WHEN MOM MUST WORK:
FAMILY DAY CARE AS A WELFARE-TO-WORK OPTION

4.0 Child Care Quality: the Status of Providers and the Market for Care

4.1 The Importance of Quality Child Care

Canadian research echoes international findings about the importance of child care to welfare-to-work programs. A study at McMaster University illustrates the impact of child care on recipients' employment efforts. Over a two-year period mothers, whose children received child care services, were able to leave welfare at much higher rates. In addition, the mental health of parents improved, there was less need for counselling services, and gains were made in the behaviour and social activity of the children. There were also considerable cost savings through reduced use of health, social and correctional services among parents and children provided with child care.178 The quality of care also matters to parents. In Toronto 98% of parents who must participate in Ontario Works choose licensed quality care over unregulated care.179

Studies in the neurosciences, child development, and early intervention show that conception to age six is critically important. During this period children develop essential language and intellectual skills required to learn reading and arithmetic, and the ability to manage their emotions and stress, as well as co-operate with others. How well a child fares in these early years holds life-long consequences both for the child and for society. 180

Research demonstrates that quality child care contributes to successful outcomes. It has the ability to compensate children from disadvantaged backgrounds and provide early detection and intervention for children with special needs. Conversely studies indicate that even advantaged families are unable to compensate for poor quality care arrangements.181

The quality of care children receive during their early years is, therefore, of great concern to parents, educators, and policy makers. Neither the child's, nor the public's interest is served by public policy neglect nor investments that produce poor quality care environments.

Research demonstrates that child care which supports children's well-being and development is associated with certain conditions. These include: 182

Family day care has additional unique needs. Knowledge of child development and a rapport with parents, must be combined with an ability to identify and access community resources and sound business practices.

Kyle's work with caregivers outlines the additional elements identified as central to the provision of good care:183

Providers are drawn to family day care by their affection for children, 184 and the desire to stay home with their own children, and earn an income.185 The ability to combine work and family could make family day care a desirable employment option for social assistance recipients, particularly single parents with young children. However, the nature of the work, coupled with the socio-economic circumstances faced by many recipients, impedes their participation.

An examination of the sector raises serious questions about its ability to deliver a family sustaining income on its own. Table 15 demonstrates the importance of home-based child care as an employment option for women. However, an analysis of who does the caring and the remuneration received indicates that for the overwhelming majority of women, income from family day care is a supplement either to a spouse's income, or to the income provided by the state through social assistance.186 The high percentage of providers with partners supports this contention.187

Table 15: Women's Top Twenty Occupations.
*= In the bottom 25 lowest paying full-time, full-year occupations
    Occupation # of Women % of Women
  1 Retail salespersons & sales clerks 339,030 61%
  2 Secretaries (except legal and medical) 311,835 98%
* 3 Cashiers 235,585 86%
  4 Registered Nurses (except head nurses & supervisors) 220,625 95%
  5 Accounting & Related Clerks 219,895 83%
  6 Elementary school & kindergarten teachers 187,070 81%
* 7 Food & beverage servers 176,310 80%
  8 General Office Clerks 173,175 84%
* 9 Babysitters, nannies, parents' helpers 134,560 95%
  10 Receptionists & Switchboard operators 118,985 95%
  11 Retail Trade Managers 112,900 39%
* 12 Light duty cleaners 109,930 73%
  13 Nurse aides & orderlies 103,375 84%
* 14 Food service counter attendants & food preparers 97,095 72%
* 15 Cooks 95,775 48%
  16 Bookkeepers 93,565 90%
  17 Tellers, financial services 88,545 89%
  18 Janitors, caretakers, & building superintendents 85,400 32%
* 19 Early childhood educators & assistants 81,960 96%
  20 Secondary school teachers 79,405 51%
Source: Prepared using data from Statistics Canada, (1999) 1996 Census: Detailed Occupation by Sex, and, The Daily, May 12, 1998.

The Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) is used by Statistics Canada to report on 522 occupations. The SOC, "Babysitters, nannies, and parent helpers" is defined as those who primarily care for children on a short term or ongoing basis. More than 130,000 people, mainly women, are employed by home-care or baby-sitting agencies, or by parents, or they are self-employed. Excluded under this category are day-care workers.

Babysitters, nannies and parent helpers rank as the ninth highest women's occupation (Table 15). However, their average full-time, full-year earnings rank the lowest (last) of over 500 occupations.

By comparison the 81,960 people who work as early childhood educators (ECE) or assistants, rank nineteenth out of the top 20 occupations for women. Early childhood educator's average full-year, full-time earnings rank 23rd from the bottom of the list of Canada's lowest paying occupations.

Child care shares the burden of 'women's work'. More of the top 20 occupations for women pay less than the top 20 occupations for men. As illustrated in Table 15, seven of the 20 top occupations for women are among the 25 lowest paying jobs. Only two of the top 20 occupations for men are among the 25 lowest paying jobs. Of the 568,000 individuals who worked full year, full-time, in the 25 lowest paying occupations three out of five earners were women. 188

Child care sector studies estimate there are considerably more caregivers, particularly in family child care, than does Statistics Canada. Using parental surveys to determine the types of child care used by children, the sector study estimated the number of full-time, full-year workers that would be required to provide those services.189

Table 16: Number of Family & In-Home Caregivers - Child Care Sector Study
Family childcare (Unregulated) 155,000
Family childcare (Regulated) 15,000
In-Home Caregivers 115,000
Total 285,000
Source: Beach, J., Bertrand, J., Cleveland, G. (1998)

The sector study (Table 16) estimates there are 285,000 family and in-home caregivers, double the number of babysitters, nannies and parent helpers estimated by Statistics Canada. Because the sector study uses full-time, full-year equivalents, the number of caregivers is likely much higher. For example, Statistics Canada data indicates that 75% of babysitters, nannies, and parent-helpers work part-time, part-year.

The number of family day care providers, be it in their own or the child's home, constitute a huge, and often hidden sector providing a vital service in our economy. It is a relatively new sector, its growth having been driven by women's increased participation in the workforce. Over the past decade alone there was a 22% growth in the number of persons working in the child care sector compared with 13% growth in all occupations. However earnings, in relation to skill levels, are among the lowest in this sector.

Available figures indicate that earnings are very low and that these workers are losing ground. According to the child care sector study, in 1990, in-home child care providers working full year, full-time averaged $12,220. HRDC reports that in 1990, average full-time, full year earnings for babysitters, nannies, and parent helpers were about $12,850 in Ontario. Census data indicates that five years later in 1995, average full-time, full-year earnings for babysitters, nannies, and parent helpers were about $12,700 in Canada. Just to keep up with inflation, average earnings of $12,220 in 1990 would need to have increased to $13,476, in 1995 - an additional $1,256.190 191

For those who work full-time, hours can be long. An Ontario survey of foreign domestic workers indicates that 65% work more than 44 hours per week. However, full-time employment is unlikely as an in-home caregiver. Figures in 1990 and in 1995 show that these care arrangements were predominantly on a part-time and/or part-year basis. Only a quarter of in-home caregivers work full-time, full-year (i.e., 30 hrs/week; 49 to 52 weeks/year). As such, average earnings for all in-home caregivers were only $6,579 per year.

Family child care providers work longer hours for even lower earnings than in-home caregivers. Nationally, average hours in regulated family child care on a full-time, full-year basis are 56 hours per week. In 1995, full-time average gross earnings were $15,600. However, regulated caregivers only netted $8,400 before taxes. Almost half (46%) of the income was required for ongoing expenses related to providing care. Earnings of $8,400 at 56 hours per week, and 48 weeks per year work out to $3.13 per hour. Only 36% of family child care is provided on a full-time, full-year basis. For most, annual earnings would be less. As self-employed people, they receive no benefits. Little wonder that two-thirds are dissatisfied with their income, and half are dissatisfied with their working conditions. 192

Table 17 illustrates differences between full-time, full-year average earnings of regulated family caregivers and in-home caregivers, average earnings in the total workforce, maximum average welfare benefits by family type, and poverty lines by household size.

Note that family and in-home caregiver earnings used in Table 17 likely overstate the earnings potential in this sector. Most work in this sector is part-time, part-year, not full-time, full-year. In addition, it is assumed that average earnings for in-home caregivers are $12,700, which is the highest estimate -- considerably more than estimated earnings of $8,200.

Home child care (i.e., family and in-home) does not appear to be a form of sustainable employment. The earnings differential between home child care and the average earnings of all other workers is huge. On average, on a full-time/full-year basis family caregivers earn 4.5 times less than other workers, and in-home caregivers earn three times less. Caregiver earnings average one-half the minimum wage at comparable hours of work.

As indicated in Table 17, a transition from welfare to home child care as a sole source of earnings is likely to be a transition from deep welfare poverty to deep in-work poverty. The earnings-poverty line gap for single parents with a child making average earnings in regulated family child care would be more than -$13,000; for in-home care the gap would be -$9,000.

Table 17: Estimated Earnings Differentials in Regulated Family & In-Home Child Care, Full-Time, Full-Year, 1995-96
Other Earners (average):

All Full-Time, Full -Year Earners = $37,550

All Part-Time/ Part-Year Earners = $15,345

Min.Wage/Similar Hours = $17,768 (Family Care)
Family Care ($8,400) -$29,150 -$6,945 -$9,368
In-Home Care ($12,700) -$24,850 -$2,645 -
Welfare Income:

Single Employable Person Maximum = $6,240

Single Parent, One Child Maximum = $10,950

Two Parent, Two Children Maximum = $13,400
Family Care ($8,400) $2,160 -$2,550 -$5,000
In-Home Care ($12,700) $5,500 $1,750 -$700
Poverty Lines: Single Person Household =$16,061 Two-Person Household = $21,769 Three-Person Household = $27,672
Family Care ($8,400) -$7,661 -$13,369 -$19,272
In-Home Care ($12,700) -$3,361 -$9,069 -$14,972

Notes: Minimum wage earnings estimated by averaging 1996 Ontario, Quebec, and B.C wages, excluding overtime provisions. 75% of the working age population live in these 3 provinces. Family care = 56 hrs/week, 48 weeks/year. 1996 welfare benefits estimated by averaging maximum basic rates for Ontario, Quebec, and B.C. 83% of recipients live in these 3 provinces. Poverty lines are 1996 Statistics Canada large urban LICOs (1986 base). The LICO includes income from all sources. The home child care earnings-poverty gap does not include transfer income, which would reduce the gap by, for example, several thousand dollars for a single parent and child (e.g. child and GST tax credits).

Sources: Prepared using data from Statistics Canada, 1998; National Council of Welfare, 1998 & 1998, Beach, J., Bertrand, J., Cleveland, G. 1998.

Few variables under the providers' control influence earnings. Post secondary education has a slightly positive effect. Regulation brought marginally higher earnings because some provinces allow licensed providers to care for more children. Licensed providers also have access to child care subsidies that are usually restricted to regulated care options.193

Affiliation with an agency can afford the provider a greater degree of income stability, however neither agencies nor independently licensed providers exercise control over income levels. Government dictates the fee it is prepared to pay on behalf of the parents for whom it purchases care. As the largest single buyer, government establishes the fee schedule for the sector. Providers have little flexibility to set fees far outside the going rate in their community. While subsidy payments vary by province, and in some cases by region,194 even the most generous rates do not cover the actual cost of care.

Both the number and the ages of the children in care determine provider earnings. Fees are based on a formula suitable for group programs where the adult-to-child ratios increase as children grow older, thereby reducing the unit cost of care. For the family day care provider, the number of children in care may remain constant, yet she will find herself losing thousands of dollars in fee payments when her charge has a birthday.

A provider's recourse would be to terminate her relationships with her older day care children in order to take in the more financially lucrative infants. The result would be care interruption for children, separation of older and younger siblings, and major inconvenience for families. Few providers exercise this option, but it is an example of marginally employed women being expected to absorb the inadequacies of poor service design.

The majority of providers care for fewer children than provincial regulations allow. Unregulated providers average fewer children than their regulated counterparts, including in provinces where regulations do not differentiate between the two. How many children she has of her own, housing factors and personal capacity, all influence the number of children in a provider's care. But the fact that most providers take less than standards permit is an indication that ratios are too high.

Providers have little legal recourse to address pay and working conditions. Because most are self-employed, they are excluded from provincial labour standards. However, even as employees in-home caregivers are usually excluded in labour codes. The minimum wage protection for in-home caregivers varies, but they are only fully included in two provinces and one territory.

In terms of minimum wage protection, in-home caregivers are:195

4.11 Improving Wages and Working Conditions

Child care providers are saddled by their public image as substitute mothers. Consequently it is difficult to perceive of them as workers requiring income sufficient to support themselves and their families. Similarly efforts to increase public funding for child care are hammered by debates reflecting conflicting views on the appropriate role of mothers. Pundits supporting 'get tough' policies aimed at deterring 'welfare dependency' equally criticize efforts to increase the supply of quality child care because this may encourage mothers to leave home and work.196

While advocacy efforts have produced marginal improvements in fee subsidies, start-up and operating grants, struggles by providers to insert more control over their work have met little success.

The Canadian Autoworkers Union in Windsor, Ontario offered a unique model supplying licensed in-home care covering standard and non-standard hours. Providers were employees of the CAW-operated agency, were represented by a bargaining agent and received the provincial minimum wage and other benefits. The model served as a ministry pilot to test flexible child care arrangements. A special fund, negotiated with the auto companies, and the provincial government provided the core funding. The fees of CAW members were subsidized. The agency closed in 1997 following the province's unilateral withdrawal. The union concluded the model was unsustainable even when drawing heavily on its child care fund.

