Québec's Childcare Universal Low Fees Policy 10 Years After: Effects, Costs and Benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than ten years ago the province of Québec implemented a universal early childhood education and care policy. This paper examines if the two objectives pursued, to increase mothers’ participation in the labour market (balance the needs of workplace and home) and to enhance child development and equality of opportunity for children, were reasonable meet. A non-experimental evaluation framework based on multiple pre- and post-treatment periods is used to estimate the policy effects. First, year after year the number of children and their weekly of hours in childcare have increased. More preschool children are in non-parental childcare at a younger age and the intensity of childcare has increased over the years. Second, the policy has significantly increased the labour force participation and annual weeks worked for mothers with at least a child aged 1 to 4 years compared to mothers in the same situation in the Rest of Canada. Third, the evidence presented show that the policy has not enhanced school readiness or child early literacy skills in general, with negative significant effects on the PPVT scores of children aged 5 and possibly negative for children of age 4. Simulations show the bounds of the public benefits in terms of additional net taxes (income taxes less refundable credits and transfers based on household’s “net” income). Unless one suppose that mothers in the upper part of the earnings distribution are those who returned early to the labour market after giving birth or a maternity leave, and who have worked more weeks, the effect on governments revenues are modest. The main beneficiary of the larger tax base of a higher labour supply of mothers with young children is the federal government which do not support the significant public funding of the program. The policy has some drawbacks in terms of social efficiency and equity. The structure of the program with its very low $7/day fee before taxes creates strong incentives for families to use long hours of daycare for children at a very young age, which may not be the best mechanism for children development. The high transfers in-kind (1.9 billion in 2009) to families using subsidized childcare raise the question of their horizontal and vertical equity. The paper concludes on three modifications to the program that could correct some of its weaknesses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".