Family Support, International Trends

Family Support, International Trends See also: Behavior Genetics; Birth Order; Demographic Factors; Divorce; Emotion Regulation; Marital Relationship; Mental Health, Infant; Mental Health, Intervention and Prevention; Parenting Styles and their Effects; Routines; Social Interaction; Socialization in Infancy and Childhood; Temperament.

Suggested Readings Bronfenbrenner U (1979) The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

501

Clarke-Stewart A and Dunn J (2006) Families Count: Effects on Child and Adolescent Development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cummings EM, Davies PT, and Campbell SB (2000) Developmental Psychopathology and Family Process. New York: Guilford. Denham SA (1998) Emotional Development in Young Children. New York: Guilford Press. Fiese BH (2006) Family Routines and Rituals. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hetherington EM and Kelly J (2003) For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. Parke RD (2004) Development in the family. Annual Review of Psychology 55: 365–399. Plomin R, DeFries JC, McClearn GE, and McGuffin P (2000) Behavioral Genetics. New York: Worth Publishers.

Family Support, International Trends N Tolani and J Brooks-Gunn, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA ã 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Glossary Childrearing leave – Leaves from employment developed primarily as a supplement to maternity leaves or as a variation to parental leaves. These leaves are typically longer than maternity leaves and are paid at a lower level; as such, these leaves are often described as a ‘mother’s wage’ because it may not be limited to parents who are employed. Family leave – A social policy allowing employees to take a specified amount of time off work in order to deal with the needs of their families. Maternity, paternity, parental, childrearing leaves are subsumed within this category. Family leaves may be paid (taxable income) or unpaid. Maternity leave – Job-protected leaves from employment for women prior to giving birth and following childbirth or adoption in some countries. Some countries provide compulsory 6–10 week leave period following childbirth. Policies inmost countries allow women to combine pre- with postbirth leave periods. Parental leave – Gender-neutral, job-protected leaves from employment that typically follow maternity leaves and permit either fathers or mothers to choose or share who will take advantage of this benefit.

Introduction Infants and young children require a high level of investment of parental resources: financial, emotional, physical,

and mental. Reconciling the inherent conflicts between work obligations and families’ needs are a source of stress for most employed parents. While the responsibilities associated with raising infants and toddlers may be universally felt, governmental supports provided to working parents vary widely between countries. Programs and policies designed to support the working parent can benefit parents and children, mitigating the negative impacts of poverty and stress and promoting school readiness and socialization. Most advanced industrialized nations, as well as a growing number of developing countries, have placed high priority on implementing child and family policies that support working parents and improve the health and well-being of children, such as family leave and early childhood education and care (ECEC). Understanding the linkages between social welfare policies and child well-being should be a priority for researchers, practitioners- and policymakers alike. In Canada and in many countries belonging to the European Union (EU), the dominant model is to provide familyleave options for employed parents and ECEC for infants and children because they are considered beneficial for them regardless of their parents’ employment status. (There are 25 member countries within the EU, including: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK.) These programs are largely universal, voluntary, and available to families with children irrespective of their income. This reflects the prevailing attitudes of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of countries who

502

Family Support, International Trends

believe that early childhood care and education are essential and inseparable components of services for children of working parents. (There are 30 member countries of OECD, including: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK, and the US.) These policies also foster gender equality by strengthening links between mothers and employment, and encouraging fathers to participate more in caregiving at home. These attitudes are starkly contrasted with the current modality in the US, an industrialized nation with a robust economy and high labor force participation rates for mothers and father. Yet parents in the US are often required to create their own childcare solutions, which have exacted a significant toll on the health and well-being of working parents and their children. While many of the challenges related to reconciling work and family are not unique to the US, cross-national comparisons do suggest that the US is faced with a more acute set of circumstances than other industrialized nations. The conditions and outcomes of the disadvantaged working families in the US are particularly formidable when compared crossnationally. Despite vast differences in geography, political climate, and racial diversity, many lessons may be learned from observing the benefits and services offered to parents in both English-speaking countries and industrialized European countries. This article will review trends in policy approaches of advanced industrialized economies, comparing the US with other member nations of the OECD within three domains: prenatal and postnatal period policies (e.g., family leave), policies for the first and second year of life (e.g., early childcare programs), and policies for the third and fourth year of life (e.g. early childhood education programs). Policies within each time period are different. For example, prenatal and postnatal programs include maternity, paternity, and family-leave programs, as well as nutritional programs such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) in the US. Programs designed to support working families with children of 1–2 years of age include family-leave policies and childcare programs. However, because so few countries provide working parents with leave benefits greater than 52 weeks (e.g., Sweden), the primary focus of this section will be childcare programs. Finally, programs for working families with children 3–4 years of age include childcare and early childhood education. This article will conclude with a discussion of the effects of these policies on the working parents and children they are designed to serve. It is important to note that pre- and postnatal policies are often embedded within a variety of health and social service programs (e.g., health insurance, immunization services)

focusing on the medical care of infants and toddlers. The present article will not discuss these programs; interested readers are referred to sources within the ‘Suggested readings’ section provided at the end of this article for links to further information on these topics.

The Working Family: Sociodemographic Shifts and the Need for Support Programs The implementation of support programs for families with young children, such as ECCE; maternity, paternity, and parental leaves; and tax benefits in industrialized countries, developed in partnership with demographic shifts occurring worldwide, such as rising female participation rates in the labor market and changes in family structures (e.g., single-headed households, female-headed households in particular). For example, according to US census data from 1995 to 2001, a labor force transformation occurred during the latter half of the twentieth century. Whereas 28% of women in the US were in the labor force in 1940, 38% were in 1960, and 60% in 2000. Because the most dramatic increase appeared in married mothers, participation in the labor market also had significant implications for the traditional nuclear family in the US. In 1960, approximately 25% of married mothers in the US were employed; however, by 2000, almost 75% of married mothers in the US were employed. Put another way, in 1930, approximately 55% of children in the US lived in homes where only one parent worked outside the home; by 2000, about 70% of children lived in homes where either one or both parents were employed. In 1996, labor market shifts within the US were primarily driven by the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) established by the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) which expects maternal welfare recipients to find employment when their babies are as young as 3 months of age. In 2002, more than half of all US mothers were employed when they gave birth and more than half returned to work within 3 months of childbirth. Sixty-three per cent of mothers returned to work before their children’s first birthday. Earlier patterns of employment differed greatly; for example, in 1970, only 27% of mothers with infants were employed. With the exception of the Nordic countries, US maternal employment rates for mothers of young children exceed rates found in Continental European countries. Interestingly, cross-national data from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) suggest that parents in the US work more hours per week, on average, than dual-earning couples in Continental European and Nordic nations, like the UK and Sweden, respectively. This again highlights the unique set of challenges faced by working families in the US.

Family Support, International Trends

However, parents in the US are not alone in their struggles to reconcile demands between work and families. Employment rates of married and cohabiting mothers and fathers in the US match those in other wealthy, European nations. For example, in the late 1990s, Continental European countries reported married and cohabiting maternal employment rates ranged from 40% to 65%, while over 92% of married and cohabiting fathers were employed. While paternal employment rates within the Nordic countries matches those found within the Continental European nations, maternal employment was higher, exceeding 76%. Research conducted by the OECD has found that in both regions, however, over 60% of mothers with children aged 6 years or younger were employed. Labor market researchers have also reported that developing nations will witness similar trends in female employment rates; such increases will naturally correspond with increased demands for policies reconciling work and family issues. Upward trends in female employment are expected to continue and the policies that governments create to reconcile the conflicts between employment and parenthood will be critical. In sum, while increases in female labor market participation were seen in many countries, policy responses enacted by governments varied dramatically.

