by the new policy’s fee caps – an attempt by the government to prevent higher subsidies from leading directly to increased prices.</p>
<p>The new child care subsidy rate will not apply to what families actually pay but rather to the new hourly fee caps. The fee caps will be indexed to the consumer price index (CPI). Over the last 12 years, child care prices have <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-what-are-the-facts-on-rising-child-care-prices-71014">grown much more rapidly</a> than inflation. That’s due mainly to increased demand and the <a href="http://www.acecqa.gov.au/national-quality-framework">National Quality Framework</a>, which meant higher-skilled staff and smaller classes.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152955/original/image-20170117-9029-6gdz2w.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152955/original/image-20170117-9029-6gdz2w.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=284&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152955/original/image-20170117-9029-6gdz2w.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=284&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152955/original/image-20170117-9029-6gdz2w.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=284&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152955/original/image-20170117-9029-6gdz2w.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152955/original/image-20170117-9029-6gdz2w.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152955/original/image-20170117-9029-6gdz2w.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chart by the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, using Australian Bureau of Statistics data.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is very hard for governments to control prices in any market. These hourly price caps, given the price increases associated with quality improvements in child care, may end up creating a two-tiered market, with high-end providers charging what the market will bear and low-end providers tying themselves to the subsidy rate. </p>
<p>This two-tiered system of high- and low-priced childcare centres already exists to some extent in most urban areas in Australia. The gap between these may be exacerbated by the attempt to control prices.</p>
<p>As many child care providers currently charge <em>daily</em> rates, and have the power to determine how many hours of care are provided in any given day, it’s unclear how the new system of <em>hourly</em> fee caps will work in practice.</p>
<h2>Which families will get more and which will get less?</h2>
<p>It is clear that wealthy families will receive less money. Those earning over A$350,000 – who, under the old scheme, could get as much as A$7,500 per child – will now receive nothing. This increases the effective marginal tax rates on second earners in wealthy households.</p>
<p>The policy effect on other income groups depends on household income, whether the hourly price of the care they currently use is more expensive than the fee cap, and whether they are affected by the new activity test.</p>
<p>Most, though not all, families earning over A$250,000 will be negatively affected. Those that will be better off are those who work long hours and use relatively inexpensive childcare and are near the A$250,000 threshold.</p>
<p>A substantial fraction of households earning less than the A$65,710 will be worse off, mostly because they will fail to meet the activity test.</p>
<h2>How might the new plan affect workforce participation and productivity?</h2>
<p>It’s not clear what effect all this will have on workforce participation. On average, women from the wealthiest families will work less.</p>
<p>On average, women from less well-off families may end up working more in response to the new policy.</p>
<p>One might expect an overall positive impact on total female labour force participation but this depends greatly upon the economy’s ability to deliver jobs. This will vary greatly by geographic region.</p>
<p>Female labour force participation is already widespread, so this policy will not generate a huge new pool of workers. It will have small positive effects on willingness to work and working hours, but these will be small compared to macro-economic effects such as global commodity prices or the performance of the Chinese economy.</p>
<p>Long-term productivity should be higher because <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/early-childhood-education-3187">experts</a> think better and more early childhood education and care will produce better long term outcomes.</p>
<p>Overall, the policy seems tilted towards less expensive child care for families, which is good. However, it may work against improving <a href="http://www.acecqa.gov.au/national-quality-framework">quality child care</a>, which is expensive. </p>
<p>Policymakers have to decide whether there are more productivity gains to be had in increasing women’s workforce participation or, in the longer term, in investing in higher quality child care.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75046/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Breunig does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Here’s how the government’s new childcare plan will change the way families are given assistance with paying for child care.Robert Breunig, Professor of Economics, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/611232016-06-22T15:37:48Z2016-06-22T15:37:48ZChildcare market is failing to provide parents with choice and quality<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127708/original/image-20160622-7175-er5bjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">FamVeld/www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On the face of it, free childcare sounds like a difficult policy to disagree with. Since 2013, parents of three and four-year-olds in England and those of disadvantaged two-year-olds have been entitled to 15 hours a week of free early education – now mostly referred to as childcare. From September 2017, this will be <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thousands-of-parents-benefit-from-30-hours-free-childcare-early">extended to up to 30 hours</a> a week for children of “working parents”. </p>
<p>But <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/224/22402.htm">a new report</a> from MPs on the Public Accounts Committee – responding to a March 2015 <a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/report/entitlement-to-free-early-education-and-childcare/">National Audit office publication</a> – highlights how the childcare market is failing to deliver choice and quality for most children and families in England. The market is instead thwarting the government’s twin intentions to boost educational outcomes for children growing up with disadvantage, as well as employment chances for parents. </p>
<h2>Skewed incentives</h2>
<p>The committee’s report homes in on the weaknesses in the way universal early education is delivered within England’s marketised system. Choice is limited for parents who only want the free hours for their three or four-year-olds. Nurseries are under no obligation to offer free early education and may not do so in areas where most parents are well-off.</p>
<p>In disadvantaged areas, three quarters of three-year-olds attend state nursery classes and schools, which mostly offer inflexible short sessions. But most English three-year-olds receive their free early education in private childcare provision: 64% in 2015 <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/provision-for-children-under-5-years-of-age-january-2015">according to official statistics</a>. </p>
<p>Yet parents looking only for free early education – rather than childcare – for their children are not especially welcome in private day nurseries, as the nurseries’ business model relies on the childcare fees parents pay for hours over and above the 15 free hours. So if parents take up the 15 free hours for its educational value, rather than as part of their overall childcare plan each week, nurseries might be left out of pocket. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/Migrated_Documents/corporate/the-practicalities-of-childcare---an-overlooked-part-of-the-puzzle.pdf">2014 study by Citizens Advice</a> using mystery shoppers illustrated how this acts as a perverse incentive for childcare businesses to find ways of discouraging parents from using the 15 free hours of early education. For instance, they may offer this only in restricted sessions or over restricted days. Local government funding rates for the “free” hours range from £2.28 to £7.15 per hour for three and four-year-olds and are generally lower than childcare fees paid by parents direct. This means nurseries would rather ensure parents need their children to attend for more than 15 hours a week, in order to cover their costs.</p>
<p>In her evidence to the committee, one childcare entrepreneur honestly articulated the dilemma facing her:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you are a popular nursery, which are you going to take: the child with just the free entitlement, with a gap in the hours that you have no income for, or the child with a parent who is able to pay for the full session? Private providers are only going to take what is best for them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The committee recognised that early education subsidies to childcare businesses may not cover the costs of delivering early education, although this <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/479659/151124_Analytical_review_FINAL_VERSION.pdf">has been consistently denied</a> by the Department for Education. Yet even a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480222/DFE-RR493_Cost_of_providing_the_early_education_entitlement.pdf">2015 study for the department</a> of those costs concluded that the amount the state paid per hour for childcare of two-year-olds was insufficient. The study also noted the degree to which childcare businesses with multiple locations cross-subsidised their loss-making operations. </p>
<h2>Quality questioned</h2>
