Building a Social Change Strategy

1. Building a Social Change Strategy Presented by Robin Heather, Chris Johnson, Jessica Nixon, & Lindsay Poloni Taking a closer look at child care today...

2. Who are the actors? • Families, Mothers, Fathers • Communities • Employers / Corporations • Government

3. What are their interests? • Families, Mothers, Fathers, Workers: • Balancing family and financial independence; Having quality, accessible, affordable, acceptable child care which fits work hours • Communities: • Children are safe and protected and are under the responsibility of the family; Property value, taxes, and how limited resources are divided • Employers / Corporations: • Money and power; Maintaining consistent/reliable workforce • Government: • Interests of the population/voters/corporations; Maintaining the status quo; Economy growth

4. What are their methods? • Families, Mothers, Fathers, Workers: • Choosing/not choosing to have children, Maternity/Parental leave, Accessing various methods of childcare, Altering family structure, latch key kids, (un)supervision of children • Communities: • Establishing social norms and maintaining the status quo • Employers / Corporations: • Mommy-tracking, union/collective agreements which support 50% maternity leave forcing mothers back to work quicker • Government: • Market model or public good model; Policies, work programs

5. What are the values? • Capitalism / Patriarchy / Sexism • Labour force participation • Focused on economy rather than children/families • Perpetuation of the system • Eurocentric childcare

6. What does the system fear? • People will not participate in the system • Creating new policies • Universal support program for children • Improvements to maternity and parental benefits under EI Act • Improvements to employment standards governing maternity and parental leave (Cox & Rose, 2007)

7. Who has the power? Government & Business • Top-down system. Policy shapes parental benefits, child care options, and funding • Government is influenced by corporations • Communities do not recognize or utilize their power. Myth that communities do not have control over their own systems (Bishop, 2002)

8. Who benefits? • Corporations and Employers benefit the most • Government also benefits by saving money, maintaining status quo • Middle/Upper class society benefits - meet the constraints of current system (Taylor, 2007)

9. Who loses? • Families and children • Minority populations, single parents, unemployed, First Nations, and rural communities • Child care is a cultural issue – Current Canadian system is oppressive to cultural minority groups due to access, costs, availability, and appropriateness (Greenwood, 2000)

10. What is the history? • Industrial Revolution - Children expected to work • 1833 & 1844 - Factory Acts • 1939-1945 – Federal Government involvement during WWII • 1960’s – Canada Assistance Plan • 1971 – recognition of childcare costs as an employment expense eligible for tax deduction • 1984 – 1995 – 3 attempts to develop a national approach to child care (Trudeau’s Task Force, Mulroney’s Committee on Child Care, and Chretien’s Red Book Election commitment) • 1996 – Canada Social Transfer (Dizard & Gadlin, 1990) (Baker, 2005) (Friendly, Beach, & Turiano, 2002)

11. Child Care in Canada Today (Ward, 2006)

12. What are the problems? • Market model of child care • Assumes providing child care is responsibility of individual families • Market model of supply and demand • Market model ignores the broader social and economic issues affected by child care policy • Promotion of the well being of all children • Needing a skilled and efficient workforce • Addressing all forms of inequality (Doherty, Rose, Friendly, Lero, & Irwin, 1995)

13. Problems Con’t • Power and hierarchy • Stereotyping – ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ mentality • Assumptions concerning treatment of and access to children, and efforts to separate the oppressed from children and even there own (Bishop, 2002)

14. What are the contradictions? • Governments and Business state that families are important, yet policy and practice indicate otherwise • Children are valued

15. What is the larger context? • Maintaining western society status quo • Maintaining the capitalist system • Individualism • Maintaining a cheap labor force • Ensuring families are so busy trying to maintain their lives that they don’t advocate for change (Taylor, 2007) (Benson, 2009)

16. What role is played by race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, & language? • Gender is only one aspect of social isolation • Women’s care-giving responsibilities critical in understanding higher likelihood of female poverty • Patriarchal model is historically the basis for many income support programs (i.e. social assistance, mat leave) • Canadian policy undervalues women’s unpaid work in the home • Policy compartmentalizes women into workers or mothers, when likely they are both (Evans, 2001)

17. What power do we have? • Power to unite • Power to look for other sustainable options • The ability to look at other systems to see if they are working or not • The ability to create social action (Bishop, 2002)

18. What are our interventions? “The happiest society is one in which there is a balance- where both welfare of the individual and the community are respected and promoted, and where that is reflected in the social policies and the values that are promoted in that society” (Lama & Cutler, 2009)

19. Individual Interventions • Job share, flex time, moving to part-time work, flexible work schedules • Networking – Parent Link Centre, Lamaze classes, etc. • Work-site/Employer-funded daycare centres • Flexible hour child care

20. Kin Care Subsidy Program • Supports families looking after each other however requires them to adhere to the government terms if they seek financial support • Payments are lower than for daycare centers ($400/month) • Family caregiver must live outside the home and parents must require 50 hrs a month of care if the child is under 5 • Families are still not free to choose who looks after their children if they access funding • Financial compensation and not reuniting the family is the focus (Government of Alberta, 2000)

21. Community Building • Goal: To end extreme individualism, moving to more collectivism. Switching to bottom-up models • Step ONE: Awareness of benefits • Step TWO: Awareness of ways that we are connected • Step THREE: Increase personal contact (Lama & Cutler, 2009)