Pre- and Postnatal Policies Family Leave: An Introduction In nations that encourage employment, it is assumed all too often that mothers and fathers will be able to manage childrearing responsibilities with intensive work schedules. However, these responsibilities can prove overwhelming during the first few weeks after childbirth, and indeed the first few years of a child’s life. Public familyleave policies are one of the most important benefits that governments can provide working families. Family-leave policies refer to a package of benefits, consisting of maternity leave, paternity leave, parental leave, and childrearing leave. Job-protected leaves following childbirth and adoption are the standard practice in industrialized nations, although the support packages provided by Englishspeaking countries are often less generous. History of Family-Leave Policies in Europe Paid maternity leaves originated as part of the first social insurance program enacted by Bismarck in Germany in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Similar social insurance programs, providing health insurance, paid sick leave, and paid maternity leaves, were subsequently developed in Sweden (1891) and France (1928). In 1919, the International Labor Organization (ILO) adopted the first convention on maternity protection, stating that

503

employed women are entitled to 6 weeks of paid maternity leave preceding childbirth and 6 weeks following childbirth (this was compulsory). These policies were revised and expanded further in 1952. However, significant trends occurred between the 1960s and the 1970s in the Nordic and Eastern and Central European countries when these countries implemented paid parental and childrearing leaves (respectively). During this time, as labor force participation rates of women also began to rise, the trend in OECD countries was that of increasing generosity: maternity leaves were extended and a greater sense of gender equity was created through the provision of parental leaves as a supplement to maternity leave policies. While such benefits were originally created for mothers, the 1970s witnessed an emerging concern for fathers in the form of paternity leaves. Around the same time, concern for children’s well-being emerged with the implementation of childrearing leaves. In 1992, an EU directive mandating a paid 14-week maternity leave was adopted. In 2000, the ILO Convention on Maternity Protection was revised and adopted. In brief, this policy recommended a 14-week job-protected maternity leave (inclusive of 6 weeks prior to childbirth), and allowed for the extension of maternity leaves in the event of complications of illness due to the pregnancy or childbirth. It also stated that cash benefits should be publicly funded and ‘at a level that ensures that the woman can maintain herself and her child in proper conditions of health and with a suitable standard of living’. Adopted as the new world standard, 128 nations provided at least some paid and job-protected maternity leave in 1999. Over the years, leave policies have gradually shifted from a narrower and inflexible approach, focused on traditional, gendered work and family issues to the broader realization that commitments conflicts between work and family obligations are also an issue for men given the increase in maternal employment rates. However, substantial variations exist between the benefits provided by these countries. Paid leaves average about 16 weeks, including 6–8 weeks of time off pre- and postbirth. In some countries (e.g., France) leave is mandatory, while in others it is voluntary. Most countries who do provide working parents with paid leaves stipulate the leaves to be maternity leaves (vs. paternity or parental leaves). In most OECD countries, the cash benefit provided while working parents are on leave ranges from 70% of the worker’s prior wage to the full wage or maximum provided by the social insurance program funding the leave benefit. Benefits in the remaining OECD countries replace between 50% and 70% of the lost wages. Family-Leave Policies in the US The current family-leave policy began as a statewide phenomenon in 1867, wherein Wisconsin restricted the

504

Family Support, International Trends

total number of hours women would work on a daily basis to 10, presumably because working beyond that point would have damaging consequences for their childbearing abilities. At the federal level, the Supreme Court enacted a similar ruling in 1908. Further policy shifts did not occur until 1978, when the Pregnancy Disability Act amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed. Whereas earlier legislation was based on protection of women’s health, this amendment included gender and sex discrimination as a basis for future leave policies. Sex discrimination was legally expanded to include discrimination based on childbirth or related medical issues. In 1987, nine states had enacted unpaid maternity leave policies and by 1989 this figure had risen to 14. Despite its initial introduction in 1985, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was not enacted until 1993 under President Clinton. This is a US labor law requiring employers with 50 or more employees to allow eligible workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per 12 months for multiple reasons, including caring for a newborn infant; handling adoption or foster care placement issues; or caring for a sick child, spouse, or parent. That the leave is unpaid differentiates the US from all European countries which provide some type of income support for at least part of the leave period. The focus within the US-system is less on maternity protection and more on disability, which encompasses pregnancy and childbirth. Working mothers may return to the same position they held prior to childbirth, or to a position that is equal in pay, benefits, and responsibility. These employees are also entitled to a reinstatement of all benefits they received prior to taking the leave. In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the PRWORA, a comprehensive bi-partisan welfare reform plan that had dramatic effects on America’s welfare system. Under the new law, welfare recipients are required to work after receiving 2 years of assistance, with only a few exceptions. Work was defined rather broadly and could include any of the following activities: unsubsidized or subsidized employment, on-the-job training, work experience, community service, 12 months of vocational training, or provide childcare services to individuals who are participating in community service. Single parents were required to participate in at least 20 h of employment each week during their first year and demonstrate an increase in working in hours in their second year, while two-parent families were required to work 35 h per week. At the time of enactment, PRWORA provided $14 billion toward childcare funding in order to facilitate transitions from welfare to work for parents receiving assistance. This law also maintained health and safety standards for daycare centers protecting the well-being of children. Finally, single parents with children under 6 years of age could not be penalized for failure to meet employment requirements if they were unable to find adequate childcare. In

fact, states were able to exempt single parents from the employment provision if they had children under the age of 1 year. In sum, while the US is undeniably less generous in its provisos for working parents than of countries, passage of both the FMLA and the PRWORA suggest that efforts are being made to acknowledge and make easier the struggles of employed parents, especially those whose lives are characterized by economic instability. International Trends in Benefits International variation exists in terms of eligibility criteria, duration of leave, generosity of benefits, and take-up of family-leave policies. In 2003, Janet C. Gornick and Marcia K. Meyers conducted a comprehensive review of work and family policies entitled Families that Work. Much of the information obtained on cross-national variation in family-leave policies has been obtained from this seminal review. Only two countries, among the OECD nations, do not legally provide some type of leave at the national level: South Korea and Switzerland. However, Switzerland does provide coverage at the state, or ‘canton’ level. In addition to paid leave, some countries provide a ‘birth’ or ‘nursing allowance’ or an in-kind childbirth package consisting of clothing or pharmaceutical items. These countries often also provide a supplementary leave in addition to the basic paid leave. For example, Germany provides an unpaid childrearing leave which allows parents to take off a third year after the birth of the child. This leave is in addition to 14 weeks of paid leave wherein mothers receive full wages and 2 years paid at lesser, flat rate. Half the countries providing a parental leave option match the salary normally earned by the worker, or the maximum covered by social insurance programs. Benefits provided by EU countries extend beyond the standard issued by the ILO as the average length of childbirthrelated paid and unpaid leave (maternity, paternity, and parental) is 1.5 years. The duration of this paid leave averages 36 weeks, typically consisting of 14–16 weeks of paid maternity leave supplemented by either a paid parental or paid childrearing leave. In some cases, both pre- and postbirth maternity leaves are mandatory, while in other cases these components can be combined and used after childbirth. An emerging trend is for parental leaves to be offered on a full- or part-time basis allowing the parent to remain employed part-time or work from home with job protection benefits. Among 29 industrialized countries, only eight do not offer extended leave policies: Australia, Ireland, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the US. Most researchers conclude that a primary weakness of the family-leave system within the US is that it does not allow for any paid leave for the majority of its workers. Eight countries now provide paid ‘paternity’ leaves, ranging in duration from 3 days to

