Our Child Care Workforce - Childcarepolicy.net

Our Child Care WorkforceFROM RECOGNITION TO REMUNERATION

A Human Resource Study of Child Care in Canada

MORE THAN A LABOUR OF LOVEPrepared for:

The Child Care Sector Study Steering Committee

Authors:Jane Beach, Jane Bertrand, Gordon Cleveland

Consulting Firm:Goss Gilroy Inc.

Copy Editors:Denis Alarie, Judith Whitehead

Translator:Jocelyne Tougas

Cover & Design:John Atkinson

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

Beach, JaneOur child care workforce: from recognition to remuneration: a human

resource study of child care in Canada: more than a labour of love: main report

Issued also in French under tide: Le secteur de la garde ~ I'enfanceISBN 0-9683704-0-3

1. Child care services--Canada. 2. Day care centres--Canada.3. Child care workers~Canada. 4. Day care centres~Employees--Canada.I. Bertrand, Jane, 1951- II. Cleveland, Gordon III. Child Care Sector StudySteering Committee. IV. Title. V. Title: More than a labour of love.

HQ778.7.C3B433 1998 362.71 '2'0971 C98-900560-7

To obtain additional copies of this report, or for information about otherrelated print material, please contact:

Child Care Human Resources Steering Committeec/o 100- 30 Rosemount AvenueOttawa, OntarioKIY 1P4

Phone: (613) 729-5289 or 1-800-858-1412 Fax: (613) 729-3159E-mail [email protected]

Permission is granted to photocopy any part or all of this report.

AcknowledgementsThe Steering Committee for the Human Resource Study of Child Care in Canada expresses itssincere appreciation to all those who have contributed to this important project.

Our thanks to Human Resources Development Canada for funding and facilitating the study,in particular, to staff from the Sector Studies Directorate for their unfailing guidance andconstant attention to the multitude of logistical details involved.

A very special thanks to the members of the consulting team for their tremendous effort inconducting the research, framing the issues and writing the report. We are ever indebted fortheir commitment, patience and professionalism.

Like the Steering Committee itself, those who contributed to the process--through completionof surveys, interviews and focus groups-represent a broad cross-section of the child carecommunity. We thank them for their time, interest and input.

We believe that this Report and the Recommendations detailed in Chapter 8 provide a clear and critical direction for advancing human resource issues in the child care workforce.

We urge you to read the report, consider its implications and, above all, act on it.

Gyda ChudSteering Committee Co-chair

Jenna MacKay-AlieSteering Committee Co-chair

PrefaceThe Principles of HighQuality Child Carein CanadaIn 1994, the National Forum on ChildCare, which included representatives fromall parts of the child care community,crafted a set of guiding principles for highquality child care in Canada. Theseguiding principles provide a commonfoundation for building a strong child caresector. The resolution of the humanresource issues discussed in this Child CareSector Study will contribute towardbuilding a coherent set of child careservices in the spirit of these principles.These shared values, which aresynthesized below, present significantchallenges and opportunities for childcaregivers.

Shared ValuesAll children and their families have a rightto quality child care and should be

supported within comprehensive familypolicy frameworks by all governments.Quality child care brings social andeconomic benefits to children, theirfamilies, communities and Canadiansociety as a whole.

QualityChild care environments supportchildren's optimal emotional, social,spiritual, intellectual and physicaldevelopment, honour inclusion anddiversity, and respect parents. Child careproviders are knowledgeable about childdevelopment and skilled in earlychildhood education practices. Workingconditions and remuneration reflectthese responsibilities.

AffordabilityAll children have access to high qualitychild care regardless of family income,parental employment status orgeographical location.

Availability and AccessibilityAll Canadian children and families,including Aboriginal peoples, haveequitable access to a range of child careservices in each province and territory.

AccountabilityFamilies, communities, governments,educational institutions, employers,unions, child care associations and childcare providers share responsibility for aquality child care system.

Resolving human resource issues in away consistent with the provision ofaccessible, affordable, high quality care,within the context of a collectiveaccountability, is a central challengefacing the sector.

O U R C H I L D C A R E W O R K F O R C E : F R O M R E C O G N I T I O N T O R E M U N E R A T I O N

i

Table of ContentsP A R T 1 - I N T R O D U C T I O NC h a p t e r 1 " O v e r v i e w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

T h e C h i l d C a r e S e c t o r a n d I t s W o r l d o r c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

P u r p o s e o f t h e C h i l d C a r e S e c t o r S t u d y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 0

M a j o r T h e m e s o f t h e C h i l d C a r e S e c t o r S t u d y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3

PA R T 2 - T H E C O N T E X T F O R C A R E G I V I N GC h a p t e r 2 : C h i l d C a r e S e r v i c e s a n d R e l a t e d P r o g r a m s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6

T h e A v a i l a b i l i t y o f C h i l d C a r e a n d R e l a t e d S e r v i c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 7

T h e A f f o r d a b i l i t y o f C h i l d C a r e a n d R e l a t e d S e r v i c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 6

T h e Q u a l i t y o f C h i l d C a r e a n d R e l a t e d S e r v i c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1

S u m m a r y a n d C o n c l u s i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3

C h a p t e r 3 : T h e D e m a n d f o r C h i l d C a r e S e r v i c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7

T h e D e m o g r a p h i c E n v i r o n m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 7

F i s c a l a n d E c o n o m i c F a c t o r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 0

T h e P u b l i c P o l i c y E n v i r o n m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 2


Chapter 4: Institutions and Organizations That Prepare and Support Caregivers ........................60 Postsecondary Education Institutions ........................................................60 Child Care and Related Organizations .......................................................68 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................74

PA R T 3 - C H A L L E N G E S FA C I N G T H E C H I L D C A R E W O R K F O R C EC h a p t e r 5 : T h e W o r k E n v i r o n m e n t C h a l l e n g e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 7

I n c o m e s o f C a r e g i v e r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7

B e n e fi t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 2

H o u r s o f W o r k a n d E m p l o y m e n t S t a n d a r d s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 3

C a r e e r T r e n d s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7

O c c u p a t i o n a l H e a l t h a n d S a f e t y I s s u e s f o r A l l C a r e g i v e r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1


C h a p t e r 6 : T h e S k i l l s C h a l l e n g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 5

C a r e g i v e r S k i l l s a n d t h e Q u a l i t y o f C h i l d C a r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5

P o s t s e c o n d a r y E d u c a t i o n I s s u e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t O p p o r t u n i t i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

S u m m a r y a n d C o n c l u s i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

C h a p t e r 7 : T h e R e c o g n i t i o n C h a l l e n g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

T h e V a l u e o f C a r i n g f o r C h i l d r e n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

A d v o c a c y, U n i o n i z a t i o n a n d P r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

S u m m a r y a n d C o n c l u s i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

P A R T 4 - M O V I N G F O R W A R DC h a p t e r 8 : R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

F o u n d a t i o n s f o r t h e R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

P u b l i c P o l i c y , L e g i s l a t i o n a n d F u n d i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136

I n f r a s t r u c t u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

W a g e s , B e n e fi t s a n d W o r k i n g C o n d i t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

T r a i n i n g a n d E d u c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

R e s e a r c h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142


I I I

A P P E N D I X A - S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e M e m b e r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144A P P E N D I X B - K e y I n f o r m a n t s a n d G o v e r n m e n t O f fi c i a l s C o n s u l t e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147A P P E N D I X C - S e c t o r C o n s u l t a t i o n s ~ F o c u s G r o u p s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149A P P E N D I X D - D a t a S o u r c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150A P P E N D I X E - S u r v e y o f F a m i l y D a y C a r e P r o v i d e r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152APPENDIX F - Survey of Institutions Providing Early Childhood Training Programs ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162A P P E N D I X G - R e s e a r c h A g e n d a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168

R E F E R E N C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

LIST OF TABLESTable 1 C h i l d C a r e a n d R e l a t e d A r r a n g e m e n t s , 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Table 2 T h e C h i l d C a r e Wo r l ~ o r c e a n d R e l a t e d O c c u p a t i o n s , 1 9 9 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Table 3 Average Earnings ($) in the Child Care Workforce and Related Occupations, 1990 ................ 9Table 4 C a r e g i v e r s P r o v i d i n g C h i l d C a r e a n d R e l a t e d S e r v i c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0Table 5 C h i l d C a r e S e r v i c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8Table 6 C h i l d P o p u l a t i o n a n d R e g u l a t e d C h i l d C a r e S p a c e s , 1 9 9 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 9Table 7 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f R e g u l a t e d C h i l d C a r e S p a c e s , 1 9 9 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1Table 8 Provincial and Territorial Early Intervention/Infant Development Programs, 1995 ....... . . . . . . . . . 2 4Table 9 Av e r a g e F e e s a n d S u b s i d i e s i n R e g u l a t e d C h i l d C a r e , 1 9 9 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 7Table 10 Hourly Expenditure on Paid Child Care for Preschool-age Children, by Annual Family Income ...... 2 9Table 11 P r o v i n c i a l / Te r r i t o r i a l C h i l d C a r e B u d g e t s , 1 9 9 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 0Table 12 M a t e r n i t y a n d P a r e n t a l B e n e fi t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1Table 13 Recommended Group Size and Child-Caregiver Ratios in Child Care Centres ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4Table 14 S t a f fi n g R e q u i r e m e n t s f o r C h i l d C a r e C e n t r e s , 1 9 9 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6Table 15 R e q u i r e m e n t s f o r R e g u l a t e d F a m i l y C h i l d C a r e g i v e r s , 1 9 9 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 9Table 16 Max imum Number Permi t ted in Unregu la ted Fami ly Ch i ld Care , 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0Table 17 E d u c a t i o n R e q u i r e m e n t s f o r K i n d e r g a r t e n Te a c h e r s , 1 9 9 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 1Table 18 Staffing Requirements for Early Intervention/Infant Development Programs, 1995 ....... . . . . . . . . . 4 2Table 19 Chi ld ren in Pa id Ch i ld Care Ar rangements w i th Mothers in Labour Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 9Table 20 Profile of Delivery of Postsecondary Early Childhood Education Programs

i n t h e P r o v i n c e s a n d Te r r i t o r i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2Table 21 Number of Institutions Offering Formal Credit Early Childhood Education Programs,

b y P r o v i n c e a n d T e r r i t o r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3Table 22 Estimated Enrolment in Early Childhood Education Programs in 1995-96,

b y P r o v i n c e a n d T e r r i t o r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6Table 23 P r o g r a m D e l i v e r y M o d e l s , b y P r o v i n c e a n d Te r r i t o r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7Table 24 P r o fi l e o f P r o v i n c i a l / Te r r i t o r i a l C h i l d C a r e O r g a n i z a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0Table 25 Training and Human Resource Development Opportunities for Family Child

C a r e g i v e r s , b y A g e n c i e s o r G o v e r n m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 2Table 26 Hourly Wages of Trained Staff in Centre-based Child Care, 1991 and 1995, and

C o m p a r i s o n t o M i n i m u m Wa g e a n d Av e r a g e I n d u s t r i a l Wa g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 8Table 27 Average Gross and Net Incomes for Caregivers Working at Least 48 Weeks per Year

i n R e g u l a t e d F a m i l y C h i l d C a r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1Ta b l e 2 8 O v e r v i e w o f E m p l o y m e n t S t a n d a r d s a n d Wa g e P o l i c i e s , 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 5

L I S T O F B O X E SBox 1.1 T h e C h i l d C a r e W o r k f o r c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Box 1.2 L a n g u a g e o f t h e C h i l d C a r e S e c t o r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Box 6.1 Good Beginnings Family Child Care (Western Canada Family Child Care Association,

B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107Box 6.2 P a r t n e r s f o r C h i l d r e n ( Y u k o n C o l l e g e ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108Box 6.3 D(,~veloppement professionnel et gestion ~ducative (CEGEP of Saint-J(~r6me) ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . .109Box 6.4 Early Childhood Continuing Education, Distance Education (Cabot College,

S t . J o h n ' s , N e w f o u n d l a n d ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111Box 6.5 MLTC/SCYC Child Care Education and Career Ladder Program (Meadow Lake Tribal

C o u n c i l , S a s k a t c h e w a n ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112Box 6.6 National Guidelines for Training in Early Childhood Care and Education and

S e l f - A s s e s s m e n t G u i d e ( C a n a d i a n C h i l d C a r e F e d e r a t i o n ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114Box 6.7 Consu l t ing and Tra in ing Serv ice (Mani toba Ch i ld Care Assoc ia t ion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Box 7.1 S t u d y o f F a m i l y D a y C a r e P r o v i d e r s i n A u s t r a l i a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123Box 7.2 Code o f E th ics (Ear ly Ch i ldhood Educators o f Br i t i sh Co lumbia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130


iv

PA R T 1Introduction

Chapter 1Overview

Canada's child care sector has many skilled,dedicated and committed caregivers whoearn their living nurturing and educating thenext generation. Daily, they are charged withthe responsibility for many of the youngest,most vulnerable members of society. Most ofCanada's young children and their familiesnow use some form of remunerated childcare or related early childhood services,including kindergarten and family supportprograms. The impact on children and theirfamilies is great, but the potential impact onCanada's economic and social future is evengreater. Yet, although individual families mayvalue the people who care for their children,there is no clear, public recognition of the

contribution that caregivers make to society asa whole. As a result, caregivers do not receiveeither the public support or resources theyneed to provide quality care for all children. Infact, the past few years have witnessedreductions in public support and resources tothose who are caring for and educatingCanada's young children.

Unlike other Canadian social, health andeducation services, the costs of child care arelargely considered the private responsibility ofparents. The compensation caregivers receiveand the working conditions they experiencedepend primarily on parents' ability to pay.Public funding for child care services consistslargely of fee subsidies for low-income familiesand income tax deductions for individualparents. Limited public funding is directed tomaintaining and improving child care programsand services. This suggests the quality of carethat children receive is, essentially, a matter ofpurely private interest. This is not, and shouldnot, be so. The quality and availability of childcare are very much matters of public interest.High quality child care benefits Canada'spresent and future citizens, while poor qualitychild care will have serious negativeconsequences for Canada's economic andsocial well-being.

The Child Care Sector andIts WorkforceA Rapidly Growing SectorHistorically, child care has been an invisiblesector in the Canadian economy. Today, childcare is emerging as a more visible and vitalsector in the country's human service andeducation workforce. Thirty or forty years ago,the vast majority of child care at early ages wasprovided in the home or the extended family.While neighbours and nannies provided somecare and there were a few day nurseries andnursery schools, paid care provided bynon-relatives was unusual rather than typical.


1

C H A P T E R 1

Now, most preschool children use sometype of regular paid child care.In 1967, for instance, only 17% of motherswith preschool children were employed.Today, the percentage is about 65%. In1967, about 40% of their preschool children(about 140,000) used paid child careservices, most often through unregulatedarrangements (only 2% used licensed childcare or nursery school).1 Today, about 55%(more than 700,000) of the much largernumber of preschool children whosemothers are in the labour force or studentsuse paid child care. About 250,000 of thesechildren use licensed services, includingchild care centres, regulated family care andnursery schools.2 In other words, there hasbeen a 400% increase in the use of paidchild care services by preschool children offamilies having employed mothers over this30-year period.

Similar historical data are not available forpreschool child care use in families in whichthe mother is not currently employed.However, we do know that today more than300,000 such children regularly use paidchild care services. The use of child care byschool-aged children has also grownsignificantly. Of nearly two and one-halfmillion children from 6 to 11 years of age,about 400,000 use some form of paid childcare before or after school (see Table 1 ). Intotal, close to 1.4 million children use paidchild care services. Those who care for themare the subject of this study.

In contrast to other services in the health,education, social and human services fields,child care is not provided as an essentialpublic service. And, unlike many othersectors of the economy, only a few childcare services are provided by commercial

business enterprises or by incorporatednon-profit organizations. In particular,incorporated business enterprises providevery little child care. Most paid care isprovided by individuals working on theirown as self-employed caregivers in theirown homes and, occasionally, in thechild's home. Some are hired asemployees directly by parents, and workand live as nannies in the homes of theiremployers. Licensed child care centresand regulated family child care settingsstill account for a minority of Canada'schild care, although the number ofcaregivers working in these settings hasincreased thirtyfold over the past threedecades.

Where Are the Children?It is difficult to obtain current data onchild care use which is accurate andcomplete. Table I presents the bestavailable data on how many childrenused each type of care in 1994-95. Intotal, about a million preschool childrenuse some form of paid non-parental childcare (i.e. not including kindergarten) atany time, and another 400,000school-aged children use paidnon-parental care.

The Child Care WorkforceThe Canadian child care sector is oftencharacterized as a patchwork quilt withcaregivers working in a variety of settings,including licensed/regulated child carecentres, nursery schools, family homes,unregulated child care settings in privatehomes or in the home of the child. Thesecaregivers are the focus of this sectorstudy, and the child care services theyprovide are described in Box 1.1. For the


2

C H A P T E R 1

Type of Arrangement:Children 0-5Children 6-11 Child Population2,400,0002,450,000 Care Related to Employment:Relative Care200,200122,400 Regulated Care Child Care Centre188,000108,100 Family Child Care*79,800*28,900 Unregulated Care Family Child Care303,000,211,200 In the Child's Own Home127,60086,30 Self/Sibling Caren.a.34,900 Care by Parent on Leave:Children with Parents on Maternity Leave44,000+n.a.Children with Parents on Parental Leave28,000+n.a.Children with Parents on Adoption Leave500+n.a.Care Not Necessarily Related to Employment: Kindergarten512,900 Provincial Early Intervention Program14,100+ Children in Paid Care whose Mothers Are Not in the Paid Labour Force300,000+

Sources: For child care arrangements: Special runs from the Public User Sample Disk of the National Longitudinal Su~'ey of Children and Youth (NLSCY), Statistics Canada. Data analysis by the consultants; maternity and parental leave figures: Human Resources Development Canada Back, ground Statistics Unemployment Insurance 1995. Financial and Administrative Services, Policy and Systems; kindergarten figures: Education Quarterly Review, 1995.Statistics Canada - Cat no. 81-003 Vol. 2 no.3; provincial early intervention programs: Provincial and Territorial Early Intervention Directory SpeciaLink Supplement. SpeciaLink Vol. 6, Number 1 Spring 1995; care for children whose mothers are not in the paid labour force: calculated by comparing child care use measured in Statistics Canada's Canadian National Child Came Survey with that measured in NLSCY.Notes: * These figures for regulated family child care are higher than previous estimates and higher than calculations based on the survey of regulated family caregivers conducted for this report. It is suspected that some families have incorrectly listed their unregulated family care arrangements as ~regulated'. The total number of children of all ages in regulated family care is probably about 75,000.Child care centre figure for 6-11 year olds includes school-aged centre-based programs that are not licensed. Since most data in table refers to child care use at a single point in time (a reference week), maternity and parental leave figures from the whole year have been adjusted to reflect numbers on leave in a typical week. (Total annual maternity leave = 194,000, on parental leave = 180,000, on adoption leave = 2,000). Data on provincial early intervention programs are annual data; they do not include numbers from Quebec, RE.L or the N.W.T. Note that whereas child care data in this table reefer to the primary mode of care used by a child, the kindergarten and some other data do not. Therefore, for example, kindergarten and other data are not additive.

purposes of this study, we have adopted theterm "child care workforce" to describethese caregivers.

In addition, there are caregivers whoprovide related early childhood services, infamily support programs, playgroups,part-day Head Start, Early InterventionPrograms and other compensatoryprograms. As well, nearly everywhere acrossthe country, teachers provide half-day (and

occasionally full-day) kindergarten for5-year-olds, and, in some locales,kindergarten programs for 4-year-olds in thepublic schools. Those working in relatedearly childhood services and teachers inkindergartens perform very similar work tothose who work in centre-based child careprograms. The links between these workersand the comparison of their situations areconsidered, from time to time, in the pagesof this study.


3

C H A P T E R 1

Box 1.1

THE CHILD CARE WORKFORCE

Caregivers in Unregulated Family Child Care look after small groups of children in their own homes. Thiscare is unregulated (although provincial/territorial legislation may limit the number of children who can becared for at one site) and no licence or permit is required. Some provinces and territories have developedsupport and training programs for unregulated child care providers designed to enhance the quality ofca re .

In-home Caregivers include nannies who are provided room and board in the child's house and otherin-home caregivers who come into the child's house during the day. In-home caregivers are employed byparents to provide care and nurturing to children in the parents' absence, but generally also have domesticand housekeeping duties. Their services may be arranged by parents through agencies, which are typicallynot regulated beyond normal business regulation. Some nannies are non-permanent residents who enterCanada under the Live-In Caregiver Program. Some have been formally trained as nannies or earlychildhood educators.

Caregivers in Regulated Family Child Care provide regulated family child care in their own homes. Insome provinces and territories, this care is regulated through licensed agencies which select, monitor andsupport individual caregivers; in others, regulated caregivers are licensed or approved directly by provincialor territorial governments. In either case, nearly all regulated family child caregivers are self-employed, andtypically work alone with a small group of children, often of different ages.

Caregivers in Centre-based Child Care provide care in a larger group setting in a facility which is licensedand regulated by provincial or territorial authorities. Caregivers in centre-based child care are employeesof the child care centre and may be called teachers, or assistant teachers, directors or supervisors.Centre-based child care programs include full- and part-day programs for preschool children, which mayinclude infants and toddlers; part-day school-aged care for children attending kindergarten or elementaryschool; and nursery schools or other part-day programs which may be used by parents in combinationwith other child care arrangements.

What Do Caregivers Do?Regardless of setting, an effective caregiver,in either centre- or home-basedenvironments, will: ensure that the physical environment

and daily practices of caregiving promotethe health, safety and well-being ofchildren in care;

establish a working partnership withparents which supports theirresponsibilities to their children;

develop and maintain a responsiverelationship with each child and with thechildren as a group;

plan and provide daily learningopportunities, routines and activitieswhich promote positive childdevelopment;

observe and respond to children's activityand behaviour;

act in a manner consistent with principlesof fairness, equity and diversity to supportthe development and learning ofindividual children within the context offamily, culture and society; and

work in partnership with other communitymembers to support the well-being offamilies.

This profile of a competent caregiver is basedon a synthesis of documents developedacross Canada's child care sector, usingconsensus-building approaches. It is basedon initiatives designed to identify andarticulate the key skills or competenciesneeded to work with young children in earlychild care and education settings.


4

C H A P T E R 1

Specifically, the profile is a synthesis of:National Statement on Quality ChildCare, Canadian Child Day CareFederation (1991 ).3 This statement onquality child care in centre-based andfamily child care settings includes specificindicators, organized into seven majorcategories, each containing statements ofgeneral philosophy. It is based upon aliterature review and extensiveconsultations with stakeholders.Early Childhood Education ProgramStandard, Ontario Ministry of Communityand Social Services, College Standards

and Accreditation Council (1996).4 This isthe program standard for four-semestercommunity college early childhoodeducation (ECE) programs approved bythe Ontario Ministry of Education andTraining. The ECE program standard wasdeveloped through extensiveconsultation with stakeholders, includingchild care sector employers, professionalassociations, universities and programgraduates now working in the field. Inaddition, students, faculty andadministrators at the colleges wereinvolved. It represents the consensus of

LANGUAGE OF THE CHILD CARE SECTOR

The complexity of the child care sector in Canada is mirrored in the complexity of the language used todescribe the sector and those who work in it. The terms used in the sector are driven, in many cases, byprovincial/territorial legislation, but also reflect different points of view on the role and nature of child carein different settings.

For example, a term often used to describe the vast majority of care in Canada is "unlicensed." However,this may imply to some that the care is somehow not legal. However, all provinces and territories allow forthis type of care, defining in legislation the number of children who can be cared for without a licence orwithout supervision from an outside body. Since this type of care is, in a minor way, addressed inregulations, the term "unregulated" may also be unacceptable to some. For the purposes of this study, theterm unregulated care will be used.

Similarly the issue of auspice--the management/ownership arrangements that govern child careprograms~raises problems with terminology. About 70% of centre-based care across Canada is providedthrough private, non-profit organizations. A small percentage of care is provided by the municipal orprovincial public sector. Close to 30% is provided by private, commercial enterprises. To refer to theseenterprises as "for-profit" centres may seem to imply that they all actually make a profit; for some, thisterm has pejorative connotations because of the implication of making a profit from children. In thisreport, these centres are referred to as commercial operations.

The terms used to describe those who work in the sector are equally sensitive. Canadians know thesepeople by a variety of titles: teachers, child care providers, early childhood educators, child care workers,nursery school teachers, caregivers, babysitters, childminders, parents' helpers, preschool teachers andnannies. Yet, not all of these terms are acceptable to all those who work in the occupation. For example,those with formal early childhood education may prefer to be called "teachers" or "educators." Othersbelieve that these terms overly emphasize the educative role that caregivers play but deny the caringnature of the occupation. There is agreement that the term "babysitter" is unacceptable. Although oneterm does not adequately describe all those in the occupation, the term caregiver is acceptable to mostpeople and has been adopted for this report. Often, the terminology member of the child care workforcewill be used as an alternative. Since the vast majority of those providing care are women, the pronoun"she" is generally used in the report.


5

C H A P T E R 1

the skills that all program graduates needto work with young children in earlychildhood education settings.Code of Ethics, Early ChildhoodEducators of British Columbia (1992).sThis statement of ethics is based on eightprinciples intended to guide the practiceof early childhood educators workingwith young children in early childhoodsettings. The principles are based on aliterature review, examination of thecodes of ethics of other professions andconsultation with experts in the field ofprofessional ethics.Child Care Sector OccupationalCompetencies, Multi-lateral Task Forceon Training, Career Pathing and LabourMobility in the Community SocialServices Sector (1997).6 In BritishColumbia, a child care steeringcommittee of this task force hasdeveloped a set of occupationalcompetencies for the child care sector,following a two-year consultative processwith a wide range of caregivers across theprovince. They are based on the best of a"best practices" model, and are intendedfor caregivers in all types of child caresettings and for those who work inrelated support services.

Is Child Care a CoherentSector?For the purposes of this report, child careproviders are regarded as members ofa reasonably coherent occupation--caregivers in the child care sector,providing paid care. The term "child careworkforce" is used to describe thisoccupation. It should be recognized thatthis is an innovation which breaks withtraditional practice in the child care field.

There are many historical and currentdifferences among different segments of thechild care workforce. Providers ofunregulated child care are often notconsidered in discussions of child care inCanada; these discussions typically focus onregulated care only, whereprovincial/territorial policy has itself beenfocussed. Among caregivers in unregulatedchild care, there are important differencesbetween those who treat child care as theirpermanent occupation and champion childcare support services7 as a method ofenhancing quality, and those who regardchild care as a temporary opportunity toearn income. The majority of the child caresector believes child care should beprovided as a public service; some believeit should be provided as a marketcommodity. Among caregivers in regulatedcare, there are differences of opinionbetween those working in centre-basedcare and those in regulated family childcare, between non-profit operators andcommercial operators of child care centres.Some organizations focus primarily onadvocacy to government, and others focuson professional development within thesector, as strategies to improve the qualityof care and the wages and workingconditions of caregivers.

There are also different rates ofdevelopment of self-organization indifferent parts of the child care sector.Although much work remains to be done,centre-based caregivers and caregivers inregulated family child care have developedorganizations to represent their interests,and provide services to them in virtually allprovinces and territories, in some localareas, and nationally. The same is not truefor caregivers in unregulated family childcare and in-home caregivers. No provincial


6

C H A P T E R 1

or national organizations (except for theOntario Network of Home Child CareProvider Groups) are devoted mainly toorganizing, representing and providingservices to caregivers in unregulated familychild care. Most of these caregivers arerelatively isolated from other caregivers,except through informal contacts.Correspondingly, there has been very littleresearch into either of these twounregulated types of child care.

The Steering Committee for this study hasbrought together representatives across thechild care sector described by the term"child care workforce." This report tries toreflect the coherence of interests andconcerns that exists across the child caresector, while acknowledging differences anddivisions. Caregivers from different parts ofthe child care sector have somewhatdifferent interests and approaches; theseare reflected in various places in the report.

Who Are the Caregivers?Caregivers in the child care worldorce arediverse in their education, ages andbackgrounds. Yet, they are similar to eachother in gender and low incomes. To brieflyintroduce some of the similarities anddifferences, Tables 2 and 3 providecomparative information on different typesof caregivers and on kindergarten andelementary teachers and assistants. Thisinformation is from the 1991 Census. Thedata are imperfect in many details (see thenotes below the tables), but provide thebest comparative information available.Because few caregivers in unregulatedfamily child care reported their occupationin the census, figures for this group shouldbe considered indicative, but not reliable.

Some comparable data on regulated familycaregivers are provided in the text below.Table 2 provides the following insights:

The overwhelming majority of individualsin the child care worldorce (i.e. familychild caregivers, in-home caregivers andcaregivers in child care centres) arefemale.Most caregivers (first three columns) arerelatively young (close to 45% under 30;less than 30% over 40). Teachers inkindergarten and elementary schools andteacher assistants are older (about half areover 40).Caregivers in child care centres arerelatively well educated compared withall female workers or all workers. Close to55% have a completed postsecondaryeducation, compared to a little over 40%of all workers. Caregivers in family childcare and in-home caregivers have lesseducation than workers in child carecentres and less than the average of alloccupations. About 35% of family childcaregivers and 45% of in-home caregivershave not completed high school and 30%and 22%, respectively, have completedpostsecondary education. On the otherhand, nearly 75% of kindergarten andelementary teachers have a universitydegree.A minority (between 30% and 40%) ofcaregivers in the child care workforcework part time. Many full-time caregiverswork for only part of a year, rather thanthe full year.

A special survey of regulated family childcare providers8 conducted as part of thissector study provides a comparative profileof this group of caregivers. Since the datawere collected in 1996, they are not strictlycomparable to the information in Table 2.


7

C H A P T E R 1

According to this survey, 99% ofcaregivers in regulated family child careare women. Only 14.6% of thesecaregivers are under 30 years of age,while 39.1% are 40 or over. The averageage is 38 years.Among caregivers in regulated familychild care, 15.2% have less than highschool completion, 48.9% have a highschool diploma, 27.6% have apostsecondary diploma or certificate,and 8.3% have a university degree.Figures on part- and full-time workcomparable to Table 2 for regulated

family child caregivers are not available;however, about 80% of all children in thistype of care attend on a full-day basis(20% part-day), and about 80% ofcaregivers work a full year (48 weeks ormore).Eighty-nine percent of providers aremarried or living with a partner.Eighty-seven percent have a child living athome, often including a preschool child(12.1% of regulated family caregivershave a child 0-17 months, 13.7% have achild 18-35 months, 32.4% have a child3-5 years).

THE CHILD CARE WORKFORCE AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS, 1991Family ChildIn-homeCaregivers inKindergartenElementary/All Occupations All Occupations Caregivers (%)Caregivers (%)Child Careand ElementarySecondary(Females only)(%) Centres (%)Teachers (%)Teacher(%)Assistants (%)Sex,,,,,Percentage female98.496.896.382.291.4100.046.0 A~ei i. iii iless than 30 years oldn.a.*43.444.516.019.7n.a.31.6 30-39 yearsn.a.*27.729.627.733.7n.a.28.4 40 years and overn.a.*28.925.956.346.6n.a.40.0 Education , ,Less than High School Graduation34.947.318.80.725.026.2

* includes a small number of family home child caregivers as well.Source: Custom tabulations from 1991 Census, Statistics Canada. Calculations by consultants.Notes: "Caregivers in Child Care Centres" refers to those persons in the occupation called "Child Care Educators and Assistants" - National Occupational Code (N.O.C.) 6470. "Kindergarten and Elementary Teachers" are in N.O.C. 4142; "Elementary and Secondary Teacher Assistants" are in N.O.C. 6472. National Occupational Code 6474 inappropriately combines both those who provide care in their own homes and those who provide care in the child's home, and collectively calls them "8abysitters, Nannies and Parent's Helpers". In this table, we report these two groups of workers separately as "Family Child Caregivers" and "In-home Caregivers". Those workers in N.O.C. 6474 who work in their own home and are self-employed are dassified in the above table as family home caregivers, while other caregivers categorized to this occupation are in-home caregivers. As noted in the text, the number of family home caregivers recorded by the Census is only a small fraction of those reported by parents in surveys of child care use.


g

C H A P T E R 1

As can be seen in Table 3, which is basedon custom tabulations of the 1991 Census,annual earnings of caregivers in the childcare workforce are comparatively low. Ifwe look only at the annual incomes of"full-time, full-year" workers who receivewages or salaries (i.e. are notself-employed) and who have apostsecondary diploma or certificate, thereare radical differences in average earningsacross occupational groupings. In-homecaregivers earn just over $12,000 annually,while caregivers in child care centres earnless than $I 9,000 (slightly less thanteachers' assistants in the schools). Theaverage salary for kindergarten andelementary teachers with this type ofeducation is nearly $34,000, about theaverage across all occupations for malesand females combined.

How Many Caregivers AreThere?Data on the number of caregivers workingin the child care workforce are lessavailable and reliable than most other datain the sector. Census data from StatisticsCanada tell us that in 1991 there weremore than 80,000 caregivers providing

centre-based care, nearly 90,000 in-homecaregivers, and only about 17,000caregivers providing both regulated andunregulated family home child care.Unfortunately, none of these figures iscompletely reliable. Since the census asksindividuals to record their mainoccupation "last year," occupations inwhich there is a considerable amount ofpart-year work may appear to be muchlarger than they actually are, when censusdata are used. This problem applies tocaregivers in the child care sector.

There is a second important problem;many caregivers providing unregulatedchild care may not report their occupationon the census form. Census data suggestthat there are very few family childcaregivers across Canada; in contrast, dataon child care use, provided by parents,suggest that this is the single largest type ofpaid child care. Since, as discussed laterin this study, caregivers may have tax orother economic incentives to not declarecaregiving income, we can assume thatthe census figures represent a dramaticunderestimate of the number of caregiversin regulated and unregulated family childcare.

AVERAGE EARNINGS ($) IN "HE CHILD CARE WORKFORCE AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS, 1990

Caregivers In-home Caregivers Kindergarten Elementary A l l A l lin Family Caregivers in Child and and Occupations OccupationsChild Care Care Centres Elementary Secondary (Females

Teachers Teacher Only)Assistants

Average annualemployment earnings n.a. 6,579 11,639 32,501 10,565 18,063 24,753of all workers

Average annualemployment earningsof full-time, full-year n.a. 12,220 18,972 33,747 20,228 26,249 33,591workers withpostsecondarydiploma or certificate

Source: Custom tabulations from 1991 Census, Statistics Canada, by consultants.


9

C H A P T E R 1

Table 4 estimates the number of caregiversin the child care worldorce, using parentalsurveys of the types of child care used bytheir children. Note that most estimates ofthe number of caregivers in this table referto the number of full-time, full-yearcaregivers necessary to provide theseservices. If caregivers work part time andpart year, there would be considerablymore caregivers needed over the course ofthe year to provide the same amount ofservices.

Purpose of the Child CareSector StudyThe Child Care Sector Study was funded byHuman Resources Development Canada aspart of a series of studies examining thehuman resource challenges facing sectors ofthe Canadian economy. It was undertakenby a team of researchers on behalf of aSteering Committee made up ofrepresentatives from the Canadian childcare sector. (See Appendix A.) Thecommittee advised the study team on thefinal design of the study, facilitated theconduct of the study, reviewed andapproved the report and developed therecommendations.

The child care sector study examines thescope and nature of human resource issuesassociated with employment in child care inCanada, and proposes an effective humanresource strategy to address these issues.Specific objectives of the study were: to improve the definition of the sector

through the development of knowledgeabout the people who care for children,

CAREGIVERS PROVIDING CHILD CARE AND RELATED SERVICES

Type of Care Estimated No. of Caregivers

Unregulated Careii

Family Child Care 155,000

In the Child's Home 115,000

School-Aged Centre-Based Care Not Regulated by Province 6,000

R e g u l a t e d C a r e . . . .

Child Care Centres and Nursery Schools 42,000

Regulated Family Child Care 15,000

Other Early Childhood Services

Kindergarten 21,000

Provincial Early Intervention Programs 500+

Federally Sponsored Early Intervention Programs 1,100

Family Resource Centres **

Sources: Calculations of regulated and unregulated care by consultants based on data from Canadian NationalChild Care Survey of 1988 and Cyde I of the National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth of 1994-95;school age centre-based cam not regulated by the province - figures come from number of school spaces inAlberta and Quebec reported in Child Care - Provinces and Territories 1995 Childcare Resource and Research Unit,1997, and assumes a staff:child ratio of 1:15. It does not include staff who may be working in school agerecreation programs; kindergarten: Education Quarterly Review, 1995. Statistics Canada - Cat no. 81-003 VoL 2no.3; Assumes a staff:child ratio of 1:25; provindal eady intervention programs: Provincial and Territorial EarlyIntervention Directory SpeciaLink SupplemenL SpecJaLJnk Vol. 6, Number 1 Spring 1995. Very rough estimateinduding full-time and part-time positions. Does not include estimates from Quebec, Prince Edward Island andthe Northwest Territories. Staff in Ontario were calculated using the same caseload as for BC; federally sponsoredeady intervention program - rough estimate based on number of CAP-C and Aboriginal Head Start programsreported during key informant interviews with program officials, and assumes 2 staff per project

Notes: **Using information from the Status Report on Fami~/ Resource Programs Across Canada 7995, publishedby the Canadian Association of Family Resource Programs, we can calculate that there are 4,000-5,000 staffworking in family resource centres across Canada. This estimate is based on the reported estimate of 2,000programs, with an average of 2 to 5 staff per program. However, some family resource centres deliver CAP-C orAboriginal Head Start Programs, and direct child care programs, so staff may be counted in both programs. Inaddition there are many staff working in family resource programs who do not necessarily work directly withchildren.

A Sector Study

This study is part of a series of studies,sponsored by Human Resources DevelopmentCanada, examining the human resourcechallenges facing sectors of the Canadianeconomy. The term "human resource issues"refers to a range of issues, including wages andbenefits, working condit ions, qualifications andexperience, turnover rates, opportunit ies foradvancement, work environment and jobsatisfaction, career and education paths,portability of credentials, licensing andregulations, training and human resourcedevelopment programs and options,professionalism and unionization.


1 0

C H A P T E R 1

their development, qualifications andconditions of work currently and in thefuture;

to identify information gaps and todevelop methodologies and momentumto continually improve this knowledgeover the years to come; andto create awareness of, and consensus on,the issues facing the sector now and inthe future and to identify ways to addressthese issues.

This study was both research-based andconsultative. It was research-based to theextent that it built on existing informationand collected new information tosupplement existing data, research andstudies. It was consultative to ensure that thefindings would be forward looking and thatkey stakeholders were involved inidentifying the issues, reviewing trends andexamining the implications for the sector inthe future.

To address the seven basic researchquestions noted in the box, the study teamdivided the data collection and analysis intosix components: an analysis of demographic and economic

data available from existing sources(including census information,government surveys and other previousstudies);

a review of the legislation, policies andprograms in place in each province andterritory;

sector consultations with caregivers in avariety of settings in all provinces and oneterritory;

a review of both formal and informaltraining and education opportunities forcaregivers;

a survey of caregivers in regulated familychild care; and

Basic Research Questions

What is child care and how is it delivered?Who is providing care?How and where are they employed?What training/support/professionaldevelopment opportunities do they haveand how relevant are they to their jobs?What are the gaps in, and barriers to,training and how might they be addressed?What is the likely need for various types ofchild care in the future?What will be the likely impact ontraining/human resource issues and how canit be addressed?

a comparison of the literature on humanresource issues in the child careoccupation in five other countries(Australia, Denmark, France, Spain andthe United States).

Information from the six components isintegrated into this report. In addition toundertaking substantial primary research,the researchers relied heavily on previousstudies and literature in the child care field.The study was undertaken betweenFebruary 1996 and September 1997.

The report of the study is organized intofour parts, containing eight chapters:

Part One - Introduction describes theorganization and main themes of thestudy, and provides an initial profile ofthe child care workforce.Part Two - The Context for Caregivingdescribes the current state and analyzesthe future context of child caregiving inCanada. In some detail, Chapter 2presents the myriad of child carearrangements and early educationservices provided by caregivers, andChapter 3 analyzes the likely effects ofdemographic, economic and public


11

C H A P T E R 1

policy factors on the future demand forthese services. A wide variety oforganizations and institutions play criticalroles in preparing caregivers to providegood quality care or in supportingcaregivers and representing theirinterests. Chapter 4 describes thepostsecondary institutions that train,educate and develop caregivers, and thenational and provincial/territorialorganizations that often provide training,professional development and othersupports to caregivers.Part Three - Challenges Facing theChild Care Work'force analyzes the mainchallenges facing caregivers as they striveto improve their compensation andworking conditions, continually enhancethe quality of the child care services theyprovide and earn the public recognitionthat is long overdue. The three areas aredefined as "The Working EnvironmentChallenges" (Chapter 5), "The SkillsChallenge" (Chapter 6) and "TheRecognition Challenge" (Chapter 7).Part Four - Moving Forward summarizesthe conclusions and presents therecommendations of this study ofhuman resources in the child carefield. Chapter 8 provides advice forgovernments, child care organizations,institutions providing postsecondary childcare education, employers of caregiversand individual members of the child careworkforce. It presents and explains theSteering Committee's recommendationsfor reform related to human resourceissues in the child care sector.

The report and its recommendations aredesigned to: inform people who provide child care

services about the comparisons amongtheir particular situations, the foreseeable

future of the sector and ways to draw thesector together;

advise associations and organizations ofcaregivers on the state and future of theoccupation and the roles they can play inits ongoing development;

advise those who work in settings thateducate, train and develop caregivers onways to improve the preparation ofcaregivers to meet future demand;

advise government agencies anddepartments responsible for policies andprograms having an impact on the childcare occupation in Canada on the effectsof current policies and funding; and

inform parents and the general publicabout the people who provide child care,their qualifications and their importancein the development of children.

Caveats of the StudyThe availability of good data has been a keyconstraint to this study--as it has been tothe child care sector over the years. Eventhe most basic data are not available. Forexample, it is not known exactly how manycaregivers there are in Canada, where theywork or how much they earn. This isparticularly true for caregivers in theinformal sector. However, to be resigned tothis situation and not pursue caregivers'issues would not serve the sector well. As aresult, the best possible use of the availabledata has been made and, throughout thereport, gaps in data are noted.

Child care for Aboriginal children was notspecifically addressed in this study. It wasfelt that the issues facing those providingchild care for this segment of thepopulation could not be addressedadequately within the context of a nationalstudy and that a separate study would be


1 2

C H A P T E R 1

required. However, in some cases,caregivers working with Aboriginal childrenwere included in the consultation processfor this study.

Major Themes of theChild Care Sector StudyA number of themes emerged from thisstudy, cutting across most of the chaptersand topic areas. Issues of availability,affordability and quality of care cannot beseparated from the issues and challengesthat face caregivers. These key themes aresummarized below.

The future of caregivers in the child caresector depends very much on the futureof child care itself. The demand for childcare so that parents are able to earn aliving and study will continue into theforeseeable future. The demand for childcare which provides enriching social,educational and developmentalexperiences for all young children islikely to increase as parents becomemore aware of the importance of highquality care and seek that for theirchildren.The single most important component ofquality child care in promoting healthychild development is the nature of thedaily relationship and interactionsbetween the caregiver and child, and issupported by the other quality factors.Research has consistently shown thatpostsecondary education related to childdevelopment and early childhoodeducation practices increase thelikelihood of warm, responsive andstimulating relationships betweencaregivers and children and positive childdevelopment outcomes?

The ability to sustain and guarantee theprovision of high quality child careservices, with strongly positive effects onchildren as well as reliability for parents,is of key importance to the medium-termfuture of the child care sector. Althoughthe extremely rapid period of growth inthe labour force participation of mothersis ending, there is evidence that the needfor a variety of child care services willcontinue. Among researchers, policymakers and parents, there is a newappreciation of child care's potential foraffecting the cognitive, social, emotionaland physical development of children ata crucial period in their lives. Child careproviders must demonstrate that they arecapable of providing consistently goodquality and affordable services which willmeet this challenge.Although caregivers are the keycomponent of quality, there is littlerecognition of the value of child care asan occupation. There are wide variationsin knowledge and skill requirements forcaregivers. Those in the occupation arerelatively poorly paid, have fewtraditional occupational benefits and lackadequate professional developmentopportunities.Enhancing the quality of child careservices provided and making themaffordable for Canadians will not bepossible without considerablegovernment support for the work of thechild care sector. Government actionsand inactions have always been of keyimportance in shaping the direction ofdevelopment of the child care sector. Topromote quality in child care services,governments will have to work with thesector and with postsecondaryeducational institutions to develop the


1 3

C H A P T E R 1

changes in regulations; diploma,non-diploma, post-diploma and degreeprograms; funding arrangements; humanresource policies; data collection andresearch; and public attitudes which willmake this possible.Child care is a relatively new, andemerging, sector of the economy. As aresult, it lacks many features that othersectors have come to take for granted.For instance, it lacks regular datacollection on caregivers and servicesprovided in the sector, making this sectorstudy and continuing analysis of thesector very difficult. Although manynational and provincial child careorganizations have begun to coordinatethe child care sector and give it a voice,the sector lacks many of the forms ofself-organization common in othersectors. There are no sector-wide forumsfor discussion, decision making andaction on human resource or other issuesfacing the sector. Government policytoward the emerging child care sector isinconsistent and typically not wellconsidered. Division of responsibilitiesbetween federal, provincial andmunicipal governments has beenundergoing rapid changes. Provincialattitudes to the child care sector varyfrom benign neglect to a privatesector-market orientation to anon-profit/public sector orientation, andeverything in between. In this context, ithas been difficult for the child care sectorto organize itself, clarify its key objectivesand methods of operation and define themost appropriate responses to futurechallenges.

This report is framed around strongagreement on the overriding importance,

and indeed urgency, of the sharedobjective of enhancing the overall quality,accessibility, affordability and accountabilityof child care. It is a strategy foradvancement of the child care sector. Ahuman resource strategy for caregivers mustbe intricately linked to this child carestrategy. The components of such a strategycould include: uniting to support public policy,

legislation and funding designed toenhance child care quality accessible toall children;

advocating for equitable compensationand reasonable work environments;

continuing to build a professionalframework to support the child careworkforce;

increasing the accessibility and relevanceof formal education and training in childdevelopment and early childhoodeducation practices for all members ofthe child care work-force; and

encouraging the pursuit of a pragmaticresearch agenda to support public policydevelopment in the child care sector.

1 Special Parliamentary Committee on Child Care, 1987

2 Human Resources Development Canada & StatisticsCanada, 1996. National Longitudinal Survey onChildren and Youth, Cycle 1 data, Public User Sample,calculations by consultants

3 Canadian Child Day Care Federation, 1991

4 Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services,College Standards and Accreditation Council, 1996

5 Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia, 1992

6 Multi-Lateral Task Force on Training, Career Pathingand Labour Mobility in the Community Social ServicesSector, 1997

7 See Canadian Child Day Care Federation, "199"1,p. 28, for details

8 Goss Gilroy Inc., 1997

9 Doherty-Derkowski, 1995


1 4

PA R T 2The ContextFor Caregiving

An appropriate human resource strategy forthe child care sector will be founded on anintimate appreciation of the current state ofthe sector and the forces affecting its future;providing this appreciation is the task ofPart Two. It is organized into three chapters:

Chapter 2Child Care Services and RelatedPrograms

Caregivers provide a wide range of childcare arrangements and related services.This chapter describes what kinds ofchild care services are available, how

much they cost, their quality and othercharacteristics. Discussion in the chapteris organized into three parts,corresponding to the trilogy of centralissues faced in the attempt to improvechild care services: availability,affordability and quality.

Chapter 3The Demand for Child Care Services

The future demand for child care is likely to affect employment prospects and compensation of caregivers. These demands will be affected by a series of demographic and economic factors, but also by public policy decisions of federal, provincial/territorial and, sometimes, municipal governments.

Chapter 4Institutions and OrganizationsThat Prepare and SupportCaregivers

Many institutions share the responsibilityof providing Early Childhood Education(ECE) programs at certificate, diplomaand degree levels, as well as ongoingtraining and professional developmentfor caregivers. Child care organizationsand others provide ways for caregivers tocommunicate with one another, toaccess needed services and to publiclyrepresent their interests. This chapteridentifies the organizations andinstitutions that support caregivers andprepare them to provide quality care,and describes the work theseorganizations do on behalf of caregiversin the child care sector.


1 5

C H A P T E R 2

Chapter 2Child Care Servicesand Related Programs

Canada does not have a national system ofchild care. Historically, however, bothfederal and provincial/territorialgovernments have played important rolesin the development and delivery of childcare and related services. The federalgovernment has never had directjurisdiction over child care, but until 1996did provide dedicated funds for regulatedchild care through the Canada AssistancePlan. It no longer provides this dedicatedfunding, but does provide limited fundingfor some child care and related earlychildhood services and benefits, sponsorsresearch and demonstration initiatives, andadministers maternity and parental leavebenefits.

Provinces and territories regulate childcare services, develop child care policies,establish the terms of licensing andmonitoring, and determine the type,amount and eligibility for funding. Theirchild care legislation also determines thenumber of children who may be cared forin any one unregulated child care setting.Provincial/territorial governments are alsoresponsible for kindergarten programsoperated with school systems and maysupport other early childhood servicesand family support programs.

All provinces and territories have someform of regulated centre-based child care,and all but Newfoundland have someform of regulated family child care. Eachprovince and territory has established itsown approach to regulation and funding.Which services are licensed, how muchfinancial support is available to familiesand to programs, and the amount oftraining required for individuals workingin different settings varies considerablyacross the country.

Provincial/territorial governments do notactually operate child care programs, nordo they ensure that they are in place, asthey do for social services, health careand education. However, their policiesand funding initiatives play a significantrole in the types of services available.Since child care is not a mandatoryservice and few provinces engage inservice planning or setting target levels ofcare, programs have developed in an adhoc manner. They are usually initiated bythe voluntary sector, school boards,individuals, commercial organizationsand, to a lesser degree, unions, businessesand municipalities.


1 6

C H A P T E R 2

Three main issues have dominated the child care agenda for many years--the availability, affordability and quality of care.Generally, we think of these issues in relation to their effect on children and their parents. However, they also have a significant impact on those who earn their living providing the care. How much and what kind of care exists determines where the jobs are and what the nature of employment will be. The cost of care and the level of government funding to services directly influences the level ofcompensation a caregiver will receive. The maximum number of children who can be cared for in a home-based setting limits the income of those caregivers. Government legislation dictates the type and amount of training people will need in different settings; lack of training requirements can contribute to the lack of value placed on the work of caregiving. Issues in child care are issues for the child care workforce.