In another development, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union sent shock waves through the sector when it applied to become the bargaining agent for providers at Macaulay Child Development Centre in Toronto. The Ministry of Labour determined the providers were independent contractors under the Labour Relations Act and therefore eligible for unionization. A 1993 decision overturned an early ruling by the Employment Standards Branch and recognized providers under the Employment Standards Act. This made them eligible for minimum wage, public pension, unemployment insurance, maternity leave, and vacations.

Macaulay management countered by threatening to close. Government funding was not adequate to meet basic worker protection and the agency's low-income families could not afford to make up the difference. The union eventually signed a contract that included no financial improvements but did clarify issues around work procedures.197

Pay equity legislation has also been used to address income disparity. An Ontario provider argued successfully that caregivers affiliated with municipally operated home child care agencies198 were employees under the Pay Equity Act and, therefore, included in municipal pay equity plans. The wage implications are estimated at $25-million province-wide. Municipalities joined to appeal the decision. Not waiting for the outcome, the Region of Peel divested its home care agency with its 800 providers to a community board.

As Kyle noted, it was interesting that in all the analysis and debate surrounding these developments, increased public funding was not a consideration.

There is very little public support for the care efforts of providers. Regulated providers may have access to small government operating grants to offset costs. (See Appendix A). In some areas family resource programs lend toys and equipment. Nevertheless providers still spend 46% of gross earnings on food, toys, supplies, and equipment, while unregulated providers spend 38%.

The piece work nature of family day care affects earnings and is the source of the conflict between the provider's livelihood and the quality of care she delivers. Under the current arrangement only by taking in as many children as possible and cutting the operating expenses that contribute to quality care can earnings increase.

This strife is not only played out within the homes of individual providers. It surfaces in the public arena with parents, providers, and their agencies lobbying to increase adult to child ratios as the answer to provider income and parent access. Nova Scotia199 responding to parent pressure increased the maximum number of children in unregulated settings from four to six. Members of Ontario's home child care community approved a ministry recommendation to increase ratios in regulated care by two school age children.

4.12 Overcoming Barriers and Assessing Supports

There are a number of disjointed government and community-based programs which both directly and indirectly support family day care.

Education and Training Opportunities - Regulated family child care and centre-based caregivers tend to be better educated than all (regulated and unregulated) family caregivers and in-home caregivers (Table 18). About one-half of in-home caregivers and one-third of all family child caregivers have less than a high school graduate level of education, in contrast to a fifth or less of caregivers in regulated family child care and centres. About one-third of in-home care givers, 44% of all family caregivers, 58% of regulated family care givers, and 68% of centre based care givers have some or all of a post secondary education. Most caregivers with a post secondary education have a diploma, certificate or degree. In contrast, only 14% of recipients on welfare reasons have some or all of a post secondary education (see Table 8).

Table 18: Education Levels in Home Child care, Centre Care and the Workforce
  Regulated Family Care All Family Caregivers In-Home Caregivers Centre-Based All Earners in the Workforce
Less than High School Graduation 15% 35% 47% 19% 24%
High School Graduate 30% 21% 18% 13% 15%
Some College/University 22% 14% 12% 13% 44%*
Post Sec. Diploma, Certificate 28% 25% 18% 43%
University Degree 8% 5% 5% 12% 17%

Notes: * Less than a university degree.Sources: Prepared using estimates from Beach, J., Bertrand, J., Cleveland, G. 1998, Table 2; Goss Gilroy Inc. 1997, Table 3.1; Statistics Canada, May 1998, Table 2.

Most regulated home child care providers have attended workshop and training activities in areas important to providing care such as: child development, activities, guidance and behaviour management; first aid and CPR; and various other care and business practices. There is a consensus in the field that each of the areas require six to 10 hours of training each.

Both business and child development training and support are delivered through family day care agencies; family resource centres; community colleges; public health; private business schools; school boards; community-based training programs and agencies. Courses may be formal or informal, time limited or ongoing. While many will include persons on social assistance, they are not specifically targeted to them. Community-based agencies maintain their program philosophy is opposed to targeting.

From the providers' perspective training is often difficult to access. Those working both in and out of the regulated sector cite conflicts with their own child care, time, money and transportation as barriers to training.200 There is also some dissatisfaction with the training offered.201 Caregivers report that it is often at an introductory level, doesn't sufficiently address their particular needs and, outside of training offered by family day care agencies, presents few opportunities for ongoing professional development.

Although training is a strong quality determinant, there are no training requirements for providers operating outside provincial regulations. In the regulated sector, the majority of provinces require only first aid certification, and less than half include child development training, usually at a minimal level. (Appendix A).

Literacy levels can be an added obstacle to accessing and completing required training programs. Canadian welfare-to-work studies have found higher rates of illiteracy among recipients.202

Less than 40% of providers have any child care related training.203 For caregivers there is little incentive to take training regardless of the credentials accumulated. Fee schedules never exceed those of untrained staff in group settings and most often fall far below. Child care agencies were the most frequent sources of professional development. There is, however, very little correlation between provider education/training and earnings.204

Training is strongly associated however with perceptions of quality. Opinion polls205 indicate the public is aware of the connection between quality and training, and support mandatory training for anyone caring for children for pay. Key informants consistently listed training as an essential component of any strategy aimed at recruiting social assistant recipients as caregivers. Many highlighted training as a prerequisite to combating prejudices about the suitability of recipients to care for children. Informants also noted that child care was the profession of choice for many recipients. Before Ontario prohibited welfare to parents attending post secondary education,206 key informants estimate that as many as 25% of students in urban community college ECE programs were on assistance.
Start-up Costs - Federal and provincial employment and development programs aid small business by making grants, loans and counselling available. Specific programs targeted to welfare recipients are also available (Table 20). Alberta assists with fees and allows asset levels to be higher. However, access to start up capital is a problem. In Newfoundland under the Support To Employment Program (STEP) earnings subsidies and training incentive allowances ($175/mos.) are available. A small loan program (up to $3,000) is also available. In Nova Scotia and Manitoba individuals can be in receipt for a year while developing their businesses.

Potentially these initiatives could resource the start of a family day care business. However, many recipients would have difficulty qualifying. Eligibility is often restricted to those with recent work experience. Personal assets are sometimes required to secure loans, which still must be repaid. Programs targeted to young people are limited, since this is the least likely age group among recipients to have their own housing. An indication of the barriers is that while key informants cited the potential of the programs, none could provide an example where they were utilized to establish family day care.