Family Support, International Trends

6 months: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Finland, and Sweden. In addition, 21 countries provide a supplementary parental leave, but in 13 of these countries, the leave is paid. Such benefits typically ‘expire’ when the child reaches 1.5 to 3 years of age. Finally, an EU directive has mandated the institution of family leaves such that parents can care for an ill child or family member. Enacted in 1992, this directive mandated a 14-week paid maternity leave as a health and safety measure for working mothers. In 1998, a 3-month parental leave was instituted, which led to the adoption of parental leave policies in several EU countries. In both the Nordic region and the EU, familyleave benefits often supplement maternity-leave policies, providing both mothers and fathers paid leave during their children’s preschool years. Relatedly, leaves for family reasons are also often provided to parents throughout their children’s lives. For example, in Sweden, parents are provided with paid time off to visit their children’s schools. According to the review conducted by Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers, the Nordic countries provide the most generous package of benefits to working mothers. Family-leave policies in these countries offer mothers between 30 and 42 weeks of leave with full pay. However, benefits for the highest earning mothers are capped which simultaneously limits program expenditures for governments and provides working mothers with economic security and stability. Nordic governments spend the most on average for each employed mother (between $594 and $808 per month, in equivalent US dollars). Continental European countries offer a more modest package of benefits to mothers, offering between 12 and 16 weeks of full pay. While some of these countries also cap maximum covered earnings, these figures vary greatly. Governments in these countries spend slightly less on average per working woman ($67 to $465 per month, in equivalent US dollars) than Nordic countries. In comparison, English-speaking countries provide the minimum benefits to pregnant working women. While the duration of Canada’s leave policy is generous (up to 50 weeks of paid leave), mothers are only provided with 55% of wage replacement, providing less economic security to these working mothers and their families when compared to the Nordic and Continental European countries. The disparities that exist between the duration of the benefit and the amount of the benefit (i.e., wage replacement) highlight the notion that a benefit is only successful if families can afford to take advantage of it. Studies such as the review conducted by Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers, and others independently conducted by Sheila Kamerman and Jane Waldfogel have consolidated the available take-up data on maternal paid leave. Results of their evaluative efforts suggest that most employed women take advantage of most if not all of their entitlement. However, data on unpaid leave are not

505

available for most countries. Take-up of parental or paternity leaves is similarly high. Available data on the Nordic countries (e.g., Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) suggest between 0.5% and 90% of eligible fathers take advantage of these benefits, with the exception of working fathers in the Netherlands. Outside of these countries, take-up rates among men are typically quite low – between 1% and 9%. Reasons for this vary, but research suggests that paternity leaves are shorter in duration and occur immediately after childbirth and are especially common in countries where gender equity in policies has been established and female labor force participation is higher. Paternal take-up rates parental leaves that are longer in duration are much lower, ranging from 1% in Germany to less than 5% in Denmark and Finland. Reasons for this are unclear. In terms of working parents’ access to family-leave benefits and eligibility determination, most countries restrict benefit eligibility to women employed for a minimum period of time prior to childbirth. Exceptions to this trend are Germany, wherein a childrearing leave is available to almost all parents, and several Nordic countries like Norway and Sweden, wherein a small minimum benefit is provided to women covered under health insurance and benefit eligibility is extended to housewives. In Denmark, even unemployed mothers are eligible for extended parental leave. The benefits provided by most countries are universally available, without regard for income level. Again, exceptions exist: for example, New Zealand provides income tested maternity leave to poor single mothers only, while Germany and France provide benefits that are income tested, such that only 80% of new parents qualify. International Examples Nordic countries Family-leave policies enacted within the Nordic region (e.g., Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) provide an excellent example of gender equity in parental-leave policies, emphasizing the parental contributions that both men and women make. In these nations, extended paid parental leaves are offered mandating that at least 1 month of the extension is to be a ‘use it or lose it’ option for fathers. That is, if fathers do not take advantage of this extension, the benefit cannot be transferred and will be lost. One example often described in the literature is Sweden’s Parental Leave and Parent Insurance policy, noted for its comprehensive, generous, and flexible stipulations. Parents are provided with an 18-month job-protected parental leave. Fathers are allowed an additional 1 month. In addition, parents of children 8 years of age and younger are legally protected to work 75% of their normal working time. These benefits can be shared between the parents and may be applied to full or part-time work.

506

Family Support, International Trends

Continental European countries

Within this geographical region, Spain provides a useful example because it is not a wealthy country and yet its family-leave policy may still be defined as generous and flexible. Working Spanish parents are provided with 16-week paid maternity leave at the time of childbirth, including 6 weeks prior to the birth paid at 100% of prior wages. This benefit is supplemented with an unpaid parental leave, available until the child’s third birthday. In addition, parents with a disabled child or a child less than 6 years of age are legally permitted to work part time. Working parents in Austria are also guaranteed a generous and gender-equitable package of benefits around the time of childbirth. Working mothers are provided with a 16-week mandatory leave with a cash benefit that returns all lost wages. Two years of additional job-protected, paid leave is available to either parent as well. However, the last 6 months of this leave is paid only if the ‘other’ parent takes the leave (typically the father) prior to the child’s third birthday.

English-speaking countries

The benefits provided by English-speaking countries are typically less generous than the benefits provided by EU countries. However, Canada is the only Anglo-American country to provide both paid maternity and paid parental leave. This system of benefits is funded through its unemployment insurance system. More information is available on the family-leave package available within the US. As mentioned earlier, in terms of generosity of benefits, the US is an outlier compared to other industrialized and developing nations. For example, 45% of workers in the US are not eligible under the provisos of the FMLA, in contrast to other OECD countries that provide coverage for almost all parents. Employees may be required to use accrued sick leave or vacation time to cover some or all of the leave. Employers also may deny leave to employees within the highest paid 10% of its workforce if permitting the leave would have negative consequences to the company. Political efforts are underway to expand parental and family-leave benefits within the US. Most state policy initiatives focus their efforts on two funding sources: the Unemployment Insurance (UI) system and the Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) program. However, an extension of state UI programs would be costly and not fully cover all employed parents. In addition, the TDI benefit does not provide job protection so employees are not granted a right to return to work. Several states use state TDI monies to partially fund parental leave programs (e.g., California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island), in conjunction with contributions from employers and employees. However, employers in the remaining 45 states are permitted to voluntarily participate in TDI plans for their employees.

Funding for Family-Leave Benefits Most industrialized OECD countries fund family-leave benefits through the same system as sickness programs (e.g., statutory paid sick leave). In fact, 95% of these countries provide modest health and medical benefits (excluding US) to women at the time of childbirth. Comparative analyses such as those conducted by Sheila Kamerman, Janet Gornick, and Marcia Meyers have shown that even after combining the costs of maternity, paternity, and parental leave benefits, the total costs of administering these benefits totals to a small proportion of the overall gross domestic product (GDP). For example, these costs total 1% of Finland’s GDP and 2% of Sweden’s GDP. In sum, most OECD countries (and all EU countries) have supplemented existing maternity leave policies with parental leaves. Paid maternity leaves are indeed the international norm and the average duration of these leaves is often significantly longer than the 12-week, unpaid family leave provided by the US to employed parents of infants, as well as the provisions stipulated by the ILO. Substantial variation exists in the percentage of mothers and fathers who take up the benefits that are provided.