The Availability of ChildCare and Related ServicesOver the last 30 years, the number ofCanadian families who use paid child carehas increased dramatically. Parents make avariety of child care arrangements for theirchildren, depending on what is available,how much the care costs and particularfamily circumstances. The amount of careand types of services that exist across thecountry vary according to geography,provincial/territorial regulation and funding,and parents' ability to pay. There has beensignificant growth in regulated child careservices, but most children are still cared forin unregulated settings.

How Much Child Care Is There?In 1994-95, there were approximately threemillion children under the age of 12 whoseparents worked or studied. Partly becauseof the expense of paid child care, manyparents arrange shifts or chooseemployment so that they can continue toprovide exclusive care for their youngchildren. Many school-aged children do notuse paid child care before and after school.Nonetheless, about half (1.5 million) of thechildren whose parents work or study arecared for in non-parental arrangements. Ofthese children, some are cared for byrelatives, including siblings, while 1.1million children whose parents are workingor studying are in some form ofnon-relative, paid child care arrangement. Itcould be in the home of a caregiver, in thechild's home or in a child care centre ornursery school. Or it could be acombination of arrangements.1

As well as paid child care arrangements,young children attend a number of otherearly childhood services. Utilization ofthese programs is usually unrelated toparental employment status, but workingparents may use them as one part of theirchild care arrangement. These servicesinclude kindergarten programs, EarlyIntervention/Infant Development Programs,compensatory preschool programs forchildren at risk and family resource centres,which are at little or no direct cost to theparent. Nursery schools, for which parentsgenerally pay fees, are used by manyparents not in the paid labour force, as wellas by many parents who are.

On the surface, it would appear thatparents have many options, whether they


1 7

C H A P T E R 2

are working or not. But programs are notevenly distributed across the country, thehours of care often do not coincide withparents' work schedules, parents may notbe able to find the type of care they thinkbest meets the needs of their child, or theymay not be able to afford it. There isconsiderable evidence that parents oftenchoose options based on cost andavailability rather than the type of care theywould ideally prefer for their child. Nationalstudies have shown that many parents usingunregulated arrangements would preferregulated settings, while the reverse is notgenerally true.2

There appears to be, for instance,increasing demand for more flexible,part-time child care, but few services areavailable t°meet this need. The demandfor this type of care is partly fuelled bychanging work patterns, as parents are

involved in non-traditional workarrangements, such as part-time work, shiftwork, self-employment and temporary orcontract work arrangements. The demandfor part-time care is also fuelled by parentswho use paid child care in combinationwith other child care arrangements. Forexample, parents may use a spouse or otherrelative to provide care for part of the timeand only seek paid child care for the timesthat they cannot do this~either because ofcost or preference.

How Much Regulated CareIs There?Not all provinces and territories regulate thesame types of services. All have regulationsgoverning centre-based care for preschoolchildren and all but Newfoundland havesome form of regulated family child care.School-age care and nursery schools are not

CHILD CARE SERVICESProvince or TerritoryPrograms That Are RegulatedPrograms That Are Not RegulatedNewfoundlandchild care centres for children over 2,half-day programs, school-age carefamily child carePrince Edward Islandfull- and half-day early childhood centres, school-age care, family day care homesNova Scotiafull-day centres, part-day nursery schools, school-age care in child care centres,child development centres, family child careschool-age care in schoolsNew Brunswickfull- and half-day centres, school-age care, community day homesnote: half-day programs licensed only on complaint from publicQuebecchild care centres, family child careschool-age care, nursery schools, drop-in centres Ontariogroup child care, nursery schools, school-age care, home child carefamily resource centresManitobachild care centres, school-age programs, nursery schools, occasional care centres,school-age care directly operated by or contracted out family day care homes, group day care homesby school divisionsSaskatchewanchild care centres, school-age care, family day homesnursery schools operating less than 3 hrs/day Albertachild care centres, nursery schools, family day homesschool-age careBritish Columbiachild care centres, school-age care, child minding, preschools, family child carechild care support programs, supported child care outreachYukonchild care centres, school-age care, preschools, family day homes, childparent-child programsdevelopment centreNorthwest Territorieschild care centres, school-age care, some preschools, family child careparent-child programs

Source: Key informant interviews with provincial and territorial officials.


1 8

C H A P T E R 2

necessarily licensed and some provinceshave programs that are not licensed, but arefunded as part of the child care system.Table 5 provides an overview of child careservices in each province and territory.

Table 6 reviews the amount of regulatedcare by province or territory in absoluteterms, and in comparison with the potentialdemand for these services. Only a minorityof children are currently in regulatedarrangements.

Centre-based Child CareCentre-based child care includes groupprograms outside regular schooling forchildren as young as 3 months up to 12years of age. Programs offer full-day,full-week programs (although some children

CHILD POPULATION AND REGULATED CHILD CARE SPACES, 1995 Province or TerritoryNumber of ChildrenChildren 0-12 with aRegulated Child Care 0-12Mother in LabourSpaces for Children Force0-12Newfoundland97,98653,3484,202 Prince Edward Island2511,0717~4883,888 Nova Scotia156,42293,07710,645 New Brunswick126,03673136671952 Quebec1,192,306724,093111,4521 Ontario1 f922f5731,249,7021471853 Manitoba198,235130,88618,846 Saskatchewan191,715134,09971266 Alberta530,276365,553100,725~ British Columbia6231038406194059,794 Yukon8,0003Information1,060 not availableNorthwest Territories20,900Information1,286 not availableTOTAL

Sources: Key informant interviews with provincial and Territorial officials; Childcare Resource and Research Unit (1997) Child Care in the Provinces and Territories, 1995.1.This figure includes 40,670 school-age spaces which are operated by school boards.2.This figure includes 49,637 school-age spaces which are not regulated by the province.3.Includes children 0-14.

may attend part time) or regular programsbefore and after school for school attenders.Centre-based child care programs inCanada may be operated by childcare-specific non-profit organizations,multi-service organizations, independentowner/operators, incorporated commercialoperations, school boards or communitycolleges. Municipalities in Ontario operatecentre-based programs and somemunicipalities in Alberta operate a fewschool-age programs. In Quebec,school-age child care programs offered inelementary schools are administeredthrough the provincial department ofeducation.

Most centre-based child care programs offerregular daytime care only for children 2 to5, or 3 to 5 years of age. Centre-based childcare services for infants and school-agechildren are less available. While somecentres may accept children on a part-timebasis, services for parents working shifts andirregular hours, and seasonal or emergencycare, are scarce across the country.

Nursery schools offer two- to three-hourprograms to preschool children on aschool-year basis (September to June). Theymay or may not operate for five days aweek. The purpose of nursery schools is tooffer stimulation, activities and educationalopportunities for young children. Somefamilies use nursery schools as one part oftheir child care strategy.

Limited data are available on how manychildren attend nursery school programsor how many programs exist. They areoften excluded from data concerningcentre-based programs, or are consideredpart-time spaces and combined withschool-age programs.


1 9

C H A P T E R 2

Regulated Family Child CareRegulated family child care refers toarrangements for the care of children insmall groups in the caregiver's own homethat are regulated by government. Thecaregiver may be licensed directly by theprovince or may work through an agencywhich is licensed and responsible forsupervising the caregivers and administeringthe child care arrangements.

In Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario andAlberta, licensed family child care isorganized through agencies which areusually non-profit organizations, althoughin Ontario and Alberta some areincorporated as commercial operations.In Ontario, municipalities may alsooperate family child care agencies.In all other provinces and territories,except Newfoundland, individualcaregivers are licensed and monitoreddirectly by the province or territory, or bya designated community agency.The survey of caregivers in regulatedfamily child care conducted for thissector study found that about 80% of thechildren in this form of care are ofpreschool age, and 20% are school-aged.Of the preschool-age children, about23% are under 2 years of age; about 35%are 2 or 3 years of age; and about 22%are 4 or 5 years of age.

Distribution of RegulatedSpacesTable 7 shows the number of regulatedspaces in each province and territory bytype of care and, for centre-basedprograms, the number of spaces for eachage group. Because of the definedchild-staff ratios for specific age groups,centre-based programs hold licences for a

fixed number of children within those agegroupings. The estimated number of spacesin regulated family child care is generallybased on the maximum number of childrenpermitted per caregiver. Individual familycaregivers are not regulated or licensed tocare for children of specific ages, so there issome fluctuation in the actual number ofchildren in different age categories.

As can be noted from this table, mostregulated care is in centre-based programsfor preschool-age children.

Use of Regulated Child CareSpacesThe number of regulated spaces gives us anestimate of what might be available in agiven province, but does not necessarilyreflect how many children are being caredfor in these arrangements. Some childrenmay attend part time and share a spacewith another child. On the other hand,programs may have vacancies, eitherbecause parents cannot afford the program,location or hours of operation are notconvenient, a child has a special need thatthe program will not serve, the quality is

In France, 99.3% of 3-year-olds are enrolled inan early childhood education program, eventhough fewer than 60% of mothers were activein the paid labour force. (Bergmann, 1996)

In 1993, Danish parents were guaranteed aspace for their children ages 1 to 6 in a publiclyfunded child care program, based on the socialright of every child within the Danishphilosophy of taking care of the social needs ofthe individual. Waiting lists decreased bytwo-thirds between 1993 and 1995, but insome communities unemployed parents haddifficulty securing a space.(European Commission Network on Child Care, 1996)


20

C H A P T E R 2

ilN F;I |4 nn:lNrh :,

Province or TerritoryEstimated Number of Centre SpacesRegulated Family Child Care Spaces (note that these spaces are not broken down by age) Newfoundlandfull-day2,946not availablepart-day759school-aRe497Prince Edward Islandinfant6428preschool1,624school-age568kind/nurs.sch.1,549special needs55Nova Scotiafull-day6,892169part-time3,584New Brunswickbreakdown not available7,838114Quebecinfant/toddler4,90217,871preschool48,009school-aisle*40,670Ontariobreakdown not available128,95518,898ManitobaInfant/toddler98S3,111preschool:full-day7,431part-clay4,164school-age3,255Saskatchewaninfant2352,613toddler709preschool2,783school-age926Alberta! infant16,3947,826preschool26,868i school-age*49,637British Columbia0-32,21814,972[3-512,013nursery school13,403school-age13,360child minding2,663special needsI ,I 65Yukon

Source: Childcare Resource and Research Unit (1997) Child Care in the Provinces and Territories, 1995.Note: * not included in provincial child care regulations.Categories are different for each province and territory.

inadequate or the care is not appropriatefor the particular child. Provinces generallyestimate the amount of regulated familychild care spaces as the maximum capacityallowed each caregiver, yet in many

provinces the average number of childrenper home is often less than the regulationsallow. For instance, the survey of regulatedfamily caregivers conducted for this studyfound that the average caregiver looks after


21

C H A P T E R 2

3.9 full-day children (4.9 children includingpart-day and full-day) in addition to herown. According to the survey, 58% of allchildren in regulated family care attend fivedays per week. Most provinces andterritories allow between six and eightchildren to be cared for by a singleregulated family caregiver (including hero w n ) .

In several provinces, officials responsible forchild care indicated that there were somecommunities in which many vacancieswere reported, particularly for full-day carefor preschool children. In Alberta, forexample, where the number of licensedspaces continues to grow at a rate ofapproximately 5% per year, less than twothirds of the spaces are occupied. In NewBrunswick, in 1996, 35 centres opened and29 closed, for a net growth of 58 spaces.Reasons given for vacancies included theexistence of a large unregulated sector, thehigh cost of regulated care, a need forgreater flexibility and the lack of publicawareness of regulation and quality.

In spite of apparent vacancies in regulatedspaces in many parts of the country, thereare groups for whom and areas in whichcertain types of regulated child care are notavailable. For instance:

In Newfoundland, there are no regulatedspaces for children under the age of 2,and no regulated family child care at all.Families in rural areas have less access toor use regulated care less than those inurban areas: in rural areas 13.7% ofchildren aged 0 to 6 were incentre-based care, compared to 24.8%of children in communities of more than500,000. Not only were a smallerpercentage of school-age children in

regulated centres in rural communities(12.1% compared to 21.7%), but 10.4%were in sibling or self-care, compared to3.6% of their urban counterparts?There are proportionally fewer spaces forinfants and school-age children than forpreschool-age children across thec o u n t r y.

Services are lacking for children withspecial needs, Aboriginal children andethnocultural groups.There is often a lack of fit between thehours that parents work and the hoursthat child care is available.

Unregulated Family Child CareUnregulated family child care is the mostcommon form of remunerated child care inCanada across all age groups. It includeschild care arrangements provided bycaregivers in their own homes not coveredby provincial/territorial licensingrequirements. Family child caregivers are,however, subject to the provincial/territoriallimits on the number of children for whomthey may care. According to the NationalLongitudinal Study of Children and Youth(NLSCY) findings, approximately 34.0% ofchildren under the age of 12 who usednon-parental care while their parentsworked or studied were in an unregulatedfamily child care arrangement.4 There iscurrently very little information availableabout unregulated family child care inCanada. Human Resources DevelopmentCanada has recently undertaken atelephone survey of unregulatedcaregivers (both family caregivers andthose who work in the child's home); theresults, when published, may augmentthe slim base of knowledge about thesecaregivers,s


2 2

C H A P T E R 2

In-Home Child CareIn-home child care arrangements includecare provided by nannies and othercaregivers in the child's own home. In someinstances, in-home caregivers or nanniesalso live in the child's home and have otherduties in addition to providing child care.All in-home child care operates outsideprovincial/territorial child care licensing andregulation. Findings from the NLSCY showthat, in 1994-95, in-home caregiversprovided care to 14.1% of children 0 to 5years and 14.5% of children 6 to 11 yearswho received non-parental care while theirparents were working or studying.6

Related Early ChildhoodServicesSeveral other forms of early childhoodservices are not considered part of theformal child care system, but provide directcare for children. These programs includekindergartens, Early Intervention/InfantDevelopment Programs, and programsoffered by family or child care supportprograms. Unlike centre-based andhome-based child care arrangements, mostof these early childhood services andrelated supports receive substantial publicfunding and are available at little or nodirect cost to the user.

Kindergarten Programs

Kindergarten programs are offered throughthe public school system and are operatedunder provincial/territorial educationlegislation, in all provinces except PrinceEdward Island, where they are operated aschild care centres under the jurisdiction ofthe Department of Health and SocialServices and are covered by child care

legislation. In Ontario, most jurisdictionsoffer junior kindergarten programs for4-year-old children (although the fundingfor these programs has recently beenreduced) and senior kindergarten programsfor 5-year-old children. Kindergartenprograms in other provinces and territoriesare generally available only to 5-year-oldchildren, although there are a fewkindergarten programs for low-income4-year-old children in Quebec. AcrossCanada, approximately 539,000 childrenare attending public kindergarten programsfor 4- or 5-year-olds.z

Some kindergarten programs operate apartfrom the public school system as eitherprivate schools or as part of licensed childcare programs on a fee-for-service basis.Most kindergarten is offered on a part-timebasis, either half days or two to three fullschool days per week. However, there area limited number of full-time, full-daykindergarten programs operating withinpublic schools.

Kindergarten programs are intended toprovide educational and social experiencesfor young children in preparation for formalschooling, but rarely meet all of workingparents' need for child care. However, theyare used by some Canadian families as onepart of a child care arrangement. Many ofthe same 4- and 5-year-old children whoattend public kindergarten programs attendlicensed child care programs (which aresometimes located in public schoolbuildings), regulated or unregulated familychild care or are cared for by an in-homecaregiver. Kindergarten programs and otherchild care services for young children mayshare common values and assumptions. Afew initiatives between child care and


2 3

C H A P T E R 2

kindergarten programs have attempted tocoordinate these programs to encourageincreased collaboration, shared physicalspace, and common curriculum planningand professional developmentopportunities. Kindergarten programs mayalso intersect with early intervention andfamily support programs, particularly asprovincial/territorial governments exploreoptions for integrated children's services.

with other types of early childhood services,including centre-based programs, familychild care services, nursery schools or familysupport programs.

Early Intervention~Infant DevelopmentPrograms provide services to families withchildren (birth to 3 or 6 years) whosedevelopment is, or is likely to be, delayedor at risk.

Early Intervention

Early intervention is an interdisciplinaryapproach which includes health, socialservices and educational services forchildren with special needs and theirfamilies. The development of these childrenis, or is likely to be, delayed or at risk dueto biological or environmentalcircumstances? Early intervention includesboth compensatory programs such asHead Start and structured EarlyIntervention/Infant Development Programswhich usually offer a range of services. Earlyintervention programs may be integrated

These programs typically include animportant home-based component, andmay include home visits, early identificationassessment, program planning (familyservice plans and individual program plans),play groups, parent and caregiver supportgroups, specialized equipment, andtransition support to preschool and schoolprograms.

The Provincial and Territorial EarlyIntervention Directory, published bySpeciaLink,9 identifies Early Intervention/Infant Development Programs in each

TABLE 8

PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL EARLY INTERVENTION/ INFANT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, 1995

Province or Territory Estimated Number of Programs Estimated,,Nu,~,ber,,of,Chi,!dren Served per Year

Newfoundland one program, with District Offices of Social Services throughout tbe province 400

Prince Edward Island no stand-alone program n/afamilies supported throul~h five reRiona Health Au.thorities

Nova Scotia 11 - provided by community a~encies 200

New Brunswic,k .... 16 - provided by community a~encies 1,500

Quebec 2 to 3 rehabilitation centres in each region of the province, coordinated not availablethrough community health centres

Ontario 60 - provided by communi~ at~encies ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51500

Manitoba 11 province-wide 900

Sa,s, ,ka, tc,hewan 1 6 - p r o v i d e d b y c o m m u n i t y a ~ l ~ e n c i e s . . . . ,, 465, plus 125 funded by Indian and Northern Affairs

Alberta 19 - provided by health units, school boards and non-profit societies 750

Br ti~ Col.urn..bia 48 - prov!ded by voluntary a~encies 4~000 ......

Yukon one outreach program - community-based Child Development Centre 220

Northwest Territories decentralized to five Regional Health Boards, Regional Social Services officesinformation not availableand Divisional Boards of Education . . . . . . , ,

Source: SpeciaLink (1995) Provincial and Territorial Early Intervention Directory SpeciaLink Supplement.

O U R C H I L D C A R E W O R K F O R C I : : F R O M R E C O G N I T I O N T O R E M U N E R A T I O N

2 4

C H A P T E R 2

province and territory. It reports over 170specific programs and identifies jurisdictionswhere these programs are integrated withdelivery of other services. Some of theprograms identified as single services are, infact, province-wide with several deliverysites which serve several thousand childrenand their families. Table 8 provides anoverview of the estimated number of earlyintervention programs in each province andterritory, and number of children servedannually by those programs.

Provincial/territorial government health andsocial service ministries may directlyoperate Early Intervention/InfantDevelopment Programs or contract withvoluntary agencies to do so. Provinces andterritories have established ongoing fundingmechanisms for these programs.

Compensatory programs are designed toassist children who are at risk for learning orbehavioural difficulties. These ameliorativeearly childhood programs usually combinefamily support and early enrichmentinitiatives and are designed to improve theearly environments of children at risk.Often, these programs strive to improve

parenting skills and to provide youngchildren with enriched learningopportunities.

Health Canada has provided funding for thedevelopment of some community-basedearly intervention programs. For example:

The Community Action Program forChildren (CAP-C) provides funding tocommunity coalitions to deliver healthand community services to childrendetermined to be living in conditions ofrisk. In 1996, there were approximately450 such funded programs across thecountry.The Aboriginal Head Start Program,designed for Aboriginal families living incities and large Northern communities,provides a range of health promotionand education services. The programs arenot considered child care, but many areseeking to be licensed as nursery schools,which are usually part of a province'schild care system. In 1996, there were97 funded programs across the country.

These types of early intervention servicesare usually community based and oftenoperate with project or special grantfunding.

Family Resource Programs

Family resource programs include diverseactivities designed to support children, theirfamilies and caregivers. The most commonprogram components are playgroups anddrop-in programs; parent support groups;parenting courses and workshops;toy-lending libraries; special events foradults and children; respite care; support(including information and training) fornon-parental caregivers; child careinformation and referral services; crisis


2 5

C H A P T E R 2

intervention and counselling; prenatal,pregnancy and postnatal support; infantdevelopment services; home visits; andcommunity development initiatives. Somefamily resource programs were establishedto assist at-risk families.

Approximately 2,000 family resourceprograms operate across Canada with somerepresentation in each province andterritory. A survey of family resourceprograms completed in 1994l° reportedthat tens of thousands of families accessfamily resource programs across Canadaeach year. The same survey and keyinformant interviews and sectorconsultations conducted for this studyrevealed that family resource programs areincreasingly directed toward high-risk andhigh-need groups.

In some instances, family resource programsmay be offered in conjunction with otherchild care programs, including centre-basedor regulated family child care services. Theymay be operated by stand-alone non-profitorganizations, multi-service agencies, publiclibraries, school boards, community healthcentres, child welfare organizations orNative friendship centres. Ontario is theonly province that funds family resourcecentres as part of the child care system.

The Affordability ofChild Care and RelatedServicesThe cost of child care has long been anissue for parents, governments andcaregivers. Wages of caregivers are directlyrelated to what parents can and will pay, aswell as to what funding may be available

from different levels of government. Parentswho need child care to participate in thepaid labour force are often faced with"choosing" the lowest cost option, even if itis not their preference or of particularly highquality. Or, they may find other ways ofreducing their child care expenses byworking different shifts from their partners,using relatives for part of the time orcombining paid care with otherarrangements.

The Cost to ParentsThe cost of regulated care variesconsiderably from province to province,partly because of the different levels ofwages and benefits paid to caregivers, andpartly because of differences in directfunding to regulated programs bygovernments. Most parents pay the full feefor regulated care; others receive subsidiesdesigned to help low-income families. Insome provinces, many more are eligible andwaiting for subsidies than there are spacesavailable. The levels and conditions ofeligibility for fee assistance vary dramaticallyacross the provinces and territories.

A single parent with one child stops beingeligible for a full subsidy at a net incomeof $9,960 in Newfoundland, and at$1S,000 in New Brunswick, where theaverage fees are about the same.

In some urban settings in Ontario, alone-parent family may qualify for apartial subsidy with earnings that exceed$40,000 per year.

In Saskatchewan, the difference betweenthe maximum subsidy and the averagefull fee for a 3-year-old is $123 permonth. Even if a parent can qualify for asubsidy, the parent contribution isunaffordable for many.


2 6

C H A P T E R 2

In addition to provincial/territorialvariations, average fees and amounts ofsubsidy available often vary by the age ofthe child and the type of care used. Table 9provides a summary of average fees,subsidy rates, eligibility levels and numberof children receiving a subsidy. Fees andsubsidy rates for a 3-year-old child areused, as infant and toddler age categoriesdiffer across provinces and territories,making comparisons more difficult. Wherepossible, average fees are provided for bothcentre-based and regulated family child

care. In Prince Edward Island and NovaScotia, only overall averages were available.

In provinces and territories where dailysubsidy rates are used, the average monthlyfees have been calculated using 21.3 daysper month. With the exception of BritishColumbia, the subsidy rates for a 3-yearooldchild were the same for centre-based andfamily child care.

The figures displayed in the column onincome ranges show first the income below

AVERAGE FEES AND SUBSIDIES IN REGULATED CHILD CARE, 1995

Province or TerritoryAverage Parent Fee per MonthMaximum Subsidy AvailableIncome Range*for SubsidyTotal Children Receiving (for a 3yr-old)(for a 3yr-old)(one parent, one child)Subsidy (0-12) Newfoundland$380no set maximum$9,960 - $18,240748fcc-n/a$17/day$10,080 - $22,200362Prince Edward Island$375($362/month)Nova Scotia$400$16.85/day$16,812 - $24,5402,200($359/mth)New Brunswickcentre- $373$15/day$15,000 - $23,1001,363fcc- $352($320/mth)Quebeccentre- $444$18.57/day$12,000 - $35,80041,520fcc - $374($396/mth)Ontario$460-$ 753"*no set maximumneeds test used***73,400"*** Manitobacentre- $320$4,092/yr$13,787 - $24,3698,200fcc - $274($341/mth)Saskatchewancentre- $358$235/mth$19,668 - $31,9203,683fcc - $340(gross income)Albertacentre- $375$300/mth$18,710 - $25,765

Source: Childcare Resource and Research Unit (1997) Child Care in the Provinces and Territories,1995.Note=:*The first figure in the income range refers to the income at which eligibility for full child care subsidy ends; the second figure is the income at which all subsidy eligibility ends. In all provinces and territories except Saskatchewan, this refers to net income.** 1993 figures - 1995 not available. Range comes from sample of urban and rural locations and different size communities.*** Ontario uses a needs test to establish eligibility and does not have province-wide data. Average income level of families receiving subsidy in Metropolitan Toronto for one-parent, one-child family is $15,998 with a range of $240 to $45,996.**'*This estimate of the number of subsidies in Ontario is from Ministry of Community and Social Services, Improving Ontario's Child Care System: Ontario Child Care Review (August 1996).*** **In British Columbia and the Nordthest Territories, numbers of children include those receiving subsidies for unregulated care.


C H A P T E R 2

which a parent is entitled to a full subsidyand then the income level at which apartial subsidy ceases. All jurisdictions usenet (i.e. after-tax) income levels, with theexception of Saskatchewan, which usesgross income.

Full fees in regulated care are out of therange of many parents who are noteligible for a subsidy. Findings from theNLSCY suggest that children fromlower-income families, who are thereforelikely to be eligible for fee subsidies, aremore likely to use regulated care thanthose from higher-income families. Forexample, in families which used someform of child care while the motherworked or studied:

34.4% of the children fromsingle-parent families, compared to17.2% of the children from two-parentfamilies, used centre-based care;31.1% of the children in families withincomes below $30,000, compared to17.2% of the children in families withincomes over $30,000, were incentre-based care; and34.8% of the children whose familiesreceived social assistance, compared to19.1% of those whose families did not,were in centre-based care.

In addition, the survey of regulated familychild care found that 75% of childrenenrolled were subsidized.

The point is worth making forcefully.Family incomes matter because child careis, by its nature, very labour intensive andtherefore expensive. According to the1992 Statistics Canada Family ExpenditureSurvey11 the average gross householdincome in that year was $45,548. Of that

amount, the average household spent12% on food, 18% on shelter, 5% onclothing, 12% on transportation, 7% onhousehold operations, 9% on health care,personal care and recreation, 21% onpersonal taxes and 16% on miscellaneoussmaller categories. An average-incomefamily with two preschool children wouldhave had to spend approximately$10,000, or about 23% of its gross annualincome, on regulated care, clearly notvery possible or likely given othernecessary expenditures.

Many families with young children, whocannot afford these large expenditures,find other alternatives. The 1990 FamilyExpenditure Survey12 found that theaverage household with child careexpenditures, including those withmothers not in the paid labour force,actually spent just over $2,000 on childcare. However, one quarter of all familiesreporting child care expenditures spent anaverage of nearly $5,400. Note that theexpenditures for child care includeschool-age children, which is generallypart-day care only.

Table 10 presents data from the 1988Canadian National Child Care Survey~3 toshow that the hourly amount spent onchild care and family income are veryclosely related. The percentages in thetable should be read as the percentage offamilies in that income group which spenta certain amount on child care. So, forinstance, 45% of those families thatearned less than $10,000 per year whichused paid child care spent less than $1.00per hour purchasing child care. Another38% of these low-income families whichused paid child care paid between $1.00and $2.00 per hour.


2 8

C H A P T E R 2

TABLE 10

HOURLY EXPENDITURE ON PAID CHILD CARE

FOR PRESCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN, BY ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Annual Family Less than $10,000- $20,000- $30,000- $40,000- $50,000Income before $10,000 $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 or MoreTaxes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Hourly AmountPaid for Child Careless than $1.00/hr 4 S 4 2 3 0 1 9 1 S 1 0$1.00-$1.99 3 8 4 2 5 7 6 5 6 5 5 6$2.00-$2.99 1 4 1 3 1 0 15 1 7 2 5

$3.00 or over 3 4 3 2 4 9TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Adapted from Table 50, Cleveland and Hyatt (1994). Based on data from the 1988 Canadian NationalChild Care Survey, Statistics Canada.Note: Columns may not total to 100 due to rounding.

The table shows that families with higherincomes are much more likely to purchasemore expensive child care than familieswith lower incomes. (Of course, somelow-income parents who are able to get asubsidy for a regulated child care spacemay be using more expensive care, butonly paying a small portion of the fee;however, only a minority of parents usingpaid child care receive a fee subsidy). Inother words, affordability matters a greatdeal in the child care decisions that familiesmake.

The Cost to Governments

Funding to Programs

Public funding for child care comes indifferent forms. Direct funding to centresand regulated family day care homes andfee assistance paid on behalf of low-incomefamilies are determined byprovincial/territorial child care budgets,portions of which were cost-shared with thefederal government under the CanadaAssistance Plan (CAP) until 1996. Federalfunding continues to be part of the blocktransfer under the Canada Health and

Social Transfer (CHST), though at reducedamounts. Each province and territorydetermines the amount and type of fundingas well as the eligibility requirements forfunding.

As shown in Table 11, some provinces, suchas Newfoundland and New Brunswick, limitfunding for regulated child care entirely tofee subsidies for low-income parents. Thismeans that the full cost of care is borne byfee-paying parents. Other provinces have arange of operational grants, which helpoffset the cost paid by full-fee parents, andgenerally means higher wages for caregivers.

For the most part, provincial/territorialfunding is directed to the regulated sector.In British Columbia and the NorthwestTerritories, child care subsidies may be usedin the unregulated sector and thosesubsidies are included in the child carebudgets.

Funding not targeted to fee subsidies variesconsiderably by province, and may includedirect operating funding, start-up andcapital funding, funding for children withspecial needs and wage enhancementfunding.

Fees for unregulated care are usuallynegotiated directly between caregiver andparent. However, in British Columbia, overhalf the provincial subsidy budget is spenton unregulated arrangements; subsidy ratesapply equally for unregulated and regulatedfamily child care, and at a lesser rate forcare in the child's own home. Fees inunregulated care are often less than forregulated care, but are still unaffordable forthe many who may be eligible for agovernment subsidy, but who are unable to


2 9

C H A P T E R 2

PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL CHILD CARE BUDGETS, 1995 Province orTotalSpending % of TerritorySpendingon DirectSpending on ChildSubsidieson Subsidy Care ($M)to Families ($M)Newfoundland3.103.10100.0 Prince Edward2.501.7570.0 IslandNova Scotia12.008.6091.7 New Brunswick,3.503.50100.0 Quebeci 203.6986.8442.6 Ontario549.00375.0068.3 Manitoba41.0024.0058.5 Saskatchewan14.109.7769.3 Alberta63.0034.0054.0 British Columbia165,40138.5083.7 Yukon4.122.6965.3 Northwest1.88.7037.2 Territoriesi rlTotal1.063.3688.4565.0 Billion

Sources: These figures, with the exception of those from Quebec, are from the child care budgets provided during key informant interviews with the provincial/territorial officials responsible for child care. Quebec figures are from the Childcare Resource and Research Unit (1997) Child Care in the Provinces and Territories,1995.Note; SM = millions.get a space. According to the Centre for International Statistics, the average hourly price of full-fee care by non-relatives in 1992 (this figure would include both family home care and in-home care) was $1.98 per hour, compared to $2.50 per hour in a day care centre, or $3.08 per hour in a before- and after-school program.TM

Direct Funding to Parents

Even though provinces and territories donot, for the most part, permit the use ofchild care subsidies in the unregulatedsector, most provincial government keyinformants indicated that funding forunregulated care was available, throughsocial assistance funding, to socialassistance recipients in training or making a

transition back to the workforce. Mostprovinces did not have ready data on theamount spent through this benefit, but fromthe limited data available, it would appearthat the amount is considerable.Saskatchewan reported that over $1 millionwas spent in this manner, an amountequivalent to more than 10% of the childcare subsidy budget; New Brunswickreported an expenditure of $3 million, oran amount equivalent to 85% of its subsidybudget.

The federal government also providesdirect funding for unregulated carethrough the Dependent Care Allowance,for those enrolled in EmploymentInsurance-sponsored training. Recipientsare encouraged to use a form of child carethat they will be able to sustain after theyleave the program, thereby discouraging theuse of more costly care. Statistics on thetype of care used or cost to the departmentare not available, but in 1995, underprevious conditions, when parents received$100 per week for their child carearrangements, a total of $80 million wasspent on child care through this Allowance.

Incomes of unregulated caregivers arelimited both by what parents can afford topay and how many children they may carefor in their particular province. In Manitoba,unregulated caregivers may care for amaximum of four children, including theirown. Caregivers in Saskatchewan, on theother hand, may care for eight.

Indirect Funding to Parents

Other than the low wages paid tocaregivers, which child care advocatessuggest is the largest form of indirect subsidyto the child care system, the primary vehicle


3 0

C H A P T E R 2

for indirect funding for child care expensesis the Child Care Expense Deduction(CCED). One of the few areas sparedfederal funding cuts, the CCED is availableto families that have receipts for theirwork-related child care expenditures. Theamount of this tax deduction is a maximumof $5,000 per year for a child under the ageof 7, and $3,000 per year for a childbetween the ages of 7 and 14. For familieseligible to claim the maximum amount, thetax benefit ranges from between about$1,250 and $2,500 for children in theyounger age category to $750 and $1,500for older children. In 1995, the federalgovernment spent approximately $320million through foregone revenues.

According to the most recent data available,only about 35% of unregulated caregiversprovide receipts, so many parents cannottake advantage of the CCED.15 Familieswhich benefit the most from this provisionare those with receipted expenditures forthe maximum amount and whose incomesare in the higher tax brackets.

Maternity and parental benefits providefinancial support to parents calculated at55% of insurable earnings, to a maximumpayment of $413 per week.16 This benefithelps parents avoid some of the high cost of

TABLE 12

MATERNITY AND PARENTAL BENEFITS

Benefit Type Spending 1995 Average Weekly Number of Claimants(preliminary) Benefit (1994)

Maternity $778M $274.97 194,000

Parental Leave $440M $279.38 mothers - 173,000

fathers - 7,000

Adop t i on Leave $6M $348.05 mothers - 1,300fathers - 200

Source: Human Resources Development Canada (1995b) Background Statistics Unemployment Insurance1995,Financial and Administrative Services, Policy and Systems.

infant care. Table 12 shows the federalexpenditures by each benefit componentand the number receiving each benefit.

Public Spending on Child Care andRelated Benefits

It is not known exactly how much is spenton all child care and related services andbenefits across the country (such askindergarten programs, child care fundedthrough social assistance provisions andsome early intervention). However, close to$2.75 billion in federal and provincialgovernment funds was spent in 1995 on thefollowing programs and benefits: maternity and parental benefits

- $1.22 billion direct child care services and fee

subsidies- $1.063 billionChild Care Expense Deduction- $320 milliont7Dependent Care Allowance - $80 millionCAP-C and Aboriginal Head Start- $53.8 millionFirst Nations and Inuit Child Care- $6 million (projected to increase to$26 million in 1996)

Child Care Visions - $6 million

The Quality of ChildCare and Related ServicesThe quality of child care provided toCanada's children is a key issue for the childcare work'force and for public policy.TM It isnow recognized that early child care haslong-lasting effects on the cognitive andsocial abilities of children. Good qualitychild care has beneficial effects onchildren's development, but poor qualitychild care has a negative impact, which isnot easily reversed.


31

C H A P T E R 2

Participants in the sector study consultationsand key informants discussed issues relatedto quality of child care. Their commentsand discussion support a working definitionof quality as one that: supports and assists the child's physical,

emotional, social, language andintellectual development; and

supports and complements the family inits child-rearing role.19

This definition of quality goes beyondsimply protecting children's health andsafety while they are in child care settings:it implies that good quality settings promotehealthy development of children'scompetence, coping abilities and overallwell-being.

As caregivers, members of the child careworkforce are concerned about child carequality for the sake of the children, but alsobecause quality concerns are stronglylinked to working conditions. In U.S.research, poor quality in child care hasbeen linked to low remuneration, poorbenefits, high turnover of staff, lack ofadequate general education and specific

child-related training, and lack ofmonitoring or supports to homecaregiving.2°

Caregivers and their organizations haveidentified quality concerns and continue towork toward improvements. The keycollective task for this occupation in thenext years is to raise the profile of qualityissues in child care and to continue to doeverything possible to provide good qualitycare for the children of Canada.The role of governments in funding,regulating and monitoring child care, andthe public willingness to support child care,are critical to improving quality.

Elements of QualityUsing this definition of quality, researchershave identified the key features of goodquality child care environments in bothhome and centre-based settings. Theelements include both the way in whichchild care environments are organized andthe nature of interactions supported by thatenvironment or, in other words, thestructure and process elements.21

Responsive, stable caregiver-childinteractions which are sensitive tochildren's needs provide support andencouragement, and set consistentbehavioural expectations are the singlemost important element of quality childcare in both home- and centre-basedchild care.Caregiver knowledge (usually indicatedby postsecondary education credentials)of child development supports positiveadult-child interactions in both familychild care and child care centres.Caregiver-child ratio and the group size,which allow the caregiver to be aware ofand involved with each child as an


3 2

C H A P T E R 2

individual, are also important toadult-child interactions in child carecentres.Low caregiver turnover is important sothat the caregiver-child relationship isstable and consistent. High caregiverturnover reduces the stability of childcare arrangements and, in one study,z2was found to be associated with lessinteraction between children, lowerscores on standard languagedevelopment measures, lowerdevelopmental levels of peer play, moreaimless wandering and less secureattachment to the caregiver.Daily routines, including plannedactivities and free play, and health andsafety provisions, support children'slearning and protect their well-being infamily child care homes and child carecentres.A child-appropriate physicalenvironment allows children to takepart in learning opportunities andencourages increased positiveinteractions with caregivers.A positive organizational climateincludes opportunities for caregivers tobe involved in decision making incentre-based settings and creates acoherent administrative frameworkwhich supports caregivers. In familychild care, caregiver support andcontact with other adults is part of apositive organizational climate. In onestud~2~ caregivers in family child carewho were involved with othercaregivers were more likely to besensitive and responsive with thechildren.In family child care settings, caregiver"intentionality" contributes to higherquality which is associated with better

outcomes for children.24 Intentionality isthe conscious commitment to caring forchildren and the provision of nurturing,stimulating home child careenvironments.

Ensuring QualityThe elements of quality and the quality ofcare provided are affected by factorsoutside the immediate child care programsetting.

Funding: Higher wages and benefits areassociated with better quality child carein centre-based programs.2s Adult-childinteractions are influenced by thecaregiver's job satisfaction level which, inpart, is determined by the workenvironment, including wages andbenefits, general working conditions andadministration. Low job satisfaction isassociated with higher staff turnoverlevels which reduces caregiver stabilityand consistent relationships betweencaregivers and children. Compensationlevels and other aspects of the workingenvironment are determined by the levelof funding available. The Caring for aLiving2° study found that low salariespredict job dissatisfaction and highcaregiver turnover rates.Auspice: High quality child care is morelikely to be found in non-profit than incommercial child care settings. However,there are both low quality non-profitcentres and high quality commercialcentres.27Regulation: The level of governmentregulation, particularly for caregivereducation, caregiver-child ratios andgroup size, does influence the quality ofcare received by children in centre-basedsettings. The Canadian Child Care


3 3

C H A P T E R 2

I . ~ ~. '~. ~ .~,~ . . . . . . . . ...~. .~,~., ~. , :~4IIF-.I.,IlJl¢~I~-.. ,. ~,,,.~ ..... .-,~ ~,., .~ ,~,,,~..~.,., .~:.,-|

RECOMMENDED GROUP SIZE AND CHILD-CAREGIVER RATIOS IN CHILD CARE CENTRES

Maximum Group SizeAGE68 1012141618202224 26 28 30 0-12 mths1:312-24mths1:31:42yrs1:41:51:63yrs1:51:6 1:74 & 5 yrs1:81:95 &6yrs

Source: Canadian Child Care Federation (1991) National Statement on Quality Child Care.Notes: Ratios are determined with the adult having full-time responsibility fur the care of children. If other administrative duties or support services must be carried out, then an additional adult is required to maintain the designated ratios. Where a multi-aBe grouping exists, the adult:child ratio and Stoup size requirements shall be based on the age of the majority of children in the group. When infants are included, the ratio and group size for infants must be maintained.

Federation has recommended optimalmaximum group size andcaregiver-child ratios for centre-basedchild care programs which are outlinedin Table 13. These specific ratios andgroup sizes are adapted from thoserecommended by the Americanorganization, National Association forthe Education of Young Children, andare based on research findings.Non-regulatory mechanisms: Qualitymay be encouraged through professionalstandards of practice for individualcaregivers and for child care settings.

Quality Child Care and ChildDevelopment OutcomesResearch evidence consistently reports thatgood quality child care supports positivechild development. There is a small groupof recent studies, reviewed by Doherty(1996), which have tried to assessstatistically the effects of preschool child

care quality variations on some measureof social or intellectual ability inkindergarten or later.~

Briefly summarizing the results of thesefive studies, she wrote:

In summary, when children whosepreschool child care experiences were ofhigh quality are compared with those whowere in low quality care, they have beenfound to be: more considerate of others, less hostile,

and better able to work co-operativelyin a group when in kindergarten(Howes, 7990). At age eight, theyexhibit higher overall peer social skillsand obtain more positive ratings fromclassmates

more willing to accept adult directionand rules in kindergarten and at theend of grade one

more able to resist distraction andremain focused on a task when inkindergarten and in grade one

better able to follow multi-stepdirections and to work independentlywhen in grade one

and Perform better on tests to measureboth understanding and use oflanguage in grade one.

The Goteborg Child Care Studyprovides further evidence about theimportance of child care quality.29 Thisstudy selected children at age I fromchild care waiting lists in Sweden andfollowed them for seven years into theearly years of school. The child carecentres included in the Goteborg study inSweden are assumed to be high qualitychild care.


3 4

C H A P T E R 2

The Goteborg study is summarized as:In Sweden, non-parental care isgovernment subsidized and strictlyregulated in order to ensure high quality.Despite the limited variations in thequality of care across settings, however,quality of out-of-home care has been oneof the most important and consistentcorrelates of children's personalitymaturity, social skills, and compliancewith maternal requests...3°

The relevant findings are expressed thisway:

Children who had spent more months incentre-based care before they were 40months old obtained higher scores ontests of cognitive ability than otherchildren.For children who had spent three ormore preschool years in out-of-homecare, the quality of child care hadimportant effects.Dynamic measures of quality (quality ofadult-child interaction) predicted verbalabilities, whereas structural measures ofquality (child-staff ratio, group size, agerange) predicted mathematical ability.

Quality of Child Care in CanadaThe sector consultations, key informantinterviews and the review of researchstudies conducted for the sector study didraise concerns and questions about thequality of child care in both regulated andunregulated settings in Canada.

Provincial/territorial requirements forhome- or centre-based child care settingsfall short of meeting all of the structuralelements associated with good qualitychild care environments. No Canadianjurisdiction meets all of the

recommendations outlined in Table 14,nor requires all caregivers incentre-based child care to havepostsecondary early childhood educationqualifications.Canadian research studies which assesschild care quality and child developmentoutcomes are not encouraging?1Research findings from other countriessuggest many child care settings inCanada are not providing optimalenvironments for young children. Thereis a considerable body of U.S. researchwhich finds high turnover rates, poorcompensation and a lack of relatedcaregiver education qualifications areassociated with poor quality child care.32These problems also exist in theCanadian context and it is reasonable toassume that they have a similar influenceon quality of care.

Provincial/Territorial RequirementsProvincial/territorial requirements establishmaximum numbers of children andchild-caregiver ratios in both family childcare and child care centres. They also setminimum requirements for caregivereducation, physical environment, healthand safety provisions, daily routines andprocedures for licensing and monitoringregulated child care settings. These areconsidered to be structural indicators ofquality of care. Caregiver educational andexperience requirements andcaregiver-child ratios for regulated childcare centres are summarized in Table 14.Currently, all provinces and territories,except New Brunswick and the twoterritories, have minimum requirements forsome of the caregivers and the supervisor ina licensed centre. (Yukon is phasing inqualification requirements.) No jurisdiction


3 S

C H A P T E R 2

STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHILD CARE CENTRES, 1995Province orStaff:Child Ratios, forEducational/Experience RequirementsTerritoryDifferent Age GroupsNewfoundland2-3 yrs1:6 Centre supervisors in preschool and school-age - 1-yr ECE certificate or related 3-6 yrs1:8degree and 1 yr working experience in a licensed centre, or 2-yr ECE diploma 7-12 yrs1:15with no experience requirement.Prince Edward0.2 yrs1:3 Centre supervisors and 1 full-time staff - 1 - or 2-yr early childhood development Island2-3 yrs1:5diploma or university child study degree; centre supervisors with 1 -yr certificate 3-5 yrs1:10must have at least 3 yrs' experience, those with 2-yr diploma must have at least 5-6 yrs1 : 122 yrs' experience.7+ ~/rs1:15 Certification required 30 hours of in-service training every 3 yrs for all staff.Nova Scotia0-S yrs1:7* Centre supervisor and two thirds of staff must have 1- or 2-yr ECE certificate or 17 mths-S yrsdiploma or 2 yrs' experience, plus one course and 3S-hr workshop on child (pt-day)1:12development and curriculum. All staff must have first-aid training.5-12 yrs1:15New Brunswickunder 21:3No ECE training, education or experience is required. Staff must be at least 16 2-3 yrs1:5yrs old. Staff 16 to 19 yrs old are required to be supervised by a staff member 3-4 yrs1:7who must be at least 19 yrs old. All staff must have first-aid training, 4-5 yrs1:105-6 yrs1:126-12 yrs1:15Quebec0-18 mths1:5 One third of staff in licensed centre must have a DEC (2-yr ECE diploma 18 mths-5 yrs1:8equivalent) or AEC (1-yr ECE certificate equivalent) and 3 yrs' experience.6-12 mths1:15 No staff training requirements for school-age care.Ontario0-18 mths3:10 Centre supervisor must have 2-yr ECE diploma plus 2 yrs' experience; one staff 18-2.51:5within each group of children must have 2-yr ECE diploma or equivalent.2.5-5 yrs1:85-6 yrs1:126-10 yrs1:153 -12 mths1:3: Qualification levels: Child Care Worker (CCW) IIh 2-yr diploma and advanced Manitoba1-2 mths1:4certificate, or approved 4-yr degree; CCWII: approved 2-yr diploma program or 2-3 mths1:6a Child Day Care Competency-based Assessment Program; CCWh Grade 12 or 3-4 mths1:8one postsecondary level accredited child care course; CCA (child care assistant): 4-5 mths1:9less than Grade 125-6 mths1:10 Centre supervisors must be qualified as CCWIII plus 1 -yr experience. Two thirds 6-12 mths1:15of centre's preschool staff must be CCWII or III. School-age and nursery school nurs/schsdirectors can be CCWII. All staff must have first-aid training.3 mths-2 yrs1:42-6 yrs1:10Saskatchewan infants1:3 Centre-based supervisors must have 1 -yr certificate in child care or equivalent; all toddlers1:5staff must have a minimum of 130 hr child care orientation course or equivalent; ~reschool1 :I 0staff working with children with special needs must have additional training.school-aReI : 15,AlbertaO-12 mths1:3 Three qualification levels: Level 1 (50-hr orientation program); Level 2 (1 -yr 13-18 mths1:4certificate); and Level 3 (2-yr diploma).19-35 mths1:6 Program directors are required to have 2-yr diploma in ECE, all centre staff must 3-4.5 yrs1:8have at least Level 1; 1 in 4 staff must have Level 2.


3 6

C H A P T E R 2

STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHILD CARE CENTRES, 1995 (cont'd)

Province orStaff:Child Ratios, forEducational/Experience RequirementsTerritoryDifferent Age GroupsBritish Columbia0-3 yrs1:4 Legislation indicates three qualification levels: early childhood educator (1-yr 3-5 yrs1:8basic ECE program and 500 hrs supervised work experience); infant/toddler k-gr. 11:10educator (basic ECE plus post-basic infant/toddler care and education); and : 7-12 yrs1:15special needs educator (basic ECE plus post-basic in special needs).preschool1:10 Each preschool group requires one early childhood educator plus assistants; each Specialized1:4group (5-8) infants/toddlers requires one early childhood educator & one infant/toddler educator. In designated special needs child care facilities, one special needs educator is required for each group of children with additional early childhood educators and assistants to maintain a 1:4 ratio. No training is required for school-a~e children.Yukon0-18 mths1:4 By 1997: 50% of staff must have CCI 60-hr introduction course18 mths-2 yrs1:6 By 1999: another 30% must have CCWII (1-yr program) or equivalent 3-6 yrs1:8 By 2000: another 20% must have CCWIII (2-yr)6-12 yrs1:12Northwest0-I 2 mths1:3 No ECE qualification requirements; first-aid certificate required.Territories13-24 mths1:425-35 mths1:63 yrs1:84 yrs1:95-11 yrs

Note: * There are no specific ratios for children 0 to 17 months, but the recommended ratio is 1:4.Source: Childcare Resource and Research Unit (1997) Child Care in Canada:Provinces and Territories,1995.

C H I L D

requires all centre-based caregivers to havecompleted postsecondary educationqualifications in early childhood educationor child development.

The information in Table 14 outlines thevariation in licensed child care centreregulations across Canada.

Caregiver educational qualificationsrange from requirements for supervisorsonly in Newfoundland, to Manitoba,where two thirds of all caregivers in acentre must have completed either atwo-year ECE postsecondary educationprogram or an approved four-yeardegree program.The concept of what constitutes a trainedor qualified ECE caregiver is notconsistent across Canada. The length ofrequired training/education varies from a50-hour orientation course to a two-year

ECE diploma. Most jurisdictions allow workexperience or government approval tosubstitute for required qualifications. BothSaskatchewan and Alberta require allcaregivers in centres to completeorientation ECE training (50 hours and 130hours, respectively). Thus, all caregivers inlicensed centres in these two provinceshave a minimal level of training. PrinceEdward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec,Alberta and British Columbia require that apercentage of caregivers in licensedprograms have one-year postsecondaryECE qualifications. Ontario and Manitobaregulations include requirements fortwo-year postsecondary ECE qualifications.Newfoundland and Saskatchewan requireonly supervisors to have a certificate ordiploma.Education/training requirements also varyconsiderably for caregivers working with

C A R E W O R K F O R C E : F R O M R E C O G N I T I O N T O R E M U N E R A T I O N

3 7

C H A P T E R 2

specific age or target groups. Sixjurisdictions (Newfoundland, NewBrunswick, Quebec, Alberta, BritishColumbia and Northwest Territories) donot require any qualifications forschool-age care. No jurisdiction requiresspecific school-age training.Only British Columbia requiresspecialized training (which may beincluded in a two-year ECE diploma) towork with infants and toddlers inlicensed child care centres.British Columbia requires one specialneeds educator who has specializedtraining related to children with specialneeds in addition to ECE credentials, forevery four children in special needsfacilities (child care centres where atleast 25% of the children have specialneeds). Ontario requires one resourceteacher who has completed relatedpost.secondary training in addition to anECE diploma for every four childrenwith special needs in integratedcentre-based programs.None of the jurisdictions requirestraining in management, supervision oradministration for child care centresupervisors. Manitoba does stipulatethat centre supervisors must have apost-diploma certificate (in either childcare management, children with specialneeds or infant/toddler care). Ontariorequires centre supervisors to have twoyears' related experience in addition toan ECE diploma.Only two jurisdictions require qualifiedcaregivers in centre-based programs toparticipate in ongoing professionaldevelopment activities. In PrinceEdward Island, centre staff need30 hours of professional developmentevery three years to renew their

certificate. In British Columbia, qualifiedcaregivers are issued a licence to practisewhich is renewed every five years withproof of ongoing professionaldevelopment.

