Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 99, Issue 6, pp 451–455 | Cite as

Child Care in Quebec

Access to a Universal Program
  • Dafna Kohen
  • V. Susan Dahinten
  • Saeeda Khan
  • Clyde Hertzman
Article

Abstract

Background

Five cycles of data from the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (1994/5–2002/3) were used to examine patterns of child care use in Quebec and the rest of Canada to explore the impact of Quebec’s implementation of universal child care.

Methods

Rates of overall use as well as use of regulated (child care centre, family child care) and non-regulated care (sitter, nanny, relative, family child care) were examined for preschoolers aged 0–5 years in Quebec as compared to the other provinces and by family household income. Chi-square tests were used to examine significance of differences.

Results

Since the implementation of Quebec’s child care program, Quebec demonstrated substantial increases in child care use, particularly in the use of regulated care (from 10% prior to program compared to 30% by 2002) whereas the use of unregulated care did not demonstrate a significant increase in Quebec as compared to the other provinces (1994 to 2002). Furthermore, the use of regulated care by low-income families was greater in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada, although the greatest increase in use of regulated care was for children from high-income families.

Conclusion

Findings suggest that since the introduction of Quebec’s universal child care program, there was an increase in the use of regulated child care for families of preschoolaged children in the province, although by 2002 Quebec had not achieved the coverage of universal child care programs attained by many European countries.

Keywords

Child care universal access Quebec provinces 

Résumé

Contexte

Nous avons examiné les tendances d’utilisation des services de garde au Québec et dans le reste du Canada à partir des cinq cycles de données de l’Enquête longitudinale nationale sur les enfants et les jeunes du Canada (1994–1995 à 2002–2003) afin d’étudier l’impact de la mise en œuvre des garderies universelles au Québec.

Méthode

Nous avons examiné les taux d’utilisation globaux et les taux d’utilisation des services de garde réglementés (centre de la petite enfance, garderie en milieu familial) et non réglementés (gardienne, bonne d’enfants, parenté, garderie en milieu familial) pour les enfants d’âge préscolaire (0 à 5 ans) au Québec, comparativement aux autres provinces et selon le revenu familial du ménage. Des tests du khi-carré ont servi à analyser l’importance des écarts.

Résultats

Depuis la mise en œuvre du programme de garderies québécois, le Québec affiche des augmentations importantes dans l’utilisation des services de garde, particulièrement les services réglementés (qui sont passés de 10 % avant le programme à 30 % en 2002), tandis que l’utilisation des services non réglementés n’a pas augmenté de façon significative au Québec par rapport aux autres provinces entre 1994 et 2002. Par ailleurs, l’utilisation de services réglementés par les familles à faible revenu a été plus importante au Québec qu’ailleurs au Canada, bien que la plus forte augmentation ait concerné les familles à revenu élevé.

Conclusion

Nos résultats donnent à penser que depuis le lancement du programme de garderies universelles au Québec, l’utilisation des services de garde réglementés par les familles ayant des enfants d’âge préscolaire a augmenté dans la province. Signalons cependant qu’en 2002, le programme québécois n’avait pas encore une portée aussi grande que celle de nombreux pays européens.