<p>The committee pointed out that the Department for Education is unable to measure the impact of its investment in universal early education. A <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecoj.12374/epdf">recent economic analysis</a> goes even further. It reckoned that the use of private sector provision, whose quality compares unfavourably to that of the state sector, was responsible for the lack of measurable impact of early education on the educational outcomes of English children at the end of primary school. </p>
<p>The outlook for two-year-olds in disadvantaged families could be even bleaker in terms of outcomes, as <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/provision-for-children-under-5-years-of-age-january-2015">96% receive</a> their 15 hours within the private childcare sector. The fact that <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/224/22402.htm">only 58%</a> of eligible two-year-olds took up a place under the scheme in 2015 reflects how badly the market is working for them and their parents.</p>
<p>As if things weren’t already bad enough, the delicate equilibrium within this system is about to be destabilised even further when the government introduces the additional 15 hours of free early education <a href="https://theconversation.com/focusing-free-childcare-on-working-parents-is-short-sighted-44623">for children of “working parents”</a> in September 2017. This will be available where both parents (or a single parent) are working and each parent earns, on average, an amount equivalent to 16 hours at the national living wage (£107 at the current rate), and less than £100,000 a year. </p>
<p>This move also compromises the government’s position on providing a universal pre-compulsory education service for all three and four-year-olds: calling it childcare is no defence. The extended offer compounds the lack of equity within the childcare market: it is a regressive policy which ignores the needs of the growing number of parents not in regular employment. It also virtually removes from childcare businesses the ability to cross-subsidise the “free” hours with the help of fees paid for additional childcare hours, as <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/childcare-and-early-years-survey-of-parents-2014-to-2015">most parents</a> use less than 30 hours for their three and four-year-olds. </p>
<h2>Unintended consequences</h2>
<p>According to the committee report, childcare businesses are considering refusing to offer the additional hours. Schools by and large won’t, and parents are confused. </p>
<p>The government was warned of the policy’s possible unintended consequences. It ignored a warning sounded in 2014 in the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7072">green budget</a> that the case for further extending universal provision of early education was less strong than generally assumed, given the surprising lack of evidence on its impact on increasing parental employment levels. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/499168/Feasibility_study_into_evaluating_the_labour_and_childcare_market_impacts_of_Tax-Free_Childcare_and_the_Free_Early_Education_Entitlement.pdf">2016 Frontier Economics study</a> considered the feasibility – and risks – of the plan to extend free childcare. It said that childcare prices could rise, places could dwindle for two-year-olds and for children whose parents were ineligible for the offer. </p>
<p>Paradoxically, given the government’s aim of using early years education and childcare to improve the life chances of disadvantaged children, it will be they who stand to lose out. Extending the entitlement to early education to 30 hours a week may well result in one of the most complex, illogical and unfair early education and childcare systems in Europe.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61123/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Lloyd has carried out research for the Department for Education and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. </span></em></p>England may end up with one of the most complex and unfair systems in Europe.Eva Lloyd, Professor of Early Childhood, Cass School of Education and Communities, University of East LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/605232016-06-06T02:48:09Z2016-06-06T02:48:09ZPolicyCheck: Labor’s $3 billion child care plan<p>Labor has unveiled a $3 billion child care <a href="http://www.100positivepolicies.org.au/investing_in_early_education_care">policy</a>, proposing to lift the annual cap on the <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/child-care-rebate">Child Care Rebate</a> from $7,500 to <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-would-boost-childcare-rebate-cap-to-10-000-60526">$10,000 per child</a> and increase the <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/child-care-benefit">Child Care Benefit</a> by 15% starting January 1, 2017.</p>
<p>Many economists see child care policy as an important part of boosting economic growth due to the effect it has on female workforce participation. Daily rates for child care can be <a href="http://www.natsem.canberra.edu.au/storage/AMP_NATSEM_35.pdf">up to $170 a day</a> per child.</p>
<p>The Coalition is not expected to implement its own roughly $3 billion <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/glossy/families/html/families-02.htm">child care</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/childcare-package-neither-bold-or-sustainable-41082">package</a> until <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/labor-unveils-3-billion-childcare-plan-to-win-over-families-20160604-gpbtz5.html">2018</a> at the earliest.</p>
<h2>What has Labor proposed?</h2>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.billshorten.com.au/labor_will_deliver_fairer_and_faster_child_care_help">media release</a> issued on June 5, the ALP said that under its <a href="http://www.100positivepolicies.org.au/investing_in_early_education_care">plan</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Low and middle income families will benefit from an increase to the Child Care Benefit of 15%.</li>
<li>Every one of the 813,000 families that rely on the Child Care Benefit will be better off – an increase up to $31 per child per week, or up to $1,627 per year, will provide much needed relief for the family budget.</li>
<li>The annual cap on the Child Care Rebate will be increased from $7,500 to $10,000 per child, leaving families up to $2,500 per child per year better off.</li>
<li>107,800 families who would otherwise reach the Child Care Rebate cap this financial year won’t have to choose between paying double fees, or dropping out of the workforce.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Labor said that <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-has-there-been-a-massive-increase-in-child-care-costs-under-the-coalition-government-55931">child care fees have increased by over 20%</a> over the last three years, and out-of-pocket costs have gone up.</p>
<p>Labor said its plan would include:</p>
<ul>
<li>New transparency and accountability standards, and extra powers to investigate price gouging.</li>
<li>An additional $50 million for the family day care system.</li>
<li>Better services for Indigenous children and children in remote areas; increasing support for children in <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/budget-based-funded-programme">Budget-Based Funded Program</a> services by 15%.</li>
<li>$150 million for development of the early education workforce.</li>
<li>Cutting the Baby Bonus payment, $1.2 billion over the next ten years.</li>
</ul>
<p>In its media release, the ALP referenced independent <a href="http://rsss.anu.edu.au/node/238">research</a> I conducted (commissioned by Early Childhood Australia) showing that the Coalition’s policy would leave one in three families worse off. </p>
<h2>How is this different to what Coalition proposes?</h2>
<p>The Labor policy is largely an increase in the subsidies provided in the existing child care policy. The Coalition’s policy is a redesigned policy, with a single payment replacing the existing Child Care Rebate and Child Care Benefit payments. </p>
<p>The two policies are roughly the same in terms of funding over the forward estimates, but there are some important differences in their design. </p>
<p>The Coalition policy has a subsidy that is income-dependent (as is the existing Child Care Benefit payment). It starts at 85% for low-income families and eventually lowers to just 20% for very high-income families ($340,000). The government estimates its new policy to be around 15% more generous than the existing policy.</p>
<p>Labor’s proposed 15% increase in Child Care Benefit and 33% increase in Child Care Rebate cap will, for most low- and middle-income families, roughly match the Coalition subsidy.</p>
<p>The new Coalition policy also has a cap on the prices that the subsidy rate can apply, with formal child care subsidy prices applying to only the first $11.55 per hour for long day care. The Coalition also proposes a cap per child of $10,000 for incomes above $185,000 and a tougher work test than the existing policy (or Labor’s proposed policy).</p>
<p>The existing (and new Labor policy) is arguably more complicated than the Coalition policy, although both remain complicated enough that few parents will understand either.</p>
<p>Both policies are more generous for most families than existing policy. The Labor policy is likely to be at least as generous for most families as Coalition policy.</p>
<p>The Coalition policy will be less generous for very high-income families compared to the new Labor policy. </p>
<p>We <a href="http://rsss.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Childcare_reforms.pdf">estimate</a> that the Coalition activity test (meaning the number of work or study hours required before child care subsidies are made available) could leave up to 149,000 families worse off compared to the government’s own <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/childcare-changes-45000-families-to-lose-out-because-of-high-childcare-fees-20160210-gmr0fn.html">estimate</a> of just 37,000.</p>