The caregiver-child ratio requirementsfor regulated child care centres are alsoincluded in Table 14. There are variationsfrom one jurisdiction to the next for thesame age group. For instance, the caregiverratio for 3-year-old children varies fromone caregiver for every seven children inNew Brunswick and Nova Scotia to onecaregiver for every ten children in PrinceEdward Island and Saskatchewan.Maximum group sizes may be included inprovincial/territorial regulations, and rangefrom 16 preschool (from 2 or 2.5 years to5 years) children in Ontario and Alberta to30 preschool children in Quebec.

Regulations for centre-based child careimproved in most jurisdictions during the1980s with better caregiver-child ratios andeducational qualifications. However,government key informants reported thatchild care regulations for centre-basedprograms are, or have recently been, underreview in seven jurisdictions with a viewtoward reducing or relaxing currentrequirements. Deregulation of child carerequirements may include devolution ofmonitoring and licensing functions tonon-government bodies, increases incaregiver-child ratios and reduced caregiverqualification requirements.

None of the provincial/territorial regulationsmeets established criteria discussed earlierfor high quality child care programs. Mostkey informants from provincial child careorganizations and postsecondary institutions


3 8

C H A P T E R 2

pointed out that regulations for child carecentres should be perceived as minimum,not maximum standards Mostrecommended improved minimumrequirements, particularly for caregiverqualifications as a strategy to improve thequality of child care centres Severalinformants reported that ineffectivemonitoring and licensing practices wereunable to ensure compliance withexisting regulations

Regulated Family Child CareRequirements: Child care requirements forcaregiver-child staff ratios (or the maximumnumber of children permitted per caregiver)and caregiver qualification requirements aresummarized in Table 15. Again, there isconsiderable variation from one jurisdictionto the next.

There are far fewer provincial/territorialrequirements for regulated family child care

TABLE 15

REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATED FAMILY CHILD CAREGIVERS, 1995 Province or TerrltoryCaregiver:Child RatioEducational Requirements,NewfoundlandN/AN/APrince Edward Islandup to 7, including caregiver's own under 10 yrs;30-hr training program, first aid, must be 18 yrs maximum of 3 under 2 yrswith 2 letters of referenceii i,Nova Scotiaup to 6, including caregiver's own preschool children;None; must be 18 years old, not on child up to 8 if all school-age, including caregiver's ownabuse registryNew Brunswickmaximum of 3 under 2 yrs, 5 2-5-yr-olds, 9 6 yrs orFirst-aid training, must be at least 19 years old over, or 6 of combined ages, includes provider's own, under 12 yrsQuebecmaximum of 6, including provider's own under 12 yrs,First-aid certificate, minimum 24-hr training maximum 2 under 18 mths; with assistant, may careprogramfor 9, including providers', maximum 4 under 18 mthsOntarioup to 5, including provider's own under 6 yrs;Must be at least 18 yrs if working with children maximum 2 under 2 yrs, 3 under 3 yrswith special needs, must have first-aid training Manitobaup to 8, including provider's own under 12 yrs;First-aid certificate, must attend 4 orientation maximum 3 under 2 yrs, 5 under 6 yrs; with 2sessions and undergo suitability assessment by providers: 12 under 12 yrs; maximum 3 under 2 yrsChild Day Care Office; must be at least 18 yrs Saskatchewanup to 8, including provider's own under 13 yrs;Need orientation course and first-aid training, maximum 5 under 6 yrsi 2 under 30 mthsmust be at least 18 yrsAlbertaup to 6 under 12 yrs, including provider's own underNo training requirements12 yrs; maximum of 3 under 3 yrs, 2 under 2 yrsBritish Columbiaup to 7, including provider's own under 12 yrs;First-aid certificate, must be at least 19 yrs maximum of 5 preschool, 3 under 3 yrs and 1under 1 yrYukonup to 8, inducling provider's own preschool children;First-aid certificate, must complete 60-hr maximum of 4 infants; 6 preschoolers with maximumintroduction to ECD within 1 yr of licencing; 3 infants, or 8 preschoolers with no infants; withmust be 18 yrs; where 2 providers, one must assistant may add 4 school-agemeet above requirementsNorthwest Territoriesup to 8, including provider's own under 12 yrs;First-aid certificate, must be at least 19 yrs maximum of 6 under 5 yrs, 3 under 3 yrs, 2 under2 yrs

Sources: Childcare Resource and Research Unit (1997) Child Care in the Provinces and Territories, 1995, and key informant interviews with provincial/ territorial officials


3 9

C H A P T E R 2 .

than for licensed, centre-based programs.No province or territory requirespost.secondary education credentials forfamily child caregivers. Some jurisdictions(Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba,Saskatchewan and Yukon) requirepre-service or in-service training forcaregivers which usually takes the form ofworkshops, home visits, short courses orinformation sharing among caregivers.

In Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick,Manitoba, British Columbia and theterritories, caregivers in regulated familychild care are able to care for more childrenthan in unregulated family child caresettings. In Ontario, the maximum numberof children for both unregulated andregulated family child care is five, but in

MAXIMUM NUMBER PERMITTED IN UNREGULATED FAMILY CHILD CARE, 1995 Province or, TerritoryMaximum Number of Children PermittedNewfoundlandmaximum of 4 children, including carelgiver's own under 12 yrs Prince Edward Islandmaximum of 5, including caregiver's own preschoolers: maximum 3 if all under 2 yrs; 5 preschoolers with maximum of 2 under 2 yrs Nova Scotia6 mixed-age children, including the provider's own preschool children; 8 if all school-a~e, including provider'sNew Brunswickmaximum 4, including provider's own children under 12 yrs; no more than 2 infantsQuebecmaximum 6, including provider's own childrenOntariomaximum 5, excluding provider's own; some municipalities set lower limitsManitobamaximum 4, including provider's own under 12 yrs, maximum 2 children under 2 yrsSaskatchewan,maximum of 8~ including provider's own under 13 yrsAlbertamaximum of 6, including provider's own under 12 yrs; maximum of 3 under 2 vrsBritish Columbiano more than 2 children, excluding provider's own, unrelated by blood or marriage,Yukonmaximum of 3, excluding provider's ownNorthwest Territories maximum of 4, including provider's own under 12 yrs, Note: There are no training requirements for unregulated family child care providers and monitoring is done on a complaint basis. Unregulated providers in British Columbia who are members of a Child Care Support Program do receive home visits.

unregulated settings, the caregiver's ownchildren under age 6 are not included in themaximum number of children.

In Ontario, home visitors, who monitor andsupport caregivers in regulated family childcare, are required to have completed apostsecondary education program in childdevelopment or family studies (whichincludes an ECE diploma) and to have atleast two years' related experience.

Requirements for Unregulated Child Care:Provincial/territorial requirements establishthe maximum number of children (andtherefore the caregiver-child ratio) forunregulated family child care which aresummarized in Table 16. There are notraining requirements for caregivers inunregulated family child care and monitoringof the maximum number of children is doneon a complaint basis. (Unregulated caregiversin British Columbia who are members of achild care support program do receive homevisits.)

There are no provincial/territorialrequirements for the maximum number ofchildren for in-home child care settings.

Requirements for Kindergarten:Kindergarten programs offered through theschool system operate within theprovincial/territorial education system. Therequirements for kindergarten teacherqualifications are outlined in Table 17. In alljurisdictions, except for Northwest Territories,kindergarten teacher requirements includean undergraduate university degree andspecialized teacher education qualifications.

Only three provinces and the two territoriesstipulate teacher-child ratios and maximum


40

C H A P T E R 2

TABLE 17

EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS, 1995

Province or Territory Educational Requirements

Newfoundland primary undergraduate degree

Prince Edward Island operated within child care system and legislation

Nova Scotia undergraduate degree, plus 1 yr teacher training

New Brunswick B. Ed. degree program - certification required or New BrunswickTeacher's licence and approved degree

Quebec 4-yr postsecondary, plus primary specialization

Ontario undergraduate degree, plus primary/junior specialization

Manitoba B. Ed. degree

Saskatchewan ! 4-yr B. Ed., plus valid certificate of qualification

Alberta 4-yr undergraduate degree, including I yr in teacher training program

British Columbia 4-yr postsecondary program, including teacher certificate component

- must have a valid Teaching Certificate

Yukon 4-yr B. Ed.

Northwest Territories undergraduate degree not required

Sources: Kindergarten enrolment: Statistics Canada (t995b) Education Quarter/), Rev/ew Cat. no. 81-O03, vol. 2no. 3; Educational requirements: Childcare Resource and Research Unit (1997) Child Care in Canada: TheProvinces and Territories,1995.

group size for kindergarten programs.In Yukon, the maximum group size is23 children and the ratio is 1 teacher forevery 23 children; in New Brunswick, themaximum group size is 20 children and theteacher-child ratio is 1 to 20; and inQuebec the ratio for junior kindergarten is1 to 17 with a maximum of 34 children pergroup while senior kindergarten has a 1 to20 ratio and a maximum group size of40 children.

Requirement~ for EarlyIntervention~Infant DevelopmentPrograms: Across Canada, EarlyIntervention/Infant Development Programsmay fall within education, health, socialservice or child care regulatory frameworks.Table 18 highlights provincial/territorialeducational requirements for staff workingin early intervention programs.

Research on the Quali ty of Chi ld CareSettings in Canada

Research findings from a number ofCanadian studies identify concerns with theobserved quality of various child caresettings.

Provincial child care licensing consultantsreported that about one sixth of arandom sample of about 1,000 licensedchild care centres across Canada werejudged to have poor or very poor qualitythat was in violation of then-currentprovincial regulatory standards?~Three separate studies of family childcare settings reported higher levels ofquality in regulated settings than inunregulated settings?4The Atlantic Day Care Study~s found thatthe majority of the child care centreswere not assessed as high qualityprograms using the Early ChildhoodEnvironmental Rating Scale (ECERS). Theaverage standard of care found in the48 centres included in the study wasacceptable (minimal) to good.Researchers examined existing scoresfrom child care centres in a number ofprovinces from the ECERS and the InfantToddler Environmental Rating Scale(ITERS)?~ Data were limited by smallsample sizes in some studies andover-representation of large urban areasin others. Nevertheless, this reviewprobably provides the most recent andcomprehensive Canadian review ofquality done to date. The study reportedthat each of the provinces had programsthat did not meet children's basic healthand safety needs.

Of particular note for caregivers andtraining programs are the followingconclusions:


C H A P T E R 2

TABLE 18

STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR EARLY INTERVENTION/ INFANT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, 1995 ProvinceAverageEducational RequirementsCaseloadNewfoundland13bachelor degree in psychology or related field Prince Edward Islandn/an/aNova Scotia12-15undergraduate degree or diploma in ECE or education in a related field and relevant experienceNew Brunswick15postsecondary certificate or diploma in child development, ECE, human services counsellor or nursingQuebecn/an/aOntariovaries widelynot regulated centrallyManitoba10-12BA, diploma in mental retardation counselling, child care worker III or human ecologySaskatchewan12-152-yr diploma in ECE or education in a related field with relevant experienceAlberta18-20no provincial requirements, but 2-yr diploma in ECE, rehabilitative services or social services considered a minimumBritish Columbia20-25professional training in a field related to early childhood developmentYukon24-50no formal requirements - must be consistent with :positionNorthwest Territoriesn.,an/a

Source: SpecialLink (1995) Provincial and Territorial Early Intervention Directory SpecialLink Supplement.

There is a direct association between thelevel of regulation and quality.Ratios and caregiver training have animpact on quality.Studies in the three provinces for whichitem scores were available found thatsome caregivers were lacking in culturalawareness, basic hygiene activities, grossand fine motor activities, programmingfor infants and toddlers, and provisionsfor preschool children for solitary or smallgroup play.

There are no large-scale, on-site studies ofthe quality of care in either centre- orhome-based child care in Canada, so it isimpossible to characterize with anycertainty the typical level of quality or rangeof qualities. However, the findings of small

Canadian studies are consistent with thosereported in larger studies done outsideCanada.

U.$. Research on the Quali ty of Chi ldCare SettingsAlthough the regulatory environment in theUnited States is quite different from Canada,and caution is needed in using the findingsof U.S. studies as a comparative frameworkfor the Canadian research, there are similarproblems present in both jurisdictions. Thereis recognition that child care arrangements ofdifferent types are not of uniform quality.There are "vast differences in the quality ofcare that children experience both in andoutside their homes."37 U.S. studies havefound that the average quality of care in thesettings sampled was barely "adequate" andthat many settings are of poor or inadequatequality?8

A study of licensed child care centres in fourAmerican states recently rated the quality ofchild care as poor to mediocre, with onlyone in seven centres providing a level ofquality that promotes healthydevelopment?9

In another U.S. study, only 9% ofregulated and unregulated family childcare homes (located in threecommunities) were rated as good quality;56% were rated adequate or custodialand 35% were rated as inadequate.Regulated family child care homes weremore likely to rate as good quality (12%)than unregulated settings.4°In a U.S. study of staffing in licensed childcare centres, only 12% of the centreprogram rooms were rated as goodquality.41An assessment of the National Associationfor the Education of Young Children child


4 2

C H A P T E R 2

care accreditation process conducted inCalifornia found that 40% of theaccredited centres were rated asmediocre in quality.42

In the United States, features of the workenvironment are related to low quality ofcare. High rates of staff turnover and lowwage and benefit levels have been found toindicate quality problems in U.S. child care.Low-wage and benefit levels arecharacteristic problems in Canadian childcare as well.

Child Care Workforce QualityInitiativesThe child care workforce recognizes thequality concerns in Canada's child caresector. Child care organizations andindividual caregivers from centre- andhome-based settings continue to initiateefforts to improve the quality of carechildren receive. Many of these arediscussed in later chapters of this report.Caregivers also participate in professionaldevelopment activities and educationalopportunities.

Caregivers do have an individual andcollective responsibility to provide thehighest quality child care environments andprograms they can, but the child careworkforce cannot be held responsible foroverall quality concerns in Canadian childcare. The Atlantic Day Care Studyconcluded:

Given the poor physical facilities of manyof the centres and the financial constraintsunder which the centres operate, thisstandard is higher than might reasonablybe expected. Day care centres are only as

good as they are because teachers anddirectors work for so little but are,nevertheless, committed to their jobs andto the children they serve.43

Summary and Conclusions1Even though a majority of Canadian parents rely on some form of early childhood care and education for at least part of their children's early years, child care in Canada has not yet become an established social program, nor is there a coherent or coordinated national child care policy.There is no equity of access or right to services, as with some other social and educational programs, the development and operation of child care services is largely left to the initiatives of individual communities and organizations.

The provision of high quality child careservices is linked directly to policy


4 3

C H A P T E R 2

frameworks and funding programs whichsupport licensing, regulatory andmonitoring functions, occupationalstandards, training requirements, effectiveadministration and support services to thesector.

Federal and provincial/territorialgovernment action is essential toestablish and maintain quality child careservices, related infrastructures andresearch strategies.

2The supply of child care services, and the regulations and policies governing those services, vary considerably across the country. Regulated child care is especially lacking for infants, school-age children, children with special needs, rural and isolated communities and for families needing part-time and non-standard hours of care. At the same time, there appear to be high vacancy rates in many regulated programs, which has been attributed, in part, to the high parent cost and lack of flexibility.

Service delivery models need to becomemore flexible in their operation and morecomprehensive in the populations theyserve. The child care sector will need towork cooperatively and collaborativelywith community partners, and licensingand regulatory agencies to expand andenhance services.

3Child care is a labour-intensive service, making it costly to provide. Factors that affect the cost to parents include caregiver compensation, operational funding by

government and rates paid for feesubsidies. Programs which are regulatedand defined as child care are generallyavailable on a user-pay basis, with themajority of public funding aimed at feeassistance to low-income families. Otherearly childhood services which mayprovide services similar to child care,including kindergarten and somecompensatory programs, are primarilypublicly funded and not dependent onuser fees for their operation.

Unregulated child care is usually a privatearrangement between parents andcaregivers, with no governmentinvolvement. However, an infrastructurethat provides services and supports tothese caregivers may serve to enhancethe quality of care they provide.

The quality of child care servicesprovided depends upon a skilled,competent, caring and stable workforce.Human resource issues are thereforedirectly linked to the quality of care. Astable, well-trained, competent workforceis the basis for the provision of qualitychild care and early childhood services.

The future of caregivers in the early care workforce is directly connected to public policy and decisions about future investments in child care. The quality and effectiveness of child care services will depend largely on the commitment of public policy to enhancing the quality of care provided. Although the task of improving the quality of child care is one that needs to be addressed in many ways by groups and individuals throughout the child care sector, there is anindispensable role for the public sector.The cost of providing a quality child care


44

C H A P T E R 2

system cannot be primarily borne directlyby the user.

To improve the quality of regulated childcare across Canada, governments at alllevels will need to re-examine budgetarypriorities and provide public funding toensure that quality child care services areaffordable and accessible to Canadianfamilies.

4Good data are the foundation of good research, and good research is necessary to adequately diagnose problems, develop potential solutions, and monitor the success or failure of those solutions. The primary sources of labour market information for other sectors of the Canadian economy--the census and the Labour Force Survey--do not adequately or accurately reflect the various occupations within the child care workforce. Since the release of the reports of the Task Force on Child Care44 in 1986 and the Special Parliamentary Committee on Child Care4s in 1987, there has been an increased recognition of the need for and importance of research about the child care sector.

The child care workforce has a stronginterest in ensuring that data collection andresearch on these kinds of questions occur,and that data collection and researchdesigns are well conceived and effectivelyexecuted. Regular forums for publicizingresearch results and methodologies, andconsistent arrangements for expert reviewof these results and methods, would be ofsignificant benefit in raising the quality ofresearch in the sector.

There is a real shortage of good datato answer many of the most importantquestions facing the child caresector.

1 Human Resources Development Canada & StatisticsCanada, 1996, National Longitudinal Survey onChildren and Youth, Cycle I data, Public UserSample, calculations by consultants

2 Statistics Canada, 1992

3 Human Resources Development Canada & StatisticsCanada, 1996, National Longitudinal Survey onChildren and Youth, Cycle 1 data, Public UserSample, calculations by consultants

4 Human Resources Development Canada & StatisticsCanada, 1996

5 The findings will be published by the Canadian ChildCare Federation which has been contracted toanalyze the results of this survey.

6 Human Resources Development Canada & StatisticsCanada, 1996, National Longitudinal Survey onChildren and Youth, Cycle 1 data, Public UserSample, calculations by consultants

7 Statistics Canada, Education Quarterly Review, 1995b,Catalogue No. 81-003

8 Meisels & Sbonkoff, 1990

9 SpecialLink, 1995

1 0 Kellerman, 1995


1 2 Statistics Canada, 1990

1 3 Cleveland & Hyatt, 1994

1 4 Canadian Council on Social Development, 1993

15 Based on parent reports in the Canadian NationalChild Care Survey. See Cleveland and Hyatt,1997

16 As of July 1, 1996

1 7 This figure represents only the federal portion of taxexpenditures on the Child Care Expense Deduction.Since provinces levy income taxes as well, they alsohave tax expenditures on the Child Care ExpenseDeduction, but current data are not available for allprovinces. A very rough estimate would put provincialexpenditures at about $160 million.

18 Moss & Pence, 1994

1 9 Canadian Child Care Federation reported inDoherty-Derkowski, 1995, p. 4


4 5

C H A P T E R 2

2 0 Whitebook et al, 1990; Galinsky et al, 1994; Helbumet al, 1995

2 1 Doherty, 1991; Friendly, 1994; Doherty, 1996

2 2 Whitebook et al, 1990

2 3 Galinsky et al, 1994

2 4 Galinsky etal, 1994

2 5 Whitebooketal, 1990

2 6 Canadian Child Care Federation & Canadian DayCare Advocacy Association, 1992

27 SPR Associates, 1986; West, 1988; Friesen, 1992

28 Howes, 1988; Vandell, Henderson & Wilson,1988; Howes, 1990; Jacobs and White, 1994; Jacobs,Selig & White, 1992 quoted in Doherty, 1996,pp. 40-42

2 9 Lamb et al, 1988; Broberg et al, 1989; Hwang et al,1991

3 0 Lamb (in press)

31 Doherty & Stuart, 1996

3 2 Reported in Doherty, 1996

3 3 SPR Associates, 1986

3 4 Coelman & Pence, 1988; Pence & Goelman, 1991;Pepper & Stuart, 1992

3 5 Lyon & Canning, 1995a

3 6 Doherty & Stuart, 1996

3 7 Lamb (in press)

3 8 Whitebook, Howes & Phillips, 1989; Galinsky et al,1994; Scarr, Eisenberg & Deater-Deckard, 1994;Helburn et al, 1995; Kontos et al, 1995

3 9 Helburn et al, 1995

40 Galinsky et al, 1994

4 1 Whitebook, Howes & Phillips, 1989

4 2 Whitebook, Sakai & Howes, 1997

4 3 Lyon & Canning, 1995b, pp. 14-15

4 4 Cooke et al, 1986

4 5 Special Parliamentary CommitIee on Child Care, 1987


4 6

C H A P T E R 3

Chapter 3The Demand forChild Care Services

This chapter looks at some of the key factors likely to affect the demand for the services provided by members of the child care workforce: demographic changes, the labour force participation of mothers, the economic and fiscal environment in Canada and possible changes in public policy. It appears that the extremely rapid period of growth in the child care sector is largely over, and that the next period will be one of slower increase in demand, in which caregivers may seek to enhance the quality of care and serve unmet parent and child needs. The demand for child care has, up until now, grown very rapidly for two reasons: the baby boomers have been in their childbearing years and rapid rises

have occurred in mothers' participation inthe workforce. The baby boomers are nowmoving out of their childbearing years andthe cohorts of women which follow thebaby boomers are smaller, so, if fertilityrates stay low, there will be fewer children.At the same time, labour force participationrates of mothers with young children arealready high. There is some room forincreases, and for the movement of mothersfrom part-time to full-time work, but it islikely that these changes will be slower thanbefore. While demographic and labourforce pressures suggest slower growth of thechild care sector, the potential role of publicpolicy in affecting the demand for child careis especially dramatic, as Quebec's recentpolicy changes are beginning todemonstrate.1

The DemographicEnvironmentExamining the make-up and size of thepopulation can help predict future needsand behaviours. Trends in birth rates,immigration patterns, ethnic composition ofthe population and labour forceparticipation rates of women all play a rolein determining who will need and be likelyto use child care; hence, the demand forthe services of caregivers.

The Child PopulationAlthough Canada's population continues togrow each year, the rate of growth isslowing. The number of children under age6, who constitute the population most likelyto use child care services, will not changesubstantially in the next five to ten years.Also, Canada's child and youth populationwill make up a smaller proportion of the


47

C H A P T E R 3

overall population, as the number of peoplein older cohorts increases. This trend is partlya result of the relatively constant fertility rateof 1.7 (except for the baby boom "echo" ofthe late 1980s) over the last 15 to 20 years,a dramatic decrease from the fertility ratepeak of 4.0 in 1959. In 1996,approximately 4.028 million children wereunder age 10 in Canada. Over the next15 years, this number is expected to dropslightly, to 3.997 million.

It is worth noting that the decline in fertilityis largely because each woman in thepopulation is having fewer children. Eventhough a somewhat larger proportion of thefemale population has decided, in recentyears, not to bear children at all, the vastmajority of women and men in thepopulation still decide, at some point intheir lifetimes, to have one or two children.2According to the 1990 General SocialSurvey, fewer than 10% of both men andwomen intend to have no children overtheir lifetimes? Postponement and thereforereduction of childbearing, rather thanabstention from it, is apparently theexplanation for observed fertility trends.

In 1961, the "aging" index, or the ratio ofthe population 65 or over to every 100persons under 15 years of age, was 22.5. By1993, the index had risen to 57.0, and bythe year 2016, it is expected to be 108.3.4

Immigration LevelsThe immigration level is strongly affected byfrequent changes in immigration policy;even over the short period between 1986and 1991, it ranged from 100,000 to morethan 230,000 per year. With Canada's lowbirth rate, immigration has becomeincreasingly important to population

growth. Actual immigration in 1995 was215,700, and, in medium growthprojections, Canada is expected to acceptapproximately 250,000 new immigrants peryear over the next several years.Approximately 54% are expected to settle inOntario, 20% in Quebec and another 20%in British Columbia and Alberta. Over halfof all new immigrants are expected to settlein Toronto and Vancouver.

Between 1971 and 1975, two of every fiveimmigrants to Canada came from Europe.By 1994, fewer than one in every fiveimmigrants came from Europe, while wellover half came from Asia or the MiddleEast.s In the 1991 Census, 31% ofCanadians reported having ethnic originsother than French or British, compared to25% in 1986. It is expected that by the year2006, 51% of Canadians will report at leastone ethnic origin other than French orBritish and 15% will be of a visible minority.

Increased levels of immigration may affectthe demand for certain types of child care.Key informant interviews withrepresentatives of several ethnoculturalcommunities suggest that culturalbackground and values play a significantrole in attitudes toward and demand forspecific forms of child care. Within somecommunities, parents believe thatone-on-one care is preferable to a groupenvironment for their children and takethem to work with them when possible, oruse relative care. Within other ethnoculturalcommunities, preferences include ademand for very cognitively orientedprograms, the desire to retain the child's firstlanguage, and involvement of children inseveral structured activities outside theirchild care arrangement.


4 8

C H A P T E R 3

Labour Force Participation Rateof Mothers with Young ChildrenMuch of the increase in the demand forpaid child care services over the last 25years has been driven by the risingparticipation of mothers with youngchildren in the labour force. This rapidgrowth of women entering the labourmarket, which characterized the last fourdecades, is not expected to continue at thesame rate. For instance, economists fromStatistics Canada project that the labourparticipation of women aged 15 to 44 willrise from the current rate of approximately71% to about 80% by the year 2011.6As aresult, demand for child care services tomeet the labour force participation needsof parents is expected to grow steadily butmore slowly than in the past three decades.

Table 19 shows the growth, since 1967, ofthe number of children with mothers in thelabour force and the use of paid child carearrangements. Since 1981, the percentageof children of employed mothers who are

TABLE 19

CHILDREN IN PAIDCHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS

WITH MOTHERS IN LABOUR FORCE

YearChildrenNumber ofPercent of (0-5 years)Children inChildren with with MotherRemuneratedEmployed in LabourChild CareMothers ForceArrangementsin Remunerated Child Care 1967357,000147,00041.18 1981963,000480,00049.84 1988*1,061,000533,00050.24 19951,360,000

Sources: 1967 and 1981 data - Special Parliamentary Committee on Child Care (1987); 1988 data - Canadian Council on Social Development, Centre for International Statistics; 1995 data - NLSCY (1996) calculations by consultants.Note: * Includes children with mothers who are studying or in the labour force.

in some form of remunerated care has risenrelatively slowly (to about 54%), but theabsolute number of children this representshas risen sharply.

If child care services continue to developprimarily as a service to support maternalemployment, developed and purchased asa market commodity, then it is possible topredict the future requirements for childcare and caregivers using different sets ofassumptions. The most likely scenario overthe next five years would be for modestgrowth in the number of preschool childrenusing paid forms of care. The number ofcaregivers needed over the next few yearsto provide for this expansion of serviceswould be:

At a caregiver-child ratio in centre-basedcare of 1:7 across the preschool ages, theincreased demand for centre-basedcaregivers would be about 5,200 overthe next five years.At one caregiver for every four childrenin family child care, there would be aneed for an additional 12,300 caregiversover the next five years.At a 1:2 ratio for in-home caregivers, anadditional 10,000 new caregivers wouldbe required over the next five years.

Little information is available on currentturnover rates, which historically have beenin the 15% to 30% range in centre-basedchild care programs in Canada.7 However,these "gross" turnover rates include boththose who leave their jobs and go to someother job in the child care sector("job-switching turnover"), and those wholeave their jobs and leave the sectoraltogether ("net turnover"). To calculate thedemand for caregivers in the future, weneed an estimate of net turnover; only this


4 9

C H A P T E R 3

kind of turnover creates a need for newrecruits to the sector. Since it appears thatall types of turnover have fallen duringCanada's recent recession, it may bereasonable to assume an estimate of 10%for net turnover across the sector; in thatcase, the following numbers of replacementcaregivers (i.e. in addition to the caregiversneeded to account for expansion) would beneeded annually: 4,000 for centre-based care; 17,000 for family child care; and 11,500 for in-home care.

This means that in each of the next fiveyears, there would be a total demand (tomeet both new and replacement needs) forapproximately 38,000 new caregivers:5,000 new centre-based providers, 19,500family child caregivers and 13,500 in-homecaregivers. However, this projection is onlyto meet the demand created by maternallabour force participation. It does notreflect additional demand for an expansionof early childhood services and increased

preference for skilled caregivers with relatedtraining and education.

Fiscal and EconomicFactorsSeveral other variables apart from basicdemographics affect the demand for childcare and therefore the demand forcaregivers. As mentioned in the previouschapter, affordability is an issue for manyfamilies. Family incomes, in turn, areaffected by changes in traditionalemployment and the prevalence ofpart-time work and non-standard hours ofwork. As well, changes to the country'sfiscal situation affect government's ability tofinance social programs.

The Economy and theReorganization of WorkCanada's economy is attempting to adjustto global technological changes by movingtoward a knowledge-based economy. Theknowledge and technology segments of theeconomy are contributing to increasedproductivity and employment growth butare developing at a slower rate than in mostother Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD)countries?

A knowledge-based economy requires acompetent, skilled work-force and a stable,cohesive society to be successful. Economicadjustments cannot be successful withoutsocial investments. To make the transition toa successful knowledge-based economy,improved training and education of youth,and their involvement in ongoing learning,is essential. Successful training and education


5 O

C H A P T E R 3

of youth is predicted by early success inschool, which in turn is predicted by qualitycare and education experiences duringinfancy and the early childhood years.

Increased productivity using newtechnology means that traditionalemployers in industry and manufacturinghave fewer jobs in spite of an economicrecovery. Non-standard employment,including part-time, short-termemployment and self-employment, hasgradually increased over the last twodecades. Part-time and contract work isreplacing many full-time, full-year jobs. In1995, one in ten people was in anon-permanent job which was less wellpaid and had fewer benefits than apermanent position? Young families andthose entering the labour force are morelikely to be employed in these lower paid,less stable jobs, which affects their ability topay for child care.

Family IncomesIndividual incomes have been squeezed inCanada over the last 15 years, with theentry of mothers into the labour forceproviding the boost that has kept averagereal family incomes approximately level.The pressures on young families have beeneven greater than those on other membersof the labour force. For instance, theaverage after-tax incomes of Canadianfamilies with children under 18 wereapproximately $3,500 lower in 1994 thanthey had been in 1989.l° Before taxes,average incomes of families headed by aperson aged 20 to 24 were 17.6% worse offin 1991 than similar families in 1980.Families headed by a person aged 25 to 34were 5.8% worse off. By comparison, theaverage before-tax real income of all

families in Canada, over the same period,rose by 2.6%.

Two noted economists have commented onthe story told by these figures:

More recent family cohorts have clearlylost out in comparison with their parents'generation, and in the 7980"s evenslipped markedly in absolute terms. Giventhat, in the more recent cohorts, familyincome has been earned by spouseshaving spent more time working in thelabour market than was the case in theprevious generation, the slippage in theeconomic well-being of the youngercohorts is likely even more marked thanthese income figures indicate.11

In other words, young families today areconsiderably worse off than their parentswere; this has to affect the decisions theymake about caring for their children.

The Private Demand for ChildCare ServicesThe demand for child care services comesfrom parents and depends on both theparents' willingness and ability to pay forthe service. The service is labour intensive,and most of the cost of providing theservice is remuneration for caregivers.

Parental objectives in purchasing child careare twofold: to permit them access toemployment or study opportunities, and toprovide an enriching experience for theirchild. The first objective can be attainedwith low-cost custodial child care. Becausemany parents can make relatively low-costcustodial arrangements, they can set a limitto what they are willing to pay for child


51

C H A P T E R 3

care. The second objective requires carewhich is developmental; it requires moreand better resources and is usually moreexpensive.

Many parents are, however, financiallyunable to purchase higher quality care;good quality child care can be expensiveand young families typically have relativelylow incomes and high financial obligationsof other kinds. In addition, some parentsmay not be fully aware of the importanceof good quality child care to their child'sdevelopment and may be unwilling to paythe higher costs associated with quality.These conditions contribute to thecontinuing demand for lower cost childcare options.

The Public Demand for ChildCare ServicesChild care in Canada has faced recentchanges in government policies andfunding which are tied to deficit reductioninitiatives and have resulted in reductionsto several funding programs. However,macroeconomic projections suggest thatCanada's deficit crisis is on the wane andthat, within a very few years, there will befiscal room for spending increases and taxcuts as well as debt reduction. Increasedpublic funding for child care and relatedearly childhood services and family supportprograms could be a significant priority.

Looking to the future, there will be anincreased capacity for all levels ofgovernment to spend wisely on child careprograms and related services. Increasingthe links between child care services andother programs that support and promotethe healthy development of young children

may offer an avenue to build theincreased political will and public supportnecessary to ensure adequate funding tosupport the development of a system ofearly childhood services.

The public benefits from good quality carefor its youngest citizens.12 In nearly allindustrialized countries, this public interestis reflected in direct government fundingto child care programs, quality standardsand affordable parent fees. The strongerthe government role in the support ofchild care, in general, the greater thedemand for child care, and therefore thegreater the demand for the services ofchild caregivers. This is particularly so fortrained caregivers. The greater thedemand for trained caregivers, in general,the better the overall compensationpackage and working conditions ofcaregivers, and the quality of care forchildren.

The Public PolicyEnvironmentIn spite of fiscal restrictions across thebroader public sector, federal andprovincial/territorial governments are nowfocussing some attention on children'sissues. On one hand, there have beenreductions in federal transfer payments tothe provinces and territories for socialprograms, and freezes or reductions tochild care grants and funding atprovincial/territorial levels. On the otherhand, across Canada, governments areinitiating projects and programs related tohealthy child development, improvementin quality of parental and non-parentalcare, and reduction of child poverty.


5 2

C H A P T E R 3

Public policy is an important driver of thedemand for child care. It defines andshapes the services, which has an impacton the demand for caregivers. Severaldifferent, and sometimes conflicting,policy directions have been taken over thelast few years, by both federal andprovincial/territorial governments. Manykey informants expressed concern that theuncertainty of future government supportis contributing to an erosion of services,putting many already fragile programs atrisk.

The following section provides anoverview of several key policies andtrends that will have an impact on thefuture demand for and development ofservices.

Divergent Provincial/TerritorialChild Care PoliciesProvincial/territorial governments areresponsible for determining which childcare services are regulated, establishingand monitoring those regulations, anddetermining the type and amount of andconditions for funding child care services.However, provincial/territorial policies andspending on child care have always beeninfluenced by federal funding programsand are often developed in a way tomaximize federal cost sharing. In keepingwith the broader public policy trend awayfrom universal social programs and towardprivatization and targeting public funds tothe more needy, provincial/territorialgovernments, with the importantexception of Quebec, have generally beenmoving away from coordinated earlychildhood policies and programs, makingit even more of a private responsibility.

In countries with publicly funded national childcare programs, such as Denmark and France,services are widely available and the majority ofpreschool children attend; the "demand" for oruse of services in those countries is neither tiedto maternal employment nor family income.

In market-driven systems, such as in the UnitedStates, the development of services isdependent on the voluntary and commercialsectors, and virtually all of the public funding istargeted to low-income and at-risk families.Child care is viewed primarily as a support toworking mothers or a means of enhancing childdevelopment.

From key informant interviews withprovincial/territorial officials responsible forchild care, it is clear that child care isundergoing significant changes. In the pastfive years, most provinces and territorieshave experienced at least some of thefollowing: grant programs for child care frozen,

reduced or eliminated; limits or freezes placed on the number of

subsidized spaces; subsidy rates and eligibility levels not

increasing at the rate of the cost of living; regulation reviews, in some cases

intended to reduce or relax standards; increased devolution of responsibility to

local authorities; increased spending on informal care,

particularly for social assistance recipientsentering the workforce or trainingprograms; and

changes to social assistance programs,reducing benefits and requiring parentsof school-age children to seekemployment or participate in training.

One jurisdiction not following the trend ofdevolution and increased targeting is theGovernment of Quebec. Beginning in


5 3

C H A P T E R 3

hold" for a year, may make it more possiblefor parents to take the leaves to which theyare entitled, and thereby reduce thedemand for infant care.

September 1997, kindergarten programs for5-year-olds were extended to full-dayprograms. Existing half-day kindergartenprograms for 4-year-olds from low-incomefamilies will be maintained and free childcare services will be added for the otherhalf day. A range of child care models willgradually be made available through earlychildhood centres for $5 per day forparents who are working or studying, orwhere children are experiencing conditionsof risk, beginning with 4-year-olds andcovering all children by the year 2001.

With regulated child care spaces availableat an affordable cost, it is expected that thedemand for informal care will be greatlyreduced, encouraging caregivers to becomepart of the regulated system.

In addition to enhancing the provision ofaffordable child care services, Quebec plansto introduce a new maternity and parentalleave insurance program, which would pay75% of earnings and would include theself-employed. This program, currently "on

Changing Federal PoliciesBefore 1996, the federal governmentshared in child care expenditures made bythe provinces and territories on behalf oflow-income families through the CanadaAssistance Plan (CAP). In most provincesand territories, only child care expenses innon-profit licensed child care centres andregulated family homes were eligible forfederal cost sharing. Many organizationsand individuals in the child care sector werepleased with these restrictions (licensed andnon-profit), believing that they providedsome assurance of higher quality of care forchildren from low-income families.

The Canada Health and Social Transfer(CHST) was announced in the federalbudget of 1995, and came into effect onApril 1, 1996. It replaced federal transfersfor social assistance and child care underCAP, and transfers for health andpostsecondary education under EstablishedPrograms Financing. The amount of moneyallocated to the CHST by the federalgovernment reduces previous spendinglevels by over $6 billion over a two- tothree-year period.

The CHST is a block fund (rather than costsharing), which is provided in the form ofboth cash transfers and tax point transfers tothe provinces and territories. The principlesand conditions for health care contained inthe Canada Health Act are retained, but theconditions attached to child care spendingunder the CAP were eliminated. This meansthat funding for child care will no longer be


5 4

C H A P T E R 3

limited to the regulated sector, datacollection and reporting will no longer be arequirement, and provincial/territorialgovernments no longer have to matchfederal expenditures.

In addition to the funding cuts contained inthe CHST, previously announced dedicatedchild care spending has been withdrawn.The initial 1993 "Red Book promise," a$720-million, three-year investment, basedon cost sharing with the provinces andparents, subsequently became an offer of$630 million over five years, plus $72million for a First Nations/Inuit child careinitiative. According to the federalgovernment, there was insufficient interestfrom provincial governments, so the plandid not proceed. However, the First Nationsinitiative did. In addition, Child CareVisions, a $6 million per year research anddevelopment program, was implemented asthe seven-year Child Care Initiatives Fundcame to an end. The CHST and withdrawalof the federal "offer" have ended any majordedicated federal child care funding fordirect services. Provinces now have theflexibility to direct child care spending asthey wish, but no longer have the capacityto obtain matching dollars for any futureinvestments they may make in child care.

In the 1996 Speech from the Throne, the federal government committed itself to limit the use of federal spending through shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. A National Child Care Program, with significant federal funding, is, as a result, less likely unless there is substantial provincial consent

To date, no provincial government hasreduced its child care budget as a direct

result of the CHST and the funding cuts itcontains, but several provincial officialsexpressed concern about their ability tomaintain current provincial spending levelsover the medium term.

Key informants from several child careorganizations expressed concern that therecent fiscal measures increase the fragilityof many regulated services, decreaseaccountability for public spending, willlikely increase targeting and do little toensure the quality of care that childrenreceive. The specific impact of these policyshifts on the demand for child care remainsto be seen, but it may well result in morefunding directed toward less costly informalchild care.

New federal spending aimed at reducingchild poverty was announced in the 1997Budget. The National Child Benefitcombines existing child tax credits with anadditional $600 million. Provinces mayreduce spending on social assistance by thesame amount, and may redirect the funds,if they wish, to other children's programs,which could include child care. The 1997Speech from the Throne committed thegovernment to expand the Child TaxBenefit by at least $850 million over themandate of this government.

In January 1997, the federal andprovincial/territorial governments agreedto develop a National Children's Agenda,which is intended to be a "comprehensivestrategy to improve the well-being ofCanada's children."13 It is unclear how thisNational Children's Agenda will affectfederal and provincial/territorial policy andfunding for child care. Four principalinitiatives have been announced under this


5 5

C H A P T E R 3

agenda: enhancement of the National ChildBenefit system, measurement and regularreporting on the learning readiness ofchildren, expansion of the Aboriginal HeadStart program on reserves, andestablishment of Centres of Excellencedealing with children's development andwell-being.

Maternity and Parental Leave .and BenefitsWhile not a child care service, maternityand parental leave and benefits support theprovision of care for young infants. Thebenefits allow some parents a paid periodaway from the labour force after the birthor adoption of a child and may reduce thedemand for paid child care for very younginfants.

Since the early 1970s, the majority ofemployed women have been entitled toreceive maternity benefits after the birth ofa child. In 1991, the federal governmentintroduced a 10-week parental leavebenefit, which was an addition to theexisting 15-week maternity leave benefit.

Maternity and parental benefits are part ofthe Employment Insurance program. Inorder to receive maternity or parentalbenefits, recipients must first meet theeligibility requirements for employmentinsurance. A new system, introduced in1997, makes eligible many part-time andmultiple job holders, who were notpreviously eligible.TM

In addition to the maternity and parentalbenefits available under the EmploymentInsurance Act, collective agreements oremployment arrangements may provide

In Spain, mothers are entitled to 16 weeks'maternity leave at 75% of earnings. During thefirst nine months after birth, employed mothersor fathers have the right to a one-hour absencefrom work each day, without loss of earnings. Amother may transfer a maximum of four weeksof her leave to the father. Parents are alsoentitled to a three-year unpaid parental leave,immediately following maternity leave. Parentswith a child under age 6 or with a disability canreduce their work day by one-third, withcorresponding reduction in pay. (EuropeanCommission Network on Childcare, 1996)

In 1993, the United States introduced theFamily and Medical Leave Act, requiringemployers with more than 50 employees togrant a job protected, but unpaid, leave of 12weeks to care for a newborn child. (Hofferth etal, 1994)

supplementary plans for increased benefitsor extended periods of leave. For example,the Treasury Board policy which governsemployees in the federal Public Serviceprovides for a maximum of 26 weeks ofunpaid leave following child birth. Duringthe two-week waiting period forEmployment Insurance benefits, theemployer pays 93% of the employee'sregular salary, and, for up to 15 weeksafterwards, the employer pays thedifference between the gross amount ofthose benefits and 93% of the employee'sregular salary.

Increased Support for EarlyChildhood DevelopmentProgramsFederal and provincial/territorialgovernments are increasing their support forsome initiatives and policies which supporthealthy child development during children'searly years. Recent developments in the


5 6

C H A P T E R 3

field of neuroscience explain theimportance of early experiences inchildren's neurological development, andconsequently children's cognitive, socialand emotional development. Theorganization of the brain is most activeduring the early years and influenceschildhood, adolescent and adult well-being,competence and coping skills. This newunderstanding brings a sense of urgency tothe need for increased investment in earlychildhood opportunities (including highquality child care) and early interventionservices.

Some of the policies and initiativessupported by the federal government aredescribed below:

Health Canada developed national goalsfor children and youth in partnershipwith a variety of organizations, includingthe Canadian Institute of Child Health,

the Canadian Public Health Associationand the Canadian Paediatric Society. Itconducted a broad consultation processwith experts, provincial/territorialgovernments, Aboriginal groups and localcommunities across Canada. The goals,presented in Turning Points (1996),isrecognize that young children need childcare which stimulates development and issensitive to cultural needs.The federal government is intending toestablish Centres of Excellence forChildren's Well-Being to increaseunderstanding of the critical factors forhealthy child development throughinformation collection and sharing,research and networks of individualsand groups involved in children'swell-being.In its 1996 report, the National Forum onHealth16 called for a broad, integratedchild and family strategy. This strategywould provide for both programs andincome support. It highlighted theimportance of improved access to highquality child care and early childhoodeducation services along with other familysupport programs, including an integratedchild benefit program; targeted,community-based programs with a homevisiting component; workplace policiesmore favourable to families; and moreequitable taxation of families withchildren.The National Crime Prevention Council(1996)17 identified early child care andeducation programs as essentialcomponents of an integrated approach topromote positive outcomes in childrenand, in the long term, reduce theincidence of crime.A number of early intervention andcompensatory education projects are


5 7

C H A P T E R 3

funded by Health Canada through theCommunity Action Program for Childrenand the Aboriginal Head Start Program.These projects are aimed at enhancingchild development, particularly forchildren considered to be living inconditions of risk.

Summary andConclusions

1Demand projections for child care, and hence the demand for caregivers, typically consider only trends in population growth, expected future labour force participation rates of mothers with young children, future trends in family incomes and the expected cost of different types of care as key determinants. Using this limited set of assumptions and assuming annually a net turnover rate of caregivers of 10%, demand projections prepared for this study find that about 38,000 new caregivers will be needed each year.

Continuing immigration enhances the needfor ethnoculturally sensitive child carepractices, while changes in prevailing workpatterns enhance the need for caregivers toprovide more part-time or flexible hours ofcare. The increasing awareness of theimportance of early childhood experienceshas also resulted in some new governmentpolicies and funded initiatives. In addition,there are other early childhood services,such as kindergarten programs, earlyintervention and family support programs,which are not dependent on user fees.These programs augment the total demandfor caregivers, especially those with ECE

training, and may provide employmentopportunities for those who are currently partof the child care workforce.

There is a need to highlight childdevelopment knowledge and early, childhoodeducation practices and to consider thesector in a broader, more integrated way. Thiswould emphasize the range of ways in whichthose in the early childhood workforceensure positive child development across thesector. The current emphasis of governmentin addressing child health, poverty, childrenliving in conditions of risk, and family supportstrategies present such opportunities.

The development of an early childhoodworkforce which can transfer skills,abilities and credentials across differentseeings would increase careeropportunities and enhance the quality ofcare and education that young childrenreceive.

2Funding and regulatory policies of governments will have very significant effects on the future demand for child care and the services of caregivers. There are conflicting signals about future trends in public policy.On the one hand, downsizing, devolution, deficit reduction and deregulation are the order of the day; many families and caregivers have felt the impact of funding and program cuts which have resulted in reduced access to and increased targeting of many child care services. On the other hand, the increasing awareness of and knowledge about the importance of quality early childhood experiences in shaping and promoting the healthy development of young children and its long-term impact on society


513

C H A P T E R 3

has resulted in a renewed interest fromgovernment and others in programs thatserve children and families. At the sametime, there is evidence that governments willhave money to spend in priority areas in thenear future. While many of these childdevelopment programs are not formallyconsidered child care, their programcomponents and staffing are often similar.The nature of policies shaping children'sprograms, and the level, type and conditionsof funding available, may directly influencethe demand for and utilization of child careand related services.

Public policy and legislation are needed todefine and shape child care services. Earlychildhood services in Canada requirenational leadership.

Inconsistent public policy in the approachto service delivery and funding of earlychildhood services further fragments thefragile infrastructure that currently exists.

3Emerging research indicates that the early years are paramount in determining health outcomes for children, yet there is a serious gap in Canadian research in such key areas as the contribution of quality care to child outcomes. It is essential to establish clear outcome measures and expectations, to monitor the impact of policy, regulation and funding measures on the quality, accessibility and affordability of child care; and to publicize the findings.

A coherent and comprehensive system ofearly childhood care and education has thecapacity to promote children's healthydevelopment, be a support to familiesregardless of their labour force status, further

women's economic independence and helpaddress some of the conditions of riskexperienced by many families. The provisionand types of child care services need to beexamined within the context of a broaderfamily policy which balances the work andfamily needs of parents, children andemployers.

Increased public awareness of caregivers'roles and responsibilities will build publicsupport for increased investments in earlychild care and education.

1For details, see Childcare Resource and Research Unit, "Quebec's New Family Policy," 19972Grindstaff, 19923Ravanera, 19954StaUstics Canada, 19945StaUstics Canada, 19946Basavarajappa, Bender & Larrivée, 19927canadian Child care Federation & Canadian Day care Advocacy Association, 19928Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 19959Statistics Canada, 199510Canadian Council on Social Development, 1996 11Beach & Slotve, 1996, p. 8612See Cleveland & Krashinsky, 1997b, for an economic analysis of the benefits and the costs of a significant public investment in child care for young children; Friendly, 199713House of Commons, Speech from the Throne, SepL 199714Effective January 1997, a new hourly-based entitlement system for Employment Insurance was implemented. For most workers, the requirement is for 20 weeks or 700 hours of work. The new system made eligible many part-time workers and multiple job holders who were not eligible for benefits. It likely means that some of the estimated 7% of the workforce who were not eligible for employment benefits are able to collect maternity and parental benefits.15Health Canada, 199616National Forum on Health, 199617National Crime Prevention Council, 1996


5 9

C H A P T E R 4

Chapte r 4Institutions andOrganizations That Prepareand Support Caregivers

This chapter describes current programswithin the postsecondary education systemthat provide early childhood education(ECE) and related credentials. It alsoidentifies and describes the roles of childcare organizations, associations and unionsthat support the child care workforce. Thischapter is closely related to Chapter 6which analyzes the skills challenge thatcaregivers face as they strive to accesseducation, training and professionaldevelopment of the right type, of the rightcontent, in the right place, for the rightprice.

