smart & green family policy for a strong saskatchewan economy
DESCRIPTION
Smart & Green Family Policy for a Strong Saskatchewan Economy. Dr. Paul Kershaw University of British Columbia Human Early Learning Partnership November 15, 2010 North Battleford & Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. of kindergarten children are vulnerable in Saskatchewan. 27% . - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Smart & Green Family Policy for a Strong Saskatchewan
EconomyDr. Paul Kershaw
University of British ColumbiaHuman Early Learning Partnership
November 15, 2010
North Battleford & Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
of kindergarten children are vulnerable in Saskatchewan.Vulnerability above 10% is not biologically necessary.
27%
Most vulnerable children are not poor!
Life Course Problems Related to Early Life
2nd Decade
3rd/4th Decade
5th/6th
Decade Old Age
• School Failure
• Teen Pregnancy
• Criminality
• Obesity
• Elevated Blood Pressure
• Depression
• Coronary Heart
Disease
• Diabetes
• Premature Aging
• Memory Loss
Early Vulnerabil
ity
BC: Unique Population Laboratory:
Early Vulnerability Quality of Labour Supply
Kindergarten Population
Grade 4Population
Grade 7Population
Grade 12Population
Criminalactivity
to cut incarceration
by a third
Reduce Early Vulnerability to 10%...
# o
f chi
ldre
n
Score on scale of EDIand
% achieving university eligible grades
Low High
29% 41.5%
University eligiblegradesVulnerability
If Then
At K At G.12
The next generation’s Human Capital
# o
f chi
ldre
n
Score on scale of EDIand
% achieving university eligible grades
Low High
10% 55.6%
University eligiblegradesVulnerability
If Then
At K At G.12
The next generation’s Human Capital
What does the early vulnerability debt cost
BC?
1960 – 2000: Research shows…
Countries with 55% of students getting university-eligible grades
vs.Countries with 42% of students getting
university eligible grades…
ENJOYED .63% OF GDP GROWTH MORE PER YEAR, FOR 40 YEARS
Decreased Vulnerability = Increased Growth
0 10 20 30 40 500
200
400
600
800
1000
Years
BC GDP($Billions)
First cohort of 5 year olds benefit from 15 by 15 policy
First cohort graduates
Status Quo (29%
vulnerable)
Reduced vulnerability
(10%) That’s throwing away
$117 billion now + interest over 60
years!
We are here
Reduced early vulnerabilityincreases GDP by
20%
Baseline growthBaseline growth plus 0.63% GDP per year
Investment in family policy is the foundation for a robust human capital
strategy.
Gov’t of Sask Goal:Growth
2008
Environmental Debt for Future
to Pay
Environmental Debt Growing or Shrinking?
Tonnes CO2/CapitaChange in GHG, %
1990 level5.0 13%7.9 -22%
10.6 0%8.8 -6%5.7 -12%7.7 18%
10.8 -2%8.3 -18%9.8 -21%5.7 1%
18.4 16%18.5 82%9.8 23%
16.5 47%IEA UNFCCC
Limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius requires absolute reduction in GHG emissions, while population grows.
Option 1:Technological innovation to decouple economic growth from carbon emissions.
Option 2:Move from a growth to a steady state economy and radically transform the meaning of welfare and the institutions for achieving it.
Why 27% vulnerable?
EDI data similar trends across the country
BC vulnerability rate: 29%
15 by 15% Vulnerable on One or More Domains, Early Development Instrument,
2008-09/2009-10
20.8%
22.5%
23.4%
25.4%
25.5%
25.8%
27.1%
27.1%
27.2%
29.6%
32.1%
44.4%
.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%
Southwest RIC
Moose Jaw-South Central RIC
West Central RIC
Southeast RIC
Northeast RIC
Prince Albert RIC
Saskatchewan
Saskatoon RIC
Canada Normative II
Regina RIC
Northwest RIC
Northern Human Services Partnership
Percent
A hole in the middle
may be good for doughnuts,
but not for public policy.
Because there is no system of family policy…
Canadian Society is FAILING parents in fundamental ways!
Time PovertyService PovertyIncome Poverty
Reflects appreciation of costs imposed by residential school system; reserves, etc.
