The Time is Now : A Comprehensive Family and Human Capital Policy Framework to Achieve 15 by 15 Dr. Paul Kershaw University of British Columbia Human Early Learning Partnership Prepared for the 2009 ECEBC Assessment Workshop “Time is of the Essence: Perspective from Parents and Professionals” May 21, Vancouver BC

BC Government Strategic Plan for 2008/ /11, p. 30

What is the Problem? Why do we tolerate so much early vulnerability? Not a technical problem. Not a problem of insufficient research evidence. Not a problem of $.

G7 Debt over GDP Source: Department of Finance Economic and Fiscal Reference Tables, #57 National tax-GDP ratio = 3 percentage points below OECD average. We’re not behind internationally in terms of health care spending; education or benefits for seniors. Beware confusing ‘affordability’ with priorities.

The Problem is… Canadian Culture 1.We convince ourselves we can’t afford it. 2.We opt to treat illness, rather than promote health 3.We ignore gender inequality, and its relationship to family policy 4.As a generation, the collective action of Canadian babyboomer implies they are content to compromise the future for those who follow.

Optimal Investment Levels PreschoolSchool Post School Age0 Mismatch: Social Investment vs. Health Promotion Opportunity Cumulative Public Investment Source: Carneiro & Heckman, Human Social Policy (2003) What is MAGICAL about Age 6?

Sweden’s Public Expenditure for Children 0-17 Source: S. Bremberg (2006), National Institute of Public Health, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

Medical Care Crowds Out Health Promotion In response to growing health care expenditures as % of total expenditures in 2007, the BC gov’t announced 15% provincial cut to child care services. 80% of expenditures in last months of life

We must become sophisticated critics of medical care, in order to bridge health promotion with non-medical care... Key questions: 1.What medical care do we owe one another as our capacity to save increases dramatically with costly technology and drugs? 2. Do we really want roughly 80% of our health expenditures to occur in the final year of life? 3.And what does it mean for a society when it spends hundreads of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to save a pre-term baby – one life – but is remarkably hesitant to invest in health promotion for the population through programs like early learning and care, housing, food?

Content to Burn-Out Women, and leave unquestioned the place of patriarchy in family policy… A very early universal program = family allowance. Why was it implemented as WWII ended? Male breadwinner ‘family wage’ model of social policy. The child care services paid by for by federal government during the war years were eliminated. Continue primarily with cash approach to this day. Major innovations = maternity and parental leave; CCTB/NCBS. Feminism, gender equality and declining male wages  the majority of women with young children are in the labour market; and the majority of these work full-time. But we haven’t compensated by using policy to demand that men assume additional responsibility for caregiving; or that communities provide more support.

2008 Gender Gap & Family Policy Rankings Sources: World Economic Forum and UNICEF

Collectively, Baby-Boomer Decisions = a Social Problem Baby-boomers = dominant political generation, especially in office: Tolerate nearly 30% of children becoming vulnerable before school. Tolerate Canada being a fossil fuel dinosaur, compromising environmental sustainability. Inherited next to no public debt. But content to leave other generations with public federal debt that = over 30% of GDP. Not the generation that made great sacrifices during Depression and World Wars… Ignoring intergenerational justice?

What Should We Do? Understand the Cultural Context; and BE STRATEGIC ABOUT DISRUPTING IT!

5 Policy Recommendations for 15 by 15 Family Time and Resources: 1.Parental leave 2.Income Supports and work/life balance Community Supports: 3.ECD coalitions, community planning 4.Pregnancy, parenting and early intervention 5.Early childhood education and care NO MORE POLARIZING DEBATES ABOUT PROVIDING SERVICES OR SUPPORTING PARENTS (MOTHERS) TO CARE PERSONALLY!

Extrapolation of BC's Policy Framework for Optimal Early Child Development to Pan-Canadian Analysis Additional Social Infrastructure Investment All $ millions unless otherwise noted Time and ResourcesCommunity Supports 49% of Investment51% of Investment JurisdictionPer capita % Parental Leave Income Supports ECD Coalitions, Pregnancy, Parenting, Screening & Intervention Early Childhood Education & Care (ECEC) Total Additional Investment Total as % of GDP Nfld/Lab1.52% % PEI0.42% % NS2.82% % NB2.24% % Quebec23.28%1,0481, ,3123, % Ontario38.82%1,7472, ,1468, % Manitoba3.62% % Sask3.06% % Alberta10.76% ,7662, % BC13.14% ,5763, % Yukon/NWT/Nun0.34% % Total Pan- Canadian100%$4,501$6,242$723$10,476$21, % ? ? *