As noted in Chapter 2, the requirements forworking with young children varyconsiderably among jurisdictions and acrosstypes of care. Kindergarten teachersgenerally require a minimum of a four-yearundergraduate degree, wherever they work.Some caregivers in child care centres arerequired to have formal postsecondary earlychildhood qualifications in some provincesand territories. There are only minimalpre-service requirements for regulatedfamily child care providers in a fewprovinces and territories, and none forunregulated family or in-home providers.Training requirements for those working inresource centres and early intervention arenot clearly prescribed. There are fewrequirements to participate in professionaldevelopment opportunities offered by childcare organizations, colleges and universities.

It is likely that the child care workforce ofthe future will work within an expandingrange of ECE programs and family supportprograms. Postsecondary educationinstitutions, child care organizations andassociations, and unions will play significantroles in preparing caregivers for growingcareer opportunities.

Postsecondary EducationInstitutionsIn Canada, postsecondary educationopportunities are provided by communitycolleges and universities. There are 69publicly funded universities and 201community colleges.1 A number ofproprietary and private non-profitinstitutions also offer postsecondaryeducation programs. The provision ofeducation is a provincial/territorial


6 0

C H A P T E R 4

jurisdiction in Canada. However, thefederal government has been involved inpostsecondary education financing,coordination among governments, studentassistance programs, minority officiallanguage education, and research. Federalparticipation in these areas affects thedelivery of programs in universities andcolleges.

Overview of Caregiver Postsecondary Education ProgramsIn Canada, approximately 117 postsecondary institutions2 deliver ECE certificate, diploma, degree and related programs through publicly funded community colleges, CEGEPs (Colleges d'enseignement général et professionnel), universities and private institutions.Universities are responsible for teacher education programs for kindergarten teachers. Postsecondary institutions also provide some related credit and non-credit programs for those working in the child care sector. These institutions have a major role in the pre-service and in-service preparation of caregivers and in supporting their ongoing professional development.

Like the range of child care servicesavailable, various training opportunitiesare offered by many institutions andorganizations in Canada. Communitycolleges and CEGEPs are primarilyresponsible for certificate (one-year) anddiploma (two-year) ECE programs. InQuebec, CECEPS offer three-year ECEprograms. ECE diploma programs providedthrough continuing education or distanceeducation are usually completed in three tofive years. Certificate, diploma and degree

programs are offered on a full-time basis aspre-service training, and are often deliveredthrough part-time programs or distanceeducation for caregivers currently workingin child care. A few universities offer degreeprograms in early childhood studies.University degree and postgraduateprograms develop specialized expertise andundertake research initiatives. Colleges anduniversities may offer required short-termorientation programs, non-credit workshopsand seminars, specialized certificate/diploma programs in areas such as childrenwith special needs, school-age child care,infant and toddler child care, child caremanagement and administration, andcertificate programs specific to familyhome child care or family resourceprograms.

Provincial/territorial governmentsestablish program guidelines andapproval procedures for postsecondaryprograms. Table 20 provides an overviewof the delivery of ECE postsecondaryeducation programs in each province andterritory.

Most postsecondary education institutionsthat offer ECE programs are publicly fundedinstitutions either operated directly by aprovincial government or under a non-profitgoverning body. Eleven of the 117institutions are private organizations, whichare either non-profit private organizationsor operated as commercial businesses anddo not receive direct public funding(although individual students may receivepublic financial support to attend).Commercial proprietary institutions areapproved to offer ECE programs inNewfoundland, Alberta and BritishColumbia. In Nova Scotia and Ontario,


61

C H A P T E R 4

TABLE 20

PROFILE OF DELIVERY OF POSTSECONDARY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN THE PROVINCES AND TERRITORIES

Newfoundland, Ministry of Education ECE diploma program at community college and two proprietary institutions (Career

Academy and Academy Canada).

Prince Edward Island, Department of Education ECE 2-yr diploma program at Holland College.

Nova Scotia, Department of Community Services & Department of EducationECE 1-yr certificate programs at community colleges and at St. Joseph's Training Program -possibly moving toward 2-yr program with first year generic human services. Two-yr ECEprograms offered at Institute for Early Childhood Education and Developmental Services.Bachelor of Child Study Degree and graduate studies at Mount Saint Vincent.

New Brunswick, Department of Advanced Education & Labour

New Brunswick Community Colleges (operated directly by Advanced Education & Labour)- 5 EOg & 4 Fr campuses. 1-yr ECE at two campuses (EOg & Fr).

Degree ECE programs at University of New Brunswick and University of Moncton.

Quebec, Ministëre d'enseignement supérieur et de la science & Ministère d'éducationCEGEPs offer loyr attestation (AEC), 2-yr certificate (TEC) or 3°yr diploma (DEQ in ECE.DEC program includes a year of general education in addition to 2-yrs study of youngchildren and child care. University degree and graduate programs also available atConcordia. Teacher education programs offer preschool specialization.

Ontario, Ministry of Education and Training1-yr early childhood assistant certificate programs at 7 community colleges. ECE Diploma(2-yr program) at 25 community colleges. Canadian Mothercraft Society 1-yr (12-mth)program equivalent to diploma. Degree programs at Ryerson, Guelph, Brock & Carleton.Graduate programs at University of Toronto & Guelph.

Manitoba, Department of Education and Training

Child care diploma programs (2-yr) at community colleges - in process of moving from government operated to a board of governors' structure.

Degree programs at University of Winnipeg & University of Manitoba.Saskatchewan, Department of Education and Skill Training Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and Technology. Early Childhood Development 1- and 2-yr programs at Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and Technology -three locations. Child care orientation course (130 hrs) at regional community colleges. Degree program at University of Regina.

Alberta, Advanced Training and Education

Early Childhood Development Diploma (2-yr) and ECE (1-yr) certificate at community colleges and private colleges. Degree programs offered at University of Calgary.

50-hr orientation program contracted by government to selected community colleges.School boards piloting orientation course in selected schools.

British Columbia, Ministry of Education, Skills and Training Colleges

Community colleges and private institutions offer certificate and diploma programs.Universities offer degree programs. Graduate program at University of Victoria.

Publ ic and pr ivate del ivery.

Yukon, Yukon College, funded by Ministry of Education

ECE Diploma (2-yr) and Certificate (1-yr) programs at Yukon College.

Northwest Territories, Department of Education, Culture and Employment

ECE 1-yr certificate and 2-yr diploma program at Arctic College - Nunatta campus,Yellowknife campus & Aurora college.

commercial proprietary institutions haverequested approval to operate programsgranting recognized ECE credentials. Thissector study conducted a survey, betweenApril and September 1996, ofpostsecondary training institutions inCanada which deliver ECE training andeducation programs. The followingdescription of postsecondary programs isdrawn primarily from the survey data.

Table 21 summarizes the type and numberof post.secondary ECE and related creditprograms offered across Canada. ECEcredit programs include 60 certificateprograms, 76 diploma programs and 16degree programs. A few institutions offerspecialized programs, including certificatesin family day care, school-age care,infant/toddler care, special needs care, andadministration. However, these programsare relatively rare across the country. Noneof the Atlantic provinces has theseprograms and, apart from BritishColumbia, and to a lesser extent,Manitoba, the more specialized certificateprograms are not available in the Westernprovinces either. Ontario has the widestrange of ECE postsecondary programs.

There are 16 university degree programsthat major in ECE or child studies.Graduate studies in ECE or related studiesare offered at University of Victoria,University of Toronto, University ofGuelph, Concordia University and MountSaint Vincent.

Colleges and universities also offernon-credit courses. These cover a range oftopics, including family day care,school-age care, child development,supported child care and first aid.


6 2

C H A P T E R 4

NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS OFFERING FORMAL CREDIT EARLY CHILDHOOD

!DUCATION PROGRAMS BY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY

Province or Territory ECE ECE Family Day Care School-Age Infant/Toddler Special Needs Administration Degree

Certificate* D!rlnma** Certificate*** Certificate*** Certificate*** Certificate*** Certificate***

Newfoundland 4

Prince Edward Island 1

Nova Scotia 2 2 1 1 1

New Brunswick 2

Quebec 2 0 1 5 2

Ontario (1) , , 8 2 5 2 2 7 9 7 5

Manitoba (2) 1 4 1 1 1 1

Saskatchewan (2), 1 1 1

Alberta 8 1 0 1 1 2

British Columbia (3) 1 6 13 , 7 1 1 7 20 I 4

Yukon 1

Northwest Territories 2. i ii i

Total 6 0 7 6 9 4 2 5 31 11 1 6

Soqan~: Survey of Training Institutions.Notes: Information in Table 21 is based on responses to survey of postsecondary institutions and other data collected for this study as noted. Information from the five institutions which are known to offer ECE programs but which did not respond to the survey may be missing from the table. Some institutions may not have identified all programs offered. Certificates are 1-yr pro~ams ranging from 2 to 3 semesters. In Quebec, the AEC (Attestation d'~udes collegiales) is a I -yr certificate program and the TEC is a 2-yr certificate program after cornple~on of Grade 11. * Diplomas are 2-yr programs. In Quebec, the DEC (Diplôme d’études collegiales) is a 3-yr diploma program which includes a year of general education in addition to 2 yrs' ECE after completion of Grade 11. ** Specialized certificate programs include post-certificate/diploma programs.(1) Also offer Anti-bias Specialization Post-diploma (1); Advanced Certificate in EC Music Education (1); Advanced Studies in EC Certificate (1).(2) Also offer Aboriginal Child Care certificate.(3) Information for British Columbia is drawn from Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia (September 1996) Management of Child Care Grants: Performance Audit. The ECE diploma is granted at the completion of some combination of post-basic infant-toddler or special needs certificate in addition to the basic ECE certificate.

Early Childhood EducationCertificates and DiplomasECE diploma and certificate programs are the most common credentials offered by postsecondary institutions. They consist of foundation training and education which prepare caregivers to work with young children in a variety of early childhood settings, but particularly child care centres and nursery schools.

Most postsecondary ECE certificate anddiploma programs are organized byprovinces and territories to accommodatetheir training requirements for caregivers inregulated, centre-based settings. There aredifferences across the 12 jurisdictions as to

what constitutes a "trained ECE caregiver."These differences are reflected to someextent in the organization ofprovincial/territorial postsecondary ECEprograms. But in most jurisdictions,postsecondary ECE training programs areoffered which exceed regulatoryrequirements. For instance, New Brunswickdoes not require any training qualificationsfor caregivers in licensed programs, yet itscommunity colleges offer ECE certificateprograms.

ECE certificates and diplomas can be usedas preparation for jobs other than those thatwork directly with children. For instance, inchild care and related fields, ECE may beuseful training for child care administration


6 3

C H A P T E R 4

and supervision, family day care agencies,child support programs and family resourcecentres, child care organizations andassociations, Early Intervention/InfantDevelopment Programs, kindergarten andelementary school teaching assistants, andin provincial/territorial government licensingand monitoring.

Curriculum ContentThe content of ECE certificate and diploma programs is influenced by the program directions of the individual institution, the requirements of the provincial/territorial postsecondary education system, the regulations for licensed child care programs and by caregivers and organizations within the child care sector. In spite of differing qualification requirements and systems of postsecondary education across Canada, ECE certificate and diploma programs do tend to contain similar content reflecting a common core of knowledge and skills.

All the certificate and diploma programs reviewed for this study include course content in child development, teaching-caregiving practices (methodology) and behaviour guidance.Much of the content in subject areas, such as child development or behaviour guidance, is applicable to caregivers working with young children in any child care setting, including centre- or home-based child care environments.

Most include course content in health, safety and nutrition, observation skills, interpersonal communications and foundations of early childhood education theory.

Most programs focus on centre-based settings (90%) while only 10% include significant content (a single course, placement or inclusion in several

courses) specifically related to othersettings, including family home day careor family resource programs.All certificate and diploma ECE programsinclude a supervised field placementcomponent. The total number of hoursstudents complete in field placementsvaries from 500 to 1,000. ECE certificateprograms typically include two fieldplacements and ECE diploma programsinclude an average of 3.5 placements.Most placements are in centre-basedprograms. Two thirds of postsecondaryinstitutions responding to the surveyoperate a child care centre which servesas a lab to provide students withopportunities for direct experiences inpresumably quality settings.In addition to theoretical and practicallearning, ECE certificate and diplomaprograms include curricula content thatis considered general education, such associal sciences, humanities, science andtechnology, many of which are eligiblefor university credits. In Quebec andOntario, recent initiatives affecting allpostsecondary education in communitycolleges and CEGEPs brought aboutincreased general education coursecontent in ECE programs.

ECE Student EnrolmentThe results of the ECE training surveyindicate that there are currently some20,000 students enrolled in ECE collegeprograms in Canada (see Table 22). About75% of these students are in diplomaprograms and over half are in Ontarioinstitutions. Overall, most institutionsexpect no change in enrolment. In fact,while some institutions expect a decrease inenrolment, an almost equal number expectan increase.


6 4

C H A P T E R 4

Less than half of the students enrolled inECE certificate and diploma programs are infull-time programs. The majority areenrolled in continuing education (part time)or distance education programs. Almost12,000 students are enrolled in ECEprograms offered through continuingeducation and distance education deliverymodels. Most of these students are likely tobe currently working as caregivers.

Based on the survey information reportedfrom institutions, there are currently about4,000 ECE certificate and diplomagraduates each year. Most of thesegraduates are from full-time ECE certificateand diploma programs. (Distance educationand continuing education programs requireseveral years to complete.) While some ofthe completed questionnaires did notinclude specific estimates of 1995-96graduates, it was possible to estimate theapproximate number of graduates for theseinstitutions and for the non-respondinginstitutions. Most students are enrolled formore than one year before they completethe program, which explains the differencebetween the number of students enrolledin ECE programs and the number ofgraduates. It also indicates that somestudents do not complete the program.

The postsecondary education system ispreparing enough ECE graduates each yearto maintain the current level of caregiverqualifications in centre-based care if thecurrent turnover rate of ECE caregivers doesnot exceed 15%. The current enrolmentsand graduates in ECE postsecondaryprograms are sufficient if the turnover ratehas dropped substantially over the past sixyears, if provincial/territorial caregiverqualification requirements do not increase,

if ECE graduates seek employment primarilyin centre-based settings, if there is noexpansion of regulated centre-basedprograms and if there is no demand fromcentre-based employers to increase thelevel of qualifications.

However, there are other considerations: The current caregiver turnover rates are unknown.

Child care centres often hire caregivers with ECE qualifications beyond the provincial/territorial minimum requirements.

Expanded kindergarten programs in some jurisdictions may attract ECE graduates into degree and teacher education programs? ECE graduates may also find employment as assistants or teachers in kindergarten programs.

Family child care, in-home child care and increased early intervention and family support programs provide other career opportunities for ECE graduates.

Key informants identified a shortage of caregivers with ECE qualifications in more remote parts of Canada and among particular ethnocultural and linguistic groups.

Table 23 shows the distribution of programdelivery models across the provinces andterritories. There are nearly as manypart-time certificate programs as full-timeprograms. However, more diplomaprograms are offered through full-time,rather than part-time, programs.

The delivery of postsecondary educationthrough distance education in all disciplinesis increasing across Canada as the demandfor accessible training and educationcontinues to grow. A significant proportion


6 5

C H A P T E R 4

ESTIMATED ENROLMENT IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAMSIN 1995-96, BY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY*

Certificate Programs Diploma ProgramsDistanceDistance Combined Province or TerritoryFull-timePart-timeEducationFull-TimePart-TimeEducation Total Newfoundland15010565 320 Prince Edward Island581068 Nova Scotia53173120346 New Brunswick6543099 Quebec2751,8001,600503,725 Ontario350300604~5003r7001~92010,830 Manitoba2097340217

Source: Survey of Training Institutions.Note: * Numbers reflect extrapolation of reported data to cover institutions which did not respond to the survey.

(15%) of ECE students are currentlyenrolled in distance education programs(about one in eight in certificate programsand about one in six in diploma programs).In the survey, 15 institutions indicated theirintention to introduce additional distanceeducation ECE programs within the nexttwo years.

Expected Changes inPostsecondary EducationPostsecondary education is financedthrough federal and provincial/territorialfunds, tuition fees and donations. Thefederal contribution has consisted of taxtransfers and cash transfers through theEstablished Programs Financing Act. Directfederal financial support has come throughresearch grants, student assistance (CanadaStudent Loans Program) and purchase oftraining for particular target populations

(through Human Resources DevelopmentCanada).

Significant changes in federal transferarrangements are affecting and willcontinue to affect the financing andoperation of postsecondary education inCanada. The Canada Health and SocialTransfer (CHST) (discussed in Chapter 2)replaces the Established Programs FinancingProgram and transfer payments arereduced. The federal government has alsointroduced a new Employment InsuranceAct to replace the Unemployment InsuranceAct and National Training Act. Provisions inthe new Act include the withdrawal offederal funds from the Direct Purchase ofTraining program and the end of extendedincome support for individuals duringtraining. Most of the training to designatedgroups (Aboriginal peoples, women,persons with disabilities and immigrants to


6 6

C H A P T E R 4

C H I L D

PROGRAM DELIVERY MODELS, BY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY

ECE Certificate Programs Available ECE Diploma Programs Available Distance Distance Province or TerritoryFull-timePart-timeEducationFull-TimePart-Time Education Newfoundland411 Prince Edward IslandI1Nova Scotia121 New Brunswick211quebec10151152 Ontario443231 S4 Manitoba132 I SaskatchewanIIIIAlberta7

Source: Survey of Training Institutions.

Canada) will come under the newEmployment Insurance Act.4 Federal directpurchase of training has made up 20% ofcommunity college annual operatingbudgets,s

Key informants indicated that mostprovinces and territories (except for NewBrunswick and British Columbia) areexpecting further cuts to postsecondaryinstitutions. Funding mechanisms forpostsecondary education in the provincesand territories vary. For instance, inNewfoundland a block funding system isnegotiated between each institution andthe province. Nova Scotia uses anenrolment-based formula.

New ECE postsecondary educationprograms have been established regularlyover the past 25 years, a period duringwhich there was expansion inpostsecondary education, growth inlicensed child care services and an

accompanying increase in legislativerequirements for caregivers with ECEcredentials. Today, postsecondaryeducation, like all publicly funded servicesand programs in Canada, is experiencingreductions in funding and significantrestructuring activity.

In recent years, postsecondary institutionsoffering ECE and related programs haveexperienced these challenges:

overall reductions in program financing,which have resulted in reductions infaculty, larger class sizes and lessfaculty/instructor time allocated to fieldsupervision;

restructuring initiatives; changes in federal-provincial funding

arrangements; constraints on public spending; privat izat ion; demographic fluctuations; and increases in student tuition fees.

C A R E W O R K F O R C E : F R O M R E C O G N I T I O N T O R E M U N E R A T I O N

6 7

C H A P T E R 4

Child Care and RelatedOrganizationsIn addition to the education, training anddevelopment provided by formalpostsecondary and other institutions, arange of other professional developmentand training opportunities promotescaregivers' skills and knowledge. Theseinclude evaluation and training leading tocertification of caregivers, non-creditworkshops, seminars, conferences,publications, networking, negotiation ofsalary levels and working conditions,related research initiatives and resources.They are provided by professional andservice organizations, governmentdepartments, community groups, familyresource programs, family day careagencies and child care services.

Over the years, child care organizations andrelated groups and services have developedat the national, provincial/territorial andlocal levels to promote child care issues andsupport the sector. The non-governmentsector--particularly child care

organizations--continues to be a key player in the development of caregivers and child care services in Canada. But like child care services, most organizations do not receive the support of clear public policy or operational funding, which in turn limits their ability to contribute to an effective infrastructure for caregivers. Unlike several other occupations, such as teaching or nursing, members of the child care workforce are not required to become a member of any professional association as a condition of employment.

Child care organizations face a number ofcritical issues.

In most jurisdictions, child careassociations now operate with little or nopublic funding and rely on volunteerlabour for most activities. Of the 35associations interviewed for this study, 15had no paid staff and none of the othershad more than five full-time staff.The ability of the sector to maintainorganizations solely on membership feesis very limited, in part due to low wagesin the sector. Usually, organizations havehad to rely increasingly on project-basedfunding and, as a result, find theirmandate and ability to meet members'needs diminishing. The lack of financialsupport is problematic when it isperceived that child care organizationsmay take over more responsibility formonitoring and quality control in theoccupation. Sustainability will depend onpublic funding support.In Canada, the child care workforceremains largely unorganized (notrepresented by a labour union). Only asmall percentage of the total number ofcaregivers in any child care settingbelong to a trade union.


6 8

C H A P T E R 4

Based on total membership and theoverall number of caregivers, most donot belong to any child careorganization. However, about half of thecaregivers in regulated family child carebelong to a child care or otherassociation.6

National Child CareOrganizations

Child Care Advocacy Association of CanadaThe First National Child Care Conference organized by the Canadian Council on Social Development in 1971 helped to focus on child care as a national issue.The second conference--held 11 years later—passed numerous resolutions calling for increased federal andprovincial/territorial funding, a national day care act, national standards and promotion of the goal of universal access to quality day care. Follow-up work to the conference resulted in the creation of the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association (now called the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada [CCAAC]). The goal of the association is to advocate forcomprehensive child care programs that would be universally accessible, of high quality and non-profit CCAAC has worked closely with other national groups with an interest in child care toward this goal. The CCAAC includes in its mandate women's equality goals which have been supported by Status of Women Canada and by labour partners.

Canadian Child Care Federation

The Second National Child CareConference held in 1982 resulted in the

establishment of the Canadian Child DayCare Federation (now called the CanadianChild Care Federation) as a nationalservice-based child care organizationcommitted to improving the quality ofchild care services across Canada. Amembership-based organization, theFederation is affiliated with 13 provincial/territorial organizations (includingassociations of centre-based and familyhome caregivers), with more than9,000 members across Canada working ina variety of child care and related settings.At the national level, the Federation hassponsored important professionaldevelopment initiatives and producedrelated publications directed to the childcare field. The Federation has activelyworked to build national informationservices, helping to strengthen theinfrastructure of the child care communityat both the national and grass-roots level.

Canadian Associat ion of FamilyResource Programs

The Canadian Association of FamilyResource Programs is a national network offamily resource programs, withapproximately 500 members acrossCanada. The organization providesconsultation and support on programdevelopment, publications and professionaldevelopment opportunities, and undertakesresearch related to family resourceprograms. It was originally founded in 1975as a national association of toy libraries.

Provincial/Territorial Child CareOrganizationsIn all provinces and territories (except forNorthwest Territories), there is at least onechild care organization that supports and


6 9

C H A P T E R 4

TABLE 24

PROFILE OF PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL CHILD CARE ORGANIZATIONS

OrganizationYear MandateMembershipFunding/Staff StartedAssociation of Early Childhood1989Provide awareness of180 individuals - caregivers Membership fees/fund Educators, Newfoundland &quality child care andin child care and/or ECEraising; no staff Labradoradvocate for earlytrainedchildhood educatorsProvincial Child Care Association1986Represent private35 individuals, primarilyMembership fees, training Licentiate (Nfld)operators and centresprivate operatorsworkshops Early Childhood Development1974Promote knowledge of186 individualsMembership fees, sales, Association, Prince Edward Islandearly childhood education,small government grant; promote professionalism,1 part-time staff support membershipChild Care Advocacy Association1983Coalition of labour, child80 individuals, 70 centresMembership fees; no staff of Nova Scotiacare, education, nursingand social services;promotes non-profit childcareNone - has not met in 2 Nova Scotia Family Day Care1985To provide networking50 individuals & agenciesyrsAssociationopportunities for caregiversin regulated child careCertification Council of Nova1988Voluntary certification50 individualsGovernment grants for Scotiaprocess for caregivers ......workshops; no staff Child Care Professional1995Achieve licensure of child175Development Association ofcare practitionersNova ScotiaQuebec Association for Preschool1985To promote and support43 child care centre-basedMembership fees, Developmentchild care administratorsorganizationsgovernment grant; ........1 part-time staff Concertaction inter-régionale des garderies du Québec

1986To advocate for quality,500 non-profit child careMembership fees, sales, non-profit child carecentresgovernment grant Association des services de garde1985To promote increased200 organizations,Association activities, en mileu scolaire du Québecaccess to school-age child65 individualsgovernment grants, careresearch projects, membership fees; staff , .....,- 4 full time, 2 part time Ontario Coalition for Better Child1981 To advocate and promote! 800 child care programs,Membership fees, fund Carequality, non-profit childlocal child care coalitions,raising, project grants from careprovincial organizations,governments and ! To represent non-profitIndividualsfoundations sectorAssociation of Day Care1977To represent, present and130 - 200 centresMembership fees, fund Operators of Ontariopromote private operatorsraising; staff - 1 paT, time, Association of Early Childhood1950To represent early2,200 individualsMembership fees, fund Educators, Ontariochildhood educators andraising; sales; staff - 3.5 promote professionalismHome Child Care Association of1983 To promote and support83 home (i.e. family) child


7 0

C H A P T E R 4

PROFILE OF PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL CHILD CARE ORGANIZATIONS (cont'd)

Year Mandate Membership Funding/StaffOrganization StartedOntario Network of Home Child 1993 To promote and advocate43 network memberProject funding; no staff.Care Provider Groupsfor family child caregroups representing 4,200Supported by Ottawa providerscaregivers (2,600 ingroup which receives Ottawa)

Manitoba Child Care Association1974To advocate for a quality1,600 individual members,Membership fees, fund system of child care, to400 programsraising, training services, provide services forconference; staff - 5 full membership, to advancetimechild care as a profession

Family Day Care Association1983To promote quality in392 individuals,

Saskatchewan Child Care 1988 To support caregivers in 586 individuals Membership fees, fund

Association centre-based and family raisin~ government

child care projects; 4 staff

Alberta Family Day Home 1987 To support regulated 76 family child care" Membership feesAssociation family child care agenciesECE Professional Association1981To support ECE staff and 116 individualsMembership fees, sales; of Albertapromote professionalno staff

Early Childhood Educators of BC1969To support and promo~ 1,500 individuals (75%Membership fees, sales, early childhood educatorshave B.C. licence to

Western Canada Family Child 1980 To promote, support and 466 individuals, Membership fees, projectCare Association advocate for quality family 10 local groups funding; no staff

child care

British Columbia School Age 1984 To promote and support 45 organizations and Membership fees,

Association school-age child care and 45 individuals conference, occasional

represent school-age child project funding; no staff

care staff

Coalition of Child Care Advocates 1976 To promote and advocate 160 - organizations and Membership fees, fundo f B C . . . . . . . . . . . . . for quality child care individuals raisin~; no staff

Yukon Child Care Association To promote centre-based 35 individuals Membership fees, fund1982 and family child care raising; no staff

Notes: Key informant interviews were conducted with a large selection of provincial child care organizations. Details of their activities, views, concerns and suggestions for the future are discussed in Chapter 6. This is not an exhaustive list of every provincial/territorial child care organization. Consultants were unable to obtain information from four other organizations which were contacted.

represents particular components of thechild care sector. These are established by

the sector itself and do not have a mandatedefined by government. Table 24summarizes information about theoperations of the provincial/territorialorganizations selected to participate in keyinformant interviews for this study. It is not acomprehensive inventory of all

provincial/territorial child care organizations.

Provincial/territorial child care organizations usually have a board of directors; many have committee structures. Yet the size, funding, structure, staffing levels, mandates and activities of these organizations vary tremendously. Most are membership-based, although a few are not. Some membership-based groups have only individual members, others have only organizational members, and some have both.


71

C H A P T E R 4

Many have received federal governmentsupport over the years. The federal ChildCare Initiatives Fund (CCIF) wasinstrumental in the creation andmaturation of many organizations in thesector and, for many, this fundingrepresented the only source of support,beyond membership fees. While, in mostinstances, provincial/territorialgovernments do not provide core fundingto these child care organizations, theyoften consult with them and include themin government reviews of child care,advisory committees and other relatedactivities. The one exception is theGovernment of Quebec, which doesprovide a limited amount of core fundingto many of the child care organizations.

Most family child care associations haveno staff. The Family Day Care Associationof Manitoba does have two part-time staff,

and F~d~ration de la game en milieufamilial has one part-time staff person. Thefamily child care associations that haveagency memberships tend to have amajority of agencies in those provinces asmembers.

Local Support for CaregiversIn some provinces and territories, agenciesor societies provide training, professionaldevelopment opportunities and support tocaregivers, particularly those inhome-based settings, as part of the definedchild care delivery system. They includefamily child care agencies, family resourcecentres (in Ontario) and child care supportprograms (in British Columbia). Unlike theprovincial/territorial child careorganizations, these support programs arepart of the funded child care infrastructureof their province or territory.

TABLE 25

TRAINING AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIESFOR FAMILY CHILD CAREGIVERS, BY AGENCIES OR GOVERNMENT

Number ofOfferingsAgenciesWorkshops/ConferencesNewslettersNetworkingElectronicOther Courses Province or Territory RespondingSeminarsGroupsConferencesNewfoundlandN/APrince Edward Island10Nova Scotia55320 3 New Brunswick100000 0 Quebec1231127784902109 Ontario113110

Source: Goes Gilroy Inc. (1997) Providing Home Child Care for a Living: A Survey of Regulated Home Child Care Providers.Note: * In British Columbia, 34 Child Care Support programs offer training and support to, and monitoring of, caregivers in regulated and unregulated family child care. However, they are not family child care agencies, as caregivers are individually licensed in the province and were not included in the survey.


7 2

C H A P T E R 4

The role of these organizations is, to a largeextent, defined by provincial/territorialgovernments and they receive a substantialportion of their operating budget fromgovernment. They usually have agreementswith their government to provide definedlevels of services and supports to theirtarget group--usually within a particulargeographic area. They are all involved insome form of training and professionaldevelopment, primarily to family childcaregivers, and offer a range of otherservices, including toy and equipmentlending; resource materials; referrals,registries and placements; home visits,liaison between parents, caregivers andgovernment; and play groups for parentsand/or caregivers.

Information in the following overview(Table 25) of the type of trainingopportunities available to caregivers inregulated family child care was collectedthrough the family child care survey. Mostfamily child care agencies offerworkshops/seminars and four out of fiveagencies produce newsletters. Two thirds ofthe agencies hold semi-annual or annualconferences or organize networking groups.Very few agencies have set up electronicconferences.

Trade UnionsUnions are involved in the child caresector. They represent and bargain forcaregivers employed in some child careprograms; advocate for high quality,affordable and accessible child care atlocal, provincial/territorial and nationallevels; build coalitions to increase publicsupport for good child care and equitablepay; organize their members in non-childcare locals to support child care causes;

and negotiate child care clauses intocollective agreements.

Membership in bargaining unitsrepresenting only caregivers tends to besmall; no collective agreements exist forchild care bargaining units with more than1 O0 members. There are also bargainingunits not specific to child care, whichinclude caregivers as well as other types ofworkers. At least 15 different unionsrepresent caregivers working in licensedchild care settings. Many staff working inrelated early childhood settings, such askindergarten programs or early interventionstaff working within a government structureor large institution, are members of unionbargaining units.

Information and ResourceServicesMany of the national andprovincial/territorial child care organizationsmentioned above provide extensiveinformation and resource services to theirmembers in the child care workforce and tothose who provide related services. Inaddition, a few organizations in Canada,operating at national or provincial/territoriallevels, provide information and resourcesrelated to child care policy, and support theimportant and diverse efforts ofpractitioners and researchers in child careprograms, community colleges, universities,governments and elsewhere.

Childcare Resource and Research Unit

The Childcare Resource and Research Unit(CRRU), at the Centre for Urban andCommunity Services, University of Toronto,is a policy- and research-oriented facility.CRRU serves all levels of government, the


7 3

C H A P T E R 4

broader child care community, communitygroups and educational institutions. Itprovides public education, consultation,carries out research relevant to child care,and organizes and disseminates informationand resources at a provincial and nationallevel. CRRU also provides a circulatinglibrary and database of resources which isavailable on diskette to the child carecommunity, and publishes a variety ofresearch papers and fact sheets onCanadian child care.

SpeciaLinkSpeciaLink is a national child care network which promotes the inclusion of children with special needs in child care and other community programs. This is achieved through research, resources and information, networking, training, and linkages to child care and related services such as Early Intervention/Infant Development Programs, family resource programs, recreation programs and the public schools. The organization is a clearinghouse for parents and for caregivers and others working with children with special needs in child care settings, early intervention services and family support programs. It has a management board of directors and a national advisory committee of people with backgrounds in policy, training and child development.

Westcoast Child Care Resource CentreThe Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre in British Columbia is an umbrella body which provides child care resources, information and referral services, and in-depth consultation with and through affiliate organizations to strengthen their ability to support the child care and broader communities. It also provides a

range of training activities and resources ondiversity and anti-bias, and workshops andindividualized support on administration andfinancial management.

Child Care Connection. N$Child Care Connection connects child careprofessionals to resources and information,promotes certification and accreditation,operates a resource centre library andsponsors several professional developmentactivities.

Summary and Conclusions

1Postsecondary institutions offer ECE diploma and certificate programs across Canada.Other programs for caregivers, such as university ECE degree programs, family child care training, and specialized programs in school-age child care, infant and toddler child care, special needs or child care administration, are not widely available. As job opportunities for the child care workforce expand to include a broader range of early childhood services, postsecondary institutions need to work with the sector to ensure that an appropriate continuum of training programs are available.

As a primary component of the infrastructure which prepares and supports caregivers, ECE programs in postsecondary institutions need to expand their focus from centre-based preschool child care to a full range of early childhood services and family support programs, and provide additional courses to meet the learning needs of caregivers in all child care settings.


7 4

C H A P T E R 4

2The child care workforce is supported by numerous unions, caregiver associations and sector organizations. However, most caregivers do not belong, and are not required to belong, to a professional or sector organization or union. Membership fees from individual caregivers do not and cannot sustain organizations and associations which provide regular professional development opportunities and support. Conferences, training programs, publications and other resources usually depend on other sources of funding.

These organizations have the capacity toarticulate the human resource needs andgoals of their members, develop anddeliver training and professionaldevelopment programs, raise publicawareness of the sector, undertake researchprojects, inform public policy andcontribute to the professionalism of thefield.

Non-government child care organizationsare important to an effective infrastructureto support and promote caregivers as aprofessional early childhood workforce.Demographic and economic realitiesrequire that sector organizations coordinateefforts and resources to maximizeeffectiveness.

As a primary component of theinfrastructure which prepares andsupports caregivers, child careorganizations should seek ways ofincreasing membership in child care andrelated organizations and strengtheningthose organizations.

1 Oay fe r, 1991

2 The survey of ECE training institutions conducted forthis study identified 114 institutions. There are twoadditional Ontario universities and one Manitobauniversity that offer ECE degree programs.

3 Friendly et al, 1989A 1989 survey of first-year ECE students in Ontarioreported that one third of the participants indicated apreference to teach in the public school system and anintention to continue their formal education beyondthe ECE certificate or diploma.

4 National Union of Public and General Employees,1996

5 Association of Canadian Community CollegesAccreditation Task Group, 1996

6 Goss Gi l roy Inc., 1997


7 5

PA R T 3Challenges Facing theChild Care Workforce

The child care workforce faces significantchallenges over an uncertain future. Childcare compensation is low relative to otheroccupations, benefits are scarce, staffturnover is high and opportunities foradvancement are limited. Although manychild care workers are well trained, othersare not, and some needed skills are in shortsupply. In general, although caregivers arewell satisfied with their jobs, they are notsatisfied with the level of recognition theyreceive from the public or from families forthe work that they do. Many of theproblems in the child care sector are, atleast partly, human resource problems. Themajor issues the sector faces---improvingthe quality, accessibility and affordability of

care--are inextricably linked tocompensation and other human resourcechallenges.

Part Three of this study examines thechallenges and opportunities currentlyfacing the child care workforce inCanada. It is organized into threechapters, corresponding to the maincollective issues facing the child careworkforce:

Chapter 5The Work EnvironmentChallenges

Caregivers' work is marked by lowcompensation and benefits,troublesome health and safety issues,inadequate employment standardsand high turnover rates. Employmenttrends suggest both opportunities andbarriers to career mobility.

Chapter 6The Skills Challenge

The link between the quality of childcare and caregiver education andtraining requires improved skills toenhance caregivers' abilities to deliverquality child care, related earlychildhood services and family supportprograms.

Chapter 7The Recognition Challenge

The child care workforce wants thevalue of its work recognized. It istesting the potential contributions ofprofessionalization, unionization andadvocacy.


7 6

C H A P T E R 5

Chapte r 5The Work EnvironmentChallenges

Although work environments varysubstantially among various child caresettings, there are common problems:compensation levels are low, benefits arescarce, working conditions are oftendifficult, health and safety concerns aboundand career opportunities are limited formost caregivers. Caregivers in home-basedchild care settings work alone with littlestructure and few supports. Centre-basedcaregivers often work in small groups insettings that may be isolated from otherworkers.

Incomes of CaregiversThe income levels of the child careworkforce are low and present a major

human resource issue for the child caresector. In the sector consultationsconducted for this study, nearly allcaregiver groups, including centre-based,family home and in-home caregivers,identified low remuneration as asignificant problem. Two groupsrepresenting employers in commercialprograms were the only ones that did notidentify remuneration as a problem.Government officials and other keyinformants from provincial and nationalchild care organizations andpostsecondary programs identified lowcompensation as a critical issue facing thechild care sector.

It is difficult to compare incomes forcaregivers in centre-based, family childcare and in-home settings. Caregiverswho care for young children in the child'sown home are employees, as are mostcaregivers who are working in child carecentres. On the other hand, caregivers inregulated and unregulated family childcare are considered self-employed, andnet income is subject to very differentcalculations.

Centre-based CaregiversIncomes of centre-based and othercaregivers in the child care sector are low,by almost any standard. As shown inChapter 1, centre-based caregivers with acollege diploma or certificate working fulltime and for the full year received lessthan 75% of the annual income of theaverage full-time, full-year, female workerwith the same education. This amountedto less than 60% of the annual incomeearned by the average full-time, full-yearworker, male or female, with the sameeducation. Yet, centre-based child care


7 7

C H A P T E R 5

workers are better compensated thanothers in the child care worldorce;regulated and unregulated family homecareglvers and in-home careglvers are oftenless well paid than those in centre care.Low compensation is at the heart of a seriesof the most intractable problems in thedelivery of child care services in Canada.

Table 26 provides the latest availableinformation on the hourly wage rates paidto centre-based caregivers who have apostsecondary diploma or degree. Thetable provides wage rates for 1991 and1995, by province or territory, withcomparative information on minimumwage rates and the average industrial wage

for both salaried and hourly workers. The1991 data are from the Caring for a Living1study conducted by two national child careorganizations in that year. Data from 1995come from a variety of different sources,rather than from a single study.

Wages of skilled centre-based caregivers in1995 were well below the averageindustrial wage for salaried workers in everyprovince and territory, and well below theaverage industrial wage for hourly-ratedworkers in every province and territoryexcept Ontario. The relatively highcentre-based wages in Ontario reflect adetermined attempt by provincial and somemunicipal governments to provide a living

I-IOURLY WAGES OF TRAINED STAFF IN CENTRE-BASED CHILD CARE, 1991 AND 1995,AND COMPARISON TO MINIMUM WAGE AND AVERAGE INDUSTRIAl. WAGE

1991

Average Child Care Wage ($)Minimum Wage ($)Average Industrial Wage Salaried/Hourly ($)

1995Average Child Care Wage ($)Minimum Wage ($)Average Industrial Wage Salaried/Hourly ($)

Newfoundland6.034.2516.17/10.69*6.984.7518.53/13.46

Prince Edward Island7.254.5014.20/9.017.66,4.7516.68/11.09 Nova Scotia7.644.5015.39/11.14*8.574.7517.68/11.89 New Brunswick6.194.5014.86/11.12*6.775.1518.45/12.50 Quebec

Sources: 1991 data: Canadian Child Care Federation and Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association (1992) Caring for a Living: Final Report Table AS; 1995 data: Childcare Resource and Research Unit (1997) Child Care in Canada: The Provinces and Territories, 1995.* Annual figures taken from the Atlantic: Day Care Study (see Lyon & Canning, 1995a) and broken into an hourly rate by using 35 paid hrs per wk (1,820 hrs/yr).**From key informant interviews with provincial officials in the course of this study. In Manitoba, the Manitoba Child Care Association's salary survey - 1995 for Child Care Worker II (in press), in Winnipeg was used.*** Yukon has provided mean hourly wage figures using five "Levels," rather than positions; these levels are "No training, Level I, Level II, Level III, and Director." The figure for the "Level II" position is used in this table. Level II is the equivalent of an ECE 1-yr certificate.**** The higher rate in the Northwest Territories applies to areas distant from its highway system.Minimum wage and average industrial wage figures: Minister of Supply and Services (1990) "Employment Standards Legislation in Canada," (1990 edition) Table 9; Supply and Services Canada (1995) "Employment Standards Legislation in Canada," (1995-96 edition), Table 4.Notes: The methods of data connection used in Caring for a Living and Child Care in Canada: The Provinces and Territories 1995 are different. Caring for a living determined average wages through a survey of staff in child care centres, while Child Care in Canada reported wage figures provided by the provincial/territorial ministry responsible for child care. For this reason, the 1995 figures may not be precisely comparable to the 1991 figures.


7 8

C H A P T E R 5

wage in that province, through wageenhancement grants and operatinggrants. In most jurisdictions, exceptOntario and British Columbia whichhave had wage subsidies, the averagewage for skilled child care workers haschanged only marginally since 1991.

The Caring for a Living study found thatthe average wage paid to centre-basedcaregivers ranged from $11,300 to$23,750 across provinces and territories.This wage range is consistent with wagesreported by 1990 Early ChildhoodEducation (ECE) graduates of communitycollege programs, many of whom wereworking in child care centres. Thosegraduates working full time and full yearwere earning, on average, $20,100 in1992. In comparison, female graduatesof other two-year community collegeprograms were earning, on average,$23,200 in the same year--a full15% more than the ECE graduates.2

In both Canada and the United States,where compensation is based on parentfees, low wages place manycentre-based caregivers near or belowthe poverty line. For example, Caring fora Living reported that a typical child careteacher who had one dependant earned$3,200 below the poverty line. Threeout of four child care staff who weresole-support parents earned wagesbelow the poverty line. (The report usedthe 1991 poverty lines developed by theCanadian Council on SocialDevelopment.) A recent U.S. report oncaregiver compensation in the child caresector reported that the majority of thechild care workforce in that countryearns poverty-level wages.3

Low wages are considered by mostcaregivers to be a major human resourceissue. Caring for a Living found that~providing a better salary" emerged as oneof the top two requirements to make thechild care field more satisfying. In answer toanother question, centre-based caregiversmost frequently (70%) identified pay as anegative aspect of the occupation. Similarly,39% of ECE graduates responding to theNational Graduate Survey in 1992 indicatedthat they were dissatisfied or verydissatisfied with their pay, nearly twice theaverage for other fields of study.4

Education, Experience, Unionization,Non.Profit Status

Caregivers in different job categories, withdifferent levels of education, experienceand motivation, and in centres withdifferent union status and auspice, are paidat different wage rates, even within thesame province or territory.

Analysis of wages in full-day child carecentres from Caring for a Living illustrates anumber of relationships:

The higher the educational attainment(up to and including a universityundergraduate degree) of caregivers, thehigher the hourly wage rate.Caregivers with more experience, bothgeneral experience in child care andexperience in their current centre, arepaid more, all other factors heldconstants In addition to thecompensation relative to education andexperience, workers with more jobresponsibilities (assistant teacher, teacher,supervisor) get correspondingly higherpay.Although difficult to measure, Caring for aLiving attempted to address


7 9

C H A P T E R 5

career-related and motivational factorsby asking caregivers whether theyviewed their work as a "career" ratherthan as a "job." Those who viewed theirwork as a career were more likely toearn higher wages than those who didnot.Wage rates are significantly higher forcaregivers employed in non-profitcentres than for those in commercialoperations within the same province andterritory, after taking into account otherfactors such as education andexperience.Wages for caregivers employed inunionized centres are higher than thosein non-unionized centres (again, takinginto account education and experience).About 20% of child care centres inCanada are unionized.6 Staff in Ontario's

In Spain, early childhood school-based services for children 3 to 6 years arefunded by the government (with only nominal parent fees in privateprograms) and teacher salaries are equivalent to public school teachers. Incentres for children 0 to 3 years, parents pay less than 20% of the cost inpublic centres and 50% or more of the cost in private centres. Overall salariesfor staff in centres for O- to 3-year-old children are lower than in those for 3-to 6-year-old children; salaries and benefits in the private centres are muchlower than those in public centres. (Moss & Penn, 1996)

In Denmark, child care services (centre-and home-based) for children under6 years of age receive public funding; parents pay up to a maximum of 30%of the costs. Caregiver compensation (in both centre-based and family childcare) is viewed as equitable within the context of the labour market. (Jensen,1992)

In Australia, caregivers in centre-based programs and family child carereceive low remuneration. Various operational grants, fee subsidies to lowerand moderate income families and fee rebates to parents help to keep costsdown but parent fee levels largely determine caregiver remuneration levels.(Brennan, 1993; Hayden, 1996)

In France in 1991, the starting salary of caregivers in the écoles matemelles was about $20,000, plus free housing or a tax-free housing allowance. These workers receive good fringe benefits such as pensions, vacations and tenure.The salary of this caregiver could rise to a little over $40,000. In comparison to French incomes, these salaries are able to attract stable, well-educated workers. (Bergmann, 1996)

municipal centres are much more likelyto be unionized than those in eithernon-profit or commercial centres.Unionization in child care is low relativeto the rate of unionization of femaleworkers in the workforce as a whole.

Caregivers in Regulated FamilyChild CareThe survey of caregivers in regulated familychild care, undertaken as a result of thissector study, showed that 39% of caregiverswere either unsatisfied or very unsatisfiedwith their remuneration. Table 27 providesdata on the gross and net income ofregulated family child care providers,collected through the same survey.

Most caregivers in regulated family childcare are considered self-employed,including those who are supervised by andpaid through licensed agencies. Asself-employed individuals, their operationsare established as small businesses and theyare entitled to deduct reasonable expensesfrom gross income to arrive at net income.Normal deductions would include a portionof their rent or mortgage and utility costs,maintenance costs, repairs andmodifications to their homes, and operatingexpenses for equipment, program suppliesand food. Net income is substantially lowerthan gross income for most licensed familyhome caregivers. Table 27 indicates thataverage net incomes of regulated familyhome caregivers are very low, particularlysince this table reports only incomes ofcaregivers working at least 48 weeks duringthe year.

The number of children in a regulatedfamily child care setting is a primary factor


8 0

C H A P T E R 5

TABLE 27 AVERAGE GROSS AND NET INCOMES FOR CAREGIVERS WORKING AT LEAST 48 WEEKS PER YEAR IN REGULATED FAMILY CHILD CARE [1]

Province [2]Average Gross Income ($)Average Net Income [3] ($) New Brunswick [4]16,2009,700 Nova Scotia11 t4005,600 Quebec13,7006,800 Ontario12,9007,500 Manitoba16,1008,400 Saskatchewan18,3009rl 00 Alberta9,4005,400 British Columbia18,9009,500 Yukon [4]26,00011,900 Northwest Territories 14]21,8009~900 National Average15,6008,400

Source: Goss Gilroy Inc. (1997) Providing Home Child Care for a Living: A Survey of Regulated Home Child CareProviders.Notes: [11 Average values are rounded to nearest $100 dollars. The amounts reflect averages based on a salaryrange, not exact amounts reported by respondents. [2] Newfoundland does not have regulated family child care andthe number of caregivers in Prince Edward Island was too small to include. [3] To calculate the net incomes, thereported gross income was adjusted by the percentage of that income reported as expenses related to the provisionof child care. [4] In these provinces and territories, the number of observations upon which averages are based istoo small for interprovincial comparisons of income levels to be meaningful.

affecting a caregiver's income. Allcompensation is defined on a per childbasis, not on the length of time worked (asis consistent with a self-employed status).The maximum number of children percaregiver is defined by provincial/territorialregulation, and range from a low of three, ifthe children are under the age of 2, to ahigh of eight, if the children are of schoolage (see Table 15, Chapter 2).Compensation for caregivers in regulatedfamily child care is also affected by theavailability of public funding for parent feesubsidies.

Caregivers in UnregulatedFamily Child CareIncomes of unregulated caregivers arelimited by both what parents can afford topay and how many children they may carefor in their particular province or territory.

In Manitoba, unregulated caregivers maycare for a maximum of four children,including their own. Caregivers inSaskatchewan, on the other hand, may carefor eight.

Like their counterparts in regulated familychild care, caregivers in unregulated familychild care are self-employed. They may alsoestablish their operations as small businessesand deduct reasonable expenses. However,many providers of unregulated family homechild care do not report their earnings.Cleveland and Hyatt analyzed responses tothe Canadian National Child Care Survey of1988 to discover that only 35% of parentsusing unregulated care get receipts fromtheir caregivers.7

Caregivers may avoid giving out receipts toparents, so that they can save on family taxpayments by not reporting the income fromthe provision of child care and retaining thespousal credit on their spouse's tax return.However, it is often in the caregiver's owninterest to report the income asself-employed earnings and benefit from taxdeductions available to individualsoperating a business in their home. First, thelevel of actual taxable income, afterdeductions, is likely to be very low. Ifcaregivers are earning only a marginalamount caring for one or two children,perhaps on a part-time basis, the impact onthe spouse's taxable income will probablybe negligible. Second, by reporting theincome, caregivers become eligible to makecorresponding Registered RetirementSavings Plan (RRSP) deductions andcontribute to the Canada Pension Plan(CPP) or the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP).

The earnings of many caregivers appear tobe hidden in the "underground" economy.


81

C H A P T E R 5

Such caregivers are not likely toprovide information in response tostatistical surveys (such as the census) andit is therefore difficult to collectinformation on care provided in thissubsector.

The evidence from purely local and U.S.studies suggests that the averageunregulated family home caregiver earnsless than other caregivers. However, thereis probably considerable variation in thecharacteristics and the earnings ofunregulated caregivers.

In-Home CaregiversThere are no recent income data forin-home caregivers other than thosealready provided in Table 3 of Chapter 1.Data in that table suggest that annualincomes of in-home caregivers are loweron average than caregivers in the licensedsector.

BenefitsBenefits for those in the child careworkforce are not generous butcaregivers in centre-based settings reportbetter benefits than caregivers inregulated family child care.