Smart Family Policy0 to18 months
Time: improve parental leaveServices: monthly access to health check-
ins and parenting support 0-18 months18 months to six years
Time: re-think ‘full-time’ workServices: early learning and care 18
months to school entry0 to six years
Low-income: make work payLow-income: increase welfare
Parental Leave(year: 2008)
Child (from month 3 to 15)Parents both take 6 months to care. Disposable income relative to couple without children
Lower Earner (takes all 12 months)
Country Year Can$ (controlling for PPPs) Year Can$Denmark 12,915 1,971Germany 1,166 1,054Sweden 1,105 -2,530Quebec -2,548Austria -3,295 -391Czech Republic -5,945 372Slovak Republic -6,958 -2,251Finland -8,468 -4,694Netherlands -8,624 -9,258Spain -9,941 -5,641UK -10,036 -6,274Belgium -10,298 -6,448Norway -10,687 -7,307Canada (outside of Quebec) -10,353 - 11,779 -6,971New Zealand -12,592 -18,999Italy -15,160 -11,653France -16,085 -8,480Australia -16,343 -13,235Ireland -19,044 -10,397USA -23,119 -16,389Japan -24,019 -10,866
Target: $-1,532
Leave
$24635 in Parental Time in year 1$12618 in Parental Time year 2
Supplemented by Healthy Child Check-Ins & Parenting
Support
0.17%
Source: Adapted from Starting Strong ll: Early Childhood Education and Care, September 2006, p.11
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
Finland
France
Hungary
Austria
United Kingdom
United States
Netherlands
Germany
Italy
Australia
Canada
0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%
Sask.Canada
Canada (outside Quebec)• Few spaces• Insufficient quality • High cost• Inadequate Inclusion
OECDavg.0.7%
UNICEF & EUbenchmark1.0%
0.25%
% of GDP
Public expenditure on ECEC services (0-6 years)
Province
ECEC Expenditure on
Children 0-5, including K’garten
(% of GDP)
Children 0-5 for whom there is a regulated full or
part-time centre based CC
space (%)
Newfoundland & Labrador 18% 17.3Prince Edward Island 24% 41.0
Nova Scotia 30% 22.1New Brunswick 34% 19.9
Quebec 61% 25.0Ontario 36% 19.6
Manitoba 36% 20.6Saskatchewan 18% 9.1
Alberta 10% 17.4British Columbia 22% 18.3
Northwest Territories 59% 23.3Nunavut 14% 20.2
Yukon Territory 69% 28.3
Regulated Early Care and Education, by province(2008)
Source: Author calculations based on The Big Picture, Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2008
ECEC more parents synchronize earning and
caringBut new Employment Standards
reduce yearly hours, but contemplate later retirement
40 35 hours * 2 parents: trade $6k for 500 hours
Subsidized by $7-$16k in servicesOne earner couple: 40 35 hours * 1 parent;
ECEC additional employment time for parent 2.
Low-Income Policy : Provincial
Comparisons
Child Poverty Rates by Province40% poor children live with
an adult who works full-time full-year.
2007: 16.7
Province
Yearly Can$Lone
Mother
Yearly Can$1-Earner
CoupleQuebec +5694 +5954Alberta +4954 +6220Saskatchewan +3573 +7863Ontario +2469 +2233BC +1173 +1535Newfoundland +580 +414Nova Scotia +501 +1336New Brunswick -608 +40Manitoba -803 +1271PEI -5635 +289
Australia +
$10658Target =
$5943, rank 7th
In Work Supplement to Earnings*Low Income ($26,620) Families with Toddler (2008)
Australia+
$7890Target =
$6160, rank 3rd
*After child care service and routine health subsidies vs. costs; plus housing subsidies
Child Poverty Rates by ProvincePolicy mechanisms (tax
expenditures) not reaching some citizens? 45% of Aboriginal
children are poor?
2007: 16.7
Norw
ayAu
stria
Denm
arkUK
Swed
enGe
rman
yAu
stra
liaNe
thJa
pan
Finl
andNZ
Fran
ceIre
land
Belg
ium
Cana
daUSCz
ech
Spai
nSl
ovak
Italy
-$5,000
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
NDI after housing and routine health care
Lone Mother with Toddler on Income Assistance
Canadian Currency (controlling for purchasing power parities)
(2008)
Province Yearly Can$Quebec 10,615
Newfoundland 9,478
PEI 8,686
Saskatchewan 8,438
New Brunswick 7,378
Manitoba 6,617
Nova Scotia 5,342
British Columbia 4,638
Ontario 4,110
Alberta 2,916
Income after Average Prov. Urban Rent and Routine Health: Lone Mother + Child Age 2 on Social Assistance (2008)
Target: $12,500
Sweden5th
The price of smart family policy...
Funding for Parents
=$288
million
Funding for Community
Services$554 million
Time$138
millionIncome
$150 million
$842 Million/Year
The cost of reducing vulnerability?
$842 Million in Saskatchewan?!?
Less than half what we spend cumulatively on Old Age Security and RRSPs.
Eventual returns outweigh costs by 6/1
About 20% of total fed/prov health care spending.
$842 Million Increase in Spending?