<p>The ANU modelling is based on ABS survey data, which the government claims overstates the activity test impacts. The government modelling is based on administration data. This has limited information on the hours worked of parents, which makes modelling the activity test difficult. </p>
<h2>How will this affect child care prices and work patterns?</h2>
<p>The risk is that child care providers will eventually increase prices to match the extra spending power of parents who are receiving more subsidy money from the government. </p>
<p>The price cap of the Coalition policy may assist in removing some inflation from inner-city areas and higher-income suburbs. The uncapped total subsidy of the Coalition policy for most families may work against that aim. </p>
<p>The end game for policy here is female workforce participation. Both policies will, in the short run, improve affordability. With the existing rebate capped at $7,500 per year per child, child care is financially possible for most families up to three days but is marginal beyond that. Both proposed policies from the Coalition and Labor are likely to change that equation, at least in the short term, to closer to four days.</p>
<h2>A history of rising child care costs</h2>
<p>The major problem with child care in Australia over the past 15 years has been the exceptional growth in fees. Since 2000, fee increases averaged around 10% per year, or about 7.5% in real terms. </p>
<p>Thanks to large increases in subsidies last decade, the cost to parents has increased at a similar rate to the general price level and at less than income growth.</p>
<p>There have been no real increase in subsidies since 2008 and actual prices have continued to increase in real terms at around 6% per year. So there is again great pressure on government to increase subsidies. With demand for child care services growing strongly and very strong price increases across the sector, child care subsidy spending is one of the fastest-growing expenditure items in the federal budget. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125238/original/image-20160605-11593-7fyleh.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125238/original/image-20160605-11593-7fyleh.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=323&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125238/original/image-20160605-11593-7fyleh.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=323&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125238/original/image-20160605-11593-7fyleh.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=323&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125238/original/image-20160605-11593-7fyleh.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125238/original/image-20160605-11593-7fyleh.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125238/original/image-20160605-11593-7fyleh.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What are the potential pitfalls?</h2>
<p>For most parents using formal child care, both policies of the major parties are not substantially different in terms of the out-of-pocket costs. </p>
<p>A problem for both policies is the issue of increasing subsidies leading to ever-higher prices. The Coalition policy is less generous to the very highest income earners, which could be an issue for the ALP pushing a “fairness” agenda. However, this negative may be offset by the Coalition policy’s tough activity test, which may result in some children no longer attending formal child care (and potentially missing out on some of the benefits of formal early childhood education).</p>
<p>Either way, most families with children in child care will receive generous fee relief, at least in the short term. No family is worse off under the Labor policy, whereas some families are worse off under the Coalition policy. </p>
<p>Both policies would be expected to encourage some women to lift their hours worked, but both policies in the longer term continue to put upward pressure on child care fees.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60523/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods has undertaken economic consulting work for a number of child care industry organisations in Australia.</span></em></p>Labor has unveiled a $3 billion child care policy it will take to the polls on July 2. What has the party proposed and how is it different?Ben Phillips, Principal Research Fellow, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/559312016-03-17T23:05:56Z2016-03-17T23:05:56ZFactCheck: has there been a massive increase in child care costs under the Coalition government?<blockquote>
<p>The Liberals went to the election promising more affordable child care, but the government’s own figures released today show a massive increase in the cost of child care for millions of families since the 2013 election. – <strong>Shadow minister for early education, Kate Ellis, <a href="http://www.kateellis.com.au/child_care_costs_rocket_under_liberal_government">media release</a>, March 6, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The cost of child care is not just an issue for parents – it can affect the whole economy because expensive child care can dissuade parents from working and paying tax when they’d otherwise like to.</p>
<p>Labor’s shadow minister for early education, Kate Ellis, said there’s been a “massive increase” in child care costs since the 2013 election of the Coalition government.</p>
<p>Is it fair to link rising child care costs with the election of the Coalition government in 2013?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for data to support her assertion, a spokeswoman for Ellis directed The Conversation to compare the latest data from the <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/node/39481">March 2015 Early Childhood and Child Care in Summary report</a> with the <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/node/39601">March 2013 Early Childhood and Child Care in Summary report</a>.</p>
<p>The spokeswoman said that comparing the data from March 2015 (when the Coalition was in government) with March 2013 (when Labor was in government) showed:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a marked difference in the out-of-pocket percentages at all income brackets, which results in a significant out-of-pocket difference for the time period.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read the spokeswoman’s full response <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-a-spokeswoman-for-kate-ellis-56210">here</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114905/original/image-20160314-11267-13u7vos.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114905/original/image-20160314-11267-13u7vos.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114905/original/image-20160314-11267-13u7vos.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114905/original/image-20160314-11267-13u7vos.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114905/original/image-20160314-11267-13u7vos.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114905/original/image-20160314-11267-13u7vos.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114905/original/image-20160314-11267-13u7vos.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114905/original/image-20160314-11267-13u7vos.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Provided by spokeswoman for Kate Ellis</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s true a basic comparison of the data does show a rise in child care costs under the Coalition government. However, the trend was underway before the Coalition came to power.</p>
<h2>The long history of rising child care costs</h2>
<p>In fact, child care costs have been outpacing the rise in the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/webfaq.nsf/home/Consumer+Price+Index+FAQs#Anchor1">consumer price index</a> since at least 2009. </p>
<p>To calculate the consumer price index (CPI), the Australian Bureau of Statistics examines price changes over time for a hypothetical “basket of goods and services” typically bought by Australian households. Child care is one of the services in that imaginary basket.</p>
<p>The ABS has been tracking child care costs every quarter since March 1982, and that index is expressed in chart form below. Remember, this chart doesn’t show the <em>dollar cost</em> but rather an [<em>index</em>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_(economics) – a statistical measure of change.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/EkY6P/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>As you can see, the underlying trend of rising costs has not been greatly affected by government policy. The general trend in price increases looking back to early 2009 is roughly unchanged. </p>
<p>See those two big dips in the line chart? Those two significant periods of decrease in the out-of-pocket (net) price paid by parents coincide with the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/rn/2005-06/06rn03.pdf">introduction of the child care tax rebate in 2005 under the Howard government</a>, and its <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/rudds-childcare-plan/2007/10/21/1192301128547.html">expansion in 2008 under the Rudd government</a>.</p>
<p>Data compiled by the University of Canberra’s National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) for the <a href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjM5ODkzfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1">2014 AMP-NATSEM Child Care Affordability in Australia report</a> showed the rise in child care prices has outpaced inflation since before the last federal election in 2013.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115052/original/image-20160315-17738-17vql9h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115052/original/image-20160315-17738-17vql9h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115052/original/image-20160315-17738-17vql9h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115052/original/image-20160315-17738-17vql9h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115052/original/image-20160315-17738-17vql9h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115052/original/image-20160315-17738-17vql9h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115052/original/image-20160315-17738-17vql9h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115052/original/image-20160315-17738-17vql9h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cost of child care in Australia compared with CPI and household income.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjM5ODkzfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1">AMP-NATSEM Child care affordability in Australia report 2014. Chart uses data from ABS Consumer Price Index, NATSEM Household Budget Report. Note: This is an index and offers a base point of comparison, rather than a dollar figure.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In other words, while it’s true costs have risen since the last federal election, that trend was underway long before the current government took power in 2013.</p>