Centre-based CaregiversThere are no recent country-wide dataon benefits (e.g. extended health care,dental coverage, long-term disabilityinsurance, pension plan or paid releasetime for training) for centre-basedcaregivers. Data from the Caring for aLiving study show that the followingpercentages of full-time staff werecovered for the following benefits:

Extended health care 61% Long-term disability 56% Dental coverage 59% Pension plan/RRSP 36% Annual paid vacation 93% Paid sick leave 72% Reduced child care fees 28% Paid release time for training 38%

Although most caregivers were eligible forpaid annual vacation, many did not receivebenefits which are normal in otherworkplaces, such as paid sick leave,extended health care or long-term disability.Only a minority of centre-based caregiversreceived paid pension benefits orencouragement to take training, which arethe kind of benefits usually designed toencourage employees to remain in aparticular work situation.

Caregivers in Regulated FamilyChild CareThe survey of regulated family child careindicates that these caregivers have accessto few employment benefits. The surveyreported that approximately:

2% of caregivers have access tomedical/dental insurance, pension plansor sick leave;4% have access to disability insurance;42% have access to group liabilityinsurance coverage; and7% had a paid vacation leave.

Since regulated family home caregivers areself-employed, most do not receive paidbenefits; benefits would have to bepurchased by the caregiver. Because theyare self-employed, caregivers in family childcare are not covered by employmentstandards legislation and are not eligible for


8 2

C H A P T E R 5

Unemployment Insurance or formaternity or parental leave benefits.

Some child care associations areaddressing the lack of benefits forcaregivers in family child care. Somecaregivers do have access to benefitsthrough provincial associations, such asthe Manitoba Child Care Association andthe Western Canada Family Child CareAssociation in British Columbia.

Caregivers in regulated family child careare required to make CPP or QPPcontributions and can benefit fromincome tax deductions through RRSPcontributions. However, their incomesare generally low; as a result, theirprojected income at retirement fromthese sources is limited.

Unregulated Family Home Caregiversand In-Home CaregiversUnregulated family home caregiverspresumably receive no benefits becausethey are self-employed. Combined withlow monetary income, this implies, onaverage, very low compensation.Unregulated caregivers who do notdeclare their income for tax purposeshave, of course, no tax incentives to savemoney through an RRSP, although theymay still choose to do so. They wouldalso be ineligible to collect a pensionunder the CPP or QPR

In-home caregivers who are directlyemployed by parents may or may notreceive fringe benefits, such as sick leave,long-term disability, pension benefits andso on. No reliable nationwideinformation is available on the benefits ofin-home caregivers.

Hours of Work andEmployment StandardsFederal and provincial/territorialemployment standards cover some, but notmost, caregivers in the child care workforce.Table 28 provides information relevant to alltypes of caregivers. Centre-based caregivers,as employees of child care centres, areprotected by the province or territory'sminimum employment standards, includingminimum wage, maximum hours of work,vacation benefits, mandatory employeecontributions to Employment Insurance andCPP or QPR Caregivers in regulated andunregulated family child care are usuallyclassified as "self-employed" orindependent contractors; thus, half ofremunerated caregivers are excluded fromthe employment standards' provisions.In-home caregivers are employees of thefamily for whom they provide care, but areoften exempted from provincial/territorialemployment standards.

Centre-based CaregiversThe Caring for a Living study providesvaluable information on the workingconditions of those centre-based caregiverswho provide full-day care. Eighty-threepercent work full time, while 12% are parttime and 3% work on a casual or substitutebasis. Nationally, full-time, centre-basedcaregivers are paid for an average workweek of 37.8 hours, but also report workingat the centre an additional 1.5 hours a weekwhich is not paid. In addition to time spentat the centre, caregivers indicated that theyalso spend, on average, 2.7 hours a weekaway from the centre planning, reading andpreparing work-related materials. This


8 3

C H A P T E R 5

amounts to 42 hours a week devoted tochild care-related activities.

Key informants pointed out thatcaregivers' hours of work in school-agechild care centres are often quiteproblematic. Typically, caregivers areemployed for part-time hours during theschool year and full-time hours duringschool holidays. The part-time hours areoften organized into split shifts (morning,lunch, afternoon) around the school day.

Regulated and UnregulatedFamily Home CaregiversThe self-employed status of caregivers inregulated and unregulated family childcare excludes them from employmentstandards' provisions in allprovincial/territorial jurisdictions.However, two recent labour rulings inOntario have challenged theself-employed status of caregivers inregulated family child care. This may havea significant impact on their employmentstatus and associated employmentprotections and benefits.

The average hours worked by regulatedfamily caregivers was calculated from twosources of information in the regulatedfamily child care survey. Average hours arebetween 48 and 60 hours per week,including about 10 hours per week inpreparation and administration time (i.e.preparation of materials and food,housekeeping and record keeping). Inpart, the longer working hours (comparedto caregivers in centre-based programs)can be attributed to the additionalflexibility family child care often offersparents.

In the sector consultations, caregivers inboth regulated and unregulated family childcare spoke about feeling pressured toaccommodate parents' needs for longer andoften, irregular, hours of care. Flexible andlonger hours of operation of family childcare place strains on the caregivers' familiesand limit their ability to plan for otheractivities, such as networking with othercaregivers or participating in professionaldevelopment opportunities.

In-Home CaregiversIn-home caregivers (often called nannies)work in the child's own home and areemployees of the parents. They may livewith the family or they may live elsewhereand come to work in the child's home.There is very little documentation on theactual working conditions of in-homecaregivers. One study of foreign domesticworkers (which includes many in-homecaregivers) in Ontario8 reported that 65% ofthe respondents in the survey componentsworked more than a standard work week of44 hours.

The working conditions and responsibilitiesof in-home caregivers vary. In addition totheir child care responsibilities, somein-home caregivers also have domesticduties. Several in-home caregivers whoparticipated in the sector studyconsultations described housekeepingduties as part of their daily routines. Otherin-home caregivers stated that these dutieswere not included in their responsibilities.

Provincial/territorial employment standardslegislation related to in-home caregiversvaries across the country and is included inTable 28. Some provinces and territories


8 4

C H A P T E R 5

TABLE 28

Jurisdiction/LegislationHours of WorkMinimum Hourly Wage RateNewfoundland Standard: 40 hrs/wk $4.75Labour Standards Act and Regulations After 40 hrs/wk - 1.5 times minimum wage Domestic workers receive minimum rate Live-in caregivers may receive time off in lieu ofovertimePrince Edward Island Standard: 48 hrs/wk $4.75Employment Standards Act After 48 hrs/wk - 1.5 times regular rate Caregivers in private homes excludedNova Scotia Standard: 48 hrs/wk $5.15Labour Standards Code After 48 hrs/wk - 1.5 times minimum rate Domestic workers excluded Domestic workers excludedNew Brunswick After 44 hrs/wk- 1.5 times minimum wage $5.00Employment Standards Act Domestic workers receive minimum rateQuebec Standard: 44 hrs/wk $6.00An Act Respecting Labour Standards and Caregivers who live in employers' home $233/wk for live-in caregiversRegulation After 44 hrs/wk - 1.5 times regular rateOntario Standard: 44 hrs/wk $6.85Employment Standards Act and Regulation Max: 8 hrs/d; 48 hrs/week Rate applies to domestic workers if they work more than After 44 hrs/wk - 1.5 times regular wage24 hrs/wk Live-in caregivers may receive time off in lieu ofovertimeManitoba 8 hrs/d; 40 hrs/wk $5.40Employment Standards Act In-home caregivers who do not live in & domestic Rate applies to domestic workers if they work more than workers who work 24 hrs or less per week are excluded24 hrs/wkSaskatchewan Standard: 8 hrs/d; 40 hrs/wk $5.35Labour Standards Act and Regulation Maximum: 44 hrs/wk If employer in receipt of publicly funded wage subsidy, domestic worker must be paid minimum wage for all After 8 hrs/d & 40 hrs/wk - 1.5 times regular ratehours worked up to 8 hrs a day Otherwise in-home caregivers excludedAlberta 8 hrs/d; 44 hrs/week $5.00Employment Standards Code Domestics excluded from minimum wage1 British Columbia 8 hrs/d; 40 hrs/wk $7.00Employment Standards Act and Regulations in-home caregivers excluded Special rates for domestics and live-in homemakers maximum $40/d2Yukon Territory 8 hrs/d & 40 hrs/wk $6.72Employment Standards Act and Regulation After 40 hrs/wk - 1.5 times regular rate In-home caregivers excluded Domestic workers excludedNorthwest Territories Standard: 8 hrs/d; 40 hrs/wk $6.50 or $7.00Labour Standards Act Maximum: 10 hrs/d; 60 hrs/wk Domestic workers receive general rate After 8 hrs/d or 40 hr/wk - 1.5 times regular rate

Notes:1. In-home caregivers classified as domestics2. Macklin, 1994

Source: Adapted from Human Resources Development Canada (1995a).

exclude in-home caregivers entirely from minimum wage, hours of work and overtime protection:

Minimum wage: In-home caregivers in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Yukon are

excluded from minimum wage rates. InOntario and Manitoba, in-homecaregivers who are employed for morethan 24 hours per week receive theprovincial general minimum wage.Special rates are set for in-home


8 5

C H A P T E R 5

caregivers in Quebec and BritishColumbia.

Hours of work: Most jurisdictionsexclude in-home caregivers from hoursof work and overtime rates. Manitobaincludes domestic workers under hoursof work and overtime protectionregulations, but excludes in-homecaregivers who do not "live-in."Newfoundland and Ontario includein-home caregivers in the overtimeprovisions, with the stipulation thatcompensation may be in the form ofovertime pay or time off.

Special Requirements of the Live-In Caregiver ProgramIndividuals from other countries may enterCanada as non-permanent residents,through the Live-In Caregiver Program, ifthey meet the criteria. Under this program,they are required to remain employed asfull-time, live-in domestic employees fortwo years and live at their employer'sresidence, at which point they can apply tobecome a permanent resident. Theircaregiving duties may be child care, homesupport care for seniors or for the disabled.The Live-In Caregiver Program wasintroduced in 1992 by the federalgovernment, replacing the ForeignDomestic Movement Program.

Caregivers who are accepted into theLive-In Caregiver Program and theiremployers generally sign anEmployee-Employer Agreement (theCanada Immigration Commission providesa model contract in literature on theprogram). Contracts signed may includean agreement on wages, hours of work,job responsibilities and time off(a 40- to 50-hour work week at the

provincial/territorial minimum wage is notunusual). These contractual agreements aresubject to provincial/territorial legislatedemployment standards; these vary acrossCanada (see Table 28). Some nannies(typically referred to as "domestic workers"in legislation or regulations) are excludedfrom any minimum wage, maximum hoursand overtime provisions?

The federal government's Live-In Caregiver Program requirements increase the education level of caregivers working in in-home child care settings and may increase the demand for in-service training and professional development opportunities. The program currently stipulates that applicants must have completed education which is equivalent to Canadian high school completion credentials and six months' full-time training related to a specific caregiving occupation--child care, senior home support care or care for the disabled,10 or must have 12 months' experience in paid employment in a field or occupation related to the job offered: In addition, the potential caregiver must have the ability to speak, read and understand either French or English. After completing two years' employment in Canada, a live-in caregiver may apply for permission to become a landed immigrant.

Figures provided by the federal governmentshow a dramatic drop in the number ofentrants under the Live-In CaregiverProgram since the early 1990s (i.e. from8,000 to 11,000 per year in the late 1980sto less than 2,000 per year currently). It isnot clear whether this reflects a drop indemand or whether "new requirementshave encouraged the recruitment of foreign


8 6

C H A P T E R 5

domestic workers through unofficialchannels."11

A recent study of Filipina domestic workers makes it clear that many live-in caregivers exist in a highly dependent state in relation to their employers. They often work long and variable hours with little probability of overtime compensation, and are poorly served by provincial/territorial employment standards legislation. One source reports that "the charging of illegal fees, the processing of fraudulent applications, referrals to employers known to violate legal labour practices and the placement of undocumented applicants are widespread practices."12 In only three provinces (Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia) are nanny placement agencies required to obtain a licence to operate, and even then there are no regulations governing their operations or any monitoring of performance.

Career TrendsThe viability of a career in child care hasbeen an issue for the child care workforceand an issue for high quality child careservices. Many caregivers are interested inestablishing such a career, butcompensation and other workingconditions in both centre-based and familychild care are generally poor enough todiscourage them.

MotivationWork environments for caregivers in thechild care sector are demanding but offerconsiderable opportunities for jobsatisfaction. Caregivers in the sectorconsultations frequently expressed high jobsatisfaction from working with young

children and making a difference in theirlives. Those in family child care often notedthat being at home with their own childrenand/or wanting company for their childrenwas why they were caregivers.

The report from the survey of caregivers inregulated family child care indicates: the desire to remain at home with their

own children is the principal reasongiven by 45% of caregivers for providingchild care in their own homes; and

when all reasons are considered, themajority of caregivers identify earning aliving (89%), because they like children(89%), to provide good child care forworking mothers (74%), being one'sown boss/flexibility of one's day (70%),and to stay at home with their ownchildren (63%) as reasons for providingcare .

Centre-based caregivers reported in Caringfor a Living that motivation (57%) and thenature of work (49%) were the reasons mostoften given for remaining in the child carefield. Motivation included challenges,making a difference to children andfamilies, and feelings of satisfaction andcompetence. The nature of work includedenjoyment of children and working withfamilies.

In the Caring for a Living study, 62% ofcentre-based caregivers stated that theywould choose the same career again. In thesurvey of regulated family child care, 87%of the caregivers indicated that they wouldchoose the same career.

Career OpportunitiesThe growth in the overall demand forcaregivers in centre- and home-based child


8 7

C H A P T E R 5

care settings is slowing down; increases inthe total number of children in remuneratedchild care arrangements will be moregradual than in the recent past. Butopportunities for skilled caregivers who haverecognized expertise in child developmentand early childhood education practices arelikely to increase in the child care workforceand in related occupations.

Key informants at postsecondary institutionssaid that the regulated child care sectorcontinues to offer as many or morejob-entry opportunities for recent ECEgraduates as other caring and educationoccupations (e.g. nurses or public schoolteachers). They also pointed out that thenumber of ECE graduates who are choosingto establish family child care programs andto find employment in in-home child care isincreasing.

Caregivers with ECE or related credentialshave more opportunities to move intosupervisory positions or other related earlychildhood services and family supportprograms. For example:

An ECE background in addition touniversity degree and teachingqualifications is considered to be the"ideal" combination for kindergartenteachers.13Caregivers with ECE and relatedadditional qualifications are oftenconsidered for positions in earlyintervention services. Aprovincial/territorial directory of earlyintervention services and programsincludes staffing and trainingrequirements information. Over half ofthe programs mentioned identify ECEdiplomas or degrees as requirements forearly intervention staff.TM

Aboriginal Headstart programs seek outindividuals with ECE qualifications,although they operate apart fromprovincial/territorial regulations forcentre-based programs.ECE credentials may be applicable tohome visitor positions in family child careagencies or staff positions in familyresource programs.

Career MobilityIt is relatively easy to enter the child careworkforce. However, opportunities formobility and advancement can be limited,particularly for caregivers without access totraining, education and other supports tocareer advancement.

In centre-based child care settings, there isa short hierarchy of position~from aprogram staff member who works directlywith children to supervisors, directors andadministrators. The Caring for a Living studyindicated that 69% of centre-basedcaregivers would like to advance in thefield, although less than one third of thosewho sought advancement believed thatopportunities existed within their currentworkplace.

In home-based settings, there is nohierarchy or opportunity for advancementor movement to different positions.Caregivers in family child care and in-homechild care must usually seek other positionsin the child care sector or elsewhere if theywish to increase their earning potential orlevel of responsibility. The findings of thesurvey of regulated family child care andthe sector consultations indicate thatcaregivers often move from centre-basedchild care or other types of employment to


8 8

C H A P T E R 5

family child care in order to care for theirown children.

As with many issues in the child care sector,the issue of career mobility seems to berelated directly to low compensation rates.Kindergarten teachers within the educationsystem also have few opportunities forcareer mobility. However, the compensationrates, benefits and working conditions arerelatively attractive and, as a result, limitedopportunities for career mobility are nottypically identified as an issue.

Another related observation is that careeradvancement in the child care field meansmoving away from direct work withchildren. Caregivers are often not directlyrewarded for acquiring additional skills andabilities in working with young children orfor increased experience in the sector. Theymay have to change jobs to get theseadditional qualifications recognized. Incontrast, ongoing in-service education,professional development and experienceare recognized in salary scales for

O U R C H I L D C A R E

kindergarten teachers working in schoolsettings.

Career mobility is further complicated in some provinces and territories where course credits in family child care are often not transferable to an ECE program—one-year ECE certificate programs are not always transferable to a two-year ECE diploma program, and two-year programs often cannot be transferred to university degree programs.

There are varied educational backgrounds, entry points and employment opportunities within the child care field. Increased career mobility opportunities for those in the child care workforce depend, in part, upon better bridges between different levels of education and training and between different types of child care programs and related early childhood services. Key informants from child care sector organizations and postsecondary institutions were clear that established bridges would require: government policy and funding which recognized a continuum of child care and related early childhood services and supported equitable compensation levels across the continuum; clear articulation (ability to transfer credentials) procedures among various postsecondary college and university programs; and closer collaboration and cooperation among organizations which represent the child care workforce.

TurnoverCaregivers in regulated centre-based andfamily child care settings appear to remainlonger in the child care workforce now than

W O R K F O R C E : F R O M R E C O G N I T I O N T O R E M U N E R A T I O N

8 9

C H A P T E R 5

they did a decade ago. In a 1984 survey,38% of caregivers in centre-based programshad been in the field for more than fiveyears and 20% of caregivers in regulatedfamily child care had provided child care intheir homes for more than five years,is Atthe time of the 1991 survey of centre-basedcaregivers, 47% of all staff reported workingin the child care field for more than fiveyears.TM The survey of regulated family childcaregivers conducted in 1996 for this reportfound 38% of caregivers had five or moreyears' experience in providing regulatedfamily child care, and 60% had five or moreyears' experience across a range of childcare settings.

Several key informants for this study notedthat turnover of caregivers in regulated andunregulated family child care and in childcare centres appeared to have slowed downconsiderably over the past five years.Several others pointed to job security as agreater concern. The viability of a career inchild care is an issue for caregivers and forhigh quality child care services. Caregiversare interested in different types ofopportunities for advancement andmobility.

The Caring for a Living study of 1991investigated turnover among centre-basedcaregivers in that year. The total turnoverrate (number of staff leaving the centre inthat year, divided by the total number ofstaff employed) averaged 29% across childcare centres. The turnover rate for allcaregivers is an average of the turnover ratesof different job categories. Child careteachers had an average total turnover rateof 29%, while assistant teachers had aturnover rate of 37%, head supervisors 15%and administrative directors 11%. This

turnover rate includes both caregiversmoving to other child care centres andthose who permanently leave the field.

Several factors make caregivers more or lesslikely to plan to leave the child care field toseek employment elsewhere. In analysis ofdata from Caring for a Living, the effects of aseries of factors on turnover were tested,including wages and benefits, educationlevel and experience in the child care field.Low wages significantly increase theprobability of turnover. Employerwillingness to pay (either partly or fully)forpension benefits has a strong impact onplans to leave the field; in centres wherepension benefits are available, plannedturnover is considerably lower. Caregiverswith higher levels of general education, whomay have good opportunities in other fields,are more likely to leave, but workers withmore experience in the child care field aremore likely to stay.

In the regulated family child care survey,81% of the caregivers expected to beproviding child care in three years: 74%reported their intention to continue infamily child care while 7% expected to bein another type of child care setting.

Turnover is an issue for caregivers in thechild care workforce; they would generallyprefer to have stable, well-compensatedemployment. It is also a problem withimportant public policy implications,because the consistency of care is animportant component of the quality of childcare. Constant changes in caregivers can bedisruptive to young children whose bondswith non-parental caregivers play animportant role in their development. Highcaregiver turnover makes it difficult to


90

C H A P T E R 5

maintain a well-planned program ofactivities and be sensitive to the special-needs and abilities of each child. Inaddition, high turnover appears to be linkedto workplace stress and caregiver morale.17

Occupational Health andSafety Issues for AllCaregiversThe child care literature emphasizes issuesof health and safety for the children invarious child care environments. There arealso important issues related to caregiversthemselves. In carrying out theirresponsibilities, caregivers experiencehigher than average levels of physicalinjuries (including musculoskeletaldisorders), infectious diseases and stress.Although most of the evidence for theseissues comes from research in thecentre-based settings, much of it appliesequally to caregivers working with youngchildren in any child care setting.

Physical EnvironmentsThe physical environments in centre-basedchild care programs and often inhome-based settings are child-centred. Thefurnishings and equipment are child-sizedand designed for children's comfort andaccessibility-chairs are low to the ground,materials are stored on low shelves, and thefloor or ground often serves as an activitysite.

A three-year study of 54 Quebec child carecentres found that the impact the physicalenvironment had on the adult caregiverswas often ignored. This study reported that,as a result, caregivers are frequently injuredand their injuries are directly related to their

working conditions. Thirty-three percent ofthe 500 caregivers had musculoskeletaldisorders over the previous two years. Morethan 70% of these were related to excessivestrain.18

Other studies in U.S. child care centresidentify two major sources of physicaldemands: activity that is physically stressfuland problems with the design of equipmentand furnishings. Caregivers are frequentlylifting children, bending and stooping,sitting on the floor without back support,and moving equipment. Furnishings andfixtures are often child-sized and storageareas for materials and supplies not forchildren's direct access are often out ofreach.19

Infectious DiseasesThe caregivers' daily close physical contactwith groups of young children increasestheir exposure to infectious diseases,including various gastroenteritis and acuterespiratory tract illnesses, hepatitis, herpesviruses (i.e. cytomegalovirus), tuberculosis,meningitis, streptococcus, ringworm,impetigo, scabies and head lice.z° Theimplications of exposure to infectiousdiseases are particularly problematic forcaregivers in family child care settings whousually do not have provisions for sick leavebenefits or substitute care.

StressCaregivers in child care settings are subjectto several sources of stress--lowcompensation that does not recognize theresponsibilities and skills involved,emotional involvement that comes fromworking with young children and theirfamilies, the constant attention needed to


91

C H A P T E R 5

ensure the safety and security of youngchildren, often a lack of resources neededto maintain a good environment for youngchildren, and isolation from other adults.These stresses are often compounded forcaregivers by the family-work challengesmany parents, particularly women,experience.

The demands for, and expectations of, childcare are changing. The caregiver often bearsthe brunt of the inability of the sector torespond adequately to these changes. Thesector is having difficulty responding to theneeds of parents and offering high qualitycare. However, parents are becomingincreasingly more aware of the importanceof quality care and early experiences totheir child's development, and areexpecting more of caregivers.

Several key informants from child careorganizations and government officialspointed out that social service, educationand health service cutbacks in all regionsincrease the demands on caregivers.Expertise and resources, such as publichealth nurses, social workers and mentalhealth consultants, once available tocaregivers and parents, are disappearing.

Caregivers themselves feel the stressresulting from the responsibilities that gowith working with young children, thechanging demands and the constraints ontheir ability to meet them.

In the sector consultations, caregivers intwo thirds of the focus groups (includingthose representing centre-based,regulated and unregulated family childcare and in-home care) mentionedparents' expectations. Several noted thatparents were expecting more of

caregivers and of the programs andservices. More than half of the groupsreported that parents expect caregivers tobe counsellors, community workers andhealth care providers in addition to theirchild care role. Numerous caregiverscommented that it was difficult tomaintain boundaries between their rolein working with young children and theirfamilies and parents' needs for emotionalsupport.Almost half of the caregivers in theregulated family child care surveyreported dissatisfaction with the long andirregular hours of work, making it difficultto separate the work and family aspectsof their jobs. They expressed conflicts intrying to contain the hours of work sothat they do not interfere with their ownfamily life.


9 2

C H A P T E R 5

Findings from the sector consultationswith nannies were consistent withthose of other studies.21 Those who livein their employer's home experiencedifficulties in defining the boundariesbetween their employment andpersonal life. Several mentioned it washard to say "no" to requests fromparents to "baby-sit" in the evenings orover holidays and weekends. It waseven more difficult to turn downrequests from the children themselveswithout feeling they were rejecting thechildren they cared about.

A recent study of caregivers in 46Winnipeg child care centres found that20% reported high degrees ofemotional stressY Several keyinformants stated that caregivers incentre-based programs are increasinglychallenged by the aggressive behaviourof children and emotional needs.

Caregivers in the sector consultationsfrequently stated that they understoodthat children's and parents' needs werechanging, and they wanted to meet theirneeds by providing quality care that isresponsive to families. But there arebarriers. The logistics of flexible carearrangements often mean additional workand scheduling, developing relationshipswith more children and parents, andmaking adjustments to program activitiesfor children who may not attend regularly.In child care centres, it is often difficult tomatch part-time schedules to maximizecapacity; the result can be lost revenue.For caregivers in family child care, itmeans longer working hours and morechildren who attend part time orirregularly to accommodate parents'needs.


1Poor compensation levels which rely primarily on parent fees are a dominant human resource issue for the child care workforce. Career opportunities and caregiver satisfaction are directly affected by the incomes and benefits they receive.Currently, caregivers are not able to prepare adequately for retirement (through RRSP, CPP/QPP or private pension plans) during a significant portion of their working lives.

The roles and responsibilities involved in working with young children and their families are demanding, and the work environments often increase the inherent demands of working with young children.Positive working environments for caregivers are a component of high quality child care services for children. Many in the child care workforce are excluded from even minimum employment standards.

Good compensation for the child careworkforce, adequate retirement and otherbenefits, and good working conditions areessential if caregivers are going to beattracted to and retained in the field. Thisis particularly true for in-home caregiverswho are often not even protected byemployment standards and minimumwage legislation.

2Career opportunities for the child care workforce will increase, but they will be related to increased qualifications.Caregivers can expect an increase in the need for more training and education to

O U R C H I L D C A R E W O R K F O R C F : F R O M R E C O G N I T I O N T O R E M U N E R A T I O N

C H A P T E R 5

access both entry level and more senior positions in the child care sector and positions in related early childhood services. Career opportunities for centre and home-based staff who do not have ECE or related educational qualifications are more limited.

The challenges of the work environmentare connected to the need for caregiverskills and the increased need forimproved recognition of the child careworkforce.

Better articulation procedures betweenand among postsecondary institutionsare necessary to improve careeradvancement and mobility.Postsecondary institutions must seekstrategies to formalize transferability ofcredits at the pre-service as well as thegraduate level.

11 Grandea, 1996, p. 21

1 2 Bakan & Stasiulis, 1995 cited in Grandea, 1996, p. 26

1 3 Cotter & Park, 1993

1 4 SpeciaLink, 1995

15 Schom-Moffatt, 1984The total sample size for the survey of caregivers wasonly 56; 20% represents 11 caregivers in total.

1 6 Canadian Child Care Federation & Canadian Day CareAdvocacy Association, 1992

1 7 Doherty, 1991

1 8 Maxwell & Huot, 1994

1 9 Gratz & Claffey, 1996

2 0 American Public Health Association & AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics, 1992

21 Arat-Koc & Villasin, 1990

22 Schneider & Boyd, 1996

1Canadian Child care Federation & Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association, 1992Those provinces and territories that require centre-based carL=givers to have ECE certificates or diplomas had the highest percentage of staff with postsecondary credentials.2Statistics Canada, 19923National Center for the Early Childhood Work Force, 19974Human Resources Development Canada, 1992 5Even though education and experience may have a positive impact on wages across the sector, this does not imply that individual centres reward education and experience. For example, individuals may have to switch centres to get additional education recognized.6Canadian Child Care Federation & Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association, 1992

7 Cleveland & Hyatt, 1997

8 Arat-Koc & Villasin, 1990

9 Macklin, 1994

1 0 Macklin, 1994


9 4

Chapter 6The Skills Challenge

Competent caregivers are the critical factorin providing good quality child care. Thechallenge for the sector is to increase theskill level of the child care workforce.Increased skills will increase the quality ofcare that children experience and willimprove caregivers' work environments andrecognition. Training, education andprofessional development opportunitiesincrease their skills and competence inworking with young children.

Caregiver Skills and theQuality of Child CareThe quality of care (parental andnon-parental) is a determinant of children's

development during their early andsubsequent years. Research evidence fromneuroscience and human developmentdisciplines underscore the importance ofthe quality of nurturing and stimulationthat children receive during their infancythrough school years.1

Research demonstrates that a caregiver'sskills contribute to both the quality of careprovided and to child developmentoutcomes. In all types of child caresettings, training and education,particularly in child development and earlychildhood education practices, increasecaregivers' skills and competence. Childdevelopment includes an understanding ofgrowth and change from conceptionthrough adolescence. Early childhoodeducation practices refer to specializedapproaches related to working with (caringfor and educating) young children.

The profile presented in the first chapter ofthis report outlines the skills of acompetent caregiver. The caregiver's skillsin relating to young children, ensuring safeand healthy environments and providingopportunities for learning are criticalcomponents of quality in all early childcare and education settings.

Skills, EducationalQualifications and QualityThe link between caregiver skills andeducation is clear. Research consistentlyshows that caregiver training andeducation are important predictors ofquality child care.

In centre-based child care, caregiverswith postsecondary education in childdevelopment and early childhood


9 5

C H A P T E R 6

education are more likely to be associated with higher quality settings and better child development outcomes than those with no postsecondary education in these areas of study.2 A U.S. study of regulated and unregulated family child care3 found that caregivers with more family child care training (including child development and developmentally appropriate practice) tended to be more sensitive and less detached than caregivers with less training. The study reported that quality of the child care arrangement appeared to be higher when caregivers were trained.

A recent U.S. study4 identified teacher wages, education and specialized training as the most important characteristics distinguishing poor, mediocre and good quality child care centres.

A Canadian research study5 found caregiver training and education in early childhood education associated with positive child outcomes in regulated and unregulated family child care and in centre-based programs. In the same study, the level of caregiver education was a significant predictor of children's performance on standard language assessment tests.

A Canadian analysis of eight separate studies6 of quality in centre-based settings considered research studies conducted since 1990 which used the Infant/toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS) or the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) to assess quality. The study reported that higher quality scores were related to higher levels of caregiver training in early childhood education.

A study of centre-based child careprograms7 found a strong relationshipbetween a child care centre's overallECERS score and a centre director's earlychildhood education credentials. Therewas a general trend for centres withhigher ECERS scores to employ staff withhigher general education levels orECE-specific training. Children withhigher language scores were more likelyto be in centres where caregivers andcentre directors had higher levels ofpostsecondary ECE.

Doherty, a child care research specialist,explained why these findings are notsurprising.

Education in child development and care:

assists the adult to understandchildren's developmental stages andneeds. This, in turn, increases thelikelihood that the adult will provideactivities that are both stimulatingand appropriate for the child'sdevelopmental level, and will notimpose unrealistic expectations;

helps to compensate for the fact thatinitially the caregiver cannot know thechild's developmental level and needs aswell as the parent. An understanding oftypical child development enables thecaregiver to make "educated guesses"about what is appropriate and desirablefor the child; and

assists the adult to understand andmanage the more complex groupdynamics and processes that occuramong unrelated children who maynot have the same history of familiarityand compromise as do brothers andsisters.8


9 6

C H A P T E R 6

Consistent research findings like thesehighlight the importance of trained, skilledcaregivers in centre- and home-based childcare settings.

Both theoretical and practical knowledgecontribute to the skills needed in the childcare workforce. Theoretical knowledgeincludes an understanding of childdevelopment principles and learningtheory. Practical knowledge includes anawareness of a wide range of strategies andwhen to use them in guiding andsupervising children, understanding thecontext of situations when makingdecisions, taking actions and followingappropriate "rules of thumb" in day-to-daycare routines.9

Centre- and home-based caregiversrecognized both theoretical and practicalknowledge as components of preparationfor the occupation. Patience, respect forchildren, ability to communicate, and anunderstanding of child development andhealth and safety practices were mostfrequently identified as necessarycomponents of competent caregiver skillsin the sector consultations completed forthis study.

Gaps in Caregivers' SkillsCaregivers, representatives from sectororganizations, government officials andresearch findings are consistent inidentifying the types of skills that caregiversneed to improve the quality of care andeducation services to young children inboth home- and centre-based settings.Caregivers need more skills in guidingchildren with behaviour challenges,culturally sensitive practice and inclusive

care for children with special needs. Bothprofessional development and more formaleducation (pre-service and in-service) arepossible vehicles to support additional skilldevelopment across the child careworkforce.

Children's Behaviour Challenges

There is a common perception thatchildren's behaviour today is presentinggreater challenges to caregivers in all typesof child care and education settings than inthe past. Almost half of the caregiver groupsin the sector consultation reportedincreased challenges with children'sbehaviour. This is consistent with reportsfrom school settings. At the same time,there is growing awareness of the linkbetween behaviour problems in thepreschool years and later antisocial anddelinquency programs.1° Caregivers andothers in the child care sector recommendincreased opportunities to expand skills inmeeting the needs of children withbehaviour challenges.

Cultural ly Sensit ive Practice

Recent Canadian studies11 have indicatedthat caregivers need more skills in workingwith culturally, racially and linguisticallydiverse children and families. These findingsare consistent with a review of severalCanadian studies that assessed levels ofquality in centre-based programs.12 Thereview found very poor performance on thecultural awareness item in bothinfant-toddler and preschool programs inOntario, Alberta and British Columbia, andidentified the need to increase caregiverawareness and skills in this area.Recommendations to increase skills ofcaregivers in home- and centre-based childcare came from several key informants.


9 7

C H A P T E R 6

Inclusive Care

Inclusive care for children with specialneeds means that "children should not onlybe able to attend the same programs theywould attend if they did not have specialneeds, the children should also bewelcomed, so that their parents areencouraged to apply."13 Inclusion isdifferent from past practices when childrenwith special needs would be segregatedand goes beyond reviewing each requeston an individual basis. There is generalagreement that caregiver training in childdevelopment and early childhoodeducation practices are important forhealthy development of all children,including those with special needs. Inaddition, caregivers need specificinformation and training related to specificchildren in their care with special needs.TM

Key informants from across Canadarecommended increasing the skill levels ofcaregivers to encourage more inclusive carein child care settings.

Caregiver Education inCentre-based Child CareMany centre-based caregivers have moreeducation credentials than are required byprovincial/territorial regulation.Centre-based caregivers who providefull-day child care tend to have levels ofpostsecondary education that are above theaverage levels in the general labour force.Two thirds of these caregivers, compared tohalf of the general labour force, havepostsecondary credentials. Most of thecaregivers with postsecondary credentialshave an ECE certificate, diploma or degree.In all provinces and territories, the actualnumber of caregivers in centre-basedprograms with postsecondary ECE

credentials exceeds the minimum numberrequired by child care regulations.However, regulation requirements doappear to have an effect on the overall levelof training among centre-based caregivers.For instance, those provinces and territoriesthat require some of the centre staff to haveECE certificates or diplomas had the highestpercentage of staff with postsecondarycredentials. Although there are norequirements for ECE degrees or otherrelated degree qualifications, more than30% of administrative directors and 13% ofall caregivers in teacher positions in childcare centres report a university degree astheir highest level of educationalattainment.~s

Key informants from all but one of the childcare sector organizations were consistent inrecommending increased educationalqualifications for caregivers in centre-basedprograms. Most called for one- or two-yearECE certificates or diplomas as a minimumfor all caregivers in child care centres.(Typically, in jurisdictions with virtually noregulatory requirements for postsecondaryqualifications, key informantsrecommended one-year ECE certificateswhile those in jurisdictions withrequirements for some staff to have ECEcertificates or diplomas recommendedtwo-year diplomas.)

In the sector consultations, caregivers in allsettings expressed considerable interest inadditional training, education andprofessional development opportunities.Past evidence suggests that caregivers dotake advantage of training opportunitiesavailable to them.

Caring for a Living16 reported that 36% ofcentre-based caregivers had taken


9 8

C H A P T E R 6

ECE-related courses in the previous year.One in two participated in informaltraining during the same time period.The 1992 National Graduate Survey17indicated that approximately 25% of1990 ECE graduates had completedother courses since graduation and 10%had completed other postsecondaryprograms.

There are numerous long-term benefits forcentre-based caregivers. Training andeducation contribute to an improved workenvironment. Caregivers in centre-basedprograms with ECE credentials receivehigher levels of compensation. Caregiverswith educational qualifications in childdevelopment and early childhoodeducation practices have moreopportunities to move into positions in EarlyIntervention/Infant Development Programs,kindergarten programs in public schools,compensatory preschools or family resourceprograms.

The Key Role of the Director

Directors and supervisors' qualifications arerelated to overall program quality incentre-based child care environments. Keyinformant interviews and research findingsagree that the director or supervisor in acentre-based program influences caregiverperformance, program quality and childoutcomes.TM The child care director is agatekeeper to program quality whoestablishes standards of practice andexpectations for others to follow. Theimportance of child care centre directors inprogram quality corresponds to similarevidence from the education sector. Schoolprincipals who are competentadministrators, communicate well withothers and provide academic leadership to

In France, creches are publicly supported child care centres for the care of infants and toddlers.The director of the creche is a "puércultrice" who has four or five years of postsecondary training, including training to be a nurse or a midwife and then an extra year of training in the administration of care for young children.Before she can assume the position of a creche director, she must also acquire five years of professional experience. (Bergmann, 1996)

In Denmark, the supervisors who monitorcaregivers in family child care are considered akey component to quality programs. Thesupervisors, who are trained early childhoodprofessionals, provide leadership and supportto caregivers and take on financial andadministrative responsibilities. (EuropeanCommission Network on Child Care, 1996)

the teaching staff are a critical component of effective schools.19

The Caring for a Living survey found 12% of teacher-directors and 31% of administrative directors had a bachelor's degree or more. However, a recent review20 of the credentialling of child care directors in Canada reported that few provinces or territories require additional educational qualifications for child care directors beyond those stated for other caregivers who are considered "trained" in that jurisdiction.

The director's role is complex and includesresponsibilities for the work environment forcaregivers and the care environment forchildren. The specific responsibilities varyfrom setting to setting, but there are fourbroad categories that make up the director'srole2~: organizational theory and leadership; child development and early child

development programming;


9 9

C H A P T E R 6

fiscal and legal issues; and board of directors, parents and

community relations.

Key informants indicated that child caredirectors benefit from educationalqualifications in child development andearly childhood education practicesbeyond an ECE certificate or diploma level,and from specific training related to childcare management and administration.

Caregivers' Education inHome-based Child CareMuch less is known about the educationalbackgrounds and learning needs ofcaregivers working in home-based childcare settings.

Caregivers in regulated family child caretend to be older and more experienced,but have less training and education thancaregivers in centre-based settings. Just overone third of the caregivers in the survey ofregulated family child care had completeda postsecondary credential and 60%reported more than five years in the childcare sector (not necessarily all as aregulated family home caregiver) comparedto 47% of centre-based caregivers.22 In anearlier 1984 survey of caregivers inregulated family child care settings, only11% reported postsecondary education.23It is not clear how many caregivers in eitherthe 1984 or 1996 survey have ECE orrelated postsecondary education

qualifications, but the overall levels ofeducation have increased.

Family Child Caregiver EducationOpportunities

Throughout the course of the sector study,key informants and research findingsemphasized the need for increasednumbers of trained caregivers in familychild care and the development of effectivetraining programs. The sector consultationswith caregivers in family child care revealedthat those who had taken part in structuredtraining opportunities were more likely tosupport training requirements.

A review of family child care in theEuropean Union noted that in Europeancountries, as in Canadian jurisdictions, nospecial training is required before anindividual can provide family child care.However, in-service training is available inmost European countries. The report of thereview does recommend that trainingshould be a requirement for all caregiversin family child care settings.24

Key informants did report that trainingopportunities for caregivers in family childcare are increasing in Canada.

A catalogue of Child Care InitiativesFund (CCIF) projects indicates thatalmost half of the 124 training-relatedprojects were related to family childcare.2s The CCIF initiative has ended butmany of the family child care training

In Denmark, there are no qualification requirements for caregivers in family child care but most caregiversparticipate in training opportunities. The supervisors (or home visitors) provide continuous in-servicetraining. Also, there is a series of short courses for caregivers and caregivers are encouraged to participate.The packages include a two-day orientation course which explains the system rules and expectations;week-long courses on topics such as child development and program planning in family child care settings;and one-day courses in health, safety and nutrition. (Karlsson, 1994)


100

C H A P T E R 6

materials and packages are still availableand in use.Initiatives to increase introductory andcertificate training for caregivers in familychild care are increasing and a few arehighlighted later in this chapter.26The survey of family caregivers inregulated family child care conducted forthis study found that nearly 80% of thesecaregivers had participated in at leastone professional development activity inthe last year. Licensing authorities orsupervising agencies frequently requiresome ongoing training. Providersdevoted an average of 30 hours per yearto professional development activities.

There is a lack of definition of whatconstitutes appropriate training forcaregivers in family child care and how itshould be delivered and supported. Mostinformants (outside Ontario) from familychild care and other sector organizationsrecommended educational requirementsfor family child caregivers, although therewere differences in the types ofqualifications. Some suggested adapting thecurricula in ECE programs to include familychild care settings; others recommended a

separate family child care certificate whichcould be obtained from sources other thancommunity colleges.

Research and experiences to date suggestthat effective training for caregivers infamily child care includes the followingcomponents27: a link to a system of credits or

recognition that is applicable toeducation credentials;

curriculum design that matches acaregiver's experience and level ofeducation;

training content that helps caregiversensure children's health and safety,anticipate and create learningexperiences for all children, work withfamily members and administrate afamily child care operation;

active outreach to caregivers in bothregulated and unregulated family childcare settings;

accessible delivery format whichincludes some training in the caregiver'sfirst language, involvement ofexperienced caregivers and use ofnon-traditional approaches (e.g.independent study, peer learning,mentoring); and

practical logistics to accommodatecaregivers' work responsibilities,schedules and travel requirements.

In agency-based family child care, homevisitors monitor and support caregivers.Responsibilities of home visitors includeproviding training through individualizedsessions as part of the home visits. Arecent U.S. study,28 which considered theeffects of training on the quality of careoffered by caregivers in family child care,concluded that frequent home visits are animportant part of successful training.


101

C H A P T E R 6

Effective training for caregivers in familychild care may be delivered throughpostsecondary institutions, family child careagencies, family resource programs, childcare support programs or other communityorganizations. The design and delivery oftraining must be flexible to meet the rangeof learning and logistical needs of caregiversand structured toward specific skilldevelopment. Training opportunitiescomplement and build on, not replace,other types of caregiver supports such asnetworking sessions.

The Family Day Care Training Project,sponsored by the Canadian Child CareFederation, Canadian Association of FamilyResource Programs, six provincial familychild care associations and RyersonPolytechnic University, now under way willdevelop core content guidelines, identifybest practices and develop training deliveryframeworks.

Postsecondary EducationIssues

The purpose of the postsecondaryprograms is to provide: initial training and education which

prepares caregivers to work in child caresettings;

opportunities for ongoing developmentand learning; and

training and education for experiencedcaregivers who are working in the sectorbut who do not have educationalcredentials.

Pre-service training and education includethe initial preparation of caregivers.In-service training, education andprofessional development refer to

opportunities for ongoing learning and totraining and education for experiencedcaregivers who do not have pre-serviceeducation credentials.

Postsecondary education in ECE and relatedprograms is an important element inaddressing the skills challenge. Canada'spostsecondary institutions are faced with anumber of issues in meeting the learningneeds of caregivers who have educationalqualifications and those who do not, inboth centre- and home-based settings.

Early Childhood EducationDiploma and CertificateProgramsECE diploma and certificate programs arethe most common postsecondary programsto prepare caregivers to work with youngchildren and to upgrade the skills andqualifications of experienced caregiversworking in the field who do not havetraining and education credentials.

Early Childhood EducationCurriculumPostsecondary ECE diploma and certificateprograms are considered to be the core orfoundation education qualification for thechild care workforce in centre-basedsettings. Some key informants andparticipants in the sector consultationsviewed ECE programs as also applicable forcaregivers in home-based child caresettings; others stated that ECE programs aredesigned for centre-based programs and arenot effective in preparing and supportingcaregivers in other settings.

ECE certificate and diploma programs aredeveloped to meet the human resource


102

C H A P T E R 6

needs of centre-based care settings. Theconsistent emphasis on child developmentand early childhood education practices inECE diploma and certificate programsreflects current knowledge and research.But there are significant gaps in thecurricula of many ECE programs. Keyinformants expressed concern that ECEprograms across Canada often do notprepare graduates to work with all youngchildren and their families in diversecommunities. They noted that caregiversneed an opportunity to acquire skills towork with all children from infancy throughschool years in partnership with parents.Several key informants, participants in thesector consultations and findings in thereview of the literature point towardchanges in ECE diploma and certificateprograms to broaden the content toprepare caregivers to work with youngchildren in home-based settings and inrelated early childhood services.

The sector study conducted an analysis of course calendars for ECE diploma and certificate programs offered by Canadian colleges and CEGEPs (Colleges d'enseignement général et professionnel).The key curriculum content categories selected to analyze the information were drawn from Canadian Child Care Federation guidelines for training programs,z9 an earlier Ontario study3° and Steering Committee members. The categories include child development, curriculum development, behaviour guidance, legislation and administration, interpersonal communication, family/parent involvement, observation and assessment, health/safety/nutrition, children with special needs, diversity, and advocacy/professional development.

The curriculum analysis found that ECEdiploma and certificate programsconcentrate on preparing caregivers to workwith children under 6 years of age incentre-based settings. School-age child carecontent is more likely in those jurisdictionsthat include this age group in their childcare legislation and licensing requirements.The curriculum analysis highlighted anumber of gaps in ECE program curriculawhich were consistent with those identifiedin interviews with key informants and, to alesser extent, in the sector consultations.

Family-centred approach: Many ECEcertificate and diploma programs lack afamily focus which recognizes and valuesthe child's family context. Individualchild development is at the core of manyECE programs without enough attentionto development within the child's family(and sociocultural) environment. Afamily-centred approach considers childcare as a collaborative effort betweenfamilies and caregivers which isresponsive to the priorities and choices offamilies. For example, postsecondaryeducation programs must recognize howthe changing structure of worknecessitates changes in the structure ofchild care. ECE graduates mustunderstand how to provide qualityprograms in child care settings organizedaround flexible hours and part-timeemployment.Infant~toddler and school-age care: Theemphasis in many training programs is onpreschool children, although mostdiploma programs now also includecontent specific to infants, toddlers andschool-age children. There isconsiderable provincial/territorialvariation in the availability of training forother than preschool children. Key


103

C H A P T E R 6

informants and some of the sectorconsultations recommended increasedemphasis on the full age range--0 to 12years of age.Special needs- ECE training programs donot adequately prepare caregivers withthe skills and knowledge necessary tofacilitate the full participation of childrenwith disabilities, behavioural challengesor with special health care needs. Tworecent small Canadian studies on theinclusion of children with special needsin child care programs identified theneed for a more family-oriented orfamily-centred approach in ECE trainingprograms for these children?1 More ECEprograms need to focus on theintegration of children with special needsinto mainstream child care services.There is a clear consensus in the childcare sector that ECE certificate anddiploma programs must preparegraduates to welcome those childreninto child care settings and include themin the full range of activities and routines.ECE graduates should also know how toaccess specific background informationand to use adaptive strategies toaccommodate an individual child'sneeds?2Cultural, linguistic and racial diversity:The ECE curriculum content tends toreflect mainstream cultural values andpractices. There is a need to recognize,accept and integrate values, knowledgeand practices from non-mainstreamcultural contexts into ECE curricula.Many ECE graduates feel unprepared towork with children from diversebackgrounds and many employersidentify additional training needs in thisarea. Recent Canadian studies haveidentified gaps in preparing caregivers to

work with cultural, racial and linguistic diversity.33The curriculum analysis completed for this study found that one quarter of the certificate programs and 35% of the diploma programs included a specific course or specific course content on cultural diversity. In an earlier 1990 curriculum analysis, less than one quarter of institutions offered courses or significant course content on multiculturalism.34Key informant interviews indicated that college and CEGEP faculty are often aware of many of these issues and are making changes to course content. Closer collaboration among faculty, administrators and the child care sector could accelerate curricula adaptations. The inclusion of these issues in ECE curricula helps to prepare caregivers to work in settings other than centre-based programs (family child care, early intervention and family support programs).

Field Practice

Field placements provide supervisedopportunities for students to translateclassroom theory into action. There isunanimous agreement across the child caresector that these experiences in high qualityearly childhood settings are crucial to thedevelopment of competent skills.

However, some community colleges arefinding it increasingly difficult to secureappropriate field placements forstudents~particularly quality centres whichwill agree to supervise students. Severalinstitutions have reduced faculty supervisiontime allocated for field placement whichreduces the support for both the ECE


104

C H A P T E R 6

student and the field placement site. Thisplaces more responsibility on caregiversworking in child care settings who agree tosupervise an ECE student. Key informantsreported that child care programssometimes decline ECE student placementsbecause there is insufficient faculty support.College key informants expressedreservations about placing students in poorquality child care settings because of theeffects on students of observing andmodelling bad practices.

Key informants suggested ways to strengthen the effectiveness of field practice experiences: identifying student, field placement staff and collegefaculty/instructor roles; using "technical assistants" or "front-line" staff under the direction of college faculty/instructors to supervise student field placements; providing financial payments to child care programs; and conducting workshops to train supervising centre staff.

Recruitment and Selection

The recruitment and selection processesin ECE programs are often criticized.Students have indicated that they learnedabout ECE program opportunities inhaphazard ways. There appears to belittle systematic information available tohigh school students about ECE aspossible career preparation. Studentparticipants in the sector consultations forthis study reported that ECE is presentedas a career option only if there are noother possibilities. This may be areflection of the broader issue of lack ofrespect for caregivers in the field.

Some supervisors, managers and ownersof centre-based child care facilities in thesector consultations stated that not all ECEgraduates have the appropriate attributesfor working in the occupation. Concernwas expressed that some students do notadequately appreciate the nature of thework and do not have the personalcharacteristics necessary for working inchild care~particularly a child orientationand respect for children and theirfamilies. Key informants suggested thatstudent screening processes are lackingand that a system is needed for filteringpeople who apply to postsecondary ECEprograms, based on both academic andpersonal criteria.

With a few exceptions, all ECE programsrequire high school completion as aminimum requirement. Most programsallow for this requirement to be waivedfor mature students. Both the actual levelof education required for high schoolcompletion and the minimum age formature student status vary across thecountry.


105

C H A P T E R 6

Minimum entrance requirements are onlyone criterion used to select students for ECEprograms. In most provinces, some programsaccept students on the basis of criteria otherthan academic standing. Over half of theECE certificate programs and one third of thediploma programs take into account personalskills and experience when admittingstudents. There was no consensus among keyinformants on the appropriate weight to begiven to other factors such as personalcharacteristics or equity issues.

