A new report exposes the dubious claims made about daycare

 

If all mothers are out working, which is what the Government seems to want, and most young children are in daycare, shouldn’t we closely examine the benefits of this aim from the point of view of mothers, children and society? The question is particularly relevant in light of the carers’ referendum on March 8th.

Many claims are made by politicians and others about the benefits of putting young children into daycare. A big one is that it creates a more equal society by closing achievement gaps among children from different socio-economic backgrounds. However, a new study by the think tank Civitas challenges this and other claims made about daycare.

The report, called ‘Universal childcare: is it good for children?’, is based on a big review of international research about the supposed benefits of daycare and one conclusion it arrives at is that the evidence does not strongly support the claim that it leads to a more equal society by improving the academic performance of less advantaged children.

While high-quality childcare can benefit older children (above three years) from disadvantaged backgrounds in the short term, it is unclear if these benefits last into adulthood or lead to better job prospects and earnings. There is little research showing a link between daycare and life-long benefits.

Any money spent by the State must be justified. The State is pouring lots of money into subsidising daycare. The burden of proof is on the State to demonstrate the benefits of this. That evidence seems to be much weaker than most people suspect.

To cut a long story short, other influences on a child are far stronger than time spent in daycare, unless the child is from a very poor and dysfunctional family in which case target subsidised daycare at this group rather than providing universal subsidies.

The Civitas report says: “The research consistently finds that family characteristics, parenting and the home learning environment have a more significant influence on children’s development than childcare. These factors are also more important than family income. The quality of care a child receives in the home can be high or low, independent of the family’s socio-economic status. Formal childcare only offers development benefits for children if it replaces lower quality care. If a parent is able and willing to provide high quality care in the home, then long hours in formal childcare may be detrimental rather than beneficial for the child’s development”.

The reports also says that the effect of subsidised daycare on maternal employment is mixed and modest at best. Advocates says it increases employment rates among mothers, but even if this is a desirable outcome (it is only desirable if it is what mothers want), there is little evidence State-subsidised daycare has much effect on maternal employment rates either way.

Subsidised childcare may help mothers who avail of it financially, but it doesn’t necessarily empower all women, as it assumes all women prefer to work rather than care for their children at home. This overlooks the value many women place on raising their children themselves. This is a very relevant point in the context of the carers’ referendum.

The push to make it normal for children to be cared for by someone other than their mothers is based on a few assumptions: that moving childcare from homes won’t hurt children, parents, or society; that it’s more important for a mother to be involved in work than with her children and family; and that having a job is empowering and rewarding for women, while taking care of the home and children is not seen as valuable.

The report notes that “while these beliefs are influential in academic and political circles, evidence suggests that they are not representative of the values and beliefs of the general population.”

A survey commissioned by the Iona Institute a few years ago found that only 17pc of respondents preferred to use day-care for their children under the age of five, while 49pc of respondents preferred to mind their offspring at home and a 27pc preferred a family member to do so.

The report by Civitas concludes that universal childcare has not shown the big benefits claimed by its advocates. The quality of daycare provided is critical, but it is hard to ensure that it surpasses the care provided by a loving family at home.

This being so, why is the Government so determined to have as many mothers as possible in the workplace and to end the Constitution’s commitment to try and protect mothers from being forced out of the home due to economic necessity?

 

---

Image by Esi Grünhagen from Pixabay

Further evidence the Government overestimate day-care demand

The Government is funnelling significant funding to creche facilities, with the hope that more mothers will enter the workforce. The policy ignores the fact that many parents don’t want to put their children into day-care and it also ignores a new study which shows that subsidising day-care might not have much impact on parental choices.

Career breaks have consequences on future employment and earnings so, what households are likely to be responsive to a change in childcare prices? A new study by Dr Helene Turon, a reader in Economics at the University of Bristol, shows that additional resources in childcare does not lead more women to work outside the house as there are many other motivations, besides cost, behind their choices. One of those motivations will be to stay at home with their children in the early years. In other words, they don’t want to go into paid work so why should cheap day-care induce them to?

The study relies on data coming from the British Households Panel Survey and covers the period 1991-2008.

The study concluded that “the only households who are really likely to be responsive to a change in childcare prices are those for whom the net cost/benefit of supplying labour is close to zero.” This means cases where a parent going out into low-paid work won’t make much difference to household income unless day-care is very affordable.

“All others will value their current choice much more than the alternatives and will not react to a change in the childcare policy”. That is, those who don’t wish to put children into day-care.

Dr Turon presented her research to the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) claiming that other factors, rather than childcare prices, would encourage more mothers to go back to work. Such factors could be less peer pressure from other parents to avoid day-care, or the perception of an improvement of the quality of childcare. “We get a sense that many households are in fact very far from changing their mind and no amount of childcare policy is going to change their decision”, she said.

It this is the case, the government choice to subsidise childcare at the expense of other options is not only unjust but also inefficient, as it will not achieve what it aims at.

Repeated surveys have confirmed that only a minority of parents wish to put their children into daycare. An Amarach poll commissioned by the Iona Institute found that only 17% of parents with children under five pick day-care as their preferred option.

CSO data found much the same thing.

(A submission by The Iona Institute to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Children concerning day-care can be found here.)