<h2>What’s driving rising child care costs?</h2>
<p>Firstly, demand is high and supply is low. <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-women-than-ever-are-in-the-workforce-but-progress-has-been-glacial-54893">Female participation in the workforce has been growing</a>, which is driving up demand for child care.</p>
<p>There seems little prospect of falling demand on the horizon, and that keeps prices high.</p>
<p>Child care is an expensive business because it’s labour intensive. Labour costs make up the vast majority of costs for child care centres.</p>
<p>Since 2012, the <a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj7uLjYpsTLAhUCtJQKHZshBloQFggfMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acecqa.gov.au%2Fnational-quality-framework&usg=AFQjCNFvzprK4_RpgMeK_Lig8UDiA2esYg">National Quality Framework</a> has also placed additional cost pressures on child care centres. The national framework required more physical space per child, more staff per child, a higher presence of qualified early childhood teachers, and more qualified (and more expensive) staff.</p>
<p>All of this requires child care centres to spend more dollars per child and increases costs for parents.</p>
<p>The evidence is that the general trend in child care prices and costs has followed the same trajectory from 2013 to 2015 (under the Coalition government) that it was on from 2009 to 2012 (under the Labor government).</p>
<h2>What can be done?</h2>
<p>There are two basic policy options to drive down child care costs: increase assistance to families or intervene in the market to stop rising prices.</p>
<p>Both come with big costs.</p>
<p>Increasing subsidies would lower the cost of child care for families. The two big drops in the net child care cost in 2005 and 2008 show the large effect that increasing assistance to families can have.</p>
<p>But these subsidies are very expensive for the taxpayer. Alongside the drops in net child care price in 2005 and 2008, there were continuing increases in the gross price of child care. Subsidies go up; child care providers raise the price.</p>
<p>Secondly, although increased assistance to families brings some increase in employment, the increases are small. </p>
<p>For married and partnered women – the group whose working behaviour is most sensitive to changes in the cost of child care – we estimate that <a href="http://ftp.iza.org/dp6606.pdf">to achieve a 1% increase in hours worked</a>, government needs to <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2012.00797.x/abstract">reduce the price of child care</a> by between 5% and 10%.</p>
<p>Some may argue that additional child care subsidies lead to improved outcomes for children, better options for families, and a commitment to a range of policies that enhance and support gender equality. </p>
<p>The government could take over the provision of child care as it does primary education, or impose some kind of price control on child care. Both currently seem unlikely.</p>
<p>The Coalition government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-predicts-substantial-participation-boost-from-big-child-care-spend-41578">current proposal is to link child care payments to a benchmark price</a>. This is presumably to impose some downward pressure on prices. It remains to be seen how this benchmark price would be adjusted every year, and whether or not this would lead to an increasing gap between subsidies and actual costs to families.</p>
<p>Finally, removing quality restrictions on child care centres could reduce price pressures. This, however, runs contrary to the early childhood education objectives and demand from parents for higher quality child care.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>It’s true there’s been an increase in the cost of child care under the Coalition government. However, Kate Ellis’ description of a “massive increase in the cost of child care for millions of families since the 2013 election” obscures the fact that the trend was underway for years before the current Coalition government came to power. <strong>– Robert Breunig</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound analysis. The author has provided evidence that clearly demonstrates the rising costs of childcare to families and that costs are rising at a rate faster than inflation. </p>
<p>The author’s conclusion that this trajectory began prior to the Coalition assuming government in 2013 is accurate and justified.</p>
<p>These rises are related to an increasing mismatch between supply and demand, along with improvements in the quality of the early childhood programs being offered as a result of the <a href="https://www.coag.gov.au/early_childhood">Quality Reform Agenda</a> instigated by the ALP and agreed by all governments through the Council of Australian Governments in 2009.</p>
<p>However, it is important to note that the implementation of the reforms in early childhood were not primarily in response to parental demand. The reforms were based on extensive international research evidence, including <a href="http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/startingstrongiiearlychildhoodeducationandcare.htm">a major OECD 20-country review</a>. To consider winding quality reforms back as one option for reducing costs would, in my opinion, be detrimental to the national interest. <strong>– Susan Krieg</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55931/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Breunig receives funding from the Australian Research Council for his research on child care.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Krieg receives funding from the Channel 7 Children’s Research Foundation.
</span></em></p>Labor’s shadow minister for early education, Kate Ellis, said there has been a massive increase in child care costs under the Coalition government. Is that an accurate reflection of the data?Robert Breunig, Professor of Economics, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/416082015-05-11T20:07:47Z2015-05-11T20:07:47ZFocus on working parents misses true value of universal early childhood services<p>The federal government is abandoning children’s rights to subsidised non-parental care. Apart from 15 hours preschool for four and five-year-olds, the newly announced <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-05-10/jobs-families-child-care-package-delivers-choice-families">childcare package</a> focuses on pushing mothers into paid work or more paid work as a condition of subsidy – unless the child is in need of remedial programs, which may stigmatise many users. This contrasts both with overseas evidence that <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-uk-should-follow-nordics-lead-on-universal-childcare-31989">universal access is better</a> for remedying disadvantage and the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4228099.htm">UK government election promise</a> that all children aged three and older will receive 30 hours of free preschool care, up from 15, because it’s good for all children!</p>
<p>The idea that universal children’s services are an essential part of a network of community services is gone, together with other aspects of good social policies. </p>
<p>Another bad move is proposed cuts to paid parental leave, which will restrict most parents to 18 weeks. The budget plan is to refuse to pay the government benefit if employers fund top-ups. This abandons the recommended minimum standard of 26 weeks, which <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/federal-budget-2015-parental-leave-could-be-tony-abbotts-biggest-backflip-yet-20150511-ggyl9j.html">Prime Minister Tony Abbott touted</a> only a few months ago!</p>
<h2>Why the package is unfair and impractical</h2>
<p>There are other serious flaws in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/childcare-package-neither-bold-or-sustainable-41082">childcare proposals</a>, which fail political, fairness and practical tests. To name a few:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The proposed subsidy changes (A$30 per week on average) may marginally increase affordability for current users but won’t necessarily increase “workforce participation rates” greatly. This is because the policy fails to address non-fee-related reasons for gaps in the supply of services including few services for unprofitable age groups (the under-threes); fewer places in high-cost areas/locations; lack of flexible hours; and local centre waiting lists.</p></li>
<li><p>The policy fails to recognise the problem of the lack of jobs, particularly those with the flexibility needed by parents who wish to enter the workforce. There is an imbalance of <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6354.0Main+Features1Feb%202015?OpenDocument">150,000 vacancies</a> versus <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats%5Cabs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyCatalogue/46DFE12FCDB783D9CA256B740082AA6C?Opendocument">770,000 job seekers</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>The government cuts to paid parental leave will mean higher demand for baby care, unless parents get a nanny.</p></li>