Policies for the First and Second Years of Life Early Childcare: An Introduction As the trend in most OECD member nations is to provide working mothers with some form of job-protected leave (i.e., maternity, family) during the child’s first year of life, an issue of increasing importance for working parents as their children reach 1 year of age is finding adequate childcare. Childcare is a crucial form of support for working parents and their children. A recent study by the OECD in 2005 of several advanced industrial nations led to policy recommendation that governments provide a continuum of support for working families and their children in their early years, most notably public investment in day and evening childcare programs such that mothers are less hampered in their efforts to seek paid employment. This report also encouraged employers to provide more flexible working schedules for full- and part-time employees such that parents are better able to meet their children’s needs and balance the obligations between work and family. In addition to providing an enriching environment for young children, high-quality group care for infants and toddlers can provide important support for families. Coverage and Access Governments may provide childcare directly or they may subsidize or reimburse some of the costs of care privately purchased by parents. Within the US, the existing

Family Support, International Trends

childcare system faces problems with service provision and the quality of existing services. For example, the existing supply of childcare programs for infants and toddlers does not meet the needs of working parents – that is, there are not enough facilities to ensure that all working families with young children who need childcare are afforded those services. Moreover, it is estimated that half of existing homeand center-based infant care programs are rated poorly and are even negatively associated with children’s long-term health and social outcomes. In addition, most services provided under the ECEC system in the US are private, although the government does play a role in financing a small proportion of programs through subsidies and tax policies. According to the US Department of Education, in 2002, 60% of working families in the US in which the youngest child is under age 5 years paid for licensed or informal care. Of these children, over 50% were cared for informally (e.g., by relatives, friends, or nonlicensed providers), while the remaining 48% were cared for at licensed childcare or family facilities. According to data published by the US government, only 3% of children under the age of 1 year, 4% of children between the ages of 1 and 2 years, and 13% of children between the ages of 3 and 5 years participated in publicly supported childcare programs, such as Head Start and Early Head Start (EHS). In addition, only 15% of eligible low-income families receive subsidized care. Similar patterns exist within Canada, Continental Europe, and the Nordic countries. For example, 2% of 0–3-year-olds in Germany and 23% of eligible 0–3-yearolds in France participate in the ECEC system. In contrast, participation rates of older children aged 3–6 years are universally high in European countries. For example, 78% of German children and 99% of French children in this age bracket participate in some type of early care or preschool program. Within the Nordic countries, the percentage of children under age 3 years enrolled in ECEC ranges from 20% (Norway) to 48% (Denmark). Percentages of children between 3 and 6 years of age enrolled in ECEC are higher as in the Continental European countries and range from 53% (Finland) to 82% (Denmark). Descriptions of Leading Childcare Systems In their cross-national comparison of supports in place for working families, Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers identified two systems to be exemplars based on nearly universal access to publicly provided childcare: Nordic countries and the integrated systems found within France and Belgium. The public ECEC systems within Denmark, Finland, and Sweden are under the purview of the national social welfare program and uniquely offer a nearly universal entitlement for childcare prior to primary school. These childcare programs are often integrated with early educational experiences, sometimes called ‘EduCare’. For example, since 1995 Swedish children are

507

entitled to public or private care from age 1 to 12 years. And while such entitlements were initially targeted toward unemployed parents, children in Denmark and Finland are now guaranteed childcare irrespective of their parents’ employment status. Entitlement for childcare begins after the parental leave and is guaranteed through the beginning of primary school. Thus, between 25% and 75% of 1–2-year-old children are in publicly funded childcare programs in the Nordic countries. The percentage of children in publicly funded care increases as children age; for example, among older children (aged 3–5 years), 83–90% are in publicly funded childcare programs, and nearly all children are in public care in the last year before primary school. The primary mechanism for provision of these services is direct. National taxes account for 25–33% of the costs associated with providing these programs, while parental co-payments cover at most 20% of costs (varies across nations). Low-income families are often not required to pay fees; sliding scale applies to other families. Subsidies permitting parents to purchase childcare from private providers are not often utilized. For example, Finland and Norway recently began providing parents of children not enrolled in public childcare with a cash benefit to purchase private childcare – the near universality of childcare programs within the Nordic countries make the provision of subsidies less necessary. Finally, the Nordic countries also make the most substantial investments per child, ranging from $4050 (Denmark) to $4950 (Sweden). In contrast, Continental European nations provide early childcare in conjunction with universal education programs. While still generous, these systems are less consistent than those programs found within Nordic countries. For example, Belgium and France provide universal public preschool programs for children as young as 2.5–3 years, but childcare is not an entitlement for students prior to entering public preschool programs (‘ecole maternelle’ in France and ‘kleuterschool’ in Belgium). By age 3 years, nearly all children are enrolled in preschool programs. However, publicly funded childcare programs for children aged less than 3 years are targeted toward needy families and not commonly available; thus, only 20–40% of children in this age group attend publicly funded childcare programs. In these countries, publicly funded childcare is also directly provided to parents of young children and is subsidized through national and local taxes and parental co-payments. Parental co-payments account for between 17% and 25% of the costs of care for children less than 3 years of age and are also set on a sliding scale dependent upon parental income. However, employers also contribute monies to cover costs associated with childcare services. As such, in both Belgium and France, care for children approximately 3 years of age is free for parents. As parents are responsible for purchasing care for children younger than 3 years of age, the French

508

Family Support, International Trends

and Belgian governments permit deductions for these expenses from income taxes. The more modest system provided by these nations is also less costly for their governments – for example, France spends the equivalent of $3161 per child under school age (in equivalent US dollars) annually. In stark contrast to these European systems, the US again ranks lowest with other English-speaking countries in their provision of early childcare, serving a mere 6% of children via means-tested programs. However, 53% of children aged 3–5 years are enrolled in publicly funded childcare. Most childcare costs are privately born. As reviewed earlier, the parental contribution to costs associated with childcare in the US is two to three times greater than in European nations. Within the US, costs are also inequitably distributed – low-income parents spend a greater proportion of their income (approximately 22% by recent estimates) on childcare than wealthier parents. Not surprisingly, the primarily private funding of the childcare system within the US does not present much of a financial burden to the government – data from the mid-1990s suggest that the US invested an average of $548 per month per child prior to beginning primary school. Welfare reform efforts led to the expansion of pre-kindergarten programs and modest increases in the average spending per child per month increased to $679 by 2000. An oft-neglected component of childcare programs in policy discussions is the schedule of publicly funded childcare programs and schools which can help determine their utility and meaningfulness to working parents. For parents, the hours of operation for both preschool and primary school programs determine which schools are viable childcare options. As with other aspects of childcare programs, substantial cross-national variation exists. For example, the Nordic countries (e.g., Sweden and Denmark) provide public childcare during the preschool years on a full-day, full-year basis, often extending past 60 h per week. Before and after typical school hours, children in Sweden and Denmark may also attend supervised centers near the school. Hours of operation are much shorter and inconsistent in Continental European nations due to extended lunch breaks and afternoon closings (e.g., France and Belgium). Within the US, most prekindergarten programs (including Head Start) and public kindergarten programs are open for part of the day. When children begin primary school, they are offered continuous instruction throughout the school day. However, the length of the school week in US-based schools (33 h per week on average) is only half that of Swedish schools which average approximately 60 h per week of instruction. In sum, the US ECEC system is significantly less generous when compared to the system of early childcare and education provided in Nordic countries and Continental European countries. Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers

concluded their cross-national comparisons by summarizing the lessons that the US should learn from these other systems of care, which include: (1) matching school schedules to parents’ working hours in consideration of parents working nonstandard shifts to create alternative methods of service delivery; (2) increasing certification requirements and compensation for childcare professionals; and (3) because families with younger children may be less able to bear the burden of costs associated with higher-quality childcare, the federal government can assume the bulk of childcare costs, with parents assessed a sliding scale fee. Funding of Early Childcare Programs Within the US, states may use TANF funds to provide childcare to low-income families through vouchers for current and former recipients of welfare. Another funding stream for federal childcare is the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). However, as states are able to choose the proportion of these funds they will devote to the provision of public childcare programs, usage of these funds is remarkably low. Recent estimates suggest that only 13% of all SSBG funds were earmarked for childcare services or vouchers. Further work is needed to better understand why states allocate a small proportion of SSBG funds to public childcare programs. Cross-national variation also exists in the amount of costs parents are expected to bear themselves. Estimates vary, but it appears that parents within the US bear a larger burden than parents in European or Nordic countries. The US government covers 25–30% of the cost of childcare for children under age 3 years and for children aged 3–6 years. This amount includes tax credits to reimburse parents, subsidies to parents, or public care that is purchased for free or reduced cost. In stark contrast are the Nordic countries. Governments here fund the majority of child-care costs, ranging between 68% and 100%. Such variation is dependent upon a variety of factors, including the generosity of parental leave benefits. For example, in Germany, parental-leave benefits may be extended in place of childcare provision. A government’s interpretation of their own role in providing ECEC for young children also contributes to the significant variation in childcare policies between countries. For example, within the US, infant and toddler care is viewed as a private decision and this perspective is reflected in the monetary investment made by the US government – $600 per year, per preschool-aged child (in equivalent US dollars). Annual investment in ECEC is significantly higher in the Continental European countries (e.g., France, $3000, in equivalent US dollars) and the Nordic countries (e.g., Sweden, $4500, in equivalent US dollars). That the US government views early childcare for young children as a private decision is also reflected in funding patterns.

Family Support, International Trends

Specifically, the US funds publicly provided childcare programs through tax benefits and subsidies, rather than creating high-quality programs and places for publicly funded care. This choice results in programs of widely varying quality that are difficult to monitor and evaluate despite local and state-level licensing efforts. In contrast, Nordic and several Continental European countries view childcare as a public responsibility and a public good and have instituted universal preschool care for children aged 3 years and older (Nordic countries recently guaranteed care for all children aged 1 year or older). Because a larger proportion of childcare services are offered through the social welfare or educational systems, quality can be regularly checked and providers held accountable.

Policies for the Third and Fourth Year of Life Early Childhood Education: An Introduction Early childhood education (ECE) is another type of family support policy provided by many nations. The success of these programs is best understood in the larger context of a nation’s social and economic well-being. Throughout the past several decades, several factors have served as significant barriers to the implementation and expansion of ECE programs, including: a competition for resources to deal with other societal ills such as economic deprivation, an absence of highly qualified and trained ECE staff due to the lack of a national standardization or certification system, and an absence of governmental infrastructure to monitor and evaluate educational programming for young children. However, enrolment in ECE programs is rising throughout the world as public perceptions of the value of such programs are shifting. History of Early Childhood Education Benefits Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in ensuring access to these programs in urban as well as rural areas, and in both industrialized and developing nations. The provision of early childhood benefits to parents of young children began in Finland in 1985, although the idea of providing childrearing allowances to working parents was first observed in Hungary in 1967. Many countries offer childrearing allowances in addition to the family-leave benefits discussed earlier. The goals of these cash benefits are similar to those of family-leave policies as they allow mothers to stay at home with their young children. However, in contrast to the eligibility restrictions imposed upon recipients of childrearing allowances, early childhood benefits are provided to all parents of children aged 3 year sand younger regardless of income or employment status. These benefits also provide parents greater flexibility and choice in making their childcare decisions. For example, the provision of an early childhood benefit for

509

parents who are not using publicly funded childcare allows parents to choose between the available public care, private childcare, and parental care. Limited data exist on the take-up rates of this benefit, but in 2001, Jane Waldfogel’s research suggested that the most popular option for parents of toddlers was publicly funded childcare. While political and public interest has centered on the provision of educational programs for primarily for 3–5-year-olds, an understanding has emerged of the importance of programs for children under 3 years of age based on studies that illustrate the importance of the first years of life for social, cognitive, physical, and emotional development. For example, in 2003 the British government guaranteed positions in a half-day nursery school for 4-year-olds whose parents wanted to enroll their children. By 2004, the British government had also guaranteed positions for 3-year-olds in public nursery school programs. Other trends influencing this rising interest in the provision of ECE programs for children younger than 3 years are numerous and varied and include: an increase in rates of female labor force participation; the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the World Summit for Children (1990), parents’ need for alternative and affordable childcare, and the need to ensure young children’s access to primary and secondary school. This last factor is also highlighted in the ratification of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by countries around the world. One of the eight MDGs identifies the achievement of universal primary education to ensure that all young boys and girls complete a full course of primary schooling as an objective by 2015. These MDGs were agreed upon by both developing and industrialized nations in an effort to reduce social inequalities and conduct a concerted attack on problems such as illiteracy, poverty, and gender discrimination. The identification of universal access to primary education clearly illustrates the growing acknowledgment cross-nationally of the importance of educational programming for young children. Examples of Early Childhood Education Programs As with family leave and early childhood care, substantial variation exists between industrialized nations in the type of educational programs offered to parents. The availability of such programs is highly dependent upon the particular demographic, social, economic, and political contexts of each nation. Due to space constraints, singular examples from each geographic region will be given. Continental European countries On the more generous end of the spectrum is France. Because children aged 3 years and above are legally guaranteed preschool education, the French government has instituted a highly developed universal preschool

510

Family Support, International Trends

system for 2–6-year-old children. Most other Continental European countries, such as Belgium, Germany, and Italy, legally guarantee children a spot in preschool programs at 3 years of age. Almost 100% of 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds and almost 20% of 2-year-olds attend the free ‘ecolles maternelles’, or ‘maternal schools’. These preschools were formerly grouped with primary education services and governed by the Ministry of Education. The French system of ECE is managed by national and local level entities, including the Ministry of Social Affairs, Employment, and Solidarity and the Ministry of Health, Family, and Handicapped Persons. Each national body is responsible for different areas, such as defining the curriculum, recruitment, and training of ECE staff and developing licensing requirements for the different forms of nonschool ECE. ‘Cre`ches collectives’ are center-based services operated by the local municipal bodies and NGOs. Parent cooperatives, or ‘cre`ches parentales’, stimulate parental involvement in the daily activities of the cre`che. Attendance at ‘ecole maternelle’ has had a positive impact on educational inequalities between advantaged and disadvantaged children in France. As illustrated before, equitable access to ECE programs supports the needs of both young children and their families. Studies have shown the length of time spent in ‘ecole maternelle’ is negatively associated with the chance of failing or repeating the first grade, especially for children from disadvantaged homes. These results inspired the French government to expand access to ‘ecole maternelle’ to include 2-year-old children. Nordic countries

Another important example is Norway, which enacted its childrearing grant in 1998, officially titled the Cash Benefit for parents with Small Children Act (‘kontantstotteloven’). The Norwegian system of ‘barnehage’, or ECE has in fact existed for hundreds of years but only recently improved access for young children. As with many European nations, the Norwegian system of ECE is integrated with early childcare services such that programs provide childcare for parents during working hours and provide educational services in alignment with the broader educational system. Funding for this program is obtained from three sources: the national government, the private owner of the center providing ECE programs, and parental subsidies. Approximately 2% of Norway’s GDP was appropriated to family support programs in the late 1990s. Norway has over 6200 ECE centers; approximately, half of these are privately owned. Private institutions are smaller; not surprisingly, a greater percentage of young children are enrolled in public ‘barnehager’. Access to barnehager also varies significantly across municipalities, although most provide ECE services to 50–60% of children. This policy provides a cash benefit to parents of children between 1 and 3 years of age and similarly to Finland, is provided to parents who are not using the publicly funded ‘barnehage’ or childcare

system. Families with a child in part-time ‘barnehage’ will be entitled to a partial cash benefit according to the number of hours in ‘barnehage’. The cash benefit is financed by the state and will be at the same level as the subsidy provided to parents whose children attend ‘barnehage’. This rationale was designed to increase options and choices for parents such that they would be free to choose whether they wish to stay at home with their young children, use some private form of childcare, or enroll their children in a ‘barnehage’ with state funding. However, because of this stipulation, Norway’s system of private care has expanded significantly, concurrent with a decrease in growth of spaces in publicly funded childcare system. Controversy exists as to the merits and pitfalls of this policy given these unintended consequences. In 1996, a national curriculum was implemented by the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs called the Framework Plan, which is based on the Nordic tradition of ‘EduCare’, or combining education and care, and must to be used by all ‘barnehager’. The Framework Plan provides the ‘barnehage’ with a centralized educational and pedagogical foundation. However, the Plan does not impose detailed guidelines or prevent variation at the local level. Despite a great deal of variation in curricula and activities for children across ‘barnehager’, systematic reviews of ECE programs in Norway have consistently pointed to a higher quality of care and education. Several goals remain unfulfilled for the Norwegian government, as attempts are made to: increase access for children aged 0–3 years, reduce disparities in quality between private and public ‘barnehage’, increase ‘barnehage’ funding in order to reduce financial burdens placed on disadvantaged parents and ensure that educational programming meets the needs of working parents. English-speaking countries The primary vehicles for publicly funded early educational programs within the US are Head Start and universal pre-kindergarten. Pre-kindergarten programs were developed more recently than Head Start and are designed to provide children with 1–2 years of education prior to kindergarten. These programs are typically funded at the state level, although local school districts are able to use federal funds to support such programming. Universal pre-kindergarten programs also often include a wide range of services such as health screenings, meals, and transportation. Most state programs target disadvantaged 3- and 4-year-old children. In 2002, estimates suggest that 14% of eligible 4-year-old children were enrolled in publicly funded, school-based prekindergarten programs. A second major early educational program in Head Start is a national, federally funded program that provides a variety of services ranging from health, nutrition, and education, to low-income children aged 3–4 years. This program was established in the 1960s to promote general well-being and school readiness in

Family Support, International Trends

economically disadvantaged children. With this program, states are able to use monies to provide low-income parents with subsidies or contract with providers. As with other early educational interventions, short-term cognitive benefits have been found – however, these advantages diminish by the third grade for minority children. One potential explanation for these ‘fading’ effects is the quality of schools students attend during their primary years. Disadvantaged children are more likely to attend poorquality schools that lack the necessary resources to provide students with adequate education. Another federally funded national program, EHS, was created in 1994 to enhance the development and health of infants and toddlers. This program combines a unique mix of services designed to enhance family and community partnerships, parent education, and service delivery for pregnant women. Results of a program evaluation conducted when children were 3 years old, pointed to modest impacts of program participation. Specifically, involvement with EHS did lead to improvements in achievement and interfamilial relationships, parenting practices, and education/employment of participating mothers. Funding of Early Childhood Education Programs Countries differ significantly in their levels of investment in early education. In general, wealthier OECD member nations tend to spend more while also stipulating that ECE programs take place in regulated centers with certified staff. As mentioned earlier, however, maintaining and evaluating such standards may not be the most costeffective option for all countries and has in fact served as a barrier to implementation of any ECE programming. Countries around the world have not yet agreed upon universally applicable standards for investment in ECE services, but it is obvious that quality is an issue for most countries and there is a growing consensus on the most important dimensions of ECE services. A useful starting point in the literature is often the proportion of funds spent relative to a country’s GDP. Such an indicator suggests the importance governments attach to these programs. Overall, OECD countries spend about 5.6% of their collective GDP on educational systems, including both pre-primary and university level schooling. In 1995, the European Commission on childcare recommended that countries should spend approximately 1% of their GDP on early childhood education and care. However, only the Nordic countries have reached this level of investment. For example, in 2004, Sweden spent over 2% of its GDP on integrated services for children. Another potentially useful indicator of governmental investment in ECE programs for young children is the amount of monies spent per child (limited to those who receive services). For example, the average annual amount spent per child in OECD nations is $4922 (in equivalent US dollars). However, both the US and the UK exceed

511

the OECD annual average, spending $8452 and $7881 per child (in equivalent US dollars), respectively. Such information can prove useful when disaggregating data to make comparisons across gender, race, and economic lines. The question of who pays for funding for ECE programs is also an important one and the answer again varies across nations. Early education programs are rarely free as with primary education services. ECE programs may be primarily funded by government support in addition to parental subsidies, private donations or providers, and cash or in kind contributions from international agencies such as NGOs. In almost all countries, the governments pay the largest share of costs, with parents covering between 11% and 30% of costs (the exception is the US where parents bear 55–70% of costs associated with enrolling their children in ECE programs). The average level of expenditure from private sources in OECD countries is 17.9%. While such an arrangement places less financial burden on governments, greater responsibilities are assigned to parents who must provide fees for books, uniforms, and other materials. This naturally affects the accessibility of such services to low-income or moderately disadvantaged families and the quality of services accessible to disadvantaged families. In the EU, parents often pay an average of 25% of the costs associated with nonkindergarten early education and care, while in English-speaking countries in North America, parents are often required to absorb 50% of the costs. According to a 2004 policy brief issued by UNESCO on early educational financing, parents in North America are also required to pay these costs for a longer period of time as most states or provinces begin to provide publicly funded care and education at the age of 4–5 years. Federal and state governments in the US have expanded funding recently for ECE programs. For example, in 2002, the federal government allotted $6.3 billion to local Head Start grantees, who served approximately 65% of eligible 3- and 4-year-olds. In 2005, Katherine Magnusson and Jane Walfdogel’s research indicated that although state spending greatly varied, funding for separate, state-financed pre-kindergarten programs had increased by 250% to approximately $1.9 million in 2002. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia provide state-financed pre-kindergarten for at least some of their 3–5-year-olds, up from about 10 states in 1980. The largest source of federal funding for means-tested subsidies is provided to states through the Child-Care Development Fund (CCDF), a federal block grant. States are permitted to use CCDF funds to serve working families with incomes within 85% of the state median, although most states have set a lower threshold. States are also allowed to determine the level of parental copayment, the level of provider reimbursement, and certification standards for childcare and education centers. The second funding stream within the US for means-tested

512

Family Support, International Trends

assistance is the TANF block grant. States are allowed to transfer up to 30% of their TANF funds toward CCDF programs – approximately one half of states in the US do so. Federal support is also provided through tax credits to subsidize childcare costs for working parents – despite these funding sources, researchers agree that the current level of federal and state funding is not sufficient for parents who wish to enroll their children in childcare or educational program. The patterns of governmental and parental investment also have implications for enrolment in ECE programs and services. Enrolment data are especially difficult to obtain given the proportion of ECE services that are privately managed. Most available enrolment data for pre-primary education combine information on 3–4-year-olds with available information on 5–6-year-olds. Such aggregate reporting may be misleading to researchers and policymakers concerned with issues of access because higher rates of participation for older children (5–6 years) could skew overall enrolment rates and mask lower enrolment rates for younger children (3–4 years). These disparities are also thought to vary cross-nationally. The average enrolment of young children ages 4 years and younger in pre-primary education for OECD countries is approximately 70%. More than one-third of countries around the world have exceptionally low enrolment rates in preprimary education, of fewer than 30%, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa. However, all countries in North America and Western Europe, as well as most countries within Central and Eastern Europe, report enrolments exceeding 50% of preschool-aged children. For example, in 2000, the US, Canada, and Finland reported gross enrolment rates between 50% and 70%, while Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Austria, and the UK reported gross enrolment rates between 70% and 90%. Few countries reported almost universal enrolment (e.g., Italy, Germany, Iceland, France, and Belgium). Coverage and enrolment rates differ for children less than 3 years of age. For example, only 30% of children under age 3 years are enrolled in pre-primary educational programs in France, while almost 60% of 1–2-year-old children are enrolled in Denmark.

Outcomes by Policy Type Effects of Family-Leave Policies on Parents Thus far, research on the effects of family-leave policies on parents has limited its scope to the effects of maternal leave on maternal outcomes, such as stability of wages and employment over time. Researchers such as S. B. Kamerman and C. J. Ruhm have found that while leaves shorter in duration do not have negative consequences for mothers, longer and more frequent leaves (e.g., 3 years) may negatively impact mothers in the form of reduced wages. Other researchers such as Janet Gornick

and Marcia Meyers have focused on the effects of taking unpaid maternity leaves that are shorter in length on the labor market. Their results were not so clear-cut. While some research suggests that taking such leaves has little impact on aggregate female employment rates, other studies have found that both paid and unpaid maternity leave packages increase the likelihood that women will return to their jobs within 3 months and have a substantial impact on female employment. Clearer evidence exists with regard to the positive effects of lengthier paid leaves (e.g., several months to 1 year in duration) on women’s labor market attachment. For example, women with paid leave are more likely to work longer into their pregnancy and return to work within 1 year of childbirth to the same employer especially when compared to mothers who did not receive paid leave. These studies also found that lengthier maternity leaves (e.g., 2–3 years as found in some European countries) may in fact depress female employment rates given the high take-up rates, although it is ambiguous at which point the length of maternity leave becomes disadvantageous. Within the US specifically, studies on the effects of the FMLA on working women suggest that there is no impact on female participation in the labor force and that the costs to employers associated with voluntarily providing family-leave benefits are modest. While some women did take longer leaves after childbirth, most took only a brief leave or none at all. In addition, these studies have shown those women who could most benefit from extended leaves (poor, single mothers) do not have access to such benefits. Finally, some studies have suggested that parental leaves lead to less maternal stress, longer periods of breastfeeding, and provide a less expensive childcare alternative for working families. Less is known about the effects of paternity leave policies on male employment patterns. Some studies have suggested that more generous parental leave policies have been positively associated with the time fathers are able to invest in their young children. However, these studies do suggest a higher level of employer resistance to paternal take-up of these benefits. Interestingly, paternal take-up has increased with the development of the ‘use it or lose it’ policy, wherein fathers are unable to transfer their benefits to female partners and will lose the benefits if they are not used within a certain period of time. For example, in Norway, paternal take-up increased from 5% to 70% after the ‘use it or lose it’ policy was implemented. In sum, research has suggested several positive impacts of maternity leave policies on maternal outcomes, ranging from statistically significant decreases in women’s unemployment and higher aggregate rates of female labor force participation to higher revenue for governments (vis-a`-vis income tax payments). It is plausible that a final benefit may include reductions in stress related to work and family conflicts, but this outcome is more difficult to measure empirically.

Family Support, International Trends

Effects of Family-Leave Policies on Children Limited evidence exists on the effects of family-leave policies on children. In 1998, C. J. Ruhm conducted a study which found that paid parental leave policies were negatively associated with low birth weight status and mortality rates of infants and children. It was hypothesized that parental leave policies had a favorable impact on pediatric health outcomes because parents are now able to devote more time to their children. Increasing generosity levels of parental leave policies were also associated with lower postneonatal mortality and mortality between the first and fifth years of life. Again, it was believed that because parents were able to spend more time with their children, they were better able to attend to their physical and psychosocial needs. A greater amount of empirical evidence exists on the effects of maternal employment on child outcomes. Studies using US-based samples found modest, negative effects of maternal full-time employment during the child’s first year of life on their cognitive development. These effects extended past preschool into primary school years (7 or 8 years). However, maternal employment begun ‘after’ the first year of life does not have a detrimental impact on young children and may even exert a positive influence on child outcomes. Longitudinal studies conducted within the UK also found that children whose mothers were employed during their preschool years experienced poor educational outcomes, and often completed less years of schooling, even after statistically controlling for family background characteristics such as income and levels of education obtained by the parent. This finding is less conclusive as other researchers have found such family background characteristics (e.g., low levels of household income and parent education), to have a significant negative influence on children during the preschool years. Despite the limited empirical evidence, the findings are suggestive of a need for programs and policies that promote positive outcomes and adequately support working parents and their children. In sum, while the particulars of family-leave policies vary widely across nations, the goals of these policies are similar in that they seek to protect the health and emotional well-being of mothers, fathers, and their young children. Policies now seek to form a viable substitution for infant and toddler care outside of the home. Efforts to reconcile work and family conflicts include emphasis on gender equity – seen in paternity leaves. Consider these within a broader framework of employment and income support policies designed to reduce burden on employed parents.

Effects of Childcare Policies on Mothers Policies designed to reduce the cost of childcare or increase the availability of care are positively associated

513

with maternal employment rates. However, other studies on the effects of childcare costs in the US and maternal employment rates have suggested a consistently negative association. Specifically, estimates of maternal employment effect sizes range from 0.3 to 0.4, suggesting that if childcare costs were reduced by 10%, this would lead to a 3–4% increase in maternal employment. Studies examining Canadian data found similar results. Cross-national data on Nordic countries and Continental European are not readily available. Effects of Childcare Policies on Children Because childcare policies best suited for one family may not be the ideal solution for another family, research has found inconsistent associations between childcare policies and child outcomes. It is intuitively appealing that more flexible packages, such as those available to parents in France and several Nordic countries, wherein parents can choose the type of childcare best suited for their children during the first 3 years, would be beneficial to children. Extensive studies have been conducted on the contributions of childcare quality, childcare choices, and family characteristics (e.g., income, marital status) on indicators of child well-being. For example, in 1999, Margaret Burchinal found that children who are exposed to higherquality care have fewer behavioral problems, higher cognitive and language development, better social skills, and better relationships with peers. These findings were again confirmed in 2000 by Deborah L. Vandell and Barbara Wolfe, who found significant associations between aspects of childcare settings, such as the environment, caregiver practices, child activities, staff–child ratios, class sizes, and certification of caregivers, and children’s cognitive development, emotional adjustment, and school readiness. Each of these researchers has stressed that family background characteristics are still highly important – that is, childcare quality appears to moderate effects of disadvantage and parental education on child well-being (quality matters most for disadvantaged children). Such patterns are visible cross-nationally, with similar results reported in the UK, France, and Sweden. For children aged 2–6 years, participation in higher quality ECEC programs positively impacted their social, cognitive, and emotional development, as well as levels of school readiness and achievement. This relationship between child-care quality and child development was moderated by financial disadvantage (i.e., these effects were more pronounced in poor children). Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers note that longitudinal evaluations also found that children beginning childcare programs between 6 and 12 months of age scored higher on aptitude tests and received higher ratings on social behaviors and emotional regulation by teachers when compared to children who remained at home or entered care at a later age. Paid parental leave with full