A recipient accessing provincial child care grants to set up a licensed day care home may have the funding deducted from welfare income. Even when the grant is considered excluded income, it is not intended to cover all the costs associated with establishing a family day care home. The recipient would still have additional expenditures to meet licensing requirements. Limited resources would reduce the ability to establish an environment supporting quality care.
The Market for Care - The family day care market includes the parents of 3.3-million children whose mothers are working or studying. It is restrained by the ability of the parents to pay. The mix of personal, private, and publicly supported initiatives offers parents few options. Parents arrange work schedules to cover care; others enlist relatives; a smaller percentage use licensed programs; but most find care with an unregulated provider.207

While there are unmet needs for more regulated choices, care for infants, and care for children with disabilities, as well as flexible and non-standard hour care, the demand for unregulated care has largely been met.

Location has an impact on demand. Families on social assistance tend to live in low income neighbourhoods. This can be both a plus and a minus for the recipient considering family day care. Research indicates that convenient access is a dominant consideration for parents when choosing care. The transportation barriers faced by low-income parents causes them to seek child care close to home. These parents are a natural constituency, however their ability to pay for child care and feed, clothe and house their kids on marginal, insecure, low-paying jobs is severely restricted. Nor is attracting better off parents an option. Many key informants thought public perceptions about low-income neighbourhoods and their association with crime and other social dysfunction would be a deterrent.

Child care for low-income communities is greatly influenced by the availability of subsidies. Studies, including a review of Toronto parents, found subsidized child care was the only option for many. Two-parent families earned less than $20,000, single parents under $15,000. Even the most inexpensive informal care was out of reach for these families and they could not rely on family or friends. Without fee support, these parents would be unable to work. 208

Conclusion - There is little under the provider's control that she can do to enhance earnings. The adjustments she can make adversely affect child care quality. The high turnover rate in the sector and the large number of providers that voice dissatisfaction with their current circumstances should alarm policy makers, since provider job satisfaction is a major factor affecting the quality of care children receive.

Canada's family day care sector is heavily relied upon to meet several social imperatives: as an employer of women; an employment support to mothers in the paid labour force and as a child development resource. That it rates poorly in all three areas does not reflect the inadequacies of providers or parents, but of social policy.

4.2 The Community Status of Home Child Care and Key Informant Perspectives

4.21 Community Cohesion

Community development is often concerned with processes that build lateral linkages and partnerships at the local level to mobilize resources and increase the capacity to address social needs. These activities are most effective when they are co-ordinated with complementary social policies. Two factors that contribute to the success of community development are the co-ordination of government institutions and involvement of community organizations at the policy level, and co-operation in the implementation of the programs. 209

However, because community problem solving processes occur at the level in which emerging social needs are first and most acutely felt they may often precede action at a policy level. Community problem solving processes also proceed in the face of government inaction, or worse, government shedding its responsibilities at a policy level. The results, however, are often not adequate. For example, warehousing the homeless in churches to prevent them from freezing, or distributing food through food banks to prevent hunger are not solutions to income and housing problems.

These issues require public policy responses at the macro level. Indeed, community level activities often include establishing linkages that work to advise and remind decision-makers of their responsibilities. Similarly, child care is an issue that requires public policy responses.

The rapid growth in women's participation in the workforce, particularly women with young children has resulted in corresponding growth in the child care sector, a large portion of which is home child care. Solutions to the problem of attending to children's care and development have largely occurred at the micro level of individual families, and at the meso level of neighbourhoods and communities preceding macro policy responses on a similar scale. Canadian governments outside of Quebec have largely left parents to find their own solutions. Parent and community solutions have not been wholly adequate. Issues around the quality of care, its affordability and availability for parents and the remuneration and working conditions of caregivers remain serious problems.

Economic development at the community level involves job creation, building skills, and access to various forms of capital, which includes money (the major barrier) but also includes other forms of capital. Natural and built capital refers to land, parks, schools, community centres, libraries and so on. Human capital refers to human resources in terms of skills, knowledge, and energy and time commitments. Social capital refers to the networks and connections in various community associations that build norms of reciprocity and trust to enable people to work together. Studies of social capital have found that network density increases society's economic productivity.210

Despite limited government investment, providing child care has become one of the largest employment occupations for women. It is a significant area of community economic activity. It both utilises and develops various forms of capital. On a large scale at a market oriented level parent-caregiver relationships have developed. An unknown number of caregiver networks exist, and a small portion of family child care (15,000 providers) is organized and regulated under non-profit community auspices.

Most regulated family caregivers (86%) meet formally and informally with other caregivers, belong to other groups (77%), and rate these activities as highly important. Family child care agencies, and other family resource and child care programs are often focal points of care giving in neighbourhoods and have developed partnerships with schools, community centres and facilities, and foundations. Many parents volunteer their skills and time to help programs operate and generate resources. Parents also organize informal networks of mutual aid for the occasional care of their own children.211

While home child care is an area of considerable economic activity at the community level, it is not clear how much of it could be considered community economic development (CED). As noted earlier, while CED provides capital and expertise for employment purposes, it is distinguished from other forms of job creation in its interest in and attention to the well-being, social support and accommodation of the special needs of participants.212

Regulated family child care, to the extent that it supports participants and ensures a reasonable standard of care to children, would appear to come closest to being an area of CED. So might less formal networks of support that arrive at the same outcome. However, some care is simply poor care that exploits women and is harmful to children. While CED holds possibilities for women, it is not a cure-all for the under-valuing of women's work in economic policy. 213

Additional government investment and policy development in child care is vital to complement and develop the already considerable social and economic activity that exists at the community level. Government investment is particularly critical to developing the quality of care as it relates to standards, human resource skills, and conditions of work and remuneration. An investment in quality is an investment in the early education and long-term prospects of children.

Social cohesion is allied with a number of these concepts, such as social capital and community capacity that have become of increasing interest. There is no clear and commonly held definition of social or community cohesion. However, a federal interdepartmental committee has defined social cohesion as "a process of developing a community of shared values, shared challenges, and equal opportunity within Canada, based on a sense of trust, hope and reciprocity among all Canadians."

Another similar definition makes clear that reducing disparities in wealth and income is a defining characteristic of social cohesion. At a national level, growing economic polarisation, a wide gap between the values held by Canadians and the governing elite, and the end of nation building projects are among the key issues of concern around the breaking of social cohesion. 214

Research and polling indicate that Canadians do hold shared values: self-reliance, compassion leading to collective responsibility, investment in children, equality and fiscal responsibility. The public's priorities are human capital issues of health, education and children. Priorities around social-human issues versus tax and debt issues have widened over the past decade. The public does not share the so-called "tax rage" of elites. In contrast, governing elites are concerned about reducing government, increasing competitiveness and self-reliance. Corporate elites are more ideological than the public. They are conservative and are focused on one issue: tax relief. The elite/public cleavage is pronounced. 215

Conclusion -- Will home child care as an employment option in welfare-to-work contribute to community economic development and to community cohesion? There is opportunity and scope to do so if policy directions reflect and build on shared public values and priorities around investment in social-human issues.