<li><p>We are now well below most <a href="http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF2_1_Parental_leave_systems_1May2014.pdf">OECD countries</a> in funded parental leave, and many big employers may decide to stop picking up what should be government-funded (as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/10/ending-double-dipping-on-parental-leave-unlikely-to-save-money-business-group">already predicted</a>).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Are the changes likely to happen? The government has set up barriers that suggest it isn’t seriously committed to the package. Its condition for implementing the childcare changes is the unlikely Senate passing of last year’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/federal-budget-2014-greatest-family-tax-benefit-sting-in-threshold-for-part-b-20140513-388dh.html">Family Tax Benefit Part B changes</a>. These are particularly nasty, as they remove payments to sole parents and sole-earner couples once their youngest child turns six.</p>
<p>This is the last policy recognition of more traditional families. Such cuts to single-earner couples will <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-11/childcare-package-overlooks-stay-at-home-parents-nationals-say/6459020">not be popular with the Nationals</a> and remaining conservatives in the Liberals. Despite changes over the past decade or more, which normalised paid work for almost all parents, these last changes are likely to re-open old differences between women. Those in paid jobs support the paid worker push and those not in paid work object to their children’s exclusion from subsidies.</p>
<p>Already, there is talk from the Nationals about income splitting for single-income couples to recognise they have only one tax threshold. These current policies also ignore the job pressures and contribution of time that most mothers and a few fathers make to meet children’s needs. Most parents also contribute considerable volunteer time – in schools, junior sport and elsewhere – which is not recognised in the package.</p>
<p>The earlier announcement of the unnecessary <a href="http://scottmorrison.dss.gov.au/media-releases/246-million-nanny-pilot-programme-to-support-families-in-work">trial nanny program</a> – an existing program is already operating and could be expanded – suggests the newer version will have fewer supervision and skill requirements. The risks of exploitation of workers and poorer quality of care have not been addressed.</p>
<p>The two-year delay in the introduction of the child-care package also raises questions. This leaves lots of time for further undermining of the community aspects of care and cost-cutting. The starting date will be after the next election, so it may not proceed in any recognisable form.</p>
<h2>Savings to fund package open to negotiation</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2015/may/11/senate-pushes-back-on-childcare-changes-ahead-of-budget-politics-live#block-554ffc30e4b022027795c7c5">prime minister’s responses</a> on Monday to questions following the announcement of the package were revealing.</p>
<p><strong>Q:</strong> What would you say to the 80,000 mothers and fathers who are told that they won’t be able to access the full paid parental leave scheme that they previously were able to access under the budget? And how can you justify the fact that you’re now cutting access to paid parental leave when you went to two elections with your signature policy of a rolled gold paid parental leave system?</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Abbott:</strong> As you know, the policy that we took to the last election is off the table, and I guess there are all sorts of circumstances that have changed since the last election – certainly circumstances that have changed since the election before – and intelligent governments respond appropriately to circumstances as they evolve.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Under further questioning, Abbott also indicated that the government was open to alternative savings to fund the package:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is a good package, a fair package, a package that will be good for families and good for the economy, so it’s socially desirable and economically desirable, but if we’re going to do it we do have to have offsetting savings, and let’s talk about where those offsetting savings must be, but savings there must be if this package is to go forward.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Q:</strong> Some of those families who won’t be better off, for example those who would lose Family Tax Benefit B once their youngest child turns six, what do you say to them? They’ll lose in the budget?</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Abbott:</strong> That’s actually a measure from last year’s budget. It’s not a new measure.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Q:</strong> That needs to be passed to pay for what you’re talking about today?</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Abbott:</strong> It’s one of the measures stalled in the Senate and the point we make is that we can’t go ahead with the child-care initiatives with the “Jobs for Families” package unless we get offsetting savings. We’re prepared to talk to the Labor Party and the crossbench about where these savings will be found but savings must be found for this to go ahead.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41608/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Lost in the political debate about subsidising child care is the fact that universal free preschool care has been abandoned as a goal of good social policy.Eva Cox, Professorial Fellow Jumbunna IHL, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/410822015-05-10T21:05:38Z2015-05-10T21:05:38ZChildcare package neither bold or sustainable<p>The government’s new <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-05-10/jobs-families-child-care-package-delivers-choice-families">childcare package</a>, which will not come into full force until July 2017, tinkers around the edges. </p>
<p>The package will simplify the benefits system, increase subsidies for those on lower incomes, and extend subsidies to include nannies. Subsidies are now linked to “benchmark” prices in an effort to reduce inflationary pressures, a decision that could actually be detrimental to parents in the longer term. Bold policies such as universal early childhood education and care (ECEC) or a radical improvement in the quality of ECEC are not the order of the day.</p>
<p>The government says its objective is to help parents who want to work or work more. The relationship between childcare policies and women’s labour supply is an area I and the University of Canberra’s Xiaodong Gong have extensively <a href="https://crawford.anu.edu.au/people/academic/robert-breunig?tb=publication">researched</a>.</p>
<p>There are a number of reasons why governments might subsidise childcare, not as a handout, but as a sensible policy tool. One reason put forward is that it will pay for itself — subsidies to childcare result in more women working and the increased tax revenue will more than offset the cost of the subsidy. </p>
<p>A second reason is that investment in ECEC yields improved educational outcomes for children, resulting in better-educated, more productive and happier citizens. If credit constraints or lack of information lead to under-investment in education, then there is a role for government intervention. </p>
<p>A third reason is, in a society where women have traditionally borne the burden of care for young children, childcare subsidies help women enter and remain in the work force. So, childcare is a crucial pillar in any set of policies designed to enhance gender equality in society.</p>
<p>Do these arguments stand up in Australia?</p>
<p>Will childcare subsidies pay for themselves? No. Based on Australian data from the late 2000s, each dollar of subsidy returns only about $0.14 of tax revenue. So a dollar of subsidy, after taking account of increased work hours of mothers, costs about $0.86. And this excludes government costs of program administration. These estimates are based on small changes to the currently existing program of childcare benefit (CCB). Might responses to radical changes to the childcare system be really different? Probably not, but it’s not impossible. Without data to inform, the hopeful can continue to speculate.</p>
<h2>Is subsidising childcare worth it?</h2>
<p>Determining whether money spent on childcare is “worth it” in terms of educational outcomes and women’s equality is harder to answer. While these outcomes have value, they don’t come with a price and reasonable people can disagree about their worth.</p>
<p>We know from overseas that participation in childcare appears to help educational outcomes, particularly for children from lower income families. For middle- and upper-middle class families, the results are mixed with some studies saying that childcare attendance can actually be harmful for future educational outcomes relative to children staying at home with a well-educated carer. </p>
<p>In Australia, there are no broad, representative studies. The few existing, observational studies do not convincingly address the problems that arise from unobserved differences between those children who attend childcare and those who do not. Some studies find small positive effects of ECEC whereas others find either no effect of childcare attendance or a slight negative effect on teacher assessments of children’s knowledge or year 3 NAPLAN tests. We need more evidence in this area.</p>
<p>What about gender equality? This is difficult to quantify satisfactorily, but what is clear across developed countries is a general pattern where countries with free or heavily-subsidised ECEC have higher fertility rates and higher labour force participation by women. It’s hard to identify the “childcare” effect, as such policies are often bundled with a wide set of policies aimed at supporting gender equality and broader choices for both women and men when it comes to balancing work and family.</p>
<h2>The likely impact of the new policy</h2>
<p>Women from lower-income families tend to respond more to childcare subsidies than those from wealthier families. This is not surprising, as childcare represents a larger share of the household budget for poorer families. So positive labour supply effects should ensue from tilting subsidies towards those who are less well off.</p>
<p>While simplification sounds good, childcare is an area where having two policy levers is valuable. Our <a href="https://crawford.anu.edu.au/pdf/staff/robert_breunig/childcare_assistance.pdf">research</a> shows that responses to subsidies (like CCB) are very different than responses towards tax rebates — like the original childcare tax rebate (CCTR), which actually was a tax rebate, not a subsidy under a different name. Tax rebates are less expensive (a dollar of rebate only costs around $0.73) and produce larger labour supply increases. However, the wealthier (with taxable income and higher marginal tax rates) benefit more from tax rebates. This suggests a policy where subsidies are targeted at lower-income families and an across the board tax rebate is (implicitly) targeted at wealthier families.</p>
<p>It is unclear what effect the linking to benchmark prices will have. We do not know much about the supply side of childcare - to what degree do subsidies simply flow on as higher prices? How will these benchmark prices be adjusted over time? Childcare prices have increased at a faster rate than inflation over the last 15 years, so failing to index the benchmark prices or indexing them only to a broad measure of inflation will, over time, result in substantial real decreases in support to families.</p>
<h2>Nannies are not the answer</h2>
<p>It is difficult to see how a policy of subsidising nannies fits into this. This part of the policy will not pay for itself for the same reasons that no childcare subsidy pays for itself. The research about ECEC benefiting children is based upon classroom interactions and integration into the educational process not segregation with a nanny. </p>
<p>We do not know whether children cared for by nannies do better or worse at school than those who have stayed home with a parent; nor how their performance rates against those who have been in long day care. </p>
<p>Australian ECEC continues to suffer from quality issues, despite the National Quality Framework. The typical childcare worker has qualifications and teaching skills well below those of the typical preschool or primary school teacher. The typical nanny will have no job-specific educational qualifications and less training than the typical childcare worker. </p>
<p>Will we allow long day care centres to hire less qualified workers than they now do, call them “nannies” rather than “childcare workers” and still have access to subsidies? Subsidising nannies looks more like an appeal to a particular demographic rather than a well-thought out attempt to improve outcomes for children.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41082/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Breunig receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>Making the case for subsidising childcare is not as simple as it might seem, and the government’s new childcare package may not pay for itself.Robert Breunig, Professor of Economics, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/379212015-02-26T19:30:41Z2015-02-26T19:30:41ZForget ‘no jab, no pay’ schemes, there are better ways to boost vaccination<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72999/original/image-20150225-25659-1fgsk1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Removing the childcare rebate for parents who do not fully immunise their children is unnecessarily punitive and could have repercussions.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-129678701/stock-photo-baby-in-sling-looking-outdoor-mother-is-carrying-her-child.html?src=CuSRdHRn8aV2GNSR4yW0eQ-1-77&ws=1">Oksana Shufrych/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Immunisation in Australia isn’t compulsory – and doesn’t need to be controversial. Most Australians recognise the incredible benefits that vaccination provides to prevent serious disease; we have high and stable <a href="http://www.myhealthycommunities.gov.au/Content/publications/downloads/NHPA_HC_Report_Imm_Rates_March_2014.pdf">coverage rates</a> of around 93%. </p>
<p>Getting childhood immunisation to the 95% target rate would be even better, providing more individual protection and “<a href="https://theconversation.com/braving-the-jab-for-community-immunity-330">community immunity</a>”. </p>
<p>However, the <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/review-of-australias-welfare-system">McClure Review</a> recommendation that child and youth welfare payments be conditional on having up-to-date immunisation is not the answer to maintaining or improving vaccine uptake. </p>
<p>Nor is the Productivity Commission’s <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/childcare/report">recent suggestion</a> that parents who have not had their child fully vaccinated should not receive the childcare benefit tax rebate the right way forward.</p>
<p>Most parents whose children are un- or under-vaccinated need more support to help protect their child: a carrot rather than stick approach. </p>
<h2>Why aren’t all children vaccinated?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/related-payments">Financial incentives</a> are in place to encourage parents get their child to the clinic multiple times early in life to get their shots on time. We all know this can be challenging. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73030/original/image-20150225-1754-sebzfa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73030/original/image-20150225-1754-sebzfa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73030/original/image-20150225-1754-sebzfa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=883&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73030/original/image-20150225-1754-sebzfa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=883&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73030/original/image-20150225-1754-sebzfa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=883&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73030/original/image-20150225-1754-sebzfa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1110&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73030/original/image-20150225-1754-sebzfa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1110&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73030/original/image-20150225-1754-sebzfa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1110&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-people-not-vaccinate-24882">Research</a> tells us that parents of the 7% of incompletely vaccinated children fall into two distinct groups. </p>
<p>The first group, more than half of the 7%, face practical, economic, social or geographic impediments to full and timely vaccination. They are more likely to experience poverty or social exclusion. </p>
<p>A smaller proportion, estimated at 2-3% of the population, have beliefs, attitudes and concerns that cause them to reject or delay some or all vaccines. </p>
<p>In addition, some parents who are up-to-date with their child’s routine immunisation can be hesitant or uncertain about vaccines. Who can blame anyone for having questions about vaccines when misinformation abounds, promulgated by small fringe groups. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73031/original/image-20150225-1761-5npbry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73031/original/image-20150225-1761-5npbry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73031/original/image-20150225-1761-5npbry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73031/original/image-20150225-1761-5npbry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73031/original/image-20150225-1761-5npbry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73031/original/image-20150225-1761-5npbry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73031/original/image-20150225-1761-5npbry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73031/original/image-20150225-1761-5npbry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Reminding and supporting parents</h2>
<p>Recent changes to <a href="http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/immunisation/pages/vaccination_enrolment.aspx">childcare legislation in New South Wales</a> require parents to provide documentation about their child’s immunisation when they enrol into childcare. Other states are examining the legislation and Victoria plans to follow suit in 2015. </p>
<p>This is a great initiative for a number of reasons. First, it provides another “reminder point” to check on a child’s immunisation status and gives an opportunity to enrol the child in a “catch up” program. </p>
<p>Second, it requires that parents who actively decline vaccination have visited an immunisation professional or GP to discuss their decision. If those parents continue to choose not to vaccinate, they need to produce a signed objection form. </p>
<p>Parents who follow any of these options are currently eligible for the childcare rebate.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, these system improvements have been characterised by the media as “no jab, no play”: that unimmunised children don’t have the right to attend childcare. This is blatantly untrue; “no form, no play” is more accurate but not as sensational. </p>
<p>To protect both themselves and others, unimmunised children are required to stay at home from childcare for weeks in the case of a vaccine-preventable disease outbreak, such as measles or whooping cough. This is a financial and practical disincentive for parents who don’t vaccinate their children. </p>
<h2>Punishment can backfire</h2>
<p>Removing welfare payments or childcare rebates for parents who do not fully immunise their children is unnecessarily punitive and could have a number of negative repercussions. </p>