Mots clés

garde d’enfants universel accès Québec provinces 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Schweinhart LJ, Barnes HV, Weikart DP. Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through age 27. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation 1993;10.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campbell FA, Ramey CT. Effects of early childhood intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: A follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child Dev 1994;65:684–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCarton CM, Brooks-Gunn J, Wallace IF, Bauer CR, Bennett FC, Bernbaum JC, et al. Results at age 8 years of early intervention for low-birth-weight premature infants. JAMA 1997;277(2):126–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heckman JJ. Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 2006;312(5782):1900–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bushnik T. Child Care in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Industry, 2006. Report No.: Catalogue no.89-599-XIE.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kohen D, Hertzman C, Willms JD. The importance of quality child care. In: Willms JD (Ed.), Vulnerable Children: Findings from Canada’s National Survey of Children and Youth. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Nonmaternal care and family factors in early development: An overview of the NICHD study of early child care. Appl Develop Psychol 2001;22:457–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pence AR, Goelman H. The Victoria Daycare Research Project. Can J Res Early Childhood Educ 1985;1(1):106–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friendly M, Beach J, Turiano M. Early childhood education and care in Canada 2001. Toronto, ON: Childcare Resource and Research Unit, University of Toronto, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Field T, Masi W, Goldstein S, Perry S, Parl S. Infant day care facilitates preschool social behavior. Early Child Res Q 1988;3:341–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    To T, Cadarette SM, Liu Y. Child care arrangement and preschool development. Can J Public Health 2000;91(6):418–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cleveland G, Gunderson M, Hyatt D. Child care costs and the employment decision of women: Canadian evidence. Can J Economics 1996;96:132–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Singer JD, Fuller B, Keiley MK, Wolf A. Early child-care selection: Variation by geographic location, maternal characteristics, and family structure. Develop Psychol 1998;34(5):1129–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liang X, Fuller B, Singer JD. Ethnic differences in child care selection: The influence of family structure, parental practices, and home language. Early Child Res Q 2000;15(3):357–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Familial factors associated with the characteristics of nonmaternal care for infants. J Marriage Fam 1997;59:389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Friendly M, Beach J. Trends and analysis: Early childhood education and care in Canada 2004. Toronto, ON: Childcare Research and Resource Unit, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Japel C, Tremblay RE, Côté S. La qualité, ça compte! Choix, IRPP 2005;11(4):9.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lowe Vandell D, Ramanan J. Effects of early and recent maternal employment of children from low-income families. Child Dev 1992;63(938):949.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peisner-Feinberg ES, Burchinal MR, Clifford RM, Culkin ML, Howes C, Kagan SL, et al. The relation of preschool child-care quality to children’s cognitive and social developmental trajectories through second grade. Child Dev 2001;72(5):1534–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. The interaction of child care and family risk in relation to child development at 24 and 36 months. Appl Develop Sci 2002;6:144–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tougas J. Child care in Quebec: Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Statistics Canada/Human Resources Development Canada. National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth Users Handbook and Microdata Guide (Cycle 1, Release 2, Microdata document 89M0015 GPE). Ottawa: Special Surveys, Statistics Canada, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rust KF, Rao JN. Variance estimation for complex surveys using replication techniques. Stat Methods Med Res 1996;5(3):283–310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rao JN, Wu C-FJ, Yue K. Some recent work on resampling methods for complex surveys. Survey Methodology 1992;18(209):217.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Statistics Canada. Low income cutoffs from 1994–2003 and low income measures from 1992–2001. Ottawa: Income Statistics Division, 2004.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ministère de l’Emploi, de la Solidarité sociale et de la Famille. Portraits de Politiques Familiales: situation dans onze pays développés. Gouvernement du Québec, 2004.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Institut de la Statistique du Québec. Longitudinal study of child development in Quebec: Family, child care and neighbourhood characteristics. Government of Quebec, 2000;1(2).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jette M, Desrosiers H, Tremblay RE, Thibault J. Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development. Quebec, Institut de la statistique du Québec, 2000.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Offord DR, Kraemer HC, Kazdin AE, Jensen PS, Harrington R. Lowering the burden of suffering from child psychiatric disorder: Trade-offs among clinical, targeted and universal interventions. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1998;37(7):686–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zigler E. School should begin at age 3 years for American children. J Dev Behav Pediatr 1998;19(1):38–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kwong JC, Sambell C, Johansen H, Stukel TA, Manuel DG. The effect of universal influenza immunization on vaccination rates in Ontario. Health Reports 2006;17(2):31–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ministère de l’éducation de Québec. Les États Généraux sur l’Éducation. Gouvernement du Québec, 1996.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kershaw P, Forer B, Goelman H. Hidden fragility: Closure among licensed child-care services in British Columbia. Early Childhood Res Q 2005;20(4):417–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bradshaw J, Finch N. A comparison of child benefit packages in 22 countries — A summary of the child benefit package of each country. London: Department for Work and Pensions, 2002. Report No. 174.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Doherty G, Lero DS, Goelman H, Tougas J. Caring and Learning Environments: Quality in Family Child Care Across Canada. Report 3, You Bet I Care. Guelph, ON: Centre for Families, Work, and Well-Being, University of Guelph, 2000.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Beaujot R. Parental preferences for work and childcare. Can Public Policy 1997;23(3):275–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dafna Kohen
    • 1
    • 4
  • V. Susan Dahinten
    • 2
  • Saeeda Khan
    • 1
  • Clyde Hertzman
    • 3
  1. 1.Health Information and Research Division, Statistics CanadaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.School of NursingUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Human Early Learning PartnershipUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver, sBCCanada
  4. 4.Dept. of Epidemiology and Community MedicineUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations