Early Child Development - Policy Shifts, Global Viewpoints, and the Evidence Base.

PREAMBLE: In this issue we maintain our focus on Canadian policy shifts that are of global interest, assuming Canada’s reputation for enlightened social policy. Unfortunately this reputation is being undermined by a neo-conservative ideology. Over a million Canadian children live in poverty and cannot access child care support. In support of child friendly interventions, we include evidence reviewed by the US-based RAND Corporation showing that childhood intervention programs yield benefits in behavior, educational progression and attainment, delinquency and crime, and labor market success, among other domains. Well-trained caregivers and smaller child-to-staff ratios offer more favorable results. Economic studies have shown that well-designed early childhood interventions generate a favourable economic return on this social investment.

 CANADA’s SLIPPAGE ON CHILD CARE PROVISIONS
In 2005, after many years of educational research, advocacy and negotiation, early learning and child care agreements were reached between the Government of Canada and its provinces, laying a foundation for a system to meet the needs of all Canadian families. Canceling them, as the incoming Conservative government did in 2006 in favour of family income supplements only, was a major set-back to the evolution of a national child care program, and represented a net reduction of $4 billion in child care funding. While family income support in itself may be a valid policy goal, it will never substitute for early learning and child care services that are of quality, available and affordable.

EDITORIAL COMMENT: Perhaps the most historically surprising feature of this policy shift is that the idea of a national child care programme was first proposed in 1970 by Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives (the “PCs” were an ancestor of the Conservative Party of Canada). Evidently today’s Conservatives are now dominated by the social philosophy of the former far right Alliance Party which cobbled with the former PCs to spawn the party. Unfortunately, the new party seems to lack the capacity to accept a sound initiative launched under the previous Liberal government, even one which originated with the PCs, and that was at its grassroots non-partisan. As noted by the New Democratic Party (Denise Savois MP, personal communication): without child care, many parents (mostly mothers) can’t fully participate in the workforce. This undermines their equality, and many children also lose out on vital early learning opportunities when quality child care is scarce or unavailable.

UPDATE: In response to widespread criticism of it’s lack of coherent policy in this area, in March 2007 the Conservative government announced additional federal-provincial transfers of money ostensibly for child care spaces, and a scheme of tax credits for businesses to create child care; opposition critics note that such transfers can be readily clawed back or reallocated, and reflect a massive cut in the support originally intended for child care, and that such tax credit schemes are an inadequate response to the needs. A private members bill, The Early Learning and Child Care Act, will be studied by a parliamentary committee this month; if not supported in favour of Canada's children, this will become an election issue.

 PERSPECTIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD)
In October 2004, the OECD described Canada's child-care system as “a chronically under-funded patchwork of programs with no overarching goals”. It found a shortage of available regulated child-care spaces – enough for fewer than 20 % of children 6 years and younger with working parents. By contrast, the following estimates apply to other OECD countries: UK, 60 %; Belgium, 63%; France, 69%; Denmark, 78%. The OECD recommended that Canada double its child-care spending to reach the OECD average.
For more in-depth on Day Care in Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/

 THE EVIDENCE – HOW IMPORTANT IS EARLY CHILDHOOD?
As part of a recent study, RAND researchers synthesized what is known from the scientifically sound research literature about the short- and long-term benefits from early intervention programs, the features that are associated with more-effective programs, and the economic gains (attractive benefit: cost ratios) that accrue from investing additional resources in early childhood. There is increasing recognition that the first few years of a child’s life are a particularly sensitive period in the process of human development, laying a foundation in childhood and beyond for cognitive functioning; behavioral, social, and self-regulatory capacities; and physical health. Yet many children face stressors during these years that can impair their healthy development. Early childhood intervention programs are designed to mitigate the factors that place children at risk of poor outcomes. Such programs provide supports for the parents, the children, or the family as a whole. These supports may be in the form of learning activities or other structured experiences that affect a child directly or that have indirect effects through training parents or otherwise enhancing the care-giving environment.

The research brief linked below describes work documented in Early Childhood Interventions: Proven Results, Future Promise by Lynn A. Karoly, M. Rebecca Kilburn, and Jill S. Cannon, MG-341-PNC, 2005, 200 pp, ISBN: 0-8330-3836-2

Source: RAND Corporation. RAND Research Briefs
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9145/index1.html
Note: We selected RAND for their review in part because we appreciate that this think tank normally enjoys support from across the political spectrum, including Conservatives.

Global and Local Perspectives on Colonized Minorities in Developed Countries

PREAMBLE: Colonized racial, cultural or religious minorities exist throughout the world, and are to be found nested within powerful societies. For examples, consider Tibet now within China, the Ainu of Japan, the Dalits of India, Amerindian enclaves in the Caribbean, tribal minorities in Africa, Boznian Muslims in former Yugoslavia, the Kurds of Iraq, others in all continents and among the Pacific islands. In choosing to highlight the situation of indigenous minorities in western industrialized countries, our example is Canada only because this is our home base. The issues here apply to several economically advanced western countries where it is sometimes said that one may find “3rd world conditions in 1st world settings”. Because these countries claim leadership for human rights, they also must live up to these principles.
[For a flavour of Canadian politics, scan column at right.]