$22 Billion/Year?!? = Price for Reducing vulnerability from roughly 30% to 15%, and eventually 10% Former PM Martin commitment of $5 billion over 5 years = modest. About 12-20% of total fed/prov health care spending: ($170 billion, Sen W. Keon) Federal Old Age Security = $32 billion (2007/08) RRSPs = $16.6 billion (2009)

Human Capital Benefits BC data  project what a reduction in vulnerability from 29% to 15%, and then to 10% will mean for later school success. .5 standard deviation improvement in language and cognitive test scores .63 percentage point increase to GDP = $264-$274 billion plus to Canada per year But patience is a requisite virtue, because the children have to get through school; become the majority in the labour market In meantime, partial returns from labour supply; work-life balance savings to health expenditures; poverty reduction savings to health expenditures; crime reduction savings

Stimulus Now! Parents with young children  lifecourse stage where they spend more than save. ECEC Capital and construction investments to remodel schools and build appropriate facilities. Family Policy should be integral to stimulus package.

15 by 15 = Smart Economics A Just Cause: minimizes inequality among children; across sexes Now Canadians just need to make this objective a priority. If we don’t, being ‘Canadian’ may be compromising our health because we fail to invest in its determinants.

Thank you. Paul Kershaw, Ph.D. The University of British Columbia College of Interdisciplinary Studies Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP)

International Research Literature Shows that Families with Children Have Three Overarching Needs Time Resources Support Services

Recommendation 1: Build on parental leave to: increase duration to 18 months improve coverage improve benefit levels, 80% of $62,000 reserve time for fathers.

Mid-Ranking because: 50 weeks of leave = better than average. But… × Some not eligible × Benefit Levels = 55% of max $42,300  about half of average income × Some lower/middle income families cannot afford leave. × About 15% uptake by men ( 2% in 2000).

A Canadian Alternative Quebec improved coverage, eligible if $2,000 income over last 52 weeks, including self-employed improved benefits; maximum 70-75% $62,000 reserved five weeks for fathers

Recommendation 2 Build on income support policies to reduce child and family poverty : Raise welfare benefits Enhance family/in work tax credits and/or minimum wage levels Make ECEC services available and affordable  strengthen and increase labour force attachment, increase (net) incomes: 2-earners = best insurance against poverty Adapt employment standards to shorten full-time hours  work/life balance & reduce family time poverty

BC Poverty Rates by Family Type

Recommendations 3 & 4 As per South Australia and Cuba: Build on ECD programs and services - pregnancy, parenting and early learning resources, screening and intervention, coalition and planning tables, etc Coordinate and integrate with ECEC services Specifically, prior to 18 months add universal monthly trajectory-based monitoring of ECD USE EDI and other data as accountability framework to monitor effectiveness of policy implementation

Recommendation 5 Build on early childhood education and care to provide: universal access to quality ECEC, with inclusion, and seamless transitions to elementary school For example: full-employment-day Kindergarten for 5-, 4-, and 3-year-olds. extend services to 18 month old children in time.

Source: Starting Strong ll: Early Childhood Education and Care; September 2006 Few spaces; Insufficient quality; High cost; Inadequate Inclusion

5 Policy Recommendations to Build On: Family Time and Resources: 1.Parental leave 2.Income Supports Community Supports: 3.ECD coalitions, planning 4.Pregnancy, parenting & intervention 5.EC education and care Current Status in BC Mid-ranked Low-ranked Strong Momentum Bottom-ranked

Societal Benefits Relative to Public Investment in Comprehensive Family Policy Framework for Optimal Early Human Development

Rate of access to ECEC programs Data source: OECD. (2006). Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. Country Profiles. AU, CZ, FI, HU, NL, UK – Estimated (averaged across ages 3-6) DE – Estimated (averaged across ABL and NBL) CA – Children 0-6 in child care including regulated family day care

Dr. Steve Barnett Conclusions NIEER Results Presented in BC, October 24, 2008 Pre-K for all can be a strong public investment Policy design affects benefits more than who is served Pre-K for all is better for disadvantaged children School failure is not just a poverty problem All children benefit from quality pre-K Education and child care policies must be joined Cognitive and social-emotional goals for education

Highest ECE Training reported by Staff (2005/06), by type of program and auspice

UNICEF Low Birthweight Benchmark: less than 6% BC rate (2002) = 5% Canada rate (2004) = 5.9% Source: (BC Provincial Health Officer, “A Review of Infant Mortality in British Columbia: Opportunities for Prevention”, 2003) BC

UNICEF Infant Mortality Benchmark: 4/1000 BC rate (2002) = 4.4 Canada rate (2004) = 5.3 Source: (BC Provincial Health Officer, “A Review of Infant Mortality in British Columbia: Opportunities for Prevention”, 2003) BC

Child Poverty Rates by Province 38% of poor BC children live with an adult who works full-time full-year.