<p>On the one hand, these measures are unlikely to influence the completely committed vaccine objectors. But not all parents who haven’t vaccinated are completely committed to that position. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72997/original/image-20150225-25670-z4hiw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72997/original/image-20150225-25670-z4hiw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72997/original/image-20150225-25670-z4hiw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72997/original/image-20150225-25670-z4hiw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72997/original/image-20150225-25670-z4hiw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72997/original/image-20150225-25670-z4hiw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72997/original/image-20150225-25670-z4hiw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Unimmunised children in NSW must be kept home when outbreaks occur.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/methyl_lives/2276369296">Kirsten Jennings/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On the other hand, removing incentives could paradoxically push very hesitant parents who have some willingness to immunise their children further against doing so.</p>
<p>Removing childcare subsidies carries the risk that children of low-income non-vaccinating families may not attend childcare or access much needed financial support to visit the doctor at all – a terrible outcome. </p>
<p>Removing welfare payments would obviously have a devastating effect on these children and their families. </p>
<p>History tells us that coercive policies can galvanise and further radicalise fringe movements. These proposals, together with a steady flow of adversarial public discussions, may actually increase exposure of everyone to anti-vaccination arguments and “normalise” vaccine objection. </p>
<h2>Increasing vaccination rates</h2>
<p>Strategies that increase the opportunity to vaccinate are <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2012.00897.x/abstract">most effective</a>. Improving access, awareness and affordability could potentially boost coverage rates by as much as 3-4%.</p>
<p><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2012.00897.x/abstract">Research shows</a> that maintaining openness and trust is key to guiding parents to feel comfortable to immunise. This is also my experience as an immunisation professional who sees parents with low-vaccine acceptance.</p>
<p>Parents can change their position over time. A proportion of registered vaccine objectors have at least one vaccine recorded for their child: some have started the vaccine schedule but then ceased vaccinating or continue to selectively vaccinate.</p>
<p>Some registered objectors <a href="http://ncirs.edu.au/news/newsletter/AUGUST%202014%20NCIRS%20NEWSLETTER.pdf">go on to fully vaccinate</a> their children. The example of the mum who said “I never realised whooping cough could be so bad” and who went on to fully immunise her daughter after a prolonged hospitalisation for that preventable disease, springs to mind. </p>
<p>Having vaccine-hesitant parents engage with well-qualified health professionals who can take the time to address immunisation concerns is pivotal to helping them wade through the challenges that misinformation can create. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72998/original/image-20150225-25698-f7wbgr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72998/original/image-20150225-25698-f7wbgr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72998/original/image-20150225-25698-f7wbgr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72998/original/image-20150225-25698-f7wbgr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72998/original/image-20150225-25698-f7wbgr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72998/original/image-20150225-25698-f7wbgr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72998/original/image-20150225-25698-f7wbgr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some vaccine-objectors go on to fully vaccinate their children.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-206999599/stock-photo-auckland-july-newborn-baby-naomi-ben-ari-age-vaccination-as-of-uk-immunization.html?src=UC_7sUH0aDqQ7JcvZbj62g-2-29&ws=1">ChameleonsEye/Flickr</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another strategy that can work is grassroots campaigning for immunisation. </p>
<p>In the Northern Rivers district of New South Wales, which is notorious for low immunisation rates, a community movement called the <a href="http://nrvs.info/">Northern Rivers Vaccination Supporter Group</a> is seeking not to demonise neighbours who don’t vaccinate, but to promote immunisation as part of a healthy lifestyle. </p>
<p>Their message of “love, protect, vaccinate” might not persuade the most ardent sceptics in their region, but it is going a long way to <a href="http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/good-reasonthe-northern-rivers-vaccination-support/2480051/">promote positive messages</a> in their community and tell the real story of serious preventable illnesses. </p>
<p>A similar group in Western Australia, <a href="http://www.immunisationalliance.org.au/">Immunisation Alliance WA</a>, is supporting parents to get the best information about vaccines.</p>
<p>Finally, it’s important to remember the child in this debate. Good policy and practice should afford young children every opportunity to be both healthy through immunisation, educated through childcare, and supported in their family environment. </p>
<p>Let’s focus on improving opportunities for our kids, not punishing parents.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37921/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kristine Macartney receives funding as an employee of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS). She has also conducts research on vaccines, vaccine preventable diseases and vaccine safety funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). </span></em></p>Immunisation in Australia isn’t compulsory – and doesn’t need to be controversial. Most Australians recognise the incredible benefits that vaccination provides to prevent serious disease.Kristine Macartney, Associate Professor, Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/332912014-10-22T14:07:35Z2014-10-22T14:07:35ZWhy free childcare is not helping many mums back to work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62499/original/3hmncfqy-1413971354.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Time to go back to work?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-187698131/stock-photo-cute-toddler-playing-with-colorful-toys-on-the-floor.html?src=Xx8ImdwPd1aeJXvK4232EQ-4-3">Toddler via Photographee.eu/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over the last 20 years, <a href="https://theconversation.com/early-years-education-is-a-class-leveller-not-an-optional-extra-24379">early childhood education</a> and childcare for the under-fives has become a major policy priority in the UK. Get more mothers into work, it’s argued, and we can start to close the gap between the least and most disadvantaged children, and cut the differences in pay between men and women. Past governments have spent a lot of money on childcare and the UK is now one of the highest spenders in Europe.</p>
<p>But evidence on the effectiveness of this spending has been lacking. The most expensive programme provides <a href="http://www.nao.org.uk/report/delivering-the-free-entitlement-to-education-for-three-and-four-year-olds/">all three and four-year-olds in England</a> with a free, part-time, early education place at a cost of around £2 billion a year. Similar schemes operate in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/projects/the-effect-of-free-childcare-on-maternal-labour-supply-and-child-development/briefnote.pdf">new research</a> with colleagues from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the University of Essex, I have found that these hours of free childcare do make it easier for mothers to work – but not in large numbers.</p>
<h2>Rapid expansion of childcare</h2>
<p>Free childcare for three and four-year-olds in England was announced by the Labour government in 1998, but expanded slowly and became universal across England only in 2005. Some local authorities had already provided free nursery classes in primary schools before the 1998 announcement. </p>
<p>This means that some areas of England experienced a rapid expansion in the availability of free places while others saw relatively little change. In our research, we compared areas that saw a large increase in free places to those that did not, to see how extra availability of free childcare affected mothers decisions to go back to work. </p>
<h2>No big employment boost</h2>
<p>We did find a link between the rise in the number of free part-time childcare places in a local authority and the change in the employment rate of mothers of three-year-olds who lived there. But the effects were not very large. Using data from the Labour Force Survey, we found that offering free childcare to an additional 10% of three-year-olds leads to a rise in the employment rate of their mothers of 0.4%. As <a href="http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/18382/1/18382.pdf">past research </a>has suggested, mothers of three-year-olds who have no younger children respond more, with 0.6% more moving back into employment.</p>
<p>We calculated the wider impact of this by using the actual rise in the number of three-year-olds in England benefitting from a free place over the past decade – which rose from around 40% to around 90%. So we estimated that the expansion of free childcare places led to a 3% rise in the employment rate of mothers whose youngest child is aged three – or an extra 12,000 mothers in work. There are around 400,000 mums whose youngest child is aged three in England. </p>
<h2>Part-time childcare not enough</h2>
<p>These free places are also aimed to help children thrive at school, as well as to help their mothers to work – and colleagues of mine <a href="https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/projects/the-effect-of-free-childcare-on-maternal-labour-supply-and-child-development/childoutcomes.pdf">have assessed the impact</a> of these free places on children’s development. But assessed just as an employment policy, these are disappointing findings: spending of an estimated £700m a year on extra childcare places for three-year-olds has led to just 12,000 more women in work. </p>