 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON COLONIZED MINORITIES
“Continuing disparities between the health of indigenous people and the non-indigenous settlers of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States … is a matter of major concern within each country. In each country the legacies of colonial dispossession, land alienation, forcible relocation, suppression of indigenous cultural practices, values and beliefs, loss of language, disruption of families, violations of indigenous inherent sovereignty and right to self-determination, treaties, international law and indigenous cultural law, and other factors, have resulted in indigenous peoples experiencing a deplorable health status compared to non-indigenous settlers.”

Source: International Network of Indigenous Health Knowledge and Development http://www.inihkd.org/ Accessed Feb 4, 2007

 LOCAL PERSPECTIVES - CANADA’S FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE
Education: 44% of Aboriginal people aged 20-24 lack high school education, compared to 19% for Canada as a whole. Only 23% of Aboriginals aged 18-29 had completed post secondary education, compared to 43% in the rest of Canada.
Health: Infant mortality 20% higher than Canada; Type 2 diabetes 3 times more frequent; Suicide 3 to 11 times more frequent.
Housing: On-reserve, the estimated shortage is 20 to 35,000 units, and growing by 2,200 units per year. Off-reserve, the housing need is 76% higher than non-Aboriginal households. In northern Canada, housing needs are 130% higher.
Economic Opportunities: The unemployment rate among Aboriginal peoples is 19.1%,; the national rate is 7.4%. On reserves, unemployment is about 29%. Median employment income is two-thirds of the average for non-Aboriginal Canadians.

Reference: Government of Canada - Background information for the Kelowna Accord.http://www.pco.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=archivemartin&Sub=newscommuniques&Doc=news_release_20051125_661_e.htm

 The KELOWNA ACCORD – a 2-Act Play or a 3-Act Play?
“Act 1”– A New Beginning
The Kelowna Accord (Nov 25, 2005) seemingly bound the Canadian government, provincial governments, and Canada’s First Nations to invest $5.1 billion over 5 years to close the gap between Aboriginal and other Canadians in education, health, housing and opportunities.[1] An operational plan contained 5-year targets over 10-years to ensure focused and accountable actions. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin acknowledged the Assembly of First Nations for taking the important step of proposing the establishment of a First Nations Auditor General and an Ombudsman.[2] He stated: "With this plan, we have made an important step forward in honouring our commitment to close the gap in the quality of life that now exists between Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians."[1]

“Act 2” - Another Broken Promise
Despite this promising start, on gaining power in January 2006, a new minority federal Conservative government (receiving only 36% of the popular vote) reneged, ostensibly because the Accord had not yet found its way into the federal budget, the election having intervened. Their own budget (despite a big surplus) cut the initiative by 80%, the residue going to a limited number of programs and housing provisions. Reflecting public opinion across the country, mostly favouring the Accord, the BC First Nations Leadership Council released an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Hon. Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance and Hon. Jim Prentice, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.[3] B.C. provincial Premier Gordon Campbell, at an inter-ministerial meeting, stated: "… the least that any Canadian can expect is when a government makes a commitment of resources, that those resources are going to flow."[4]

“Act 3” – Will there be one?
The Harper government will launch a new federal budget on March 19. Although there have been no statements to indicate a change in thinking that would reflect renewed respect for the Accord, this may be the last real opportunity for the “new” government to act in good faith towards it.

References: 1. Privy Council Office. Government of Canada. Press Release Nov 25, 2006http://www.pco.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=archivemartin&Sub=newscommuniques&Doc=news_release_20051125_661_e.htm
2. Patterson LL. Aboriginal roundtable to Kelowna Accord: policy negotiations 2004-5. May 2006 http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0604-e.htm
3. Union of BC Indian Chiefs. Open Letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Hon. Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance and Hon. Jim Prentice, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. May 4, 2006. http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/files/PDF/FNLC_NR_2006FedBudget_openletter.pdf
4. Aboriginal leaders seek to revive Kelowna Accord. Canadian Press. July 26 2006 . http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060725/aboriginal_mtg_060725/20060726?hub=Canada&s_name=

EDITORIAL COMMENT: Although our "new" government (when viewed from a politically Conservative perspective) may well have the best interests of Canada at heart, there is no doubt that the initial excuse not to implement the Kelowna Accord is no longer valid. About to launch a new budget in March, with a massive surplus in hand (thanks to a continuing strong economy), if the Conservatives do not now address the intent of the Accord at proper scale, this will confirm a steady drift to the political right, consistent with odd examples of out-dated thinking expressed on behalf of this regime (see: review of Canadian political flavours in column at right). It is therefore both timely and critical for Stephen Harper to show leadership on the situation facing aboriginal Canadians, and to emerge from the current policy fog as a Prime Minister for all Canadians. We will monitor the situation and comment further after the budget.