514

Family Support, International Trends

wage replacement and quality of caregiving staff were important factors operating in tandem with age of childcare entry. Preschool care for older children aged 3–4 years is widely accepted now in countries such as the UK. Instead of asking questions on whether maternal employment or childcare is to the detriment of the child, the focus has and should continue to move to the type of care that is most beneficial to infants and young children. Effects of Early Childhood Education Programs and Policies on Parents Less evidence is available as to the effects of ECE programs and policies on demographic indicators such as female labor force participation rates. However, some research has been conducted on the effects of children’s participation in ECE programs and parental attitudes toward their children’s education within the US. For example, several studies conducted in the 1980s found that parents’ attitudes toward their children’s schooling improved after their children successfully graduated form a preschool program. The educational aspirations of these parents toward their children’s futures also increased as they gained a greater level of satisfaction from their children’s educational accomplishments. Finally, parental involvement in their children’s schools also increased – even though children who attended preschool had fewer behavioral problems, parents contacted their children’s teachers more often. Studies on the effects of parental involvement on young children’s cognitive and behavioral outcomes have shown such involvement to have a powerful impact on the benefits these young children receive from participation in ECE programs. Effects of Early Childhood Education Programs and Policies on Children Extant literature on the effects of early childhood educational policies is often intermixed with studies on the effects of early childcare policies, included in the previous section. While the most extensive and rigorous research on the outcomes and impacts of ECE programs has been conducted in the US, relevant and important research has also been conducted in other nations. Research in France, Sweden, the US, and the UK points to positive associations between participation in highquality early education programs and the cognitive (school readiness and achievement), social, and emotional development of children. For example, attendance of French preschoolers at ‘ecole maternelle’ is associated with reductions in achievement inequalities. Students who were enrolled by 2 years of age performed better than students enrolled at 3 years on tests of oral and pre-reading skills, general knowledge tests, logic and premath skills, and classroom behaviors. Similarly, researchers in Italy found that children were better prepared for primary school if they had attended preschool and were also better prepared for preschool if they had even earlier educational experiences.

A longitudinal study conducted in Sweden found that children starting childcare between 6 and 12 months of age performed better on aptitude tests and were rated more positively by teachers on socioemotional functioning than children who entered care at a later age or children who were cared for at home. These positive effects remained when the children were 13 years old. Positive effects of ECE programs are particularly strong for disadvantaged children, suggesting an interaction between poverty and the quality of these educational programs. In 1998, Lynn Karoly and colleagues conducted a cost–benefit analysis of early childhood programs, such as Head Start. Her results pointed to significant early gains in cognitive performance for poor children and later, more modest gains in achievement, grade completion, and high school graduation rates. Ensuing debates on the significance of ‘fading’ effects have centered on the quality of educational services disadvantaged children receive after attending programs like Head Start. A longitudinal evaluation was conducted in the UK on the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education Project (EPPE), which followed 3000 children from 141 preschool settings from ages 3 to 7 years as they transition from preschool to primary school. As Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers reported, positive short-term effects on cognitive development and school readiness were found, more so for disadvantaged children than their wealthier counterparts. While preschool attendance can in fact narrow achievement gaps, the duration of these effects is still undetermined. Extant research has pointed to the benefits of preschool programs on socioecomotional, cognitive, and physical child outcomes for 2–5-year-olds (irrespective of parental employment). However, the debate on how to ensure equal access to high-quality childcare continues among policymakers and practitioners.

Conclusions This article has considered the benefits and drawbacks to various policy options designed to support the working family during the time of childbirth. Such policies must provide both economic and employment security in order to be viewed as successful. In addition, these policies should be guided by principles of gender equity such that both parents are afforded the opportunity or legal right to take paid leave during their children’s earliest years. Increasing the flexibility of policy programs would provide parents with choices; these choices are especially critical for low-income families as they could partition the leave into separate breaks. Comparatively, the US provides less support to families with children under the age of 3 than most advanced industrialized nations, and generally has weaker system of health and social services. These policy options have placed an added burden on parents of infants and toddlers in the US. Relatedly, little

Fear and Wariness

is known on the effects of childcare arrangements on child outcomes. Given that no single combination of childcare and education will work best for all children, it is important to advocate policy packages that are more flexible in nature, providing parents with the option to choose. Questions remain on how to best provide support to these families, but many options exist, including the expansion of parental leave, increasing funding support for early childcare and education benefits. In addition, most researchers conclude that steps should be taken to ensure higher quality of care for children of all ages such that the US is aligned with provisos of other advanced nations. In sum, family-leave policies and early care and education programs should be considered an essential component of every nation’s social welfare system and provide crucial support for working parents who seek to effectively balance their familial responsibilities and improve the quality of life for their children. See also: Family Influences; Maternal and Paternal Employment, Effects of; Parental Leave; Preschool and Nursery School.

515

Barr RG, and Peters RD (eds.) Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development, pp. 1–4. Montre´al, QC: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development. Kamerman S and Gatenio S (2002) Mother’s Day: More than Candy and Flowers, Working Parents Need Paid Time-Off. The Clearinghouse on International Developments in Child, Youth, and Family Policies. Issue Brief, Spring 2002. New York: Institute for Child and Family Policy. Kamerman SB, Neuman M, Waldfogel J, and Brooks-Gunn J (2003) Social Policies, Family Types, and Child Outcomes in Selected OECD Countries. Working paper series (Social, employment and migration, No. 6). Paris: OECD. Karoly LA, Greenwood PW, Everingham SS, et al. (1998) Investing in Our Children: What We Do and Don’t Know about the Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Magnusson KA and Waldfogel J (2005) Early childhood care and education: Effects on ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. Future of Children 15(1): 169–196. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2005) Babies and Bosses: Reconciling Work and Family Life, vol. 1–4. Paris: Author. Ruhm CJ (1998) The economic consequences of parental leave mandates: Lessons from Europe. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113(1): 285–317. US Department of Education (2002) The Conditions of Education. Washington, DC: Author. Vandell DL and Wolfe B (2000) Child Care Quality: Does It Matter and Does It Need to Be Improved? Special report (November). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty. Waldfogel J (2001) International policies toward parental leave and child care. Future of Children 11(1): 99–111.

Suggested Readings Burchinal M (1999) Child care experiences and developmental outcomes. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 563: 73–97. Gornick JC and Meyers MK (2003) Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Kamerman SB (2000) Parental leave policies: An essential ingredient in early childhood education and care policies. Social Policy Report 14(2): 3–15. Kamerman SB (2003) Maternity, paternity, and parental leave policies: The potential impacts on children and their families. In: Tremblay RE,

Relevant Websites http://www.childpolicyintl.org – The Clearinghouse on International Developments in Child, Youth, and Family Policies at Columbia University. http://www.ecdgroup.com – The Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care and Development. http://www.oecd.org – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). http://www.unesco.org – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Fear and Wariness J Kagan, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA ã 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Glossary Anxiety – A state accompanying anticipation of a threat. Discrepant – An event that cannot be understood immediately. Fear – A state evoked by an imminent threat. Neurotransmitter – A molecule secreted by the brain that influences the excitability of a neuron. Temperament – A biologically based bias for a feeling state or behavior to an incentive.

Introduction The components of human emotions like fear and wariness include a brain state produced by an event, a conscious feeling, an appraisal of the feeling, and, on some occasions, a behavioral response. There is serious controversy over the definition of an emotion because its components do not always occur together and each can occur without the others. For example, the sound of distant thunder will create a brain state, but there need not be any accompanying change in feeling, thought, or behavior. Similarly, a