<p>Part of the story here might be that parents were offered only a part-time childcare place – initially 2.5 hours a day, and now 15 hours a week. Many three-year-olds use their free place in a nursery class in a regular school, which leaves parents who want to work with the challenge of finding care for the rest of the working day, and in school holidays. </p>
<h2>Good use of public money?</h2>
<p>The free entitlement was universal, and so inevitably it benefitted some who didn’t need it. If we dig deeper into the data, our research actually shows that free childcare enabled about one in four women to go back to work who would not have done so without free childcare. But there aren’t many of these women overall: the majority of families who gained a free childcare place over the past decade – we think about five out of six – would have paid for childcare anyway. </p>
<p>Of course, providing free childcare to families who would have paid for childcare anyway doesn’t waste money: it improves family finances, just as child benefit does. But this research should remind us that, at a time when <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-uk-should-follow-nordics-lead-on-universal-childcare-31989">all major political parties are offering</a> to spend more on childcare in the next parliament, the economic case for extending the free entitlement is not as clear cut as political rhetoric might suggest. A more open and honest debate is needed about the rationale for these policies, and whether the evidence supports these positions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33291/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mike Brewer has received funding from the ESRC to pursue research on free pre-school places through their Secondary Data Analysis Initiative. He has previously worked with the Daycare Trust (now the Family and Childcare Trust) on the Cost of Quality Childcare, funded by the Nuffield Foundation.</span></em></p>Over the last 20 years, early childhood education and childcare for the under-fives has become a major policy priority in the UK. Get more mothers into work, it’s argued, and we can start to close the…Mike Brewer, Professor of Economics and Director of the ESRC Research Centre on Micro-social Change, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/250682014-04-01T19:47:20Z2014-04-01T19:47:20ZLooming cut in preschool entitlements defies all evidence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45211/original/wrcygq4w-1396309648.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Research shows kids are better off with quality early childhood learning, so why cut the funding? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/downloading_tips.mhtml?code=&id=175030280&size=medium&image_format=jpg&method=download&super_url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTM5NjMzODQxOCwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfMTc1MDMwMjgwIiwicCI6InYxfDEwMTI3NTg4fDE3NTAzMDI4MCIsImsiOiJwaG90by8xNzUwMzAyODAvbWVkaXVtLmpwZyIsIm0iOiIxIiwiZCI6InNodXR0ZXJzdG9jay1tZWRpYSJ9LCJBT3Fma2V5b0MwbWxVak5wYVhYVVVmUDhGeGsiXQ%2Fshutterstock_175030280.jpg&racksite_id=ny&chosen_subscription=1&license=standard&src=bkZNSOqQVsArTdqZzivWVw-1-60">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The recent <a href="http://adelaideadvertiser.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx">announcement</a> by assistant education minister Sussan Ley that the <a href="http://education.gov.au/national-partnership-agreement-universal-access-early-childhood-education">15-hour preschool entitlement</a> introduced by the ALP in 2013 may be wound back to 12 hours signals a worrying trend in Australian early childhood care and education policy. </p>
<p>This proposal was made in conjunction with the announcement that childcare benefit rebates may be expanded to include nannies. These decisions pre-empt a <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/childcare">Productivity Inquiry</a> report, which is due in July, and raise questions about the basis for such significant change. Are the changes based on research evidence or are they the result of special interest lobbying, personal opinion or ideology?</p>
<p>That these potential changes have been signalled prior to the Productivity Commission report is worrying. Even more concerning is the place that will be given to research in future education policy. The <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/childcare/submissions">441 submissions</a> to the Productivity Commission include a wide range of individual opinions and responses from businesses and researchers. </p>
<p>One of the responses (submission number 209) from the <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/call-for-asian-nannies-to-reduce-childcare-costs-20140328-35oln.html">Indonesia Institute</a> argues that employing Asian nannies would significantly cut the cost of childcare. So how will this submission be considered? Will the response made by the <a href="http://www.aifs.gov.au/">Australian Institute of Family Studies</a> - based on decades of research - be considered equally with that of an individual parent who is unable to enrol her child in childcare, or parties like the Indonesia Institute, which have something to gain?</p>
<p>International research clearly shows the benefit of investing in early childhood education. Comparisons among <a href="http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/37425999.pdf">OECD countries</a> show those nations that are performing best invest much more than Australia in early childhood education.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/507">proportion of GDP</a> invested by Australia is 0.6%. When this is compared with countries that consistently top international comparisons, such as Finland and Sweden (which dedicate 1.3% of GDP to early childhood education), the relationship between consistent ongoing investment in early childhood education and long-term educational outcomes becomes evident. </p>
<p>In Sweden, after 70 years of political vision, access to universal, integrated health care and early education <a href="http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415687744/">is seen as an unquestionable right</a> rather than being exclusive to the privileged few, an institution for needy children, or a substitute for parental care for those who work.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45240/original/jvgr9bpq-1396320199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45240/original/jvgr9bpq-1396320199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45240/original/jvgr9bpq-1396320199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45240/original/jvgr9bpq-1396320199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45240/original/jvgr9bpq-1396320199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45240/original/jvgr9bpq-1396320199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45240/original/jvgr9bpq-1396320199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45240/original/jvgr9bpq-1396320199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Countries that top international rankings of academic performance, such as Sweden, have universal access to early childhood learning.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/downloading_tips.mhtml?code=&id=144408535&size=medium&image_format=jpg&method=download&super_url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTM5NjM0ODk1NiwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfMTQ0NDA4NTM1IiwicCI6InYxfDEwMTI3NTg4fDE0NDQwODUzNSIsImsiOiJwaG90by8xNDQ0MDg1MzUvbWVkaXVtLmpwZyIsIm0iOiIxIiwiZCI6InNodXR0ZXJzdG9jay1tZWRpYSJ9LCJVS2dEcTRhYkJBcE9QWENPaEttYVZvcjdzNW8iXQ%2Fshutterstock_144408535.jpg&racksite_id=ny&chosen_subscription=1&license=standard&src=bkZNSOqQVsArTdqZzivWVw-1-44">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Educational research must drive educational policies, not anecdotal or subjective opinion. There still seems to be a lack of respect for educational research.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-push-for-greater-school-autonomy-and-what-does-it-mean-for-schools-23639">track record</a> of Australian educational policy decisions based on educational research evidence is not good. In fact, research is often treated with disdain in many public forums. </p>
<p>For example, a recent opinion piece in <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/beware-childcare-centres-claims-to-educate/story-fn562txd-1226855089776#mm-premium">The Australian</a> challenges both international and national research that provides evidence of the benefits of quality care and education of children in their earliest years. With disparaging comments such as “Oh really, professor” and “so-called expert opinion”, years of longitudinal research in fields such as economics, education, neuroscience and sociology are ridiculed.</p>
<p>The writer, Angela Shanahan, argued experts such as <a href="http://www.education.ox.ac.uk/about-us/directory/professor-edward-melhuish">Edward Melhuish</a> have “hijacked” the concept of care to include education. She constructed a division between preschool teachers as four-year qualified teachers and childcare workers who are “ill-educated” and “barely literate”. Perpetuating this division takes us back to attitudes prevalent at the beginning of the century, and puts Australia far behind other OECD countries.</p>
<p>The early years of children’s lives are formative years, yet the Australian government still does not seem to realise the importance of providing quality early childhood education and care, despite the evidence. High-quality early childhood learning not only contributes to the economy but makes a valuable contribution to Australia as a democratic, pluralistic and interdependent country.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25068/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Krieg receives funding from The Channel 7 Childrens' Research Foundation.</span></em></p>The recent announcement by assistant education minister Sussan Ley that the 15-hour preschool entitlement introduced by the ALP in 2013 may be wound back to 12 hours signals a worrying trend in Australian…Susan Krieg, Associate Professor, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.