It is unlikely that CED and community development practices on their own can accomplish much given the deep poverty of welfare recipients and the poor working conditions in home child care. At a minimum, poverty must be addressed as part of a broader welfare-to-work strategy and the conditions of work and care in home child care must be improved as a labour market development strategy. Addressing poverty is a most basic and important investment government can make and is the prelude for a caring community and other forms of community investment. 216

The large growth in market-oriented and private parent-caregiver relationships is a result of parents and communities having been largely left on their own to solve problems around child care. Attention to human capital issues is important in CED job creation and in developing community cohesion. Public investment is particularly critical to developing the quality of care as it relates to standards, human resource skills, and conditions of work and remuneration. An investment in quality is an investment in the early education and long-term prospects of children.

Cohesion at the community level is also associated with dense networks of associations, organisations and informal relationships; co-operative activities among sectors; and with high levels of volunteering. Home child care is largely unorganized, and often operates in private and in relative isolation. At a community level developing the networks of formal and informal associations and organisations would build community cohesion. These activities would be most effective co-ordinated with complementary social policies. As such, a comprehensive child care strategy is required. Indeed, the end of nation building projects is a key factor in the breakdown of cohesion. The federal/provincial/territorial National Children's Agenda has the potential to become a project through which a system of quality early childhood care and development could emerge.

4.22 Key-informant Perspectives

More than 50 child care, welfare-to-work and community key-informants from across Canada were contacted for information and their perspectives on home child care as an employment option in welfare-to-work. Key-informants included provincial government officials, municipal officials, and community service providers in child care, welfare, education and training, and community development. Discussions focused on issues in three areas: provincial/territorial policies, programs and practices, and their appraisal of home child care as a welfare-to-work option. The interview guides and list of key-informants are appended.

Provincial/Territorial Policies - Key-informants reported that there were no explicit provincial policies promoting home child care as an employment/self-employment option in welfare-to-work ( see Table 19). Provincial officials in several provinces said that the idea had been discussed within government. In Prince Edward Island no decision had been made. In Newfoundland the idea was discussed and abandoned because the training and investments required to meet child care standards would be too costly. However, they may revisit the idea because there is a demand for child care and nannies. In New Brunswick it was discussed and thought that day care owners may view it as unfair. However, the province may reconsider it because it is interested in expanding entrepreneurial activity.

In Ontario, where the idea of making home child care a workfare activity to inexpensively increase the supply of child care has been promoted politically, the Ministry of Community and Social Services undertook a review of American programs and found that: looking after children was not an easy task for many welfare recipients; families had problems themselves that precluded providing child care; and homes were not up to standard.

The Ministry is not promoting the concept. However, despite the review's findings the idea of enlisting adult workfare clients as babysitters continues to be advanced politically when questions about the supply of child care in welfare reform arise. 217

Alberta did experiment with providing training for home child care as a welfare-to-work option five years ago in the Edmonton region. They found that recipients were not interested although the training did provide a jumping off point to get into the labour market.

In most provinces, self-employment is an employment option in welfare-to-work and policies and programs have been developed to support self-employment (Table 19, and discussed below).

Table 19: Home Child Care as an Employment/Self-Employment Option for Social Assistance Recipients(Note: HCC = in-home or family child care; SAR = Social Assistance Recipient; SA = Social Assistance)
  Does provincial government have explicit policy promoting HCC as an employment option? Ever discussed within government? Is self-employment a work activity in welfare-to- work? What provisions are made for self-employment? Do you keep statistics on:
SARs Providing Leave HCC? What happens After Welfare?
Nfld. No. Discussed a decade ago. Training to meet child care standards too costly and idea abandoned. People choose on own. Yes. Special earnings exemption. Under STEP: wage supplements, training incentive allowance. Loan (up to $3,000), 8 week business training. Health benefits for 6 mos No No
PEI
No. It has been discussed but no decision.
No, not a program per se. Earnings exemption. Will cover costs between cheques in transition to employment. No No
NS No. Discussed, nothing came of it. Yes. Special earnings exemptions, supplementary health benefits. Assistance with business plan. Be in receipt 12 most if activities consistent with business plan
-
Plan to track outcome data.
NB No. Discussed a few years ago, concern day care owners would see as unfair. May be option in future. Yes. Special earnings exemptions, entrepreneurial programs through the Dept. of Labour, day care assistance. Interested in expanding.
No
Track if back on SA
Que No policy. No discussion. Yes. Self-employment support (SEA) and retain health benefits for 12 months after becoming self employed.
-
-
Ont
No policy. Reviewed option and US programs 3 years ago. Ministry not promoting the idea. Yes. Special earnings exemptions on how income from HCC treated, incentives/assistance for self-employed with developing business & supplemental health benefits.
No
Do exit surveys (survey closed cases)
Man
No policy.
Yes. Self-employment program under "Employment Connections". Can be in receipt for a year if in approved program.
-
To track caseload reduction/SAR income
Sask No policy. Yes. Provide incentives to start business, supplemental health benefits., Saskatchewan Employment Supplement
No
In future with Nat'l Child Benefit evaluation
Alta No. Don't promote it. Experimented with it five years ago. SARs not interested because the work didn't pay. Yes. Special earnings exemptions, allowed higher asset levels, training available to SARs and others, assist with business plan, income support also provided.
No
Track if back on SA
BC No policy. No, not an option, however is being considered.
No
Track if back on SA
NWT No policy. No discussion. Yes. Earning exemption and small business support through Economic Development & Tourism.
No
Informal, not regularly.
Source: Survey of provincial officials, and Canadian Council on Social Development, 1998.

Self-employment was reported to not be an option in provincial welfare-to-work policies in British Columbia, and in Prince Edward Island there is no program to encourage this activity. In British Columbia self-employment options are being reviewed for welfare-to-work. These options include family child care and child care co-ops (i.e., membership-based exchanges for the selling and purchasing of child care). The Community Development Unit of the Ministry of Employment and Investment intends to develop pilots. However, a provincial official indicated that these options would not be meaningful if they did not provide a living wage.

4.23 Programs and Practices

Provinces keep statistics on earnings declared by recipients, but not on the type of work recipients are engaged in, so no official count exists on the number of recipients who supplement their income by providing care. It is also uncommon for provincial systems to track what happens to recipients after they leave welfare, for example, if they find work, the type of occupations they enter, earnings and working conditions.

Self-employment Earnings Exemptions and Supports ( Provincial welfare earnings exemptions are available that are geared to self-employment, however, in British Columbia business operating expenses are not currently exempted (i.e. not deducted from income to arrive at net earnings). Ontario has policies on earnings exemptions that are specific to self-employed family child care providers. Income is reported monthly, must be verifiable, and is subject to audits, and net income is determined after deducting allowable expenses (i.e., 40% of gross monthly income, or with receipts, according to a table of allowable amounts for food and other expenses).