22. Social Policy • Policy requires “a sensitive evaluation of the impact of policies on women’s independence that does not at the same time hold them hostage to expectations that are in advance of the realities of women’s lives”. • Margrit Eichler suggests a “social responsibility” model that includes accessible and affordable child care • To work towards public good in Canada, there are 3 options: • Publicly operated child care system • Government regulated private system • Public funding that may be used for unregulated child care arrangements (Doherty, Rose, Friendly, Lero, & Irwin, 1995) (Evans, 2001)

23. Quebec’s Child Care Program • 1997 Quebec – Early Childhood and Childcare Strategy • Subsidized child care program $5/day • Present cost of the program is now $7/day • Refundable tax credits and financial assistance program available to parents unable to make use of spaces at $7 rate • 2001, roughly 40% of Canada’s regulated childcare spaces were in Quebec (Baker, 2005) (Friendly, Beach, & Turiano, 2001)

24. International Interventions What’s working in other countries?

25. Source: (Kamerman, S.B., 2000, as cited in Waldfogel, 2001)

26. Sweden Model • Swedish law entitles parents to a leave of absence from work in connection to both children’s births and illnesses • Enables both men and women to combine parenthood and employment (or parenthood and education) • Child care programming offered from age 12 months to 12 years, school starts at age 7; before and after school programming is offered • Parents are entitled to take up to 120 days per year off for child illnesses • Most parents return to work after parental leave (Anonymous, 1998)

27. Sweden Con’t • Municipal authorities are obligated to provide child care for ages 1-6, before and after school care for children 7-12 if parents are working or studying • Unemployed parents are entitled to 3 hours per day of preschool activity • Programming fundamentally exists for all children • Social Services Act (section 12) defines municipal responsibilities as “the social welfare committee shall endeavor to ensure that children and young people grow up in good and secure conditions; acting in close cooperation with families to promote development and favorable physical and social conditions of children and young persons” (Anonymous, 1998)

28. Danish System • Access to child care is a basic right • 2/3’s of cost covered by federal government; Child care governed from bottom-up • Each centre is unique, run by an elected parent board; might be run by a church, cultural group, school, or corporation • Parent board determines philosophy of the centre and how it is to be managed; standards of care set by each parent board • Umbrella group formed by representatives of each centre - determine where funding is allocated based on need • Centers mix ages of children; operates like a family - extra support for children with disabilities or special needs (Lowe, 2000)

29. Tibetian Settlements in South India • Neighbours look after one another • Sense of cooperation, if family cannot provide, the community takes over • Based on individuals and families making an effort to get to know one another (Lama & Cutler, 2009)

30. Discussion Questions • What level of intervention will be easiest? Most effective? • Looking at international interventions, how does Canada rate in terms of child care? • Where do we go from here? How do we engage the system?

31. References Anonymous. (1998). Child care in Sweden. International Journal of Early Childhood, 30:1. 20-26. Baker, M. ( 2005). Families: Changing trends in Canada. Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Beaujot, R. (1997). Parental preferences for work and childcare. Canadian Public Policy – Analyse de Politques, 23:3. 275-288. Benson, J. (2009, Apr. 8). Fight back against women’s oppression! In Socialist Appeal. Retrieved March 6, 2010 from the World Wide Web: <http:www.socialistappeal.org> Bishop, A. (2002). Becoming an ally: breaking the cycle of oppression in people (2nd Ed ed.). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing. Cox, R. & Rose, R. (2007). Improving maternity and paternal benefits for women outside of Quebec: Proposals for law reform. NAWL Workshop group on maternity and parental benefits. Ottawa, ON. Dizard, J. & Gadlin, H. (1990). The minimal family. Massachusetts: The University of Massachusetts Press. Doherty, G., Rose, R., Friendly, M., Lero, D., & Irwin, S. (1995). Child care: Canada can’t work without it. Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Evans, P. (2001). Women in social welfare: Exploring the connections. In J.C. Turner & F.J. Turner (Ed.), Canadian social welfare (4th ed., pp. 140-152). Toronto, ON: Pearson Education Canada Inc. Friendly, M., Beach, J., & Turiano, M. (2002). Early childhood education and care in Canada 2001. University of Toronto: Childcare resource and research unit.

32. Government of Alberta. (2000). Social care facilities licensing act. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from the World Wide Web : <http://www.child.gov.ab.ca/home/535.cfm> Greenwood, M. (2000). Aboriginal child care in review. Interaction. (Winter 2000). 15-18. Lowe, E. (2000). Quality child care, Danish style. Interaction. (Winter 2000). 19-20. Miller, D. (1989). Poor women and work programs: back to the future. AFFILIA: Journal of Women and Social Work, 4:1. 9-22. Peterson, L. & Albrecht, T. (1999). Where gender/power/politics collide: Deconstructing organizational maternity leave policy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8:2. 168-181. Senkiw, A. (2002). Quebec’s child care policy: Saskatchewan Economics Journal. Saskatoon, SK: University of Saskatchewan. 15-24. Taylor, F. (2007, Apr. 27). Women and oppression today. In Socialist Alternative . Retrieved March 6, 2010 from the World Wide Web : <http://www.sa.org.au> Waldfogel, J. (2001). International policies toward parental leave and child care. The Future of Children, 11:1. 99-111. Ward, M. (2006). The Family Dynamic: A Canadian Perspective (4th Edition ed.). Toronto: Thomson Nelson Weiss, S. (2007, Jun. 18). How women’s oppression began – and how it will end. In Socialist Voice: Marxist Perspectives for the 21st Century. Retreived March 6, 2010 from the World Wide Web: <www.socialistvoice.ca> White, L. (2001). Child care, women’s labour market particpation and labour market policy effectiveness in Canada. Canadian Public Policy – Analyse de Politques, 27: 4. 385-405.