University teacher education programs,however, do use a variety of criteria to selectstudents. In most education faculties, acombination of academic and personalfactors, particularly work experience withyoung children, is considered in studentselection .35

Key informants recommended increased student recruitment from diverse ethnocultural groups in Canada. This would help the child care workforce better reflect Canada's diverse population.

Postsecondary Family Child CareProgramsFoundation ECE postsecondary educationprograms are not meeting the training andeducation needs of caregivers in family childcare. Attention to the specific gaps incurricula discussed earlier will partiallyaddress the needs. However, there is generalconsensus on the need for specific courses orcurricula in ECE certificate and diplomaprograms that address the needs of caregiversworking in family child care. Specific coursesmight cover issues such as the impact ofproviding family home care in your home,flexible programming and businessmanagement. Others expressed concern that

the core content (child development andrelated practices) would be diluted if allforms of child care were included. Analternative, complementary strategy is tooffer specific home-based child care trainingprograms.

The case studies completed for this studyexamined two training initiatives, GoodBeginnings and Partners for Children, whichincorporate the characteristics of effectivetraining for caregivers in family child care.Both are geared to the learning andexperiences of caregivers, linked toeducational credentials, involve experiencedcaregivers in the design and delivery, andinclude relevant content. In addition, theyillustrate ways in which postsecondaryeducation institutions can work with the childcare community. Brief descriptions of theGood Beginnings and Partners for Childreninitiatives follow in Boxes 6.1 and 6.2.

The survey of postsecondary institutions foundthat family child care certificate programs,which are two semesters long, are offered atcommunity colleges in only two provinces;two in Ontario and seven in British Columbia,delivered in 25 communities. However, thedefinition of "certificate" is variable and othercourses are offered by community collegesthat may grant a certificate but are lessintensive than these programs?6 Non-creditcourses designed for caregivers in family childcare and courses applicable to family day carebut not identified specifically as such(including child development, topics in childcare, behaviour, nutrition and parenting) areoffered through some postsecondaryinstitutions. In British Columbia, where familychild caregivers are encouraged to participatein family child care training, severalcommunity colleges offer introductorycourses.


106

C H A P T E R 6

Box 6.1

GOOD BEGINNINGS FAMILY CHILD CARE(Western Canada Family Child Care Association, British Columbia)

Initiated in 1991 and developed by the Western Canada Family Child Care Association and VancouverCommunity College (VCC), Good Beginnings is a family day care training program that includes anintroductory promotional video on family day care, a six-part video/television series and accompanyingprint materials. The purpose of the program is to provide introductory-level information on childdevelopment and family day care practices for both prospective and experienced family child careproviders, as well as parents and early childhood educators.

The program is designed to be facilitated by individuals with a strong knowledge base in family daycare and delivered through or in collaboration with a recognized training institution or communityagency.

The program is delivered over approximately 40 hours, either in regularly scheduled sessions over a periodof weeks, or in separate workshop sessions over a longer period of time. In addition to community collegesand other training institutions, the program is also delivered through Child Care Support Programs whichhelp serve the needs of family child care providers across the province. The program can be delivered in aflexible manner, making necessary adaptations to specific local child care requirements and the needs ofparticular communities.

Good Beginnings has become a prerequisite for entry into the family day care certificate program. Theworkbook materials have been adapted to be suitable for distance education and is offered by VCC. It isdesigned for adult learners for whom on-site study may be neither available nor accessible.

Good Beginnings is now the standard introductory family child care training program used throughoutBritish Columbia. It is widely available in a variety of formats through both formal training institutions andcommunity agencies. In the fall of 1995 alone, more than 500 people took the course.

Good Beginnings materials have also been translated to meet the needs of family child care providers whodo not have English as a first language, including Spanish, Punjabi and Cantonese. Translation into otherlanguages is being planned. The program is also being used outside British Columbia. Much of the materialis applicable to any family child care training situation.

Postsecondary Child CareAdministration andManagement ProgramsManagement and administration skills aredi fferent f rom the ski l ls needed to workwith young children. However, these skillsare necessary to child care centre directorsand supervisors in carrying out their rolesand responsibilit ies, contributing to apositive organizational climate and overallgood quality of care.

The survey of ECE training institutionsidentified 11 specialized child careadministration certificate programs.Dalhousie University and University ofManitoba also offer child care administrationcert ificate programs but were not inc luded inthe survey of postsecondary institutions.University ECE degree programs are likely tooffer an opt ion to concentrate on chi ld careadministration-related courses.

Child Care Connection - NS is sponsoring aproject ent i t led Chi ld Care Administrator


107

C H A P T E R 6

Credentialing. It has reviewed thecurr iculum content of 12 postsecondarychild care administration programs,including seven of those identified in thesurvey. The preliminary report indicatesthat the programs reviewed seem tocover most chi ld care managementareas.37

One of the case studies examined anew self-study program for childcare administrators at CEGEP ofSaint-J(~r0me as an innovative model oftraining for child care directors andsupervisors. Box 6.3 provides a briefdescription.

Accessibility of PostsecondaryEducationCaregivers are receptive to training andeducation through postsecondary

institutions, but there are barriers whichlimit access, including financial cost,geographic location, course schedules andthe sensitivity of course content to theethnocultural and linguistic backgrounds ofparticipants.

Cost is a major barrier to furtherpostsecondary education for all caregivers.Caregivers' compensation is low and thecost of training represents a sighificant

Box 6.2 PARTNERS FOR CHILDREN (Yukon College)In 1995, Yukon College developed Partners for Children--a continuum of" training and educational services for caregivers and parents of high-risk children age 0 to 6~at the request of, and in consultation with, the Community Coalition for Yukon Children.Previously, Yukon College had delivered the Child Care Training Project, a Child Care Initiative Fund program, which aimed to improve the quality of child care by increasing the availability of practical training, primarily to the licensed child care sector. Partners for Children was built on the strengths of the Child Care Training Project with support from the Community Action Program for Children.

Many children in Yukon are considered "at risk" due to geographic isolation and the lack of easilyaccessible medical and social services, as well as those who experience family instability and violence,abuse, economic hardship and a poor physical, social or emotional environment. Partners for Children setsout to address situations which place children at risk, such as inexperience of parents, poor health andnutrition, lack of access to early educational services and lack of community support for families andcaregivers. For the purposes of this project, the term "caregiver" was expanded to include all individualswho care for young children, "professional" caregivers and parents.

Training sessions are designed according to the identified needs of specific communities. The project usesthe expertise of those already in the community, providing facilitator training where necessary, and bringingin outside experts as needed. In 1996, 40 workshops were delivered in 10 of the 14 participatingcommunities in Yukon. In addition, the project develops and distributes a newsletter, co-hosts a weeklyradio show, funds local parent support groups and provides free child development videos through localvideo outlets.

In addition to community-based training, Partners for Children offers more structured training at the collegeand through distance education, which leads to a Level I qualification. These credentials are transferabletoward an ECE certificate or diploma. Partners for Children is an initiative to link training opportunities byenhancing the present education, training and resources available to caregivers in a coordinated andcost-efficient manner.


108

C H A P T E R 6

Box 6.1 DÉVELOPPEMENT PROFESSIONNEL El GESTION ÉDUCATIVE (CEGEP of Saint-Jérôme, Quebec)In November 1996, the CEGEP of Saint-Jérôme launched a self-study training program, Développement professionnel et gestion éducative, for directors already employed in child care centres. Faculty members have developed the program since 1989 based on a concept of management which is well suited to child care environments--inspiring, guiding, supporting, listening and encouraging people. The self-study delivery format provides an opportunity for child care directors to access training in spite of time constraints which do not allow for participation in more traditional training.

The program itself consists of three learning tools: a video, training manualand educational diary. The video presents the testimony of eight child caredirectors, the philosophy of the program, the training process and the effectsof the self-learning approach. The manual and the diary, through texts andexercises, guide individuals in acquiring child care management knowledgeand skills.

Eight child care directors participated in the pilot run of the program during itsdevelopment phase and plans are under way to create learning groups amongparticipants and to establish partnerships with organizations that promotetraining and other professional development activities. This helps to break theisolation that child care directors often experience.

Since the program's launch in November 1996, it has been recognized as avaluable French-language professional development tool for child caredirectors in Quebec. At present, the completion of the program does not leadto a credential but it has been submitted for approval as a postsecondarycredit program.

commitment for them. Although the cost oftraining may be supported bygovernment--through student loans,subsidization of postsecondary institutionsand funding of training opportunitiesthrough child care associations~there arestill cost implications.

This is particularly true for self-employedcaregivers who would have to pay their owntraining costs. Many caregivers noted thatthere is often little recognition in terms ofwages or career development for theupgrading they do. This makes the costbarrier to training even more significant.

U.S. studies identified monetary incentives,such as substitute replacement costs, asbeing crucial to participation in trainingopportunities?8 Several Canadian reportshave also identified financial barriers toaccessing training and educationopportunities, and support for financialassistance, such as replacement costs forregular staff or tuition costs, as beingimportant for caregivers.39

Cost is not the only factor that limitsaccessibility. Many training and educationprograms offered in postsecondaryinstitutions are not accessible to caregiversbecause of location (particularly for thoseliving in isolated and rural areas) or thedifficulty of combining training with theirchild care responsibilities. Rural caregiversin both family- and centre-based settingsreport that training in major urban areas isnot compatible with where they work.

Scheduling of classes is also an importantfactor in accessibility. Most family childcaregivers report that it is difficult to findreplacement workers to allow them toattend courses during normal workinghours. For 39% of caregivers in regulatedfamily child care who had not takentraining in the past year, conflict betweenthe training and their child careresponsibilities was cited as a reason. Theyalso found it difficult to find either the timeor the energy to take training in theevenings or on the weekends.

Key informants and focus group participantsindicated that the availability of ECEdiploma and certificate programs is, withsome exceptions, reasonably good.However, availability is not equal acrossCanada. Fewer opportunities exist in


109

C H A P T E R 6

remote and rural communities. Caregiversfrom non-mainstream groups may find thattraining and education programs areinaccessible. Key informants from variousethnocultural groups identified linguisticand cultural barriers in accessing furtherpostsecondary education opportunities.

Postsecondary education institutions canaddress some of the accessibility issuesthrough innovative models of programdelivery and collaboration with child careorganizations. Four specific strategies wereidentified during the sector study: distanceeducation, mentoring, prior learningassessment (PLA) and community-basedprograms.

Distance Education

The delivery of postsecondary educationprograms through distance educationpresents both opportunities and challengesto the child care sector. Significant numbersof staff currently working in centre-based orfamily home care settings do not have ECEcredentials. Distance education has thepotential to make training opportunitiesavailable to these people across the countryand to bring them together to share similarexperiences in diverse locations. However,distance education also poses significantchallenges in delivering ECE programs,which include field practice experience,and which support interpersonalcommunication and cooperative learning.

The way in which one training institution~Cabot College40 in St. John's, Newfoundland--responded to these challenges is described in Box 6.4. This initiative demonstrates the implications of delivering a program through a combination of print and interactive

(teleconferencing, summer institutes andfield observations) approaches. It alsoprovides a package of learning resourceswhich could be adapted to distanceeducation models in other Canadianjurisdictions.41

Most key informants pointed out thatdistance education delivery of ECEprograms was essential for meeting trainingneeds in isolated and rural areas. Somesuggested that distance education deliveryis more appropriate forpost-certificate/diploma programs ratherthan for the basic one- or two-year ECEprograms and for individuals withexperience in the field and primaryteachers wanting early childhoodcredentials, rather than for people new tothe field.

The challenge is to make these programs asgood as they can be within the constraintsof working in remote locations with limitedsupports. Electronic communicationtechnology (e.g. video, teleconferencing)has the capacity to increase the accessibilityof ECE training.

Mentoring

Mentoring describes a learning relationshipbetween a skilled practitioner and a novice.In the child care sector, experiencedcaregivers can guide and supportinexperienced individuals in becomingknowledgeable and competent in theirwork with young children. In someinstances, postsecondary ECE programs areusing mentoring approaches as a strategy toprovide training to caregivers who areworking in child care settings.

One project now under way in threeprovinces (the Partners in Practice


110

C H A P T E R 6

Box 6.4EARLY CHILDHOOD CONTINUING EDUCATION, DISTANCE EDUCATION(Cabot College, St. John's, Newfoundland) Although Newfoundland does have ECE postsecondary education programs, there is no requirement that centre-based caregivers have ECE qualifications. Caregivers employed in child care centres without training had few options to pursue training while working. The Division of Continuing Education at Cabot College (with support from the federal Child Care Initiatives Fund and the provincial government) developed a model for distance education delivery of an ECE program for staff with at least two years' work experience and currently employed in child care centres. This included a mechanism to assess competencies already acquired, and a model for provincial certification of early childhood educators.

The existing provincial curriculum for the ECE diploma in Newfoundlandwas translated into competency-based, individualized modules for deliveryin a distance education format, including teleconferences and printmaterials. Instructors visited participants in their places of employmentand assessed their performance, using the same requirements establishedfor students in field placements as part of the regular full-time program. Aprior learning assessment model is used to assess previous learningexperiences.

Participants also took part in three on-site summer institutes whichincluded two weeks in the college's demonstration centre. Each participantwas assigned a tutor available for individual telephone consultation andwho facilitated teleconferences. Participants faxed assignments to thetutor and received feedback within two weeks. Supervised examinationswere arranged at the college campus closest to the participant's place ofresidence.

The certification model gained endorsement from the provincialprofessional association and is under consideration by the provincialgovernment. The first students completing the requirements for an ECEdiploma graduated in June 1997; 65 students were enrolled.

An evaluation study reports that the Cabot College distance education andaccreditation program will increase the quality of care, programming andtraining in Newfoundland. A peer review suggests that the program has thepotential to inform the activities of other provinces attempting to developeducation and training models for staff currently working in the child carefield.

Cabot College continues to offer early childhood education throughdistance education, although its future is uncertain. Financial support for thesummer institutes and tutors has been eliminated.

The distance education program in early childhood education does notseem to affect the demand for the full-time ECE diploma program at CabotCollege.

Mentor ing Project in Newfoundland, NovaScotia and Ontario) is exploring the potential

of mentor ing wi th in both pre-serv ice andin-service postsecondary ECE programs and inpost-diploma programs. In this project,participants work in child care centres assubstitute teachers and are paired with amentor who is an experienced caregiver.Concurrently, participants take a creditacademic course from a community college.4~

Prior Learning Assessment

There is increasing interest in PLA as amechanism for granting advanced standing toECE students with related work experience.This is not a replacement for academic credit,but a mechanism for recognizing priorlearning. According to the survey completedfor this study, it is used in some form by twothirds of institutions offering ECE creditprograms in Canada. The most commonmethods used are presentation of a portfolio,presentation of transcripts from otherinstitutions, challenge examinations andperformance evaluations.

Communi ty -based ECE Programs

A postsecondary ECE program can be adaptedto recognize, accept and integrate values,knowledge and pract ices f romnon-mainstream cultural contexts and inremote regions of the country. One example isthe joint initiative of the Meadow Lake TribalCounci l and the School of Chi ld and YouthCare at the University of Victoria. See Box 6.5for a summary of the case study completed onthis program. The project created a curriculummodel which can be adapted in other FirstNations settings. Perhaps more importantly,however, the project documented a process ofcommunity outreach and col laborat ion which

has broad applications to other communitiesand academic institutions.4~


111

C H A P T E R 6

Box 6.5MLTC/SCYC CHILD CARE EDUCATION AND CAREER LADDER PROGRAM (Meadow Lake Tribal Council, Saskatchewan) The Meadow Lake Tribal Council (MLTC) and the University of Victoria's School of Child and Youth Care (SCYC) trained First Nations caregivers based on a generative, culturally sensitive curriculum model. The project also supported three separate pilots for family home care training. This program provides an exciting example for the development of collaborative curriculum which accommodates both the requirements of formal postsecondary education and the need to build on cultural values and practices.

In the development of the model, SCYC brought knowledge of mainstreamchild development theory and early childhood education practices and theMLTC brought its knowledge of Cree and Dene cultures, values and practices.The resulting training curriculum is accredited by SCYC and meets bothBritish Columbia and Saskatchewan's educational standards and certificationrequirements for child care staff. The curriculum model piloted at MeadowLake can be adapted for other First Nations communities.

The project was important in contributing to a number of community-widedevelopments. The role of elders changes significantly in the community asthe value of their contribution to the curriculum is recognized. There is moreawareness of the connection between early healthy childhood developmentand later productivity.

TransferabilityThere is considerable similarity in the wayin which ECE postsecondary education isdelivered across the country--both withrespect to program curriculum and format.Yet, in spite of this, there is limitedtransferability of credits between traininginstitutions.

Caregivers who identify the child caresector as a career want to be able totransfer credits from one academic programto another--both within and betweeninstitutions. However, the transfer of creditsremains piecemeal and uneven in variousjurisdictions. The issue of transferability ofcredits has to be addressed at four levels:between programs within the sameinstitution, between programs at differentinstitutions, between colleges and

universities, and between credit andnon-credit training programs.

Institutions that offer both certificate anddiploma programs (or equivalents)generally allow transfer between theseprograms within the same institution.Postsecondary institutions offering ECEtraining programs selectively recognizeand credit each other's programs. Almostall institutions give advanced standing forcourse credits acquired at othereducational institutions. However,requests for advanced standing areexamined on a case-by-case basis,dependent on such factors as coursecontent and length. Only Quebec andAlberta have province-wide agreementsregarding credit transferability within theprovince.Teacher education programs throughuniversity faculties of education andother university degree programsselectively recognize credit transfers fromcommunity college programs. There arenumerous transfer arrangements but theytend to be embedded in specificarrangements between individualinstitutions rather than system-wideagreements.The ECE degree programs in universitiesdid report a number of articulationagreements with college-level ECEprograms.

There is a need for systematic recognitionof credits or articulation between variouscredit programs and institutions. There isalso a need to develop linkages betweennon-credit programs and skills acquiredthrough experience and credit programs,and to recognize out-of-country academiccredentials. Strong support comes fromacross the sector, including caregivers,government officials and those involved in


112

C H A P T E R 6

postsecondary education programs, forcloser coordination of training institutionsoffering ECE programs.

Closer coordination of training programsand acceptance of shared nationalguidelines for program content and deliveryis likely to lead to establishing commonstandards of practice which, in turn, wouldfacilitate the transfer of credits from oneinstitution to another, both within andbetween jurisdictions. Easing the transfer ofcredit would also make it easier forcaregivers to build up credits toward apackage of minimum qualifications andincrease possibilities of movement betweendifferent child care settings.

AccountabilityThere is a lack of evaluation ofpost-secondary education programs. Little isknown about the effectiveness of thevarious programs in adequately providingthe level of knowledge and expertiseneeded to provide quality child care.Information is also lacking about selectionand recruitment processes and their impacton the quality of graduates. Do theseprograms adequately prepare caregivers toprovide quality care? What level ofeducation and training is optimal? Are thebest candidates for the occupation enteringthese programs?

Both graduates' satisfaction reports44 andthe curriculum analysis findings indicatethat all college ECE programs includecontent related to child development andearly childhood education practices whichsupport quality caregiver performance.However, concerns were raised by keyinformants and participants in the sectorconsultations about the skill level of

graduates from these programs. Moreinformation is needed on the effectivenessof ECE programs, such as the difference inperformance, employment and qualitycare outcomes, in one- and two-yearprograms.

Monitoring Postsecondary ECEPrograms

One of the few studies of ECE programsin Canada is a 1996 Quebec study45 ofECE certificate and diploma programs in29 CEGEPs. The study set standards for allCEGEP programs and evaluated how eachinstitution implemented the programstandards. Representatives from both theCEGEPs and the child care sectorestablished evaluation criteria to reviewtheir ECE programs. (The ECE curriculumis standard for all CEGEP programs inQuebec.) The findings indicated that15 out of 17 diploma ECE programs wereoffering quality programs. The positivefindings indicate that the diplomaprograms in Quebec CEGEPs are for themost part meeting their program standardssuccessfully. The diploma programfocussed on preschool children with muchless emphasis on infants and school-agechildren, especially children with specialneeds and those from non-mainstreamcultures. However, only 11 out of24 CEGEPs evaluated offered qualitycertificate programs. The study identifiedstudent recruitment problems and notenough time to deliver quality programsin the certificate programs.

Representatives from child careorganizations and postsecondary educationinstitutions identified four strategies formonitoring the effectiveness of ECEprograms:


113

C H A P T E R 6

Program advisory committees attached to each program in publicly funded community colleges are one vehicle. The committees are composed of sector representatives, including past graduates, employers and labour groups. Their expertise is used to guide program development.

Research studies which use empirical evaluation methodology to assess student performance outcomes were also proposed.

Internal program reviews, common in community college settings, are another strategy to consider how curriculum content is meeting program goals and objectives.

Several suggested accreditation of postsecondary ECE programs through a national sector initiative, while others thought it should be embedded in provincial/territorial administration and policy for postsecondary institutions.Provincial/territorial governments set the requirements for postsecondary education programs. For example, in Ontario, ECE programs offered at community colleges now have a common set of standard outcomes to guide program development and review.46 The Ontario government is proceeding with the development of an accreditation framework for community college programs. The Multi-Lateral Task Force on Training, Career Pathing and Labour Mobility is coordinating training, including ECE programs, across the community social services sector in British Columbia. The task force members have identified the occupational standards for each group and the competencies that are similar across all the groups. The process will identify common core training areas such as communication.47

Box 6.6NATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR TRAINING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION AND SELF-ASSESSMENT GUIDE (Canadian Child Care Federation) The Canadian Child Care Federation established a national training committee to study educational issues and concerns in early childhood education in 1989. Over the next several years, the committee facilitated a series of national discussions about ECE training programs. These discussions culminated at the 1993 Federation conference which identified support for moving forward to develop national guidelines. After considerable consultation with interested individuals and organizations, educational institutions and government departments across the country, the committee prepared national guidelines which built on common values and beliefs. The guidelines identify entry-level early childhood care and education training components, including program content and learning environment.They can be applied to full-time, part-time and distance education delivery models. In addition, the committee developed a self-assessment tool for educational institutions offering ECE programs.To date, several community colleges have used the tool to assess their own programs against the national guidelines. The British Columbia Early Childhood Education Articulation Committee has endorsed the guidelines and accompanying self-assessment tool for the development of the quality training program.These guidelines have the potential to promote closer coordination among ECE programs across Canada. The Canadian Child Care Federation and the Association of Canadian Community Colleges are working together to explore further possibilities, including the consideration of accreditation models.

The Canadian Child Care Federation hasdeveloped guidelines and a self-assessmenttool for ECE training programs. See Box 6.6.The guidelines have the potential tobecome common standards applicable toECE postsecondary programs across Canada


114

C H A P T E R 6

and could be the basis of an accreditationprocess.

All informants from post-secondaryinstitutions expressed interest in knowingmore about other ECE programs across thecountry. All supported the notion of aclearinghouse of information aboutpostsecondary programs and their faculty.

Early Childhood Education Graduates

Another measure of training programs is theextent to which ECE program graduates aresatisfied with the education they receivedand whether they achieved theemployment outcomes they expected.

Between 85% and 96% of respondents tothe 1992 National Graduate Survey48indicated they were satisfied with a rangeof characteristics related to theirprograms, and 84% said they wouldchoose the same field of study if theywere to do it over again. The majorweaknesses they identified with theprogram were that they did not obtainadequate writing or speaking skills, ordevelop decision-making skills.Seventy-four institutions responding tothe survey of postsecondary institutionsreported that they collect data ongraduate employment in the child caresector. Information was generallyavailable for students who had graduatedin the previous two years. Overall, 48 ofthe 110 institutions surveyed reportedthat 85% or more of their graduates wereemployed in early childhood services.These findings are corroborated in theNational Graduate Survey, whichindicated that 85% of 1990 ECEgraduates were employed at the time ofthe survey (1992), compared to 82% ofgraduates from all community collegeprograms as a whole.

Proprietary Training InstitutionsThe majority of postsecondary educationinstitutions which offer ECE programs arepublicly funded, either directly operated bya provincial/territorial government or undera non-profit governing body. Eleven (of the117 institutions providing ECE and relatedprograms) are private organizations whichare either non-profit private organizationsor commercial businesses and do notreceive direct public funding (althoughindividual students may receive publicfinancial support to attend). Commercialproprietary institutions are approved tooffer ECE programs in Newfoundland,Alberta and British Columbia. In NovaScotia and Ontario, commercial proprietaryinstitutions are requesting approval tooperate programs granting recognized ECEcredentials. (ECE-related programs offeredby private institutions, such as internationalcorrespondence schools or GrantonInstitute, which do not haveprovincial/territorial approval, are notrecognized in regulated child care centres.)

In some jurisdictions, the provision oftraining programs may be shifting out ofpublicly funded institutions intocommunity-based delivery or privatecommercial institutions.

In Newfoundland, ECE programs incommunity colleges have been cut whilethere has been an expansion of ECEdiploma training in commercial traininginstitutions. The private institutions nowhave a greater enrolment capacity thanthe community colleges.49In a recent survey conducted by theCanadian Labour Force DevelopmentBoard, 90% of community colleges andthree quarters of the private traininginstitutions reported reduced significant


115

C H A P T E R 6

access to training opportunities but onethird of community-based trainingorganizations reported increasedopportunities for Employment Insurancerecipients. This probably reflects a shiftof government funding to communitytrainers from publicly fundedinstitutions,s°

Repeatedly throughout the sector study,key informants and Steering Committeemembers raised numerous concerns aboutthe quality of education in commercialtraining institutions offering ECE certificateor diploma programs. None of thecommercial institutions offers the full rangeof ECE certificate, diploma and otherprograms. Of the 109 institutionsresponding to the survey, 100 werepublicly funded institutions and 9 private,non-profit or commercial institutions. Thelimited number of commercial institutionsdoes not allow program comparisons withpublicly funded institutions.

Critics of commercial programs suggest that there is greater scope for providing more coordinated training in publicly funded institutions than is possible by individual commercial operators competing for business. A 1992 Statistics Canada survey of proprietary schools across all disciplines at the postsecondary level found that most tended to offer a narrow focus of programs, often with a particular area of specialization.51 This may make it more difficult for ECE graduates to transfer to other education programs. Also, ECE credentials from proprietary institutions may not be as readily recognized in other jurisdictions as those from community colleges, CEGEPS or universities.

Professional DevelopmentOpportunitiesProfessional development opportunitiesbesides formal postsecondary institutionsprovide other avenues for building caregiverskills and supporting career mobility. Childcare organizations provide many of theprofessional development opportunitiesavailable. Such opportunities includenewsletters, journals, conferences,workshops and other supports to caregivers.Child care organizations have taken theleadership in organizing professionaldevelopment programs for caregivers infamily child care.

Scarce ResourcesThe lack of available funding is asignificant barrier to child careorganizations. Almost all provincial andnational child care organizations holdconferences, workshops and seminars fortheir members. Many also publishnewsletters, journals and resource materials.However, key informants reported manyorganizations are cancelling or scaling downevents and activities.

The CCIF played an important role in thedevelopment of many training opportunitiesby child care organizations,s2 It providedfinancing for a wide range of demonstrationtraining projects, a quarter of whichproduced reports, publications oraudiovisual materials for professionaldevelopment/training of child careproviders. These had a positive effect onimproving in-service trainingopportunities,s3 A few were sponsored byECE programs at community colleges or bya government, but most were sponsored by


116

C H A P T E R 6

non-governmental child careorganizations. The successor to CCIF isthe Visions program. While many projectswill have a direct effect on training andhuman resource development in thesector, Child Care Visions is not likely tosupport the actual delivery of training bydeveloping materials or organizationalinfrastructure support, as was possiblewithin CCIE

Professional Development CoursesSome child care organizations alsoprovide professional development coursesfor caregivers. Professional developmentcourses are structured to increasecaregiver expertise in a particular area ofchild care. For example:

The Alberta Association of Family Day Home Services54 developed a training program, Step Ahead, for caregivers in licensed family child care. When participants complete the self-study modules with supervision from family child care home visitors, they are recognized as the equivalent to the province's level one certification.

The Manitoba Child Care Association provides specific training programs for child care administrators and managers through its Consulting and Training Service. It has designed detailed workshop training packages and resource materials related to human resource issues, financial management and boards of directors. This is discussed in Box 6.7.

Box 6.7CONSULTING AND TRAINING SERVICE (Manitoba Child Care Association) The Consulting and Training Service (CATS) provides supports and resources to those working in the child care sector, including specific professional development opportunities for child care centre administrators and managers. The Manitoba Child Care Association (MCCA) initiated CATS in 1989 to respond to the growing demand for increased administrative and management expertise in child care operations.CATS received funding from the CCIF for three years which supported the development of resources and services, including annual workshops across Manitoba, a consulting service, and publications and training packages. At the end of CCIF funding, CATS was not generating enough revenue to operate as a self-sufficient service and it became established as a service directly operated by the Manitoba Child Care Association.Currently, several workshops are offered each year and the publications designed to assist administrators and managers are collected together in the Employment Aids Binder. Workshops can be tailored to the professional development needs of a particular centre staff team or group of child care directors, or delivered to a broader audience. MCCA developed information management software for child care centres which is available with installation and training. (There is a credit course on the software offered at University of Manitoba as part of the Day Care Management Certificate program.)MCCA's initiative is successful in meeting some of the professional development needs of child care centre directors. Its success can be credited to several key elements: Its three-year operational funding support allowed the development of resource materials and services. MCCA is a strong, viable organization with considerable membership support.

MCCA operates within a provincial context which has clear regulatory requirements for child care directors. MCCA is very clear that this type of professional development enhances, not replaces, required qualifications for directors.

The program provides professional development which complements, not substitutes for, the Day Care Management Certificate program.

O U R C H I L D C A R E W O R K E O R C E : F R O M R E C O G N I T I O N T O R E M U N E R A T I O N

117

C H A P T E R 6

Coordination andCollaborationChild care organizations provide leadershipand direction in improving the quality ofcare in the child care sector and bringingtogether caregivers from different child caresettings. Child care organizations andgroups outside the sector often collaboratewith each other and coordinate efforts andactivities. For example:

The Canadian Child Care Federation'sinitiation of the website, "Child andFamily Canada," is pulling together anumber of organizations, includingprovincial/territorial, national, child care,health and social services organizations.The site includes reference services,bulletin boards and home pages formember organizations.The Canadian Association of FamilyResource Programs and the CanadianChild Care Federation continue jointinitiatives in providing training andprofessional development opportunities.These two organizations sponsored atwo-day conference in 1997 inpartnership with the Association of EarlyChildhood Educators, Ontario and theCanadian Institute of Child Health.MCCA and the Family Day CareAssociation of Manitoba amalgamatedJanuary 1, 1998, and have openedmemberships and benefits to caregiversin family child care.Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre ismaximizing resources. It directly deliverssome programs and facilitates otherorganizations from the child carecommunity and other sectors in theirefforts to work together by sharingphysical space and providing supportservices and information resources.

Several key informants expressed supportfor further opportunities to coordinateactivities and maximize whatever resourcesare available. Partnering betweenprovincial/territorial and nationalorganizations is more cost-effective and canmake a broader range of activities andmaterials available to caregivers.

As noted earlier, sector organizations arelinking with postsecondary institutions toprovide professional developmentopportunities for caregivers. In addition tothe transferability issues betweenpostsecondary programs and levels oftraining within and between institutions,there is a need for a continuum of trainingoptions that link informal and credittraining, college and university programs,and experiences in various child caresettings. This concept providesopportunities for upward careeradvancement with increased qualificationsand compensation while also providinghorizontal or lateral opportunities acrossvarious child care settings.


1The research evidence and those in the child care sector agree that caregiver postsecondary educational qualifications, particularly related to child development and early childhood education, benefit the quality of care that children receive. Yet, the majority of caregivers in the child care workforce do not have related education.

Issues of recruitment and selection, trainingfor family home caregivers, ensuringcontinuation of good field placement


118

C H A P T E R 6

opportunities, and training specifically fordirectors and those providing programleadership are especially important toaddress.

Educational requirements for manycaregivers in the child care workforceshould increase. There is an importantrole for both postsecondary institutionsand child care organizations to play indeveloping and providing a range oftraining and education opportunities forcaregivers.

2Caregivers want training and education programs to support career mobility across child care programs and related early childhood and family support services.The sector study consistently revealed that caregiver education must not focus solely on centre-based care environments. The child care workforce of the future will work within an expanding range of early childhood care and education programs and family support services.

Postsecondary education has a significantrole in preparing caregivers for increasingcareer opportunities and in supportingongoing learning and professionaldevelopment. It needs to offer a broader,more inclusive focus in ECE programs,increased options for specialized trainingin areas such as child care administrationand school-age child care, and increasedlinks among educational institutions acrossCanada and within the child carecommunity. It also needs to examine theeffectiveness in increasing caregivers'knowledge and skills.

Postsecondary education institutionsmust provide coordinated preparationand ongoing training and educationopportunities to those working within theearly childhood workforce.

3Access to quality training opportunities continues to be an obstacle to human resource development in the child care sector, particularly for those who live in isolated and/or rural communities.Innovative delivery models, such as distance education, have the potential to reduce barriers to training.

To facilitate the process of bringingexperienced but untrained persons into theformal training process, mechanisms needto be developed to ensure that they receiveappropriate recognition for child careknowledge and skills gained through meansother than formal training. Across thecountry, a number of PLA models are inplace to guide this process. Such modelsneed to be more broadly adopted andappropriately adapted to ensure greateraccess to and equity of opportunity withinthe sector.

Given the growing diversity of Canadianfamilies, it is critical that the child caresector become more inclusive of personnelwho reflect our multicultural andmultilingual society. Postsecondaryinstitutions and other organizations thatprovide caregiver training, therefore, mustensure that early childhood programs areaccessible to potential caregivers fromnon-mainstream and/or low-income groupsin Canadian society.


"1"19

C H A P T E R 6

Postsecondary institutions and otherorganizations that provide caregivertraining need to examine ways to reducethe barriers that limit access to training forsome populations.

4To maximize job opportunities within the range of early childhood services, caregivers must seek ways to take advantage of professional development opportunities and increase their skills in areas where gaps have been identified. Child care organizations and postsecondary institutions need to collaborate to ensure some inadequately met training needs are fulfilled and to ensure ongoing learning opportunities for caregivers.This is particularly true for family child care training and professional development where, historically, child care organizations have been the primary service provider.

Child care organizations and associationscontinue to provide a substantial amount ofprofessional development for caregivers, inspite of dwindling financial resources. Userfees and memberships fees do not and

cannot cover the costs of creating anddisseminating innovative approaches andmaterial. Additional funding sources arenecessary to sustain this needed activity.

It is incumbent upon both individuals andthe child care sector as a whole to assumepersonal and professional responsibilityfor lifelong learning opportunities andexperiences.

5Those in the child care sector fear that the recent growth of proprietary training institutions across Canada poses concerns to the child care sector related to quality, accountability, accessibility and affordability of educational opportunities. To ensure coherency, coordination and consistency in training programs, and to enhance articulation, transfer and portability processes, it is incumbent on public funding bodies to direct their support to public training institutions where a variety of well-established and proven mechanisms are in place. This provides a level of trust in the standards, credibility and affordability of training programs for students, as well as the public at large.

The majority of the child care sectorbelieves that postsecondary ECEprograms are most likely to serve theneeds of an early childhood workforce ifthey are delivered through publiclyfunded institutions which are accountableto communities.

Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1994; OntarioPremier's Council on Health, Social Justice andWell-being, 1994; National Crime Prevention Council,1996; National Forum on Health, 1996; Cyander &Mustard, 1997


120

C H A P T E R 6

2 Goelman & Pence, 1987; Lyon & Canning, 1995a;Helburn et al, 1995; Doherty & Stuart, 1996

3 Galinsky et al, 1994

4 Helburn et al, 1995

5 Goelman & Pence, 1987

6 Doherty & Stuart, 1996

7 Lyon & Canning, 1995a

8 Doherty, 1996, p. 44

9 VanderVen, 1994

1 0 Offord etal, 1992; Tremblay & Craig, 1995

11 James, 1993; LaGrange et al, 1994; Bernhard et al,1995; Bernhard & Freire, 1996

1 2 Doherty & Stuart, 1996

1 3 Irwin, 1997, p. 15

1 4 Doherty-Derkowski, 1995




18 Bredekamp, 1989; Lyon & Canning, 1995a

1 9 King & Peart, 1990; Ontario Royal Commission onLearning, 1994

20 Ferguson, 1997

21 Jorde-Bloom, 1992; Ferguson, 1997

2 2 Comparisons with centre-based caregivers aresomewhat limited because the Caring for a Livingsurvey was done five years before that of caregivers inregulated family child care. It is quite possible that theexperience profiles of caregivers in centre-based caremay have changed, particularly given the smallernumber of other employment opportunities duringthis same period.

2 3 Schom-Moffat, 1984

2 4 Karlsson, 1994

2 5 National Child Care Resource Development, 1995

2 6 Hunt, A.J. & Associates Consulting Ltd., 1995; Unit ofChild Care Research, School of Child and Youth Care,University of Victoria, 1995; Alberta Association ofFamily Day Home Services, 1996

2 7 Kontos, 1992

2 8 Kontos et al, 1996

2 9 Canadian Child Care Federation, 1995

3 0 Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services,1990

31 Brophy et al, 1996; Hutchinson & Schmid, 1996 32 Hundert et al, 1994; Doherty-Derkowski, 1995 33James, 1993; LaGrange et al, 1994; Bernhard et al, 1995; Bernhard & Freire, 199634Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, 199035 Canadian Education Association, 1993a36The Family Home Child Care training project sponsored by the Canadian Child Care Federation and funded through Visions has identified 20 certificate programs for caregivers in family child care. However, their length and credit requirements vary. This initiative will provide a more in-depth consideration of current family child care training opportunities offered by postsecondary institutions and child care organizations than is possible within the scope of this project.37 Ferguson, 199738 Kontos, 199239Read & LaGraoge, 1990; Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia, 199340Cabot College is now part of the province-wide College of the North Atlantic.41 Morris et al, 199542 Child Care Connection - NS, 1996.A PLA model is used to assess previous learning experiences.43Meadow Lake Tribal Council & University of Victoria School of Child and Youth Care, 199544 Statistics Canada, 199245Commission d’évaluation de I'enseignement collégial du Quebec (1996)46Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, College Standards and Accreditation Council, 1996 47Multi-Lateral Task Force on Training, Career Pathing and Labour Mobility in the Community Social Services Sector, 199748 Statistics Canada, 199249Programs Committee of the Council of Presidents, 199650 Canadian Labour Force Development Board, 1996 51 Grenier, 199552The importance of CCIF funding is evident in the case studies prepared for this report. All were supported by CCIF grants.53 Human Resources Development Canada, 1995c 54Alberta Association of Family Day Home Services, 1996


121

C H A P T E R 7

Chapter 7The RecognitionChallenge

The lack of recognition of the roles andresponsibilities involved in working withyoung children is both a product of, and acontributing factor to, low compensationlevels. If the care and education of childrenwere valued in Canadian society, publicinvestment and caregiver compensationlevels would be higher. Caregivers wouldhave more reason to stay in the field and togain more specialized education andexperience. More educated, experiencedcaregivers receiving higher remunerationwould be accorded higher status andreceive more public recognition for thevaluable work they perform.

The child care workforce still struggles tohave a visible identity in Canadian society.

Child care is not a social institution withclearly understood roles and norms. Theinconsistent (and sometimes non-existent)policies, unstable public funding andreliance on individual parent feesentrenches the problem. There aredisparities in child care policies and servicesacross the country, partly becausegovernments lack the commitment and donot agree about what a good child caresystem would look like. Caregivers, theirwork with young children and its impact onfamilies, community, and the broader socialand economic environment are invisible tomost people.1

In contrast to the child care workforce, areview of the status of teachers (includingthose in kindergarten programs) in theschool system concludes in this way:

The status of teachers has improved over theyears. Teaching is now an attractiveprofession in Canada and high marks arerequired of candidates applying foradmission to faculties of education. Onceestablished in the profession, teachers havegood job security and pension plansmaintained by their teachers" association.The vast majority of teachers plan to retirebetween 55 and 57 years of age.2

The current situation of the child careworkforce is more similar to the description(from the same study on teachers) of theearly days of public schooling in Canadaduring the 19th century:

Teachers typically had a small andprecarious income and were required totake part of their salary in payment inkind.... The low salaries offered could nothold men, and more females entered the


122

C H A P T E R 7

profession. This pattern of low salaries and low status persisted throughout the 19th century.3

The Value of Caring forChildrenAt the root of the recognition challenge is asocietal lack of respect for those who carefor young children. It is a reflection of thelack of recognition of the value of children,of childrearing and of families.

STUDY OF FAMILY DAY CARE PROVIDERS IN AUSTRALIA A study of family day care providers examined the motivations of women in becoming care providers, the social forces that have shaped and continue to shape their lives and the effects, as perceived by the women themselves, of the lived experience of being care providers in Family Day Care schemes.Findings indicate that the majority of providers feel that they are not valued in the communities in which they work and that child care services are not valued by the community or the professional field of early childhood. At least half of those interviewed felt "there was little understanding or appreciation of their role by parents and the wider community ... and that they had low status both in the eyes of parents, who consequently took advantage of their goodwill, and in the eyes of the community, which treated them with condescension.”(p.6) Fully 82% felt that family day care providers should work toward improving their professional status because the lack of "qualified" providers may be a reason for the lack of respect for the occupation.

Petrie argued that the status of child care providers and their work is directly influenced by government policy on funding for the services and the industrial conditions of the providers. The poor status and conditions of workers is an indication that the government does not value this service within society. That is to say that there is no economic value placed on the service. "The alignment of Family Day Care provision is an extension of women's domestic and mothering roles and reinforces the prevailing ideology that housework and child care are not 'work' and that women's 'non' work should attract little or no financial reward. The perception that work only occurs in the workplace outside the home and not in the home further justifies payment to women not as a reward for 'work' but as 'an inducement' to extend their mothering roles in meeting the needs of the community's children, in addition to their own."(p9)

She concluded that the qualities and characteristics that describe child careproviders, those of humility, self-abnegation, determined cheerfulness andmaternal thinking generally mitigate against a collective pursuit for status andinhibit the possibility of professionalism within the field. (Petrie, 1992)

Caring---looking after, responding to andsupporting others--has traditionally beencarried out, without remuneration, bywomen and is often viewed as women's"natural" role. Child care work is viewed asan extension of women's traditional roles asmothers and homemakers.

The lack of respect for child care work is a significant issue for most caregivers.

The majority of sector consultations with caregiver groups reported the lack of respect they receive as a significant working condition issue. As one caregiver summed it up, “they appreciate that we do it, but not what we do."

In the survey of regulated family child caregivers, just 36% were satisfied with the respect they receive.

In Caring for a Living, "promoting more respect for child care workers" ranked with better salary as the top item needing change in the child care sector. Only 16% of the centre-based caregivers stated that they are respected by the general public.~ The lack of respect for the work of caregivers is also embedded in the child care workforce. As one faculty member in a postsecondary education institution noted in a key informant interview, "The relationship is clear. The further individuals move from working directly with young children and the less time they spend with them, the more status (remuneration, professional regard) they receive. There is something wrong with this picture."

Advocacy, Unionizationand ProfessionalizationThe recognition of the value of competentcaregivers is related to a number of factorswhich are discussed throughout this report.

O U R C H I L D C A R E W O R K F O R C I : : F R O M R E C O G N I T I O N T O R E M U N E R A T I O N

123

C H A P T E R 7

Advocacy, unionization andprofessionalization are threeinterdependent strategies which the childcare workforce may use to increase therecognition of caregivers. The threestrategies can work together to improvecompensation and working conditions andincrease caregiver skill levels andqualifications.

AdvocacyAdvocacy in the child care sector is the actof identifying the issues, defending ormaking the case for early childhood careand education and the child careworkforce. The connections betweenquality child care arrangements andcaregiver stability and education are clear.Advocating for recognition and adequatecompensation is part of advocating forquality early education and child careservices for young children and theirfamilies.

The advocacy activities of child careorganizations, along with coalitions ofwomen's organizations, trade unions andsocial service groups, have kept child careon the public agenda and promoted thedevelopment of public policy. They arestrong advocates for children and theirfamilies, as well as for those who areworking in the child care sector. Manyattribute the overall increase in publicspending in regulated child care servicesover the past two decades to their effortsand perseverance.

The Child Care Advocacy Association ofCanada, the Canadian Child CareFederation and many other child careorganizations have influenced publicdebate on child care issues through

lobbying government, making presentationsto parliamentary committees, conductingstudies and providing information aboutchild care issues.

A number of advocacy initiatives have focussed on improving working environments—particularly the compensation—of caregivers and increasing public awareness of the value of a competent child care workforce. For example:

Since 1980, the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care has fought for improved wages and working conditions for centre-based caregivers. It was largely responsible for efforts that resulted in wage grants initially implemented in Ontario in 1987. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, it was also an active participant in the campaign for pay equity legislation for female employees in the province and ensuring that community-based caregivers were included in its implementation.

In December 1993, the Manitoba Child Care Association initiated the Worthy Wage Campaign which draws attention to low caregiver compensation levels and mobilizes support for improvements. It has developed proposed salary scales for centre-based caregivers, based on the classification of the position, and the training, education and experience of the caregiver.

The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada has worked with women's organizations, labour groups and others to highlight caregiver compensation issues as a central theme of the child care advocacy movement. For example, it spearheaded Campaign Child Care in the 1993 and 1997 federal election


124

C H A P T E R 7

campaigns as a means of ensuring thatchild care is in the public debate.

The child care workforce often participatesin campaigns to lobby governmentpoliticians, policy makers and mediacampaigns to draw attention to child careneeds. Also, caregivers participate inunionization and professionalizationinitiatives which are attempting to improvetheir recognition.

UnionizationUnionization is a strategy to improvecompensation and working conditions forcaregivers. It is also a strategy that cancontribute to increased recognition for thechild care workforce. A collectivebargaining agreement can providecaregivers with more decision-makingauthority regarding working conditions,definition of roles and responsibilities, andresolution of problems. Membership inunions builds a solidarity among those in aworkforce which can influence broaderpublic policies and funding.

In countries with a public system of earlychild care and education services,caregivers are more likely to be involved intrade unions than in Canada, United Statesor Britain which have not developed suchsystems. Trade unions may both representthe various caregiver groups and provide avehicle to support increased training andprofessional development. Where tradeunions play a major role in the child caresector, there is generally less interest inprofessional organizations andself-governance bodies, as they aresuccessful in promoting the professionalinterests of the various caregiver groups.

For example:Most trained and untrained caregivers incentre-based and family child care aremembers of recognized trade unions inDenmark. In family child care, caregiverunion membership increased from 25%in 1977 to 95% in 19927In New Zealand, the teachers' unionenrolled all early childhood workers (staffworking in centre-based early child careand education services) in a specialdivision. Membership of the earlychildhood staff group is large enough toinfluence the direction of the union whilethe group benefits from inclusion in alarge trade union.6

In Canada, unionization and associatedcollective bargaining accompanied therecognition of "professional" status for someother occupations, including teaching andnursing.

Teachers, nurses and sometimes socialworkers have turned to trade union andcollective bargaining structures to promotereasonable remuneration and collectiverights and to protect quality of service.

The employment structures and funding in the sector present barriers for the organization of the child care workforce. In centre-based programs, it is difficult to organize relatively small caregiver groups into collective bargaining units. Demands for increased compensation are immediately faced with the ability of parents to afford increased fees. Caregivers employed in child care centres which are operated within larger institutions (such as municipalities in Ontario or community colleges) may be included as a small proportion of a broad bargaining unit and it


125

C H A P T E R 7

may be difficult to address issues specific tothe child care workforce.

Unionization could be an effective strategyin changing the context of caregiving.Although only 20% of caregivers incentre-based programs are members ofunions,7 unions have played a large role inadvocating for increased public investmentin child care. Employee grouporganizations, including unions, haveaddressed the issues of caregivers,particularly those working in centre-basedchild care settings or in kindergartenprograms in the education system.These organizations have increasedthe sector's awareness of the linkbetween remuneration and quality,and have an important continuing roleto play.

Collective agreements are also used as aanother tool to ensure child care centresand regulated family child care maintainquality standards. For instance, thefollowing clause is taken from a child carecollective agreement:

Child~Adult RatioThe Employer and the union agree that a reasonable ratio of adults to children in a Day Care Centre is essential if the children's physical, intellectual and emotional needs and potentials are to be given proper attention. Therefore, the Employer agrees that the child/adult ratio shall not fall below the minimum established by the Ontario Day Nurseries Act as of 1984.

In the case of home day care, the ratio ofday care homes to home visitor shall notexceed 25 to 7.8

The Confédération des syndicats nationaux is a federated central union body in Quebec, to which most of the unions representing caregivers in that province are attached. Its experiences strongly suggest that unions have an important potential role in both improving the compensation and working conditions for caregivers, as well as lobbying and campaigning publicly for essential changes in public policy.Caregivers employed in 850 centres in Quebec are unionized (70% of them non-profit) representing about 25% of the 10,000 centre-based caregivers in the province. Unionization of caregivers began at the end of the 1970s. The purpose was to help caregivers protect themselves from injustices and to provide another way for them to organize and pressure the government to improve the quality of services for children and their families. For the past 17 years, the unions have taken actions to improve the wages, benefits and working conditions of centre-based caregivers. They have also lobbied for increased educational qualification requirements. The unions played an important role in convincing the provincial government to improve the network of services as a social priority, in spite of severe financial restraints in some areas. The government announced major child care and education reforms that began in September 1997 and the unions were involved in implementation plans.

ProfessionalizationProfessionalization is the development of anoccupation with a knowledge base andmethods of practice which are its particularareas of expertise. In the child care sector,professionalization encompasses child


126

C H A P T E R 7

development knowledge and earlychildhood education practices. Typically,professionalization in the child care sectorfocusses on the caregiver who practiseswith agreed-upon knowledge and skillsregardless of the particular child caresetting. Professionalization involvesmechanisms to prepare individuals forpractice, to monitor the individual practiceand to designate those who areknowledgeable and have expertise in aparticular area.

Is early child care and education a"profession?" A profession in a traditionalsense is an occupation with clear entryrequirements, a specialized body ofknowledge, autonomy and specifiedaffiliations. Medicine and law areconsidered traditional professions. Fieldssuch as teaching, nursing and social work,which require somewhat less preparation,include a less specialized body ofknowledge and are less autonomous, havebeen referred to by the somewhatunfortunate term "semi-professions."9However, teaching, nursing and social workare now generally considered to beprofessions.

Child care, like teaching, nursing and social work, in contrast to the more traditional professions, are predominately female, and involve the direct delivery of care services to others. Teachers, nurses and social workers have defined an area of knowledge and expertise and have been successful in articulating the skills and methods involved.This was the basis of their demands for better compensation and working conditions.10

Caregivers in the child care workforce whoare committed to the sector and committed

to improved practice may identify with others in related teaching, nursing and social work professions. However, early child care and education is not yet a profession. Not everyone who works in the field receives specific preparation or participates in professional development.Caregivers are not required to affiliate with professional organizations. But there is a recognition of a core of knowledge which includes both educational theory and practice. Like teaching, nursing and social work, the child care sector must address both experience and education/training as components which are important to the profession. These women-dominated professions struggled with the tensions of combining caring and commitment to an "ethic of service.”11

All three groups--teaching, nursing andsocial work--were established asfemale-dominated occupations during the19th century, concurrent with increasedpublic interest in and funding for education,hospitals and social welfare. Theyestablished themselves as professions withspecific knowledge and expertiseembedded in postsecondary education,specific entry requirements and credentials,and modelled on the male-dominatedprofessions of law and medicine. Womenpractitioners were often unable to controltheir profession or achieve equality withother groups in the same broad sector. Forinstance, nurses, as health care moved tohospitals, were clearly under the directionof physicians. Primary school teachers werepredominately female while teachers inhigher grades, principals andsuperintendents were male. Front-line socialwelfare workers were supervised byadministrators and managers in variousbureaucracies. While the formation of a


127

C H A P T E R 7

profession (particularly when combined withtrade union organizing) brought abouttangible benefits, it also served to establish aframework which marginalized the caring orpractical skills and knowledge, entrenchedan inflexible hierarchy to entry and practice,and defined the core of knowledge as lessthan a full-fledged "profession." In addition,the professionalization of these groupsworked against a partnership with clients,students and parents, or patients; instead, itsupported an expert model of delivery ofthe teaching, nursing and social work services.

The challenge for the child care workforce isto organize a professional framework whichvalues the skills of caring and theoreticalknowledge, recognizes different entry levelsand flexible career paths, and pursuescontinuous learning and increased trainingand education. Unlike the early years ofteaching, nursing and social work, the childcare workforce does not need to rely onprofessionals in other disciplines to definethe training or standards for caregivers. Thechild care workforce has producedsignificant leaders who are now inpostsecondary education, public policy,trade unions and child care sectororganizations. There are innovative modelsof training and education which build oncaregivers' own knowledge and experience.Professional practice must also recognize therole of parents and family as partners whobring unique knowledge and understandingto the dynamic of child care.

Does increased professionalization includeonly caregivers with recognized earlychildhood education (ECE) credentials? Afew key informants voiced concerns thatfurther professionalization of the child caresector will be divisive or exclude caregiverswho are experienced but do not have, and

have not had access to, education-relatedcredentials. Other key informantsmaintained that a professional infrastructurefor the child care sector can recognize arange of education qualifications and directexperience. Such a framework mightinclude recognition of specific types ofqualifications for specific environments, butwould ensure that all training andeducation can receive credit toward otherqualifications and that various caregiverpositions are not organized as a hierarchy.The basic principle is that work with youngchildren is valued and requires specificskills, knowledge and education. Still otherkey informants, however, insisted that ifchild care providers want to be in aprofession, some type of educationalrequirements will be essential.

The professionalization of teaching, nursingand social work moved to restrict entry toonly those with the prescribed credentials,and these credentials are narrowly defined.Of course, this does protect the interests ofthose who are recognized but can excludemany who have the capacity to contributeto the various sectors and who can continueto learn new skills.

The child care sector has the opportunity todefine a new form of professionalismwhich: includes all caregivers who want to

provide quality experiences for youngchildren and their families; and

recognizes various levels of credentials,experience and employment setting.

Self-governance

"Self-governance" is the recognition ofcertain bodies (which are outsidegovernment and are not organizations


128

C H A P T E R 7

representing the economic or professionaldevelopment interests of practitioners) asresponsible for training, discipline andcertification of those in a particularprofession. In fact, self-governance isviewed as a hallmark of a profession.Recognition is usually embedded inprovincial/territorial legislation. Forinstance, the Regulated Health ProfessionsAct in Ontario recognizes the College ofPhysician and Surgeons, Ontario, as thebody that sets standards, grants credentialsand permission to practise, and handlescomplaints and discipline for medicaldoctors in Ontario. The same legislationalso recognizes 21 other professions,including nurses, in the health care sector.

The education sector is establishingself-regulatory bodies. Governments inboth Ontario and British Columbia haverecently established "colleges of teachers"to certify teachers, set standards of practiceand monitor performance. These functionswere previously carried out by teachers'

federations (unions) and by governments.Teachers' organizations in both Quebec andManitoba are lobbying for similar bodies.12

Child care organizations have played amajor part in developing voluntaryself-governance strategies to monitorpractice in the sector. They have alsodeveloped specific proposals to establishrecognized self-regulating bodiesresponsible for standards of practice,monitoring performance and ensuring thatcurrent research and knowledge is includedin caregiver training and educationprograms. All of these activities wouldcontribute to the development of aprofessional child care workforce. Theproposed self-governing bodies would beseparate from professional organizationsand from government.

A code of ethics is a statement of principlethat governs moral behaviour and ethicaldecisions. Standards of practice articulateuniform procedures and principles inresponse to typical situations and can beused to guide daily practice. Both of theseare viewed as critical elements to ensureaccountability, professional behaviour andrecognition.

Some child care professional organizationshave developed codes of ethics forcaregivers and statements to guide practicein providing high quality child careexperiences for young children. Thesimilarity of the content of eachorganization's code of ethics reflects acommon body of knowledge and generalagreement about the types of practice thatbest support children and their families. Thecode of ethics statement as developed bythe Early Childhood Educators of British


129

C H A P T E R 7

Columbia (ECEBC) is included in Box 7.2 asan example and is typical of statements ofprinciple from other organizations.

Certification procedures are mechanismsto regulate standards of practice. In someprovinces, child care associations havedeveloped voluntary certification structuresto recognize and endorse caregivers whohave acquired specific qualifications anddemonstrated an acceptable level ofperformance. Certification of individualpractitioners puts the emphasis on theindividual caregiver rather than the worksetting. Three provincial associations, theCertification Council of Early ChildhoodEducators of Nova Scotia (CCECENS), theAssociation of Early Childhood Educators,Ontario (AECE,O) and the Early ChildhoodProfessional Association of Alberta (ECPAA)certify their members.

The Association of Early ChildhoodEducators, Newfoundland (AECENL), theCCECENS, the AECE,O and the ECEBChave proposed the establishment ofmandated self-regulating bodies whichwould be recognized to certify individualswith specified ECE qualifications andexperience, as well as to set standards andmonitor professional practice. Theseproposals are under consideration by therespective provincial governments.

There is some debate within the sectorabout the value of mandated or legislatedrecognition. Some believe governments willmove away from direct regulation andmonitoring of programs and devolve theseresponsibilities to recognized self-regulatingbodies. Others say that existing certificationprocesses have not been evaluated andtheir impact on actual performance isunknown. Some key informants expressedconcern that self-regulation will place toomuch emphasis on knowledge rather thanvaluing the caring and nurturing practices inthe sector.

In Nova Scotia, the Child Care ProfessionalAssociation Development Society proposesa self-regulation process for licensingcaregivers. The process would recognizeboth theoretical knowledge acquiredthrough completion of educationqualifications and competent practicethrough a certification process to evaluate acaregiver's performance.

Many of these concerns are typical ofprofessions such as teaching, nursing andsocial work which are predominatelyfemale, involve caring for people, andrecognize the value of a shared knowledgebase and agreed-upon standards of

Box 7.2 CODE OF ETHICS (Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia) Early childhood educators:

Promote the health and well-being of all children.

Use developmentally appropriate practices when working with all children.

Demonstrate caring for all children in all aspects of their practice.Work in partnership with parents, supporting them in meeting their responsibilities to their children.

Work in partnership with colleagues and other service providers in the community to support the well-being of families.

Work in ways that enhance human dignity.

Pursue, on an ongoing basis, the knowledge, skills and self-awareness needed to be professionally competent.

Demonstrate integrity in all of their professional relationships.


130

C H A P T E R 7

practice. These groups, like the child caresector, struggle to balance a commitment tonurturing and knowledgeable practice,provision of quality service, and protectionand support for those working within thesector within a self-governance framework.

Accreditation is a process by which atraining institution or child care deliveryservice that meets predetermined standardsis granted public recognition. Child careorganizations have begun to define anddevelop professional standards for thesector. At the national level, the CanadianChild Care Federation has led a number ofinitiatives which could be the initial stepstoward a Canadian system of accreditation.

Guidelines for Training Institutions: In1991, the Canadian Child CareFederation established a nationalcommittee to study educational issues inchild care. The work of this committeeeventually led, in 1994, to thepublication of National Guidelines forTraining in Early Childhood Care andEducation.13 (This was discussed in moredetail in Chapter 6.)Guidelines for Quality Child Care: In1991, the Canadian Child Day CareFederation, working with its affiliates,developed a National Statement onQuality Child Care,TM which defined highquality care across the sector. In 1993,the Canadian Child Care Federationdeveloped a National Child Care PolicyStatementis which called for greaterfederal government leadership and anational child care system based onelements of quality, accessibility,affordability, accountability andcoordination. These principles werereiterated in the National Forum onGuiding Principles for Quality Child Care

in CanadaTM developed in 1994 byrepresentatives of national,provincial/territorial and local child careorganizations, ECE training institutions,governments and First Nationsorganizations.

The Canadian Child Care Federation is nowsponsoring a Child Care Visions project onquality assurance which will explore variousmechanisms, including the accreditation ofchild care settings. It is also co-sponsoring aChild Care Visions project with theAssociation of Canadian CommunityColleges which will consider issues relatedto the accreditation of postsecondary ECEprograms.

The Future of Professionalization ofthe Child Care Workforce

Professionalization is often identified as astrategy to improve the workingenvironments of caregivers, increase publicrecognition and improve the quality of careand education for young children. The keyinformant interviews identified issuesrelated to professionalization within thesector as both areas of concern andpotential opportunities for moving thesector forward.

Three quarters of the respondentsrepresenting child care sectororganizations specifically identified theneed for more professionalization as ahuman resource issue. Most identifiedincreased professionalization withincreased public recognition which, inturn, would lead to improvement incompensation.Several key informants, on the otherhand, suggested that increased publicinvestments in education and healthwere responsible for the improvement of


131

C H A P T E R 7

salaries in teaching and nursingoccupations. They predicted thatprofessionalization of the child careworkforce can have little impact onwages and working conditions unless it isaccompanied by increased publicinvestment.There were concerns that increasedprofessionalization would exclude manycaregivers and entrench a hierarchywithin the child care workforce.Key informants from organizations andpostsecondary education highlighted theneed for child care practitioners todefine the terms of professionalization,and not allow government and traininginstitutions to determine the criteria for a"trained" caregiver based on academicqualifications alone.Key informants from a few child caresector organizations expressed concernthat increased professionalization,particularly increased self-monitoringand regulation processes, could reducethe need for some of government'sdirect involvement in the regulation andmonitoring of child care services. Theywere divided on whether they perceivedit to be a'n opportunity to improve thequality of service or a form ofderegulation which would lowerstandards of practice in child caresettings.

There was considerable discussion aboutthe merits and disadvantages ofprofessionalization among key informants.In contrast, the caregiver groups whichparticipated in the sector consultations didnot identify professionalization, the needfor standards of practice or credentialling asa human resource issue. The majority ofcaregivers do not belong to child careorganizations which are promoting

professionalization. The caregivers dididentify the lack of respect as an importantsource of frustration associated with thechild care occupation and noted a numberof elements related to professionalization.Almost half of the groups did identify ECEtraining programs as beneficial to their workand most groups supported in-servicetraining opportunities, particularly throughworkshops, networking and conferences.Individuals and child care organizationspromoting the professionalization of thechild care workforce may wish to explorethe views of caregivers further.

Summary andConclusions

1In addition to poor compensation, caregivers identify a lack of respect for their work, for children and for families as a major challenge to the sector. Consistent mutual respect does not exist among caregivers working in different types of child care settings and among those working in related early childhood services and family support programs.

To date, the strength of the child careworkforce has been linked to three primarystrategies: advocacy, unionization andprofessionalization. These three interrelatedstrategies have the potential to build aunified child care workforce identity.

Recognition of the value of child care hasbeen enhanced through the efforts ofadvocacy, unionization andprofessionalization. There is a need for aconcerted effort to address the interestsand concerns of an early childhood


132

C H A P T E R 7

workforce and encourage increasedcoordination and collaboration. Thiseffort should address issues related tothe development of a professionalframework for caregivers, wages andworking conditions, public educationwhich would make the work ofcaregivers more visible, and othermatters of common concern.

2While the majority of caregivers appear to support measures that increase professionalism for the field, the issue of professionalization is somewhat contentious. The child care workforce has the potential to develop and define a professional framework which is both inclusive of all caregivers and recognizes diversity in the field, including differing experiences and educational qualifications.

Caregivers in the child care workforce,who strive to provide good quality,developmental child care whichcontributes to the education of youngchildren, share similar approaches andpractices with others who work in earlychildhood education settings and supportprograms. A professional framework whichincludes a continuum of early childhoodservices and family support programs couldinclude all those who work with youngchildren as part of an early childhoodworkforce.

An early child care workforce whichrecognizes and values both educationalcredentials and experience, and isinclusive of all caregivers, wouldcontribute to the quality of care.

1 Ferguson, 1995

2 King & Peart, 1992, pp. 181-82

3 King & Peart, 1992, p.6

4 Canadian Child Care Federation & Canadian Day CareAdvocacy Association, 1992

5 Jensen, 1992

6 Moss & Penn, 1996

7 Canadian Child Care Federation & Canadian Day CareAdvocacy Association, 1992The Caring for a Living study reported thatapproximately 20% of the survey respondents weremembers of a union. However, there were difficultieswith the data. In some instances, staff members fromthe same centre reported different union status. Also,it was not possible to weight the data.

8 Collective Agreement, CUPE, 1992

9 Etzioni, 1969; Spodek et al, 1988

1 0 Baines et al, 1991 ; Evans & Neysmith, 1992

11 Baines, 1991

1 2 Lewington, 1997






133

PA R T 4Moving Forward

Chapter 8Recommendations

The recommendations in this report reflectan expectation of shared authority andshared responsibility. They offer advice forgovernments, as well as for child careorganizations, institutions providingpostsecondary child care education,employers of caregivers, and individualmembers of the child care workforce.

IntroductionThe glass is half empty and the glass is halffull. Caregivers in all child care settingscontinue to earn, by and large, low incomes

and receive poor benefits. Career prospectsare limited and turnover is a problem inmaintaining stability, making themaintenance of quality difficult throughoutthe sector. Caregivers' skills and knowledgehave been taken for granted as "women'swork. "Over the past decade, the federalgovernment and several provincial/territorialgovernments have considered movingforward with public policies and fundingwhich recognize public responsibility forearly care and education, yet each timeannounced commitments have come tonaught. Quebec's current dramatic plans toannually expand both early childhoodeducation and child care may be theexception.

While the development of a comprehensivechild care policy is not on the nationalagenda, there are numerous initiativesspearheaded and funded by federal andprovincial/territorial governments, whichrecognize the importance of earlychildhood experiences in promotingchildren's healthy development. Many ofthese funded programs have the samecharacteristics of a quality child careprogram and require staff with the samequalifications and skills as those working inprograms that are defined as child care, butare targeted to specific groups of children.This inconsistent approach to public policyand funding serves to further fragment andundermine the fragile infrastructure thatexists for child care and works against theprinciple of equity of access to services. Astrong federal role in the development andfunding of a child care system is essential.The National Children's Agenda asproposed in the 1997 Speech from theThrone may provide an opportunity for alllevels of government to address this issue.

A response to the recent interest in thehealthy development of young children hasthe potential to increase job opportunities


134

C H A P T E R 8

for the child care worldorce. Caregivers inthe child care worldorce who strive toprovide good quality, developmental childcare, which contributes to the education ofyoung children, share similar approachesand practices with others who work in earlychildhood education settings and supportprograms. The development of an earlychildhood workforce which can transferskills, abilities and credentials across differentsettings will increase career opportunitiesand enhance the quality of care andeducation that young children receive. Thereis a need to highlight child developmentknowledge and early childhood educationpractices and to think of the sector in abroader, more integrated way. A professionalframework which includes a continuum ofearly childhood services and family supportprograms could include all those who workwith young children as part of an earlychildhood workforce.

If there is one priority on which allcaregivers, organizations, postsecondaryinstitutions and governments should agree, itis the enhancement of the quality of childcare services provided throughout the sector.Research evidence strongly suggests that thequality of care provided matters dramaticallyin its effects on children, while it alsosuggests that the quality of care currentlyprovided in the child care sector is uneven.Well-trained and fairly compensated staff area key element in the provision of qualitycare. Enhancing the quality of care providesthe clearest possible rationale for publicinterest in supporting child care services. Thecentral importance of the quality of childcare was a key aspect of the SteeringCommittee's deliberations.

This child care sector study has describedthe environment and analyzed the

challenges faced by caregivers. Thesnapshot presented by this study illustratesa workforce and a sector at several crucialcrossroads. There are both significantbarriers and opportunities. At the same asthere is increasing awareness of theimportance of the valuable contributioncaregivers can make to the future ofCanada, there is continued reluctance torecognize this contribution.

Human resource issues in the child caresector are inextricably woven andultimately linked to the future of the sectoras a whole. Today in Canada, services existin an ad hoc manner, fragile andvulnerable to ever-changing fiscal andpolitical priorities. Articulated, coherentand coordinated public policy and fundingare needed to develop and sustain thehigh quality child care and related servicesthat should be available to Canada'schildren. It is in the public interest toensure that high quality child care isprovided in a stable and consistentmanner. There is probably no othereducation, health or social service thatserves as many people as child care and isso dependent on the user's ability to payfor the service. Only as the promotion ofquality child care moves forward onCanada's political, social and financialagenda can the human resource needs ofthose who work within the sector be met.

Foundations for theRecommendationsThe Steering Committee believes that thefollowing principles are the foundationsupon which their recommendations rest1:

Children should receive first call onsociety's resources.


135

C H A P T E R 8

Parents have the primary responsibilityfor their children; society has a collectiveresponsibility to ensure a supportiveenvironment for all families to raise theirchildren; child care is an essentialcomponent of the social infrastructure ofthe country.All children need quality early childhoodexperiences to support their healthydevelopment; a continuum of highquality services should be available tofamilies, and provided within aframework of complementary familypolicies.Children should have equitableopportunities for participation in childcare programs regardless of parents'income, employment status, geography,ethnocultural background and children'sabilities or disabilities.Child care programs must beaccountable to the parents and childrenthey serve, and to the taxpayer forresponsive services that maximize humanand financial resources.Child care services should be based onthe best available knowledge on childdevelopment and provided within astrong regulatory framework, includingnon-profit delivery, adequate fundingand appropriately trained staff.The development of child care andrelated early childhood services shouldbe based on the principles ofaccessibility, affordability and highquality, and be comprehensive, inclusiveand accountable; a plan for suchdevelopment must include goals, targets,timetables and protocols for measuringprogress.Caregivers should receive fair wages andbenefits, commensurate with their

education, training and experience, andenjoy good working conditions.

Therefore, the Steering Committee believesthat the federal and provincial/territorialgovernments have a responsibility to ensurethe establishment of a coordinated systemof child care and related early childhoodservices, and to provide sufficient publicfunding to support the delivery of child careservices and the related infrastructurenecessary.

The recommendations of the SteeringCommittee are grouped into five maincategories: Public Policy, Legislation andFunding; Infrastructure; Wages, Benefitsand Working Conditions; Training andEducation; and Research.

Public Policy, Legislationand FundingThe future of caregivers in the early careworkforce is connected directly to publicpolicy and decisions about futureinvestments in child care. The quality andeffectiveness of child care services willdepend largely on the commitment ofpublic policy to enhancing the quality ofcare provided. Although the task ofimproving the quality of child care is onethat needs to be addressed in many waysby groups and individuals throughout thechild care sector, there is an indispensablerole for the public sector. To improve thequality of child care across Canada,governments at all levels will need tore-examine budgetary priorities andprovide public funding to support qualitychild care services which are affordable andaccessible to Canadian families.

O U R C H I L D C A R E W O R K F O R C F : F R O M R E C O G N I T I O N T O R E M U N E R A T I O N

136

C H A P T E R 8

Public policy and funding directions arelikely to have an overwhelming effect on thefuture of the early childhood workforce. Thescope of opportunities available and thenature of work environments, including faircompensation for caregivers, will dependlargely upon the kinds of public initiativestaken by various governments. A vehiclethrough which the analysis of priorities canbe undertaken and implemented is essential.

!

A commitment to affordable, accessiblequality care and the value of a well-paid,competent and stable workforce.

1Implement an integrated policy framework--with goals, targets, timetables and follow-up--and provide sufficient funding for child care and related early childhood education services.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility ofthe federal government, in collaboration withthe provinces and territories and First NationsPeoples.

2Create adequately funded government branches or departments to oversee the coordinated development and delivery of child care and other early childhood services.

Leadership is a shared responsibility of thefederal, provincial and territorialgovernments.

3Direct public funding for child care training and education at the postsecondary level to public and non-profit organizations which have been approved and/or accredited to support child care training.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility ofthe provincial and territorial governments.

A commitment to child care that meets thechanging needs of today's labour market.

4Explore and appropriately fund and staff innovative models of service delivery which meet the needs and realities of all families in Canada.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility ofthe child care community, with appropriatesupport from provincial and territorialgovernments.

InfrastructureThe absence of a stable and appropriatelyresourced infrastructure has been welldocumented as a barrier to meeting the


137

C H A P T E R 8

current and future needs of the child caresector and addressing human resourceissues. This reality is reflected in bothgovernment and non-governmentorganizations where the lack of consistentand appropriate support has resulted in afragile, under-resourced "non-system."

Across Canada, the child care community isrepresented by and reflected through manynon-government organizations that sharecommon purposes, while, at the same time,highlight diverse and specific mandates. Thisvoluntary sector plays a vital role in the childcare infrastructure by articulating the humanresource needs and goals of its members,raising public awareness of the sector,undertaking research projects, informingpublic policy and contributing to theprofessionalization of the child care sector.

Through the development and sharing oftools, resources and information, child careorganizations help the work'force to providequality care. The child care communityneeds to be supported in the developmentof these tools and resources which willenhance its ability to identify and achievequality practices.

!

A commitment to a stable infrastructurefor child care and related early childhoodservices.

5Explore the establishment of a Sector Council to address human resource issues in child care.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility ofthe child care community with appropriatesupport from the federal government.

Establish and sustain ongoing grantprograms to voluntary child careorganizations to strengthen, enhance andexpand their role in developing andsupporting the child care workforce.

Leadership is a shared responsibility of thefederal, provincial, territorial and municipalgovernments.

7Develop systems and processes to ensure an ethical, accountable and responsible child care workforce.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility ofthe child care community.

Wages, Benefits andWorking ConditionsCaregivers are the most critical factor in ensuring the quality and availability of child care. Adequate and appropriate wages, benefits and working conditions are necessary to attract and retain a qualified workforce. These wages should reflect the value of the work performed, and the skills, training and education of the caregiver.

Historically, the child care system in Canadahas been undervalued. Low wages placemany child care workers near or below thepoverty line. The problem has beencompounded by the fact that wages in thesector have been losing ground to inflationsince 1984. In Caring for a Living,~ childcare staff rated "providing a better salary"and "promoting more respect for child careworkers" as the most important items to


138

C H A P T E R 8

make the field more satisfying and toencourage child care staff to remain in theprofession.

Due to the lack of public funding for childcare in Canada, the user pay system serves tokeep wages and remuneration low so thatfamilies can afford to pay for it. Where aprovince or territory has supplemented theparent contribution by investing in directoperating funding of child care programs, ithas, for the most part, resulted in higherwages across the regulated sector.

i

A commitment to equitable wages, benefitlevels and working conditions.

8Develop goals and strategies for improving wages, working conditions and benefits by: initiating a worthy wages campaign to highlight the issues of caregiver wages and working conditions. documenting variations across regions, settings and auspices. studying the relationship of wages and benefits to public funding. investigating potential strategies, such as gender-sensitive organizing approaches, sectoral bargaining, unionization, professionalization, strengthening of training requirements and legislated pay equity.Leadership is primarily the responsibility of the child care community, in partnership with labour groups, women's organizations and other equity-seeking groups.

9Advocate for improvements to employment legislation, such as minimum wage, paid sick

leave, family responsibility leave and otherrelated benefits.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility ofthe child care community in partnership withlabour groups, women's organizations, andother equity-seeking groups.

10Examine strategies to improve working conditions and address issues specific to the Live-in Caregiver Program.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility ofthe child care community in partnership withlabour groups, women's organizations andother equity-seeking groups.

11Explore and advocate for appropriate coverage for the child care workforce under employment standards, occupational health and safety legislation and other employment-related legislation.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility ofthe child care community, in partnership withlabour groups, women's organizations andother equity-seeking groups.

Training and EducationThe single most important component ofquality child care in promoting healthy childdevelopment is the nature of the dailyrelationship and interactions between thecaregiver and child, and is supported by theother quality factors. Research hasconsistently found that postsecondaryeducation related to child development andearly childhood education increases thelikelihood of warm, responsive and


139

C H A P T E R 8

stimulating relationships between caregiversand children and positive child developmentoutcomes.

Provincial/territorial requirements establishthe training requirements for caregivers indifferent regulated settings. There areconsiderable differences in the trainingrequirements for caregivers across theprovinces and territories, and there is nocommon definition of a trained caregiver.

Caregivers in all areas of the child care sectorface growing complexities and challenges intheir daily work with young children and theirfamilies. The content and length of trainingmust reflect the knowledge gained fromresults of research on child development andaddress identified issues as they emerge. Todate, the majority of postsecondary trainingfor the sector has focussed on centre-basedcare for preschool-age children. While muchof this knowledge and skill base is transferableto providing care and education for childrenof different ages in a variety of settings, thereis a need and demand for specific andspecialized training in these areas. Currently,children with special needs and children fromethnocultural minorities are underrepresentedin Canadian child care programs. A proactivetraining approach that focusses on the bestpractice for working with children of diverseabilities and backgrounds is critical.

m

A commitment to a trained and competentworkforce.

12Assess the content, length and effectiveness of postsecondary and other training programs to ensure appropriate preparation for the child

care field and related early childhoodservices.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility ofpostsecondary institutions, in collaborationwith the child care community andprovincial/territorial governments.

13Develop and seek consensus around setting specific training guidelines, such as the National Guidelines for Training in Early Child Care and Education? for all services, including family child care and school-age child care programs.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility ofthe child care community.

14Continue to develop and implement curricula that address gaps in training, such as family, rural and school-age child care, infant and toddler care, care for children with special needs and from diverse ethnocultural communities, family resource programs, flexible and innovative services, and the administration and management of child care services.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility ofpostsecondary institutions and otherorganizations which provide training.

15Increase program content to equip caregivers for the current social environment in areas such as verbal and written communication skills, social issues including poverty, race, family violence and gender issues, and tools to respond to the


140

C H A P T E R 8

nature of the changing workforce and itsimpact on programming for young children.


16Ensure that field practice experiences are an integral and well-supported component of training and education for all caregivers.


17Establish minimum training and education requirements for all caregivers in all regulated settings and an implementation plan with targets and timetables.

Requirements should include a two-yearpostsecondary ECE or equivalent forcentre-based caregivers.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility ofprovincial and territorial governments, inconsultation with postsecondaryinstitutions and the child care community.

A commitment to make training andeducation more accessible.

18Ensure the availability and accessibility of training requirements, and opportunities for credit and non-credit professional development, continuing education, pre-service and in-service training for the child care workforce by: developing innovativecommunity-based models of training, further studying and evaluating distance education and considering its role in the education continuum, continuing to develop and implement Prior Learning Assessment procedures for both postsecondary education credits and recognition for equivalency mechanisms, identifying strategies to increase the representation of students from diverse cultural and linguistic communities, and addressing financial barriers to participation in training through bursaries, grants and fee subsidies.Leadership is primarily the responsibility of postsecondary institutions, in collaboration with the child care community.


141

C H A P T E R 8

A commitment to opportunities for careermobility.

19Advance opportunities for transferability and articulation of credits within and among institutions within the same province or territory, from other provinces and territories, and internationally.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility ofpostsecondary institutions, in collaborationwith the child care community.

20Encourage and develop strategies to support caregiver mobility among child care settings and related early childhood services, such as career laddering and career latticing.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility of thechild care community, in collaboration withpost.secondary institutions.

ResearchThe work of this sector study, like othernational studies of child care before it, makesobvious the weaknesses of data collection inalmost all subjects related to the child caresector. This points out the need for thedevelopment of a coherent strategy to collectdata and to coordinate a related researchagenda which will use these data in the mosteffective way.

Good data are the foundation of goodresearch, and good research is necessary toadequately diagnose problems, developpotential solutions, and monitor the successor failure of those solutions. The census and

the Labour Force Survey do not adequately and accurately reflect the various occupations within the child care workforce.Since the release of the reports of the Task Force on Child Care4 in 1986 and the Special Parliamentary Committee on Child Care5 in 1987, there has been an increased recognition of the need for and importance of research about the child care sector.

In response, the federal government hasprovided public funds for child careresearch, through the Child Care InitiativesFund and its successor, Child Care Visions.These programs have sponsored somevaluable child care research studies,including the Canadian National Child CareStudy through Statistics Canada, and theCaring for a Living study on the wages andworking conditions of centre-basedcaregivers. There are a selected number ofresearch projects funded by HumanResources Development Canada, primarilythrough Child Care Visions, currently underway.

However, despite some progress inallocating resources to child care research,significant problems remain. There is still areal shortage of good data to answer manyof the most important questions facing thechild care sector. In addition, few data arecollected regularly. Almost all data used inthis report come from "one-of-a-kind"research studies. As a result, there are fewdata in the child care sector which arecomparative over time, or which provideenough information for an accurateassessment of how the child care sector isevolving and changing. This is as true fordata about workers and work situations inthe child care sector as it is about the sectorin general. Implementation of the CanadaHealth and Social Transfer will likely further

OURCHILD CARE WORKFORCEL FROM RECOGNITION TO REMUNERATION "142

C H A P T E R 8

reduce the already inadequate datacollection by provinces, since they are nolonger required by cost-sharing arrangementsto provide data on their child care spendingto the federal government.

In Appendix G, over and above therecommendations that follow, is a three-partresearch agenda based on key issuesidentified during this sector study.

A commitment to build and sustain acoordinated, comprehensive body ofresearch on child care in Canada.

21Coordinate a strategy for developing a Canada-wide plan for collection and synthesis of data and information related to child care.Leadership is primarily the responsibility of tt federal government, using Statistics Canada expertise.

22Ensure continued funding for child care and related research, evaluation and innovation through vehicles such as Child Care Visions, the Child Care Initiatives Fund and other appropriate mechanisms.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility of thefederal government.

23Synthesize and popularize research findings for policy development, to inform practice and to promote public education.

Leadership is primarily the responsibility ofthe child care community, withappropriate financial support.

These principles are similar to others developed by child care organizations and related groups, such as: the National Child Care Workshop #A Vision for Child Care Into the 21st Century" (1994), convened by the Department of Human Resources Development and attended by federal and provincial representatives involved with child care services, and representatives of the child care community. The objectives of the meeting included the following: to elaborate a shared vision for the future of child care in Canada that can guide immediate and longer term policy development into the 21st century; to enhance collaboration between non-government and government sectors involved in child care in Canada; and to identify key themes and suggest areas for action to realize the shared vision during the next decade; the Set of Principles from Children: Our Hope, Your Future developed by the Canadian Child Care Advocacy Association in 1993 as part of Campaign Child Care, which brought together a broad range of organizations that believe every child has a right to high quality child care and actively lobbied for a quality child care system during the 1993 federal election;

Child Care: Canada Can't Work Without It (1995) Occasional Paper No. 5 of the Childcare Resource and Research UniL The paper describes the purposes that can be served by child care, the problems with the current funding methods, the affordability problem faced by many parents, the inadequate wages and working conditions of child care staff, and presents a framework for action by the federal government; and the "National Forum on Child care" (1994) organized by the Canadian Child care Federation, which brought together representatives from all parts of the child care community to craft a set of principles for high quality child care in Canada.Canadian Child Care Federation & Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association, 1992Canadian Child Care Federation, 1994 Cooke et al, 1986Special Parliamentary Committee on Child Care 1987


143

A P P E N D I X A

Appendix ASteerin9 Committee MemJDers

Co-Chairs

Gyda ChudContinuing Education ProgramVancouver Community College1155 East BroadwayVancouver, British ColumbiaV5N 5V2

Jenna MacKay-AlieDirectorSector Studies DivisionHuman Resources Development Canada112 Kent Street, 21st FloorOttawa, OntarioK1A 0J9

Wendy AtkinCo-ordinatorChild Care Advocacy Association of Canada323 Chapel StreetOttawa, OntarioK1 N 7Z2

Dianne BascombeExecutive DirectorCanadian Child Care Federation30 Rosemount Avenue, Suite 100Ottawa, OntarioKIY 1P4

Louise BourgonComité confédéral sur les services de gardeConfédération des syndicats nationauxCollège Édouard-Montpetit945, chemin de ChamblyLongueuil (Québec)J4H 3M6

Jo-Ann Buhler-LowEarly Childhood Professional Association of Albertac/o 3303 42nd Street S.W.Calgary, AlbertaT3E 3M5

Elsie ChanHome Child Care Associationof Ontarioc/o 700 Industrial Avenue, Unit 6Ottawa, OntarioK1G OY9

Karen CharltonPresident, Canadian Child CareFederationc/o 30 Rosemount Avenue, Suite 100Ottawa, OntarioK1Y 1P4

Brenda DoughertyResearch OfficerChild Day Care DivisionDepartment of Social Services1920 Broad Street, 1 lth FloorRegina, SaskatchewanS4P 3V6

Lee Dunster. Project ManagerOntario Network of Home Child CareProvider Groups2085 Alton StreetOttawa, OntarioKIG 1X3

Linda-Marie FarynowskiPast PresidentYukon Child Care Association27 Boswell CrescentWhitehorse, YukonY1A 4T2

Elaine FergusonExecutive DirectorChild Care Connection N.S.1200 Tower Road, Suite 100Halifax, Nova ScotiaB3H 4K6


144

A P P E N D I X A

Kathleen Flanagan RochonCo-ordinator of Community ServicesDepartment of Health and SocialServicesRO. Box 200016 Garfield StreetCharlottetown, Prince Edward IslandCIA 7N8

Martha FriendlyCo-ordinatorChildcare Resource and Research Unit (CCRU)Centre for Urban and Community StudiesUniversity of Toronto455 Spadina Avenue, Suite 305Toronto, OntarioM5S 2G8

Don GallantDirector, Family and Rehabilitative ServicesNewfoundland and Labrador Department ofHuman Resources and EmploymentRO. Box 8700Confederation Bldg. West BlockPrince Philip Drive, 3rd FloorSt. John's, NewfoundlandAI B 4J6

Ann Hayes-MckenzieEarly Childhood DevelopmentAssociation of PEI81 Prince StreetCharlottetown, Prince Edward IslandC1A 4R3

Sharon Hope IrwinExecutive DirectorSpeciaLink - The National Child CareInclusion NetworkRO. Box 775Sydney, Nova ScotiaB1 P 6G9

Alia IvaskExecutive DirectorCanadian Association of Family ResourcePrograms30 Rosemount Avenue, Suite 101Ottawa, OntarioK1Y 1P4

Jamie KassCanadian Labour Congressc/o Canadian Union of Postal Workers377 Bank StreetOttawa, OntarioK2P 1Y3

Mary Ann KnollPast Executive DirectorThe Saskatchewan Child Care Association Inc.628-10th Street EastSaskatoon, SaskatchewanS7J 0G9

Debbie MauchSupervisor, Child Care Services UnitYukon Department of Health and Social ServicesBox 27034114 - 4th Avenue, Royal Bank PlazaWhitehorse, Yukon TerritoryYIA 2C6

Joanne MorrisCollege of the North AtlanticRoom B105Prince Philip DriveRO. Box 1693St. John's, NewfoundlandA1C 5P7

Trudy NortonEarly Childhood Educators of British Columbia201-1675- 4th AvenueVancouver, British ColumbiaV6J 1 L8

Mab OlomanWestcoast Child Care Resource Centre1675 West 4th Avenue, Suite 201Vancouver, British ColumbiaV6J 1 L8

M.J. PattersonManagerEarly Childhood ProgramDepartment of Education, Culture & Employment Government of Northwest Territories Yellowknife, Northwest TerritoriesX1A 2L9

Marg RodriguesPresidentWestern Canada Family Child Care Association of B.C.8833 Brooke Road N.Delta, British ColumbiaV4C 4G5

Arlene RossDirectorShort Term Child Care700 Industrial Road, Suite 600Ottawa, OntarioK1G 0Y9


145

A P P E N D I X A

Laurel RothmanPast DirectorC.A.W. Child Care Services1214 Ottawa StreetWindsor, OntarioN8X 2E6

Marie TellierTellier & associésCabinet-conseil en gestion des ressources humaines844, avenue prattOutremont (Qu(~bec)H2V 2T8

Pat WegeA/Executive Director Manitoba Child Care Association 364 McGregorWinnipeg, Manitoba R2W 4X3

Jane WilsonRural Child CareRO. Box 152Langruth, ManitobaR0H 0N0

Federal Government Representatives

Penny HammellEmployability and Social PartnershipsHuman Resources Development Canada140 Promenade du Portage, Phase IVHull, QuebecKIA 0J9

Patricia MosherSector Studies DivisionHuman Resources Development CanadaPlace de Ville, Tower B112 Kent Street, 21st FloorOttawa, OntarioKIA 0J9

Janice YoungSector Studies DivisionHuman Resources Development CanadaPlace de Ville, Tower B112 Kent Street, 21st FloorOttawa, OntarioKIA 0J9


146

A P P E N D I X B

Appendix B Key Informants and Government Officials Consulted

(Note: Individuals and their respective affiliations are listed as they were at the time of the interviews, whichwere conducted between May and November 1996)

ProvincialBritish ColumbiaDavid GilbertGayle DaviesFran SadlerHolly Page,Sheila DavidsonTrudy Norton,Joyce BranscombeSusan Harney

Marg Rodrigues

Jim Karpoff

Holly Page

Richelle Leckey,Jennifer ScottGyda ChudJudy Pollard

A lbe r taNeil Irvine

John Lackey

Pauline Desjardins

Joanne Buhler

Cathy Mayday

Karen CharltonSusan Elson

Ministry of Women's EqualityMinistry of HealthMinistry of Social ServicesProvincial Child Care Council

Early Childhood Educators ofBritish ColumbiaCoalition of Child CareAdvocates of British ColumbiaWestern Canada Family DayCare AssociationCommunity Social ServicesEmployers AssociationBritish Columbia GovernmentEmployees' UnionSchool Age Association of BC

Langara CollegeSelkirk CollegeAlberta Family and Children's ServicesOffice of the Commissioner of Children's Services Alberta Family and Children's Services Social Services ECE Professional Association of AlbertaAlberta Association for Family Day Home Services City of Medicine Hat School Age Care Directors Association

SaskatchewanDeborah BrykMary Ann Knoll

ManitobaGisela Rempel

Reg ToewsDorothy Dudek

Margot Bartlett

OntarioRon Bakker,Bryan StanishKay EasthamMama RamsdenRobyn Gallimore

Lee Dunster

Elsie Chan

Kerry McCuaig

Karen Chandler

June PollardPeter Knoepfli,Judith Preston

Department of Social ServicesSaskatchewan Child CareAssociation

Department of Child andFamily ServicesChild and Youth SecretariatManitoba Child CareAssociationFamily Day Care Associationof Manitoba

Ministry of Community andSocial ServicesMinistry of EducationMetro Children's ServicesAssociation of Early ChildhoodEducators, OntarioOntario Network of HomeChild Care ProviderGroupsHome Child Care Associationof OntarioOntario Coalition for BetterChild CareGeorge Brown Collegeof Applied Arts andTechnologyRyerson Polytechnical InstituteAssociation of Day CareOperators


147

A P P E N D I X B

QuebecFrancine Lessard

ClaudettePitre-RobinLorraine Montpetit

Louise Bourgon

Brigitte Guy

Association des agences deservices de garde en milieufamiliale régions02-03-04-05-12Concertaction inter-régionaledes garderies du QuebecQuebec Association forPreschool ProfessionalDevelopmentConfédération des syndicatsnationauxAssociation des services degarde en milieu scolaire duQuébec

New BrunswickDiane Lutes

Vicky Knight

Laura Smith

Department of Health andCommunity ServicesDepartment of AdvancedEducation and LabourNew Brunswick Day CareAssociation

Department of CommunityServicesChild Care Connection NSChild Care ProfessionalAssociation DevelopmentSocietyCertification Council of EarlyChildhood Educators of NovaScotiaNova Scotia Family Day CareAssociationChild Care AdvocacyAssociation

Nova ScotiaJoan Parks

Elaine FergusonHeather HansenDunbar

Sharon Beals

Joyce Beaudry

Valerie Blaauw

Prince Edward IslandKathleen Flanagan Department of Health andRochon Social ServicesAnne Hayes Early Childhood Development

Association

NewfoundlandDon GallantJoanne MorrisCorinne Murphy

Patti Burry

Department of Social ServicesCabot CollegeAssociation of Early ChildhoodEducators of Newfoundlandand LabradorProvincial Association of ChildCare Administrators

YukonDebbie Mauch

Linda-MarieFarynoski

Department of Health andSocial ServicesYukon Child Care Association

Northwest TerritoriesM.J. Patterson Department of Education,

Culture and Employment

Federal/NationalRon Yzerman Human Resources

Development CanadaPierre Andre Human ResourcesLaporte Development CanadaKen Kerr Human Resources

Development CanadaSharon Gribbon Human Resources

Development CanadaDianne Bascombe Canadian Child Care

FederationAlia Ivask Canadian Association of Family

Resource ProgramsSharon Hope-Irwin SpeciaLinkMaxine Mercer Canadian Association for Young

ChildrenWendy Atkins Child Care Advocacy

Association of CanadaMartha Friendly Childcare Resource and

Research UnitJamie Kass Canadian Labour CongressJudith Conference Board of CanadaMacbride-KingBob Glossop Vanier Institute for the FamilyGilles Seguin Association of Canadian

Community Colleges


148

A P P E N D I X C

Appendix CSector Consultations - Focus Groups

GROUPLOCATION Staff of non-profit child care centresFredericton, N.B.Chicoutimi, Que.Burlington, Ont.Markdale, Ont.Winnipeg, Man.Regina, Sask.Vancouver, B.C.Staff of commercial child care centresSt. John's, Nfld.Montreal, Que.Calgary, Alta.Operators of commercial child care centresHalifax, N.S.Burlington, Ont.Staff of school-age programsMontreal, Que.Vancouver, B.C.Staff of nursery schoolsMontreal, Que.Strathclair, Man.Staff of family resource centres/child care support programsToronto, Ont. Vancouver, B.C.Staff of special needs programsOttawa, Ont.Campbell River, B.C.Caregivers in unregulated family child careSt. John's, Nfld.Fredericton, N.B.Chicoutimi, Que.Markdale, Ont.Strathclair, Man.Calgary, Alta.Caregivers in regulated family child careFredericton, N.B.Montreal, Que.Ottawa, Ont.Winnipeg, Man.Regina, Sask.Campbell River, B.C.Whitehorse, Yukon NanniesHalifax, N.S.Toronto, Ont.Students in ECE programsToronto, Ont.Vancouver, B.C.Representatives of specific ethnocultural communitiesToronto, Ont. Vancouver, B.C.


149

A P P E N D I X D

Appendix DData Sources

[1] Special runs of unpublished data from the1991 Census were undertaken. These datafocused on persons who were in childcare-related occupations in the previous year.The census is based on a 20% sample of theentire population of Canada.

[2] The Caring For A living Survey, from 1991,provides the most recent and comprehensivedata on the wages, benefits and workingconditions of centre-based caregivers. Nearly2,500 caregivers across Canada providedinformation for this survey undertaken joinUyby the Canadian Day Care AdvocacyAssociation and the Canadian Child CareFederaUon. This sector study has used dataprovided in the report of the Caring For ALiving survey and has also done additionalextensive analysis on the original data set.

[3] The National Graduates Survey is undertakenfrom time to time by Statistics Canada andHuman Resources Development Canada. Thelatest data are from the 1992 survey ofstudents who graduated from postsecondaryinstitutions in 1990. The survey providesinformation about the employment andeducational experiences of graduates ofuniversities, community colleges, and tradeand vocational schools. Special runs done forthis sector study analyzed unpublished dataon graduates of early childhood education(ECE). The sample of ECE graduates in thisyear did not include students from Quebec,Manitoba or the Yukon; the data are nottherefore nationally representative.

[4] The Canadian National Child Care Survey isthe most extensive survey of child care usepatterns ever undertaken in Canada; it hadboth an exceptionally large sample of children(about 42,000 across the country) andcollected data on a wide range of topics. Thestudy was completed in 1988 by Statistics

Canada in collaboration with a team ofresearchers from Canadian universities. Sinceits sample is based on the Labour Force Surveysample, children and families living in the twoterritories and on Native reserves are notincluded; data from the survey cover about98% of Canadian children from 0 to 12 yearsof age. Information from this survey isreported in a number of publications,including Where Are the Children? AnOverview of Child Care Arrangements inCanada (Statistics Canada, 1993).

[5]The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Cycle 1, was completed in 1994-95 and was conducted by Statistics Canada and Human Resources Development Canada. This longitudinal survey follows about 20,000 children from 0 to 11 years of age as they grow up. Cycle 1 data provide a snapshot of these children at the time the data were collected, including a small amount of data on child care use patterns. The data used from this survey in this sector study are based on an analysis of Cycle 1 data from the Public User Data Tape.

[6]Key informant interviews were conducted with 17 officials of the federal,provincial/territorial governments, 55 representatives of federal/provincial organizations and nine individuals associated with formal training institutions. These were conducted, for the most part, by telephone, using a structured interview guide. Key findings were summarized in tables reflecting the structure, policies, programs and funding for child care across the country. Although the summaries of provincial information have been reviewed by the provincial official responsible for child care, it is important to remember that the information was collected through telephone interviews and has not been independently verified.

OUR C H I L D C A R E W O R K F O R C E : F R O M R E C O G N I T I O N T O R E M U N E R AT I O N

150

A P P E N D I X D

[7]Sector consultations were undertaken, using focus groups, with 290 child care providers in all provinces and territories, except the Northwest Territories, to identify the issues facing child care providers. A participant mini-survey indicates that those who participated in the focus groups tend to be older and more experienced than the average providers. Also, it can be assumed that those willing to participate in a focus group are more likely to be among those providing better quality care. Although the information collected was analyzed rigorously, using an analysis grid, the information is qualitative. In addition, eight key informant interviews were conducted with individuals who provide care within ethnic communities in Toronto and Vancouver to identify the specific issues they face.

[8] A survey of training institutions wasconducted for this evaluation; 116 institutionswere identified as offering child care-relatedtraining. Of these, 109 responded to thesurvey. Less than a full response somewhatlimited the conclusions that can be drawn.However, to the extent possible, in the text ofthis report, we have extrapolated the findingsto include the missing institutions based onwhat we know about them. It provides anoverview of the areas of study in varioustraining institutions.

[9] A review of training curricula in certificateand diploma ECE programs was undertakenbased on brief course descriptions in coursecalendars submitted to the study team byinstitutions responding to the survey oftraining institutions or on course descriptioninformation taken from other sources (e.g.Intemet, libraries). Curriculum descriptionswere available for all but six institutions.

[10] A survey of licensed home day providerswas conducted of approximately 1,1 O0providers in all provinces exceptNewfoundland (which does not have licensedfamily day care). Providers were identifiedthrough the agency or governmentdepartment responsible for the licensing of theproviders in the province. To producecomparable data, the survey addressed issuessimilar to those addressed in the Caring for aLiving study. Additional questions were addedto address issues specific to the family day

care setting. For some questions, the numberof respondents in a given province is too smallfor the results to be reported with confidence~The Canadian Child Care Federation isresponsible for the analysis of the datacollected in this survey and the final report,Report on the Survey of the Regulated HomeChild Care Sector (working tide).

[11] An international comparison of child carehuman resource issues in Australia, Denmark,France, Spain and the United States was basedon a review of literature from these countries.Information from the literature was used tocomplete summaries which were thenreviewed by a key informant in the country(except the United States). Although there isconsiderable literature about child care, itproved difficult to find adequate informationabout human resource issues in thesecountries. To some extent, the key informantswere able to fill in these gaps. Informationfrom the comparison is used, throughout thereport, to highlight differences and similaritiesbetween Canada and these five countries.

[12] A literature review was conducted of selectedresearch reports and policy documents relatedto training and human resource developmentissues in the sector. Five central questionswere addressed: how does the quality of careaffect healthy child development outcomes;what is the relationship between training andquality of care; what elements of training anddevelopment are most critical in supportingquality of care; what are the needs,expectations and perceptions of students,providers and employers; and what policychanges related to training are now underconsideration or ready for implementation.


151

A P P E N D I X E

Appendix ESurvey oF Family Day Care Providers

The need for and availability of quality child care continues to be an area of major public focus and concern.Furthermore, the training and human resource development of those who care for children in Canada is acritical component of quality care and clearly an area deserving further study. These and other issues are thefocus of a comprehensive human resource study of the child care sector in Canada. Family Day Care HomeProviders are a key component to the Canadian child care mosaic and will form an essential part of thisstudy.

Approximately 2,200 family day care providers are being surveyed across Canada as part of this initiative. Thisis only a small sample of the family day care providers in the country and of your province. Count yourself asone of them and let your voice be heard. The overall results will be reported in aggregate form only. Noindividuals or organizations will be identified in any report.

The study is being commissioned by Human Resources Development Canada and is being directed by asteering committee which represents the broad scope of child care arrangements and interests in Canada. Thesteering committee has selected Goss Gilroy Inc. to conduct much of the research on their behalf. The finalreport for the study is due to be released in the fall of 1997.

While your participation is voluntary and your participation will not affect you adversely in any way, we wouldlike to encourage you to take a few minutes to complete the following questions. Your participation is greatlyappreciated. Please return the completed questionnaire by June 30th, or earlier if possible, using the enclosedself-addressed envelope. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Goss Gilroy Inc. at 613-230-5577,ext. 232, collect.