Prior approval must be obtained for capital expenses (cribs, linen, toys, etc.). Transportation costs are only allowed for an initial provider medical examination and for training and meetings required by an agency, not for program activities involving the children. After allowable expenses are deducted, recipients keep exempted earnings (e.g., $275 plus 25% of the remaining earnings for a single parent in Ontario) and the remainder is deducted from welfare assistance. 218

In Quebec and Newfoundland health benefits can be retained for 12 and six months respectively after becoming self-employed. Prince Edward Island is developing a co-payment plan for drug benefits for low-income families with welfare savings arising from the National Child Benefit Supplement. A provincial official in Ontario noted that supplemental health benefits are available. Ontario municipal officials reported that supplemental benefits under social assistance had been terminated.

Saskatchewan has introduced an earnings supplement called the Saskatchewan Employment Supplement (SES) with the National and the Saskatchewan Child Benefit initiatives. The provincial official observed that the SES is accessible because to qualify requires low thresholds of earned income and the application is simplified. The purpose was to make it as unlike welfare as possible. It is seen as a tool to encourage possibilities at a community development level, such as family child care.

Family Day Care Training for Recipients ( Training is available to prepare and support social assistance recipients in becoming home child care providers. However, home child care is not necessarily presented or precluded as an option in welfare-to-work. Many provinces describe a case management process through which clients identify their career interests and develop an action plan. In most provinces, employable recipients must have a case plan agreement, they must be "doing something" to be eligible. Hence, a number of officials indicated that participation in a training program was not, or was not entirely, voluntary.

Recipients access training and the profession using the same mechanism as the general population. A number of provincial officials and community key informants noted the benefits of this approach. Some worried about a separate system being created for people on welfare. Community development informants also thought that a separate strategy within welfare in which all, or most, of the decisions had been made before involving the recipient (a "top-down" process) would be unlikely to engage women or be appropriate.

In addition to self-employment training, various training opportunities exist from province to province, such as basic life and parenting skills programs, programs and workshops on care-giving offered by family child care agencies and family resource programs to early childhood education training through community college/university.

Some informants noted that a major route into child care is through post-secondary education, particularly community college Early Childhood Education programs. Recipients need to meet prerequisites, and apply for student loans. However, the support provided by welfare to pursue post-secondary education varies considerably by province/territory, and tuition costs have escalated across Canada. Some informants observed that numerous recipients already pursue college to get "proper" jobs, and were suspect of intentions to create or expand a separate system for recipients. Concerns were raised in the context of increased tuition costs and restrictive welfare rules around access to post-secondary education, that as a welfare-to-work based program training and subsequent care would create a second-class system.

Self-sufficiency ( Many key informants noted that family child care could be a step into the labour market for those who have had little work experience and can supplement income and reduce dependence on welfare. Indeed, this was the rational behind several pilot projects in family child care in Saskatchewan (Saskatoon and Regina) in 1996-97. However key-informants note that recipients who enter the field thinking home child care is easy, quickly learn that it is a demanding occupation.

Home child care as an employment option in social assistance is not explicitly promoted at the policy level by governments, however, in practice at the community level it is available as an option in both the informal and regulated care sectors. Though not targeted to recipients, numerous organizations are involved in recruiting, training and supporting family child care providers.

In both Ottawa and Toronto the municipality runs its own licensed family child care program where, respectively, one-half and one-quarter of the providers are recipients. In Toronto, in part likely as a result of deep welfare benefit cuts, the proportion of providers who were recipients dropped to 8%. Another Ontario community informant linked the loss of recipients who were providers directly to cuts. These providers had relied on welfare to top up earnings, provide basic benefits and stabilize income. Benefit cuts put them over the income thresholds at which they would no longer be eligible for assistance, so they reduced or ended work effort in family child care.

Both of these large municipalities have noticed a natural progression for many recipients who may start out in home child care providing casual and intermittent care and with upgrading and college, move into centre-based care. Ottawa is currently discussing how and when to reach out to new care providers and build networks/relationships on a non-business basis to better enable transitions from informal caregiving to occupations in the formal and licensed sector of child care.

Expecting full self-sufficiency as quickly as possible in welfare-to-work may be at odds with these longer-term approaches to skill development. Indeed, one consequence may be that recipients who provide family child care are unable to continue because earnings are often not enough to leave welfare.

4.24 Factors That Deter or Assist

Key-informants were asked to identify factors that would deter or act as barriers and factors that would assist welfare recipients from pursuing home child care as an employment option.

Low, fluctuating, and intermittent earnings and no benefits were frequently identified as deterrents to taking up home child care. The start up costs of a home child care operation was also noted. Community loan funds were mentioned as having been occasionally accessed or as being potential sources of funds. However, it did not appear that in practice this is pursued on much of a scale. In addition, loans have to be re-paid. Operating costs such as equipment, supplies, and insurance are other considerations.

Many informants observed that caring for children is hard work that requires skills and specific caregiver characteristics: particularly that they like and enjoy children. Developing skills requires access to training and education. Costs of training and the debt incurred to attend a post-secondary institution are considerable financial barriers.

Isolation can act as another barrier. Some were concerned that recipients would remain stuck at home, unconnected to other people and supports. Working with licensed care was seen as important to provide ongoing support, linkages with other providers, and professional development opportunities, in addition to some assurance of quality. It was also pointed out that in-home caregivers should be regulated.

Basic child care standards pose another barrier; in the sense that recipients are so poor they may have difficulty meeting them. Housing conditions, for example, may not be suitable. There was some concern that even basic standards might be watered down to make home child care economically viable creating, for example, "baby farms".

Informants note that housing rules in public housing and under landlord-tenant and zoning by-laws may also prohibit or restrict the operation of a home business. Recipients may be particularly vulnerable because providing child care is a visible activity and negative stereotypes have whipped up community animosity towards recipients. Indeed, the National Council of Welfare has urged that all governments take a stand against welfare bashing, and avoid stereotypes in public statements about welfare fraud and recipient lifestyles. 219

Deep poverty arising from low welfare benefits and cuts were cited as major barriers to home child care. It is difficult for recipients to meet even basic needs for food, clothing and shelter. Household problems, stress, and depression are often consequences. Informants wondered how recipients whose ability to care for themselves has been reduced, could also care for other people's children. In addition to the expertise needed, how would they provide for lunch, crafts, activities, and the like?

Other welfare policies create additional barriers. That earnings exemptions (the amount of earnings a recipient keeps before being deducted, often dollar for dollar, from their welfare) are too low was mentioned frequently. For example, 1996 earnings exemptions for a single parent family were only between $100 and $200 in most provinces, and ranged from as low as $10 to as high as $275 plus 25% of the balance.220 Work in family child care is very hard, and recipients get to keep very little of their earnings.

There was also concern about welfare-to-work activity that is directly or indirectly coerced being at odds with personal suitability, and being in appropriate circumstances in which to care for children. Expecting people on social assistance to "do something" to be in receipt can place considerable pressure on recipients. After all, the alternative is total destitution for them and their children. Key-informants stressed the need for voluntary choice, adequate training and educational support, and reasonable expectations around what family child care could offer.

In addition, the fit between self-employment and welfare rules can be a difficult one. An Ontario lawyer noted that the paperwork and rules around what are and are not allowed as expenses for self-employed persons on welfare is labour intensive for recipients and caseworkers. The rules are more narrow and prescriptive under welfare than under Revenue Canada. It is easy to make a mistake around legitimate business expenses that are not considered so by welfare, resulting in an overpayment being deemed and deducted from the next month's cheque. That in turn makes it difficult to live on welfare while operating a business. This may be a consideration in other provinces.

Factors informants identified that would support home child care as an employment option for recipients were often the same as the reasons given by people who work in family child care. The ability to balance work with family responsibilities was seen as a major factor that would encourage recipients in pursuing home child care. Wanting to stay home with their children is also the most frequently cited reason given by family child care providers for choosing this occupation.

Other identified factors that support home child care as an employment option include:

Appraisal of Option - Key-informant appraisal of family day care as an employment option was quite mixed, ranging from support and cautious consideration, to considerable misgivings and disfavour given the nature of welfare-to-work and the occupational status of home-based child care.

Most informants voiced concern about lack of benefits, and doubted the viability of family day care as a sustaining source of earnings. Some thought that under certain circumstances, (such as the number of children cared for, living in rural areas, family size, the presence of a second income), recipients might earn enough to leave welfare. Others tended to think it would at best be a supplement to welfare income and could be useful, but "not on a grand scale". Still others were quite concerned about it pushing down wages and quality in child care, and about it having a negative impact on the traditional division of labour and women's employment generally. For example, as one informant pointed out: "Do we need even more job ghettos and low-paid work for women?"

There were mixed views on whether home child care offered a career path and opportunities for advancement. Some saw it as a "dead-end" job, others thought that for some recipients it could be a first-step. Few saw opportunity for advancement. There were also mixed views on whether it would create quality care.

Informants thought it would create local employment and services, but again, the quality of this work was sometimes in doubt. Community cohesion, neighbourliness, a sense of collective responsibility for children, and a more positive perception of recipients would be or could be enhanced. However, a number of informants noted that it would have to be seen as employment and a "real" job. Some were concerned about caregiver isolation and lack of support. Still others doubted that it would overcome the impact of other welfare-to-work reforms related in particular to deep cuts to benefits and increased coercion, stigma, and stress associated with being in receipt.

Key-informants noted the following requirements to make provision of home child care as an employment option for social assistance recipients a viable public policy initiative:

4.3 The Canadian Potential: The Case Studies

4.31 Quebec's Pioneering Approach

Quebec's 1997 legislation introduced a unique package of family policy reforms that has had a dramatic affect on child care. The mix of income and services is designed to assist child rearing, reduce child poverty and support parents' labour force attachment by allowing parents the flexibility to move in an out of the workforce as required and still meet the needs of their children. It has three components: income supplements and tax measures, parental leaves, and child care and development services.

Financial supports

Parental insurance

The proposed new Parental Insurance Plan announced in 1997 has not been implemented due to a breakdown in negotiations with the federal government. Quebec had requested a transfer of the maternity portion of Employment Insurance paid to Quebec parents and the federal saving under the Child Care Expense Deduction. Agreement was not reached and implementation has been postponed. The federal government's decision to extend maternity leave for eligible parents may restart the negotiations. In the interim the province has developed a scaled down version of the original plan. The proposal is innovative aimed at extending the benefit to more parents, providing more flexibility, and encouraging fathers to become involved with their new-borns.
Highlights of the proposal include:

Child care and education services

Quebec's educational and child care services are designed to simultaneously provide developmental opportunities for children and help parents reconcile work and family. Responsibilities for the program are divided by age with the Ministry of Child and Family Welfare responsible for children zero to four and the Ministry of Education charged with services of children five to two.

How it works

The expansion of pre-school child care services is the responsibility of agencies holding agreements with the ministry. Only these agencies are eligible for the $5/day care.227

Family day care is viewed as an important component of publicly funded child care services. All child care agencies are required to provide both group and family care that offers standard, extended and flexible hours. This presents a challenge for operators. Previous legislation designed to limit the incursion of commercial day care by capping the number of spaces held by license holders228 also hindered the development of multi-service programs. With few Quebec models to guide them, centre directors must now recruit, train, and monitor providers. The same obstacles face family day care agencies, which must start group programs. The Ministry provides training for directors.

Family providers are self-employed. To become part of the new system of service current first aid training,229 proof of liability insurance, a criminal background check, and references are required. Intake involves a home inspection and an interview with the provider, and all family members over 14. In addition, providers must take 45 hours of child development training. 230

The child care centre is responsible for providing technical and professional support and supervision. Supervisory staff must have three years experience working with children or directing adults. The provider may care for up to six children, including her own under 12, with no more than two children younger than 18 months. With an adult assistant, care may be provided for nine children including the provider's own.

The new fee schedule and regulations should improve quality in family day care. Providers operating outside the regulated sector will be encouraged to join agencies to have access to families Regulations also bring support and training, important quality factors in child care.

The rapid expansion of publicly funded services will offer new employment opportunities in regulated family day care. Demand from parents is high, public funding is available for fees, and agencies are responsible for payments. Income, therefore, is stable. Income levels and working conditions remain a barrier. Providers seldom earn above minimum wage and there are no employment-related benefits.231 Parents leaving welfare with dependant children would be eligible for the province's wage assistance program. Once off assistance the family allowance and additional tax credits would apply. Earnings combined with the income supplement and tax credits would meet or surpass social assistance income. Parents would still lose the health and other benefits social assistance provides.

Wages are a major obstacle to the system's expansion. In 1998, following rotating strikes by unionized child care workers, the government agreed to increase wages by 35 to 40% over a three-year period. This was followed by a recruiting drive to attract new staff. Signalling the success of the initiatives, college training programs for early childhood educators - whose graduates will in the main work in group programs - are now at maximum enrolment.

The same response has not been true in family day care. In areas where alternate employment is available, low cost group child care has resulted in a loss of providers.232 For those caregivers who were in the field to balance their own child care and financial needs, affordable child care offers an opportunity to work outside the home in better paying occupations with fewer demands.

Universal, affordable child care also opens up the range of employment choices for parents making the transition from social assistance to work. Because access to child care is not determined by parent income or participation in the labour force or a training program, it is less likely that Quebec welfare recipients will supply the pool of family day care recruits that their counterparts have in some U.S. jurisdictions.233

Within the family policy context there is an assumption that home child care will provide a large portion of the new service, particularly during non-standard hours. Quebec's efforts to meet its targets require measures to improve not only wages but also working conditions in the field.

4.32 Manitoba's Family Day Care Training Program234

The project hopes to recruit 20 young parents receiving social assistance who reside in or near Winnipeg-area subsidized housing projects. Participants are provided with three-quarters of the year first year of a two-year diploma235 program in early childhood education at no cost. In exchange participants agree to provide child care236 for families in the community.

The pilot is designed to simultaneously meet several criteria:

In an effort to recruit providers willing to offer extended hour care, operating and start up grants and subsidy rates were enhanced. The increased funding applies to all providers, in addition to those taking part in the pilot project.

For the participant the project offers:
For the community the project offers:
How it works

The Employment and Income Assistance program identifies participants, and provides transportation and child care costs. The ministry responsible for education and training provides funding for training and administration. Red River College enrols students and adapts the ECE program to a 20 week, full-time course (three-quarters of the first year in an ECE diploma program). The Family Centre of Winnipeg239 administers the project. Manitoba Child Day Care, the government department responsible for child care, prioritizes participants for licensing and provides the enhanced grants and per diems.

Upon completion of training, providers will be assisted in establishing their family daycare home. Start-up and operating grants are exempt from welfare payments and participants are able to maintain a portion of earned income until welfare income is replaced. Start up grants are one- time at $300. Operating grants are $572 annually for infants and $195 annually for pre-school and school aged children.

The project anticipates some challenges. Participants will require care for their own children while attending class. It is assumed that many will need infant care, which like non-standard hour care, is in short supply. A major obstacle is finding participants whose homes meet licensing requirements. Public transportation may be unavailable.

Finally, is the program sustainable? An increase of 2,000 new subsidies and rate improvements may provide sufficient earnings to replace welfare income. Seven social assistance recipients now provide family day care. Two have sufficient earnings to leave the system.240 Given the socio-economic demographics of the neighbourhoods where providers reside, subsidy availability will be key to generating sufficient clientele to generate a stable income. While Manitoba's benefit for low income working parents241 is not as large as Quebec's, it could provide the additional income source to allow recipients to consider family day care as an employment option.

Family day care homes can be licensed for a maximum of eight children under twelve (including the provider's own children). No more than five children can be pre-school and no more than three can be less than two years of age.

Table: 20 Payment schedule for full time care (250 day/year)

Regular Day (Under 10 hours)

Extended hours (10 hours plus/day)
  Untrained ECE II or III Untrained ECE II or III
Preschool 4,000 4,600 6,000 6,800
Infant 5,000 6,800 7,000 10,000
School age 2,800 2,800 6,000 6,800

Chart based on Schedule D. Maximum Daily Fees. Manitoba Regulation 62/86 Consolidated 06/98.
Amount does not include grants.

4.33 Alberta's Day Care Employment Initiative244

The Day Care Employment Initiative provides training to single parents on social assistance leading to certification for an entry-level position in group child care. The program is a response to the 1993 changes in social assistance legislation requiring parents of young children to develop work participation plans. It is designed to enhance employment opportunities for clients and to augment the number of trained staff needed to meet increased demands for child care.

The co-ordination and funding for the project comes from the Ministry of Human Resource and Employment, Supports for Independence (SFI) division.

The program provides participants with skills, an opportunity to take further qualifications to advance in the profession, and enhanced parenting skills. Day care subsidies are provided during the training period.

Strong emphasis is placed on recruiting suitable clients. Participants are expected to demonstrate an aptitude for working with young children by demonstrating good parenting skills and volunteering in a child care program. They are referred to the program by their welfare worker and will require the recommendation of the day care director where they volunteered. A clear criminal reference check and an up-to-date immunization and health record are necessary.

An intake interview with a participating college is the final step to enrolment. Courses, provided by colleges, offer 50 hours of combined on-site and classroom training covering day care regulations, child development, and adult communication skills. Completion of the course allows the graduate to apply for Level 1 certification.245

The college is responsible for monitoring participants' progress and informing welfare case workers of `compliance. The worker will assist graduates in finding employment. The Staff Qualifications Office246 monitors employment placements. At this point participants may choose further college training with assistance from the Student Finance program.

Of the 500 participants completing the course, 125 took work in child care. Follow up does not determine length of service in the sector, nor does it follow up the other options pursued by graduates. The 25% success rate is low considering the efforts to screen clients.

The break in child care affords one explanation. The participant's subsidy is tied to the training program. U.S. research shows that it is common in these situations for clients to cycle back onto welfare until a new subsidy and suitable child care becomes available. Another explanation is the low pay and poor opportunities for advancement247 in Alberta's child care sector are an inadequate draw, particularly for sole-support parents. Clients are using the program as a first step to continuing post-secondary studies or are taking better paying work in the province's expanding economy.

Family day care is an unlikely transition from welfare-to-work in the province. There is a steep clawback on recipients' employed earnings and no direct financial assistance to establish a day care home or meet regulations. Very small government operating grants are available to the family day care agencies, which provide monitoring and some supports to providers.

Government subsidies for family day care and user fees provide a maximum of $340/month. While caregivers may charge parents above subsidy rates, they are limited by the financial capacity of the low-income parents they are likely to be serving.

Even if they took in the maximum number of children, recipients would be little better off.248 Income stability would also be an issue. There has been a decrease in the number of permanent subsidies, which now cover only 12,000 of the provinces 26,000 licensed day care spaces, and 6,500 children in family day homes.249

4.34 Work and Learn Project , Windsor Ontario 250

Another approach uses child care centres for training rather than home child care as either the vehicle or outcome of training. Windsor operates the "Work and Learn" program. The project provides training to young single mothers on social assistance through five of the city's child care centres. In a nurturing environment, centre staff act as vocational mentors and model child management and guidance behaviours.

The program goal is to provide young single parents with hands on training to develop interpersonal and parenting skills, improve transferable life and employment skills and knowledge necessary to obtain and maintain employment.

Funding:

$500,000 from Human Resources Development Canada for first session, which covers weekly stipends and completion bonuses ($335,000); staff ($95,000) and transportation, supplies, evaluation and other program costs ($70,000).

Program Content:
Program Dynamics:
Results:
This program addresses head on the barriers to self-sufficiency that are created by welfare-poverty. Two-thirds of the program budget is devoted to providing participants with financial assistance through weekly stipends and completion bonuses. Participation is voluntary and recipients are given a range of activities to choose from. Although a few went on to pursue post-secondary early childhood education training to date, no graduates have gone on to home child care. Among the 73 mothers who participated, 53 are working (73%), and 12 are enrolled in post secondary education. Twenty-five (1/3) are no longer receiving welfare.

Continued funding is a concern. Human Reso