This survey consists of thirty (30) questions which cover three main topic areas -- your experience in caring forchildren, training and human resource development and a section designed to help us develop a profile ofpeople caring for children. Please complete the questionnaire for all children in your care, other than your ownbirth children, where appropriate.


152

A P P E N D I X E

Please detail your paid working experience in the child care field (as a family home care provider, in a daycare centre, as a nanny, as an early childhood teacher or teaching assistant, etc.)? (Working is defined as10 hours or more per week.)

Total number of years' experience(excluding breaks when you were doingsomething else)

as a family day care provider who is licensedor working through an approved/licensedfamily daycare agency

as an unregulated family home care provider

as a provider or worker in another part of thechild care sector (please specify)

total number of years of paid child careexperience (should equal sum of abovecategories)

<1 yr 1 - 3 y r s 3 - 5 y r s 5 - 1 0 y r s > 1 0 y r s

2. Do you:personally hold a license to provide family day care

or do you[~1 work through an agency which is licensed?is the agencyC~ private orC~ non-profit

3 . Why did you chose to become licensed and/or to work through an agency~ (Check all that apply)Q its easier to find families to provide care for[~ more supports are availableQ no need to deal with direct contracting with parents

increased professionalismQI to be able to take subsidized children~1 other (please specify)

4. a. Does someone visit and inspect your home?OYes1~ No Please go to question 5

b. Who visits and inspects your home ? (Check all that apply)[Z] government officials1~ municipal officials

agency home-visitorsQ child care support programs/family resource centresQ social workers/special needs workers

other (please specify)

c. About how often is your home visited by an official?0 about once a week

about twice a monthQ about once a monthI~1 about once every two monthsO less frequently than once every two months


153

A P P E N D I X E

5. a. When during the year do you not provide child care?I~ during a specific month(s) (please specify):I~ statutory holidaysI~ between Christmas and New Year's DayQ other (please specify)I~ None of the above (provide care all year, please go to question 5c.)

b. If you took vacation leave from your child care duties in the last twelve months, were these days paid?I~ yesI~ no

c. Did you take any sick leave days in the last twelve months?Q yesI~ no please proceed to question 6

d. Were you paid for these sick days~I~ yesI~ no

6 . Please complete the following chart for each child (other than your own) in you care at the present time.(You may wish to use the child's first initial or another identifier, to keep track of which child you areresponding for).

Children(youngest first)

Child 1 :

Child 2:

Child 3:

Child 4:

Child 5:

Age of child

years or

months

lears or

months

years or

months

years or

months

years or

months

Length of timecaring for thischild on aregular basis?

months

months

months

months

months

Number of daysa week child isin ),our care~

, ,, , ,,

days orQ irregularly


days or[~ irregularly



For what part of each day do you normally care for thischild.~ (note: school leaving and returning time applies onlyto school aged children)

arrival time: comes from school:

Q a .m. Q p .m. pick up time:leaves for school:

Q a .m. [~ p .m.


Q a .m. Q p .m. pick up time:leaves for school:

[ ~ a . m . Q p . m .


I~ a.m. . Q p.m. pick up time:leaves for school:

a .m. [~ p .m.


Q a .m. [~ p .m. pick up time:leaves for school:

[~ a .m. Q p .m.


QI a.m. [~ p.m. pick up time:leaves for school:

a .m. {~ p .m.

Does thischild have anyspecial needs?

I~1 noQyes

I~1 noQyes

Q noQ yes

QI noQyes

Q noQ yes


154

A P P E N D I X E

7. On an average day, approximately how many hours do you spend, outside of caring for any children(i.e., outside of the time between when the first child arrives and the last child leaves), on family day carerelated tasks (e.g. set-up and clean-up, paper work, meal preparation or planning, etc.)? hrs

B. If you currently care for children with special needs, disabilities or health impairments, or if you have doneso in the past, please specify the nature of these special needs:

9. Have you ever been unable to accommodate a child with special needs?Q Yes0 NoComments:

10. a. What is the full (unsubsidized) fee on a daily basis for a full daypre-school (i.e. out of diapers) child? $

b. What is the fee for a full day infant? $

c. How much of this fee is paid to you? $ per presc$ per infan

d. Who establishes the fees?I~ agency0 governmentI~l recommendation of the family day care associationI~ the "market"0 other (please specify):

e. Do any of the children you provide care for benefit from fee sulI ~ Yes (for how many children)

No

11. a. 19o you meet with other family day care providers?El yes, regularly

no (please proceed to question 14)

b. About how often do you meet with other family day care providers?[~1 more than once a weekQI about once a week[~ twice a month[] once a month[] i0frequendy

Please rank the importance of each of the following possible reasons for these meetings:

not at all important very important

so the children can play together 1 2 3 4 S

joint outing for the children 1 2 3 4 S

coffee, and informal chat, adult conversation 1 2 3 4 S

mutual support network 1 2 3 4 S

training 1 2 3 4 S

other (please specify): 1 2 3 4 5


155

A P P E N D I X E

12. Please complete the following chart for each of the child care services/supports which may be available inyour community.

Service/Support Parent/Family Resource Centrescaresiver Drop-in/Play Group Start-up/Information packages on operating a family day care home Newsletters Workshops Telephone Hot/Warm Line for information Other (please specify):

Available in your area!

Qyes[~ no(if no, proceed to nextline)

Q yesQI no(if no, proceed to nextline)

Qyesno

(if no, proceed to nextline)

Q yesQ no(if no, proceed to nextline)

Qyes[~ no(if no, proceed to nextline)

Oyes[~ no(if no, proceed to nextline)

C~ yesQ no(if no, proceed to nextline)

How often do you use~

[~ frequentlyQ occasionallyQ rarely

have used only once

[~ frequentlyQ occasionally~1 rarely[~ have used only once

[~ frequently[~ occasionallyQ rarely[~1 have used only once

Q frequently[~ occasionally[~ rarely[~ have used only once

[~ frequently[~ occasionally

rarely[~ have used only once

[~ frequently[~ occasionally[~ rarely[~ have used only once

Q frequently[~ occasionally[~ rarely

have used only once

What organization offers this service/support0 agency~] support proem/resource centre Q government[~ collegeassociation[~ other (specify)Q agencyQ support program/resource centre governmentQ college1~ associationQ other (specify)Q agency0 support program/resource centre Q governmentcollegeassociationQ other (specify){~ agencyQ support program/resource centre Q governmentcollegeassociationother (specify)0 agency0 support program/resource centre QI government, Q college0 associationother (specify)0 agency0 support program/resource centre government[~ college[~ association[~ other (specify)Q agencyQ support program/resource centre ~1 government0 college{~ association1~ other (specify)

How satisfied were you overall with this service/support~Not at all satisfied Very satisfied 1234 5 Not at all satisfiedVery satisfied 123 4 5 Not at all satisfiedVery satisfied 123 4 S Not at all satisfiedVery satisfied 123 4 5 Not at all satisfiedVery satisfied 123 4 5 Not at all satisfiedVery satisfied 1234 5 Not at all satisfiedVery satisfied 1234 5


156

A P P E N D I X E

13. The following statements describe some of the reasons people provide child care. Please indicate whichdescribe your reasons, and which of these is your main reason:

One of the reasons(check all that apply)

Want to stay home with own children

Being own boss / flexibility of being able toschedule own day

Relatives or friends need care so they can work

Like children

To prepare children for school

There is a need for good child care forworking mothers

The money / Faming an income

Employment experience

Other (specify)

The main reason(check one only)

14. Do you expect to be working in the field of child care three years from now?[ ~ Yes, in family day care[ ~ Yes, elsewhere in the field (Please indicate where you intend to be):Q No (If no, please indicate why not)

Q Don't know

15. If you could do it over again, would you choose to work in the child care field?QYesQ No. (If no, please indicate why not)Q Don't know

16. Please rate the following items in terms of your level of satisfaction:

very satisfied very unsatisfied

hours of work 1 2 3 4 5

remuneraUon (pay) 1 2 3 4 5

relationships with parents 1 2 3 4 5

relationships with children in care 1 2 3 4 5

relationship with licensing authority/agency 1 2 3 4 5

licensing / agency requirements 1 2 3 4 5

available supports and training 1 2 3 4 5

respect for the profession 1 2 3 4 5


157

A P P E N D I X E

17. The following table lists some workshops/training and or related activities which may be available fromtime to time. Please complete the following table for each of the workshops/training activities listed.

Workshops/ available in your have participated in Who offered this Who paid for the How satisfied overall were you with theTraining Activities area? the past 12 months activity? activity? activity?

Child [] yes Q yes [] agency Q self not at all satisfied very satisfiedDevelopment [] no (if no please [] no (If no, proceed [] support program/ [] agency 1 2 3 4 5

proceed to next to next activity resource centre 1~ support program/line) Q government resource centre

Q college [~ government[] association ~1 no costQ other (specify) [~ other (specify)

Curriculum [~ yes Q yes I~ agency [~ self not at all satisfied very satisfiedPlanning ~ no (if no please [] no (if no please [] support program/ [] agency 1 2 3 4 5

proceed to next proceed to next resource centre Q support program/line) activity) [] government resource centre

Q college [~ government[] association [~ no cost

other (specify) [~ other (specify)

Child guidance/ [] yes D yes [~ agency [~ self not at all satisfied very satisfiedbehaviour [] no (if no please [~ no (if no please [~ support program/ [] agency 1 2 3 4 5Management proceed to next proceed to next resource centre D support program/

line) activity) O government resource centre[~) college O government[] association [~ no cost

other (specify) [~ other (specify)

Care giver Q yes Q yes [] agency [~ self not at all satisfied very satisfiedcertificate training [] no (if no please [~ no (if no please [] support program/ [] agency 1 2 3 4 5Program proceed to next proceed to next resource centre [] support program/

line) activity) Q government resource centre[] college [] government[]-association [] no costC~ other (specify) ~1 other (specify)

Nutrition Q yes [] yes [~ agency [] self not at all satisfied very satisfiedQ no (if no please ~ no (if no please C~ support program/ [] agency 1 2 3 4 5

proceed to next proceed to next resource centre 0 support program/line) activity) [~ government resource centre

[~ college [~ governmentQ association [] no cost[] other (specify) [] other (specify)


158

A P P E N D I X E

Workshops/ available in your have participated in Who offered this Who paid for the How satisfied overall were you with theTraining Activities area~ the past 12 months activity~ activity~ activity~

First Aid / CPR ~ yes Q yes [~1 agency [~ self not at all satisfied very satisfied

C~ no (if no please I~ no (if no please Q support program/ [] agency 1 2 3 4 5

proceed to next proceed to next resource centre [~1 support program/line) activity) Q government resource centre

college Q governmentQ association C~ no cost[~ other (specify) [~ other (specify)

Income Tax I~1 yes Q yes 1~ agency [~ self not at all satisfied very satisfied

Preparation/ Q no (if no please [] no (if no please ~ support program/ [~ agency 1 2 3 4 5

Financial proceed to next proceed to next resource centre [~1 support program/Management line) activity) [~ government resource centre

Q col lege ~ government

Q association [~ no cost[~ other (specify) [] other (specify)

Con t rac t i ng / ~1 yes [~1 yes [~ agency C~I self not at all satisfied very satisfied

Written ~1 no (if no please [~ no (if no please I~ support program/ [~ agency 1 2 3 4 5

agreements with proceed to next proceed to next resource centre [~1 support program/Parents line) activity) [~ government resource centre

[~1 college Q governmentassociation ~ no cost

Q other (specify) C~ other (specify)

Organizing the Q yes [] yes ~ agency [] sel f not at all satisfied very satisfied

home for child C~ no (if no please [] no (if no please [] support program/ Q agency 1 2 3 4 5

care (set-up/ proceed to next proceed to next resource centre [~ support program/

equipment) line) activity) [~1 government resource centre[~ college [~ government[~ association [~ no cost

C~ other (specify) C~ other (specify)

Caring for [ ] yes Q yes [] agency [] sel f not at all satisfied very satisfied

Children with C~ no (if no please [~ no (if no please [] support program/ [~ agency 1 2 3 4 5

Special Needs proceed to next proceed to next resource centre C~I support program/line) activity) C~I government resource centre

I~1 college [~ governmentQ association ~1 no costI~ other (specify) [~ other (specify)

Other (please [~ yes [~ yes I~ agency 1~ self not at all satisfied very satisfied

Specify): [~ no (if no please [~1 no (if no please [~ support program/ [~ agency 1 2 3 4 5

proceed to next proceed to next resource centre C~ support program/line) activity) I~1 government resource centre

Q col lege [~ government[~ association I~1 no cost[~ other (specify) [~1 other (specify)


159

A P P E N D I X E

18. To obtain your license/work with the agency were you required to take any courses?Q No[ ~ Yes (Please specify which ones)

19. If you have not participated in any workshops or training activities within the last 12 months, pleaserank the relevance of the following reasons to your not participating:

not at all relevant highly relevantcourse is unavailable within a reasonable 1 2 3 4 5distance from home

timing conflicts with child care work 1 2 3 4 5timing conflicts with care needs of own children 1 2 3 4 5cannot see a benefit to further study/ 1 2 3 4 5qualificationsno information available on relevant courses 1 2 3 4 5too costly 1 2 3 4 5lack of suitable transportation 1 2 3 4 5participated in the course prior to the last 1 2 3 4 512 monthsother reasons - please specify 1 2 3 4 5

20. Gender:I~1 Female[ ~ Male

21. What was you age on your last birthday?Q under 20[~ 20-24Q 25-29C~I 30-34D 35-39[ ~ 40-44

45-490 50 or older

22. What is your marital status (check one)C~ Single/Never married[ ~ Married or living with partnerQ Divorced or separated[ ~ Widowed

23. How many children (birth, adopted, foster or stepchildren) in each of the age groups listed below live withyou either full-time or part-time?Q No children

Age Group Number of Children in the age group living with Youchildren 0 to 17 months oldchildren 18 to 35 months oldchildren 3 to 5 years oldchildren 6 to 12 years oldchildren 13 to 18 years oldchildren over 18 years old


160

A P P E N D I X E

24. Is your home located in a (check one only):[~ rural setting[~ small town (population less than 49,999)[~ city (population greater than 50,000)

25. What province/territory do you live in~O Newfoundland[ 3 Prince Edward Island

Nova ScotiaNew Brunswick

I ~ Quebec[ ~ Ontario[ ~ ManitobaQ I Saskatchewan0 Alberta[ ~ British Columbia

YukonNorthwest Territories

26. What was your gross income before deductions (payroll, or care provision related expenses) from childcare provision for 1995?I~ less than $4,999I~ $5,000 - $9,999I~ 10,000 - $14,999Q $15,000 -$19,999Q $20,000 - $24,499I~ more than $25,000

27. Approximately what percentage of the income you noted above, was spent last year on child care relatedexpenses (i.e., food, toys, equipment etc.)?Q less than 15%I~ 15%to 29%C~ 30% to 44%[~ 45% to 59%[~ 60% to 74%[~ more than 90%

28. What is the highest educational level you have attained?I~ not completed high schoolQI High school diploma[~ Some college or university courses1~ One year college certificate1~ Two year college certificateI~ Two or three year college diploma[~ Bachelor's degree

Some Graduate work1~ Master's degreeI~ Some post-Master's workI~ Doctorate degree

THANK YOU!If you would like further information on this survey, you may submit a request pursuant to the Access toInformation ACt to Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC). Instructions for making a formal accessrequest are provided in the government publication entitled "lnfo Source", copies of which are located inHRDC's local service centres. Please quote the name of the survey and the following Program RecordNumber: HRDC SPP 640.


161

A P P E N D I X F

Appendix FSurvey oF Institutions Providing EarlyChildhood Training Programs

The need for and availability of quality child care continues to be an area of major public focus and concern.Furthermore, the training and human resource development of those who care for children in Canada is a critical component of quality care and clearly an area deserving further study.

These and other issues are the focus of a comprehensive human resource study of the child care sector inCanada. The programs offered by your institution are a key component of the training and human resourcedevelopment infrastructure that supports child care in Canada.

The study is being commissioned by Human Resources Development Canada and is being directed by a steering committee which represents the broad scope of child care arrangements and interests in Canada. A total of 136 training institutions are being surveyed as part of this initiative and the overall results will be compiled and reported in the final report for the study, due to be released in the summer of 1997. Copies of the final report will be distributed to survey participants.

We would like to encourage you to take a few minutes to complete the following questions. Please feel free toattach additional pages if necessary. Your participation is greatly appreciated. Please return the completedquestionnaire by May 25, using the enclosed serf-addressed envelope.


162

A P P E N D I X F

About Your InstitutionPlease complete this questionnaire on behalf of all cam~ of your institution and for all early childhood education program offerings related to child care, nursery schools, kindergarten, family day care, family resource centres, nanny care, school aged care, etc. In other words, all programs that prepare students to work in settings with young children.

Location of Campuses offering Early Childhood Education or related courses (city, & province): I

In what year did your institution begin to offer an early childhood education program? 19

Is your institution?

I~ a publically funded college or universityD a proprietary institution (operates on a commercial basis)[~1 a private, non-prof'¢c institution (not receiving public funds)?

Early Childhood Education and Related ProgramsDoes your institution offer any ~t-credit courses related to early childhood education or development (i.e.courses related to early childhood education which do not lead to a certificate, diploma or degree)?YesNo (Please go to question 4)Please list the titles of the non-credit courses offered by your institution:

OUR CHILD CARE WORKFORCE: FROM RECOGNITION TO REMUNERATION 163

A P P E N D I X F

Please complete the following chart for all credit (certificate, diploma or degree) early childhood education programs related to child care,nursery schools, kindergarten, school age care, family day care, or family resource centres, offered by your institution. (Please photocopy thispage if more space is needed.

Program TitleLengthProgram(s)Program ProgramTotalAcademicSelection ProceduresIs this program OfferedEnrollment CapacityNumber of Entrance

Early ChildhoodQI full time:[~ someI~1 academic standing[~ yes Education/ week(s)[~ continuinghigh-schoolQ interpersonal communicationO no Developmentother (specify)education:O high schoolskillsby which Certificate (or[~ distancecompletionQ English/French comprehension Universities equivalent)education:Q mature studentQ related practical experience(usually I yr)Q other (specify):C~ other (specify)Q equity (priority to targettedgroups)[~ "first come first served"Q other (specify):Early ChildhoodQ full time:[~ some~ academic standing[~ yes Education/week(s)Q continuinghigh-schoolQ interpersonal communicaUon I~1 no Developmentother (specify)education:[~ high schoolskillsby which Diploma (orQ distancecompletion[~ English/French comprehension Universities: equivalent)education:[~1 mature student[~1 related practical experience(usually 2 yr)[~ other (specify):C~ other (specify)[~ equity (priority to targettedgroups)O "first come first served"QI other (specify):Bachelor's01 full time:[~ some[~ academic standingN/A Degree withsemester(s)C~I continuinghigh-school[~1 interpersonal communicationspec al zation inother (specify)education:C~ high schoolskillsECE/D[~1 distancecompletion[~ English/French comprehension education:~ mature student[~ related practical experience[~ other (specify):Q ECE relatedC~ equity (priority to targetteddiploma/groups)certificateQI "first come first served"[~ other (specify)C~ other (specify):OtherI~ full time:Q some[~ academic standingQ yes :)ost-certificate/QI weeksC~ continuinghigh-school[~1 interpersonal communicationC~ no diploma/degreeC~ semester(s)education:[~ high schoolskillsby which (please specifyother (specify)Q distancecompletion

1University Transfer Programs provide students with the equivalent of first-year or second year university, which is transferable to a degree granting institution.


164

A P P E N D I X F

Credit Granting Processes

Are graduates from any of your early childhood education programs eligible for entry with advanced standinginto another early childhood education program offered within your institution?

[ ] Yes (Please describe below)[ ] No (Please go to question 6)[ ~ Not Applicable (Please go to question 6)

Does your institution give advanced standing for course credits acquired at other educational institutions?

[~ Yes (Please describe below)[] No (Please go to question 7)

Do other colleges or universities give advanced standing for course credits acquired in your early childhoodeducation or related programs?

[ ~ Yes, always (Please describe below)[ ~ Yes, sometimes (Please describe below)[ ] No (Please go to question 8)[ ] Don't Know (Please go to question 8)

A ) Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) refers to formal procedures to assess existing knowledge and skills foraward of advanced standing in a credit program. Does your institution have a procedure in place to creditprior learning?

[] Yes (Please continue to part B)[] No (Please go to question 9)

B) Whether through PLA or other mechanisms, please identify which of the following methods are used(check all that apply):

[] transcripts from other institutions[~1 portfolio (detailed information and documentation regarding an individual's learning acquired through

experience)[~ competency essays

challenge examinations[] performance evaluation[] other (please specify):


165

A P P E N D I X F

Graduate Employment

A) Does your institution have a process to track the employment situation of graduates?

[ ~ Yes (Please continue to part B)[~J No (Please go to question 11)[~J Don't Know (Please go to question 1:1)

B ) For what graduation year is the most recent information available, and when was this information collected?D a t e o f g r a d u a t i o n : 1 9Year information collected: 19Based on the most recent information, please indicate the percentage of graduates employed inear ly chi ldhood serv ices: %

If information is also available from this source on the approximate percentage of graduates who go on thefur ther educat ion, p lease provide that percentage: %

Program Direct ions

Do you anticipate that the level of program enrollment at your institution will change in the next two years?

Q Yes, enrollment will likely decrease in the following programs:

Q Yes, enrollment will likely increase in the following programs:

No substantial changes to enrollment are anticipated

Do you anticipate that the number of programs offered by your institution will change in the next two years?

Yes, we anticipate adding the following programs:

Yes, we anticipate deleting the following programs:

No changes to programs offered are anticipated

Do you anticipate that the number of courses offered by your institution will change in the next two years~

[~ Yes, we anticipate adding the following courses:

Q Yes, we anticipate deleting the following courses:

No changes to courses offered are anticipated


166

A P P E N D I X F

What changes, if any, in course content do you anticipate introducing within the next two years~

Please identify any components of your program content or delivery which you feel are unique or innovative.

Does your institution operate a lab centre?QYesD NoIs your institution on the Internet?Q YesQ No

A Few Final RequestsPlease include your most current course calendars (both full-time and continuing education) along with this questionnaire in the envelope provided.In case we need to contact you to clarify answers, could you please complete the following (although it is optional):

Name:

Position:

Telephone:

Fax Number:

E-mail address (if applicable):

Thank-you for your assistance in contributing to this important study. Should you have any questions, please call Sue Cragg at (613) 230-5577. You may call collect. If you have misplaced your envelope, please mail or fax the completed questionnaire to:Goss Gilroy Inc.Suite 900, 150 Metcalfe St.Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1 P1Fax: (613) 235-9592

C H I L D C A R E W O R K F O R C E : F R O M R E C O G N I T I O N T O R E M U N E R A T I O N

167

A P P E N D I X G

Appendix GResearch Agenda

Below are key issues which have been identifiedduring this sector study. The list is divided intothree parts. Part One lists basic questionsconcerning the child care workforce which havebeen difficult to answer using existing datasources. Part Two identifies analytical researchissues related directly to the conditions of thechild care workforce. Part Three itemizes anumber of broader research questions,particularly relating to the quality, availability andaffordability of child care, which are ofconsiderable indirect interest to the child careworkforce and will affect its future.

KEY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Part One: Basic Data on the WorkforceHow many caregivers are there working ineach subsector of the child care sect.or?What are the demographic characteristics ofthose caregivers?How many children are cared for in each byeach type of child care?What fees are charged for each type of childcare, and how much of the fee is subsidized inone way or another?Do caregivers give receipts for care providedor do they reduce fees correspondingly?How many workers in each subsector areemployed and how many are self-employed?What wages and fringe benefits do caregiversearn? What amount of income, gross and netof expenses, is received by those who areself-employed?What are the hours of work per week and peryear, and conditions of work of caregivers?Are workers members of a union, and if so,which one?

Are caregivers members of a professionalassociation and what is their specificinvolvement?

What preparation, education and training docaregivers have for each type of child care?Do caregivers plan to stay in the child care field, oris this a temporary occupation or a stepping stoneto something else?What is the employment history of caregivers ineach subsector and how do these employmenthistories differ?

Part Two: Analytical Research on the ChildCare Workforce

Why are wages and benefits of the child careworkforce low relative to that of otheroccupations?What effects do educational and otherrequirements of staff have on compensation?Do wage supplements or other public policieshave long-term effects on rates of compensation ofcaregivers~'What are the implications of self-employment andemployment for the compensation of caregivers?What are the main factors that affect the actualand planned rates of turnover in centres, in othertypes of care, and in the child care field as awhole? In particular, what impact do various partsof the compensation package for caregivers haveon turnover? Is turnover higher in the child caresector than in other employment sectors and whatare the key determinants of this difference?Under what circumstances are the effects ofturnover negative or positive for the quality of careprovided to children?What are the effects of auspice, of unionizationand of public policies toward child care on thecompensation of caregivers?

Part Three: Broader Research QuestionsRelevant to the Child Care Workforce

What do parents want from their child carearrangement; how does this vary across families;

OUR C H I L D C A R E W O R K F O R C E : F R O M R E C O G N I T I O N T O R E M U N E R A T I O N

168

A P P E N D I X G

and how is this affected by parents' income,by knowledge and experience of child care,by education, etc.? How is what parentswant and expect out of a child carearrangement changing currently? How arethese changes affected by employmentsituation, ethnicity, age, income, etc.? Doparents prefer flexible child carearrangements or more flexible employmentarrangements to deal with unusual child caresituations such as sickness or extended hours?How much do parents know about thequality of child care? Why and in what waysdo their opinions differ from those of childcare experts? What factors affect parentaldefinitions of quality? What factors affectparents' willingness to pay for more qualityin child care?How do different factors affect theproduction of quality in child care (this is avery big question, since many factors willhave an influence, many of them related toeducation, compensation and characteristicsof the child care worldorce).To what extent is quality in child careaffected by factors that can be regulatedby governments? To what extent is qualityaffected by factors which have to do withmotivation of workers and management ofthe operations and program of the service?What effect does auspice have on qualityof care? What role do professionalassociations and unions play in enhancingthe quality of care? Do accreditation orsimilar programs have positive effects onthe quality of care? What role doescompensation of workers play in affectingthe quality of care provided? What is theeffect of parent participation and parentalmonitoring of programs on the quality ofcare? Does the particular type of programstyle offered affect the quality of careprovided?How does the amount of training affect theabilities of caregivers? In particular, howmuch difference does one year versus twoyears or more of early childhood educationmake? What is the effect of changes in theratio of trained to untrained staff in childcare? Under what conditions can moreeducation and experience of staff substitutefor higher staff-child ratios?

What is the cost of producing different levelsof quality in different types of child care?

What are the tradeoffs between quality andcost for different ways of improving quality inchild care?What is the appropriate definition of quality touse for these studies of quality? Is there aunique best definition of quality or does it varyby context, and, if so, in what way? What isthe appropriate means of measuring quality inchild care and is it different for different typesof care (including not only centres, but familyhomes, nannies, care by relatives and care byparents)? Is it possible to measure qualityacross these different types of care?What is the magnitude and type of effects ofdifferent levels of quality in child care on thelater development of children? Does childcare have different developmental impacts ondifferent children, in different situations, atdifferent ages, from different familybackgrounds, and, if so, how? Does childcare predominantly affect cognitive, social,emotional or physical development and howlong do effects last? What are the strengthsand weaknesses of each type of care inpromoting child development?


169

R E F E R E N C E S

ReferencesAlberta Association of Family Day Home Services(1996) Step Ahead. Edmonton: Author

American Public Health Association & AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics (1992) Caring for OurChildren: National Health and Safety PerformanceStandards ~ Guidelines for Out-of-Home ChildCare Programs. Washington, D.C.: American PublicHealth Association

Arat-Koc, S. & Villasin, E (1990) Report andRecommendations on the Foreign DomesticMovement Program. Toronto: Intercede (TorontoOrganization for Domestic Workers' Rights)

Association of Canadian Community CollegesAccreditation Task Group (1996) Post-SecondaryEducational Accreditation: A RecommendedApproach for Colleges and Institutes. Ottawa:Association of Canadian Community Colleges

Baines, C. (1991) "The professions and an ethic ofcare." In Baines, C., Evans, R & Neysmith, S. (eds.),pp. 36-42, Women's Caring: Feminist Perspectiveson Social Welfare. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart,Inc.

Baines, C., Evans, R & Neysmith, S. (eds.) (1991)Women's Caring: Feminist Perspectives on SocialWelfare. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, Inc.

Bakan, Abigail B. & Stasiulis, Daiva K. (1995)"Making the match: domestic placement agenciesand the racialization of women's household work."Journal of Women in Culture and Society 20(21 ):303-335

Basavarajappa, K.G., Bender, R. & LarrivcSe, D.(1992) "Changing population composition and itseffect on the labour force, Canada, 1986-2036."In Changing Population Composition Age Structures,1990-2015: Demographic and EconomicConsequences Implications. Geneva: UnitedNations Economic Commission for Europe

Beach, C. & Slot.we, G. (1996) Are We BecomingTwo Societies? Income Polarization and the Myth ofthe Declining Middle Class in Canada. Toronto:C.D. Howe Institute

Bergman, Barbara (1996) Saving Our Children fromPoverty: What the United States Can Learn fromFrance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation

Bernhard, J. & Freire, M. (1996). "Latino refugeechildren in child care: a study of parents andcaregivers." Canadian Journal of Research in EarlyChildhood Education 5(1)

Bernhard, J., Lefebvre, ML, Chud, G. & Lange, R.(1995) Paths to Equity: Cultural, Linguistic and RacialDiversity in Canadian Early Childhood Education.Toronto: York Lanes Press, Inc.

Bredekamp, S. (1989) Regulating Child Care Quality:Evidence from NAEYC's Accreditation Systems.Washington, D.C.: National Association for theEducation of Young Children

Brennan, D. (1993) ‘Australia." In Cochran, Moncrieff (ed), International Handbook of Child Care Policies and Programs. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press

Broberg, A., Hwang, C.R, Lamb, M.E. & Ketterlinus,D. (1989) "Child care effects on socioemotional andintellectual competence in Swedish preschoolers."In Lande, J.S., Scarr, S. & Gunzenhauser, N. (eds.),pp. 49-93, Caring for Children: Challenge toAmer/ca. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates

Brophy, K., Webb, R & Hancock, S. (1996) ~Theprocess of integration in child care: reflections ofparents and teachers." Canadian Journal of Researchin Early Childhood Education. 5(1): 107-114

Canadian Association of Family Resource Programs(1995) Status Report on Family Resource ProgramsAcross Canada 1995. Ottawa: Author

Canadian Child Care Advocacy Association (1993)Children: Our Hope, Your Future. Ottawa: Author

Canadian Child Care Federation (1995) TowardsExcellence in ECE Training Programs: ASelf-Assessment Guide. Ottawa: Author

Canadian Child Care Federation (1994) NationalGuidelines for Training in Early Childhood Care andEducation. Ottawa: Author


170

R E F E R E N C E S

Canadian Child Care Federation (1993) National Child Care Policy Statement. Ottawa: Author

Canadian Child Day Care Federation (1991)National Statement on Quality Child Care. Ottawa:Author

Canadian Child Care Federation & Canadian DayCare Advocacy Association (1992) Caring for aLiving - Final Report: A Study on Wages andWorking Conditions in Canadian Child Care.Ottawa: Authors

Canadian Council on Social Development (1996)Progress of Canada's Children 1996. Ottawa:Author

Canadian Council on Social Development (1993)"Focus on Child Care." Centre for InternationalStatistics on Economic and Social Welfare forFamilies and Children. July (newsletter no. 2)

Canadian Education Association (1993a) Admissionto Faculties of Education in Canada: What You Needto Know: A Report from the Canadian EducationAssociation. Toronto: Author

Canadian Labour Force Development Board (1996)A Quick Guide to the New Employment InsuranceAct and the Federal Offer to the Provinces andTerritories. Ottawa: Author

Carnegie Corporation of New York (1994) StartingPoints: Meeting the Needs of Our YoungestChildren. New York: Author

Childcare Resource and Research Unit (1997) ChildCare in the Provinces and Territories, 1995. Toronto:Author

Childcare Resource and Research Unit (1995) ChildCare: Canada Can't Work Without It. OccasionalPaper No. 5. Toronto: Author

Cleveland, G. & Hyatt, D. (1994) An Assessment ofthe Impact of Child Care Cost, Availability onMothers" Employment. Toronto: CHILD CARE 2000

Cleveland, Gordon & Hyatt, Douglas (1997)Assessing federal child care policy: does the arrowreach its target;t" Policy Options 18(1 ): 20-24

Cleveland, Gordon & Krashinsky, Michael (1997b)~The benefits and costs of good child care: theeconomic rationale for public investment in youngchildren." Working paper, University of Toronto atScarborough, Economics Department

Collective Agreement: Capital Day Care Centre Inc.,Centre Town Parents Day Care Inc., Colonel-ByChild Care Centre Inc., Dalhousie Parents' Day CareCentre Inc., Glebe Parents' Day Care Centre Inc.,Ottawa Federation of Parents' Day Care Centre Inc.,St. Marguerite School-Age Day Care Centre,Sunflower Co-operative Day Nursery Inc., VanierCo-operative School-Age Program Inc. andWellington Ward (Ottawa) Child Care Centre Inc.& Canadian Union of Public Employees and ItsLocal 2204. Effective January I to December 31,1992

Commission d'évaluation de l'enseignementcollégial du Québec (1996) Rapport Synthèse :Évaluation des programmes de Techniquesd'éducation en services de garde. Quebec City,Author

Corter, C. & Park, N. (eds.) (1993) What MakesExemplary Kindergarten Programs Effective? Toronto:Ministry of Education and Training

Cyander, M. & Mustard, E (1997) ~Braindevelopment, competence and coping skills." InEntropy: Founders' Network Report in support of theCanadian Institute for Advanced Research 1 (1): 5-6

Doherty, G. (1996) The Great Child Care Debate:The Long-Term Effects of Non-Parental Child Care.Occasional Paper No. 7. Toronto: University ofToronto, Childcare Resource and Research Unit

Doherty, G. (1991) Quality Matters in Child Care.Huntsville, Ont.: Jesmond Publishing

Doherty, G. & Stuart, B. (1996) A Profile of Quality inCanadian Child Care Centres. Guelph: University ofGuelph

Doherty-Derkowski, G. (1995) Quality Matters:Excellence in Early Childhood Programs. Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishers Ltd.

Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia(1993) Toward a Blueprint for Quality: AnArticulated Education and Career Ladder for EarlyChildhood Educators in British Columbia.Vancouver: Author

Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia(1992) Code of Ethics. Vancouver: Author

Etzioni, A. (ed.) (1969) The Semi-professions andTheir Organization. New York: The Free Press

European Commission Network on Child Care(1996) A Review of Services for Young Children in theEuropean Union 1990-1995. Brussels: Author


171

R E F E R E N C E S

Ferguson, E.E. (1997)Child Care AdministratorCredentialing: A Work in Progress. Halifax: ChildCare Connections - NS

Ferguson, E.E. (1995)Child Care... BecomingVisible... Halifax: Child Care Connection - NS

Friendly, M. (1997) "What is the public interest inchild care?" Policy Options 18(1): 3-6

Friendly, M. (1994) Child Care Policy in Canada:Putting the Pieces Together. Don Mills, Ont.:Addison-Wesley Publishers Ltd.

Friendly, M., Willis, T., Ridgewell, S., & McColm, M.(1989) A Survey of First Year Early ChildhoodEducation Students in Ontario. University ofToronto, Childcare Resource and Research Unit

Friesen, B.K. (1992) A Sociological Examination ofthe Effects of Auspice on Day Care Quality. PhDdissertation. University of Calgary, Department ofSociology

Calinsky, Ellen, Howes, Carollee, Kontos, Susan &Shinn, Marybeth (1994) "The study of children infamily child care and relative care -- key findingsand recommendations." Young Children 50(1):58-61

Gayfer, R. (1991) Education in Canada. Toronto:Canadian Education Association

Goelman, H. & Pence, A. (1988) "Children in threetypes of day care: daily experiences, quality of careand developmental outcomes." Early ChildDevelopment and Care 33:67-76

Goelman, H. & Pence, A. (1987) "Effects of childcare, family, and individual characteristics onchildren's language development: the Victoria DayCare Research Project." In Phillips D. (ed.), pp.89-104, Quality Child Care: What Does ResearchTell Us? Research monograph, vol.1. Washington,D.C.: National Association for the Education ofYoung Children

Coss Gilroy Inc. (1997) Providing Home Child Carefor a Living: A Survey of Regulated Home Child CareProviders. Draft. Ottawa: Canadian Child CareFederation

Grandea, Nona (1996) Uneven Gains: FilipinaDomestic Workers in Canada. Ottawa: TheNorth-South Institute

Gratz, R. & Claffey, A. (1996) '~,dult health in childcare: health status, behaviors, and concerns of

teachers, directors and family child care providers."Early Childhood Research Quarterly 11 (2):243-267

Grenier, S. (1995) "Survey of private trainingschools in Canada, 1992." Educational QuarterlyReview. Statistics Canada - Cat. No. 81-003, 2(3):50-62

Grindstaff, C.E (1992) '~, vanishing breed: womenwith large families: Canada in the 1980's."Canadian Studies in Population 19(2)

Hayden, J. (1996) Management of Early ChildhoodServices: An Australian Perspective. Sydney,Australia: Social Science Press

Health Canada (1996) Turning Points: The NationalCoals for Healthy Child and Youth Development.Ottawa: Government of Canada

Helburn, S., Culkin, M., Morris, J., Morcan, N.,Howes, C., Phillipsen, L., Bryant, D., Clifford, R.,Cryer, D., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Burchinal, M., Kaga,S., & Rusticic, J. (1995) Cost, Quality & ChildOutcomes in Child Care Centres. University ofColorado, University of California, University ofNorth Carolina & Yale University

Hofferth, S.L. & Deich, S.C. (1994) Recent U.S.childcare and family legislation in comparativeperspective. Journal of Family Issues 15(3): 424-448

House of Commons (1997) Speech from the Throne.September

Howes, C. (1990) "Can the age of entry into childcare and the quality of child care predict adjustmentin kindergarten?" Developmental Psychology 26(2):292-303

Howes, C. (1988) "Relations between early childcare and schooling." Developmental Psychology24(1): 53-57

Human Resources Development Canada (1995a)Employment Standards Legislation in Canada:1995-96 Edition. Ottawa: Minister of Supply andServices Canada

Human Resources Development Canada (1995b)Background Statistics Unemployment Insurance1995. Ottawa: Financial and AdministrativeServices, Policy and Systems

Human Resources Development Canada (1995c)Child Care Initiatives Fund Program Evaluation.Ottawa: Government of Canada


172

R E F E R E N C E S

Human Resources Development Canada (1992)National Graduate Study, special runs

Human Resources Development Canada & StatisticsCanada (1996) Growing Up in Canada: NationalLongitudinal Survey on Children and Youth. Ottawa:Government of Canada

Hundert, J., Mahoney, B., Mundy, I-. & Vernon, M.(1994) Predictors of Gains of Children with Disabilitiesin Specialized and Community Early ChildhoodSettings. Submission to the Department of NationalHealth and Welfare, Social Service Branch, Child CareInitiatives

Hunt, A.J. & Associates Consulting Ltd. (1995) YukonTraining Project. Program evaluation prepared forYukon College

Hutchinson, N. & Schmid, C. (1996) "Perceptions of aresource teacher about programs for preschoolerswith special needs and their families." CanadianJournal of Research in Early Childhood Education 5(1):73-82

Hwang, C.R, Broberg, A. & Lamb, M.E. (1991)"Swedish child care research." In Melhuish, E.C. &Moss, R (eds.), pp. 75-101, Day Care for YoungChildren. London: Routledge

Irwin, S. (1997) "Including all children." Interaction10(4): 15-18

Jacobs, E. & White, D. (1994) "The relationship ofchild-care quality and play to social behavior in thekindergarten." In Goelman, H. & Jacobs, E. (eds.), pp.85-101, Children's Play in Child Care Settings. Albany,New York: State University of New York Press

Jacobs, E.V., Selig, G. & White, D.R. (1992)"Classroom behaviour in grade one: does the qualityof preschool day care experience make a difference?"Canadian Journal of Research in Early ChildhoodEducation 3:89-100

James, C. (1993) Towards a New Response: RaceRelations in Childcare Programs. Toronto: Municipalityof Metropolitan Toronto

Jensen, J. (1992) "Public childcare in equalityperspective."ln Carlsen, S., & Larsen, J. (eds.), TheEquality Dilemma: Reconciling Working Life andFamily Life, Viewed in an Equality Perspective.Copenhagen: The Danish Equal Status Council

Jorde-Bloom, R (1992) "The child care centredirector: a critical component of program quality."Educational Horizons Spring: 138-145

Karlsson, Malene (1994) Family Day Care in Europe.Brussels: European Commission Employment,Industrial Relations and Social Affairs, DGV/A/3-Equal Opportunities Unit

Kellerman, M. (1995) 7995 Status Report on FamilyResource Programs Across Canada. Ottawa:Canadian Association of Family ResourcePrograms

King, A. & Peart, M.J. (1992). Teachers in Canada:Their Work and Quality of Life. Ottawa: CanadianTeachers' Federation

King, A. & Peart, M.J. (1990) The Good School.Toronto: Ontario Teachers' Federation

Kontos, S. (1992) Family Day Care: Out of theShadows and Into the Limelight. ResearchMonograph of the National Association for theEducation of Young Children, vol. 5. Washington,D.C.: NAEYC

Kontos, S., Howes, C. & Galinsky, E. (1996) "Doestraining make a difference to quality in family childcare?" Early Childhood Research Quarterly 11(4):427-445

Kontos, S., Howes, C., Shinn, M. & Galinsky, E.(1995) Quality in Family Child Care and RelativeCare. New York: Teachers College Press

LaGrange, A., Clark, D. & Munroe, E. (1994)Culturally Sensitive Child Care: The Alberta Study,Reaching the Inner Child Phase One: NeedsAssessment. Edmonton: Alberta Association forYoung Children and Alberta CommunityDevelopment Citizenship and Heritage Secretariat

Lamb, M., Hwang, C.R, Broberg, A. & Bookstein, E(1988). ~The effects of out-of-home care on thedevelopment of social competence in Sweden: alongitudinal study." Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly 3(4): 379-402

Lamb, M.E. (In press) "Non-parental childcare:context, quality, correlates and consequences." InSiegel, I.E. & Renninger, K.A. (vol. eds.), ChildPsychology in Practice, Damon, W. (series ed.),Handbook of Child Psychology (5th ed.). New York:Wiley

Lewington, J. (1997) "Teachers interested inself-regulation" The Globe and Mail 2 June 1997:7

Lyon, M. & Canning, R (1995a) The Atlantic DayCare Study. St. John's, Nfld.: Memorial University ofNewfoundland


173

R E F E R E N C E S

Lyon, M. & Canning, R (1995b) The Atlantic Day CareStudy: Summary Report. St. John's, Nfld.: MemorialUniversity of Newfoundland

Macklin, A. (1994) "On the inside looking in: foreigndomestic workers in Canada." In Giles, W.M. &Arat-Koc, S. (eds.), Maid in the Market: Women's PaidDomestic Labour. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing

Maxwell, A. & Huot, G. (1994) "Health andoccupational safety for child care educators". FocusJanuary: 29-34

Meadow Lake Tribal Council, University of VictoriaSchool of Child and Youth Care (1995)AboriginalChild and Youth Care Community-based, CulturallySensitive Education Program: Generative CurriculumModel, Program Guidebook. University of Victoria,School of Child and Youth Care

Meisels, S. & Shonkoff, J. (1990) Handbook of EarlyChildhood Intervention. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press

Morris, J., Evans, S. & Goss-Prowse, M. (1995)Certification Standards and IndividualizedCompetency-Based Early Childhood EducationTraining and Assessment in Newfoundland andLabrador. Final Report. St John's: Cabot College ofApplied Arts, Technology and Continuing Education

Moss, R & Pence, A. (eds.) (1994) Valuing Quality inEarly Childhood Services: New Approaches toDefining Quality. New York: Teachers College Press

Moss, R & Penn, H. (1996) Transforming NurseryEducation. London, Eng.: Paul Chapman PublishingLtd.

Multi-Lateral Task Force on Training, CareerPathing and Labour Mobility in the CommunitySocial Services Sector (1997) Child Care SectorOccupational Competencies. Vancouver, B.C.:Author

National Center for the Early Childhood Work Force(1997) Making Work Pay for the Child Care Industry.Washington, D.C.: Author

National Child Care Resource Development (1995).Child Care Resources Catalogue: Child Care Initiatives Fund Projects. Ottawa: Canadian Child Care Federation

National Crime Prevention Council (1996) PreventingCrime by Investing in Families: An IntegratedApproach to Promote Positive Outcomes in Children.Ottawa: Author

National Forum on Health (1996) Canada HealthAction: Building on the Legacy: Synthesis Reportsand Issues Papers. Ottawa: Author

National Union of Public and General Employees(1996) Training: Is There Still a Public Commitment?Ottawa: Author

Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (1995) Economic Surveys of Canada.Paris: Author

Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia(1996) Management of Child Care Grants:Performance Audit. Victoria: Ministry of Women'sEquality

Offord, D. et al. (1992) "Outcome, prognosis andrisk in a longitudinal follow-up study." Journal ofAmerican Academy of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry 37:627-633

Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services(1996). Improving Ontario's Child Care System:Ontario Child Care Review. Toronto: Queen'sPrinter for Ontario

Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services(1990) Description of Child Care Training Programsin Canadian and International Jurisdictions. Toronto:Author

Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services,College Standards and Accreditation Council (1996)Early Childhood Education Program Standard.Toronto: Author

Ontario Premier's Council on Health, Social Justiceand Well-being (1994) Yours, Mine and Ours.Toronto: Government of Ontario

Ontario Royal Commission on Learning (1994) Forthe Love of Learning: The Educators, Vol III. Toronto:Queen's Printer for Ontario

Pence, A. & Goelman, H. (1991) "The relationshipof regulation, training and motivation to quality ofcare in family day care" in Child & Youth Forum20(2): 83-t01

Pepper, S., & Stuart, B. (1992) "Quality of familyday care in licensed and unlicensed homes."Canadian Journal of Research in Early ChildhoodEducation 3(2): 109-118

Petrie, A. (1992) "Revaluing and rewardingwomen's work: raising the status of the child careindustry." Australian Journal of Early Childhood17(2): 3-12


"174

R E F E R E N C E S

Programs Committee of the Council of Presidents(1996) Provincial Training Plan. St. John's, Nfld.:Council of Presidents

Ravanera, Zenaida R. (1995) "A portrait of the familylife of young adults." In Family Over the Life Course:Current Demographic Analysis, pp. 7-35. Ottawa:Statistics Canada

Read, M. & LaGraoge, A. (1990) Those Who Care: AReport on Approved Family Day Home Providers inA/berta. Red Deer, Alta.: Child Care Matters

Scarf, Sandra, Eisenberg, Marlene & Deater-Deckard,Kirby (1994) "Measurement of quality in child carecenters." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 9(2):131-151

Schneider, N. & Boyd, B. (1996) "Burnout inCanadian child care providers." Canadian Journal ofResearch in Early Childhood Education 5(1): 3-11

Schom-Moffat, R (1984) The Bottom Line: Wages andWorking Conditions of Workers in the Formal DayCare Market. Ottawa: Status of Women Canada

Special Parliamentary Committee on Child Care (1987) Sharing the Responsibility Ottawa: Queens Printer

SpeciaLink (1995) Provincial and Territorial EarlyIntervention Directory SpeciaLink Supplement 6(1 )

Spodek, B., Saracho, O., & Peters, D. (1988)"Professionalism, semi-professionalism andcraftsmanship." In Spodek, B., Saracho, O. & Peters,D. (eds.), pp. 3-9, Professionalism and the EarlyChildhood Practitioner. New York: Teachers CollegePress

SPR Associates (1986) An Exploratory Review ofSelected Issues in For-Profit Versus Not-For-ProfitChild Care. A Report Prepared for the SpecialCommittee on Child Care. Ottawa: House ofCommons

Statistics Canada (1995a) 1991 Survey of WorkArrangements. Supplement to November LabourForce Survey. Ottawa: Author

Statistics Canada (1995b) Education Quarterly ReviewCat. no. 81-003, vol. 2 no. 3

Statistics Canada (1994): George, M.V., Norris, MJ., Nault, E, Loh, S. & Dai, S.Y. Population Projections for Canada, Provinces and Territories 7993-2016.Catalogue no. 91-520. Ottawa: Minister of Industry, Science and Technology

Statistics Canada (1992) Canadian National Child CareStudy: Introductory Report. Cat. no. 89-526. Ottawa:Author

Statistics Canada (1992) Family Expenditure Survey.Ottawa: Author

Statistics Canada (1992) National Graduate Survey.Special runs

Statistics Canada. 1991 Census. Special runs(unpublished)

Statistics Canada (1990) Family Expenditure Survey.Ottawa: Author

Tremblay, R. & Craig, W. (1995) "Developmentalcrime prevention." In Farrington, D.R (ed.), TowardsSafer Communities. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress

Unit of Child Care Research, School of Child and YouthCare, University of Victoria (1995) Status of Child CareTraining in British Columbia 7995. Victoria: EarlyChildhood Educators of British Columbia

Vandell, D., Henderson, V.K. & Wilson, K.S. (1988) "Alongitudinal study of children with day care experiencesof varying quality." Child Development 59:1286-1292

VanderVen, K. (1994) "Professional development: acontextual model." In Johnson, J. & McCracken, J.(eds.), The Early Childhood Career Lattice. Washington,D.C.: National Association for the Education of YoungChildren & National Institute for Early ChildhoodProfessional Development

West, S. (1988) A Study of Compliance with the DayNurseries Act at Full-Day Child Care Centres inMetropolitan Toronto. Prepared for the Toronto AreaOffice, Ontario Ministry of Community and SocialServices. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Community andSocial Services

Whitebook, M. (1990) Who Cares? Child Care Teachersand Quality of Care in America. Final Report of theNational Staffing Study. Oakland, Calif.: Child CareEmployee Project

Whitebook, M., Howes. C., & Phillips, D. (1989) WhoCares? Child Care Teachers and the Quality of Care inAmerica. Executive Summary of the National Child CareStaffing Study. Oakland, Calif.: Child Care EmployeeProject

Whitebook, M., Sakai, L & Howes, C. (1997) NAEYCAccreditation as a Strategy for Improving Child CareQuality. Washington, D.C.: National Center for the EarlyChildhood Worldorce


175

Our Child Care Workforce - Childcarepolicy.net

Documents

Transcript of Our Child Care Workforce - Childcarepolicy.net