Provincial Health Care Spending($ Billions) 1998 - 2008
SK $1 Billion
SK: $1.2 Billion
Business = Key Beneficiary in Short-
Term
$842 million minus…Short-term returns to Sask employers from Smart Family PolicyProductivity: $68 millionRetention: $157 millionPrivate insurance premiums
$ 3 millionParental leave top up
$ 5 million$233 million
Minimum wage…
Short-term returns for elected officials
$609 million minus…Short-term returns to GovernmentChild welfare: $37 millionGPs, Emerg, Hospitalization: $70 millionPrescription drugs $ 6 millionWorkers Comp $28 millionLabour supply $49 million
$189 million
$420 million minus…Paid for half of SFP, and haven’t even counted K-12 efficienciesHealth care savings from poverty reduction
Haven’t talked about reallocation…Haven’t talked about immediate benefits to families…
$420 million minus…Immediate benefits for families with young kids…
Earnings $105 millionLow-income support
$150 millionTime to care ????
Annual crime reduction
savings grow to $116 million,
Year 4-11
Reduce Early Vulnerability to 10%...
Smart Family Policy= Smart Economics
A Just Cause
But Will We Pursue this Bold Ambition?
Not a Research Question
It’s a question about being Canadian in Saskatchewan!
2008
Family PolicyCountry Score/10Sweden 10Norway 8Finland 8Denmark 8France 8New Zealand 6Netherlands 5UK 5Germany 4Switzerland 3US 3Australia 2Ireland 1Canada 1
2008 Gender Gap
Ranking3127
1559
13111427248
31
Recommit to Gender Equality to Make Progress on Family Policy/Health
Promotion in the early years
Sources: World Economic Forum and UNICEF
Disease Fetish:Trends in Saskatchewan spendingShare of Total Expenditure:
1985 2008Health 29.4% 38.4%Education 18.7%
21.3%Social Services 9.4% 6.5%
Life Course Problems Related to Early Life
2nd Decade
3rd/4th Decade
5th/6th
Decade Old Age
• School Failure
• Teen Pregnancy
• Criminality
• Obesity
• Elevated Blood Pressure
• Depression
• Coronary Heart
Disease
• Diabetes
• Premature Aging
• Memory Loss
As Medical Care “crowds out” other spending, we must question:
What medical care we owe one another as our capacity to save increases dramatically with costly technology and drugs?
Question:
And what does it mean for a society when it spends hundreads of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to save a pre-term baby – one life – but is remarkably hesitant to invest in health promotion for the population through programs like early learning and care, housing, food?
Beyond Boomercentrism
2009
Fiscal Debt for Future
to Pay
Fiscal Debt Growing since
Baby-boomers
Country
Central Government Debt, % GDP
% increase since 1973
Australia 8%Switzerland 21%Norway 26%Ireland 27%NZ 28%Canada 36% 133%Finland 38%Sweden 38%Denmark 38%Germany 44%Netherlands 50%US 53%France 61%UK 75%Source OECD CANSIM
Intergenerational Injustice
2009 2008
Fiscal Debt for Future
to Pay
Fiscal Debt Growing
since Baby-
boomers
Environmental Debt for
Future to Pay
Environmental Debt
Growing or Shrinking?
Country
Central Government Debt, % GDP
% increase since 1973 Tonnes CO2/Capita
Change in GHG, % 1990 level
Sweden 38% 5.0 13%Switzerland 21% 5.7 1%France 61% 5.7 -12%NZ 28% 7.7 18%Norway 26% 7.9 -22%UK 75% 8.3 -18%Denmark 38% 8.8 -6%Germany 44% 9.8 -21%Ireland 27% 9.8 23%Finland 38% 10.6 0%Netherlands 50% 10.8 -2%Canada 36% 133% 16.5 47%US 53% 18.4 16%Australia 8% 18.5 82%Source OECD CANSIM IEA UNFCCC
Intergenerational Injustice
2009 2008 2008
Fiscal Debt for Future to
Pay
Fiscal Debt Growing since
Baby-boomers
Environmental Debt for Future
to Pay
Environmental Debt Growing or Shrinking?
Family Policy for
Young Children
Country
Central Government Debt, % GDP
% increase since 1973 Tonnes CO2/Capita
Change in GHG, % 1990 level Score/10
Sweden 38% 5.0 13% 10Norway 26% 7.9 -22% 8Finland 38% 10.6 0% 8Denmark 38% 8.8 -6% 8France 61% 5.7 -12% 8NZ 28% 7.7 18% 6Netherlands 50% 10.8 -2% 5UK 75% 8.3 -18% 5Germany 44% 9.8 -21% 4Switzerland 21% 5.7 1% 3US 53% 18.4 16% 3Australia 8% 18.5 82% 2Ireland 27% 9.8 23% 1Canada 36% 133% 16.5 47% 1Source OECD CANSIM IEA UNFCCC UNICEF
Intergenerational Injustice
2009 2008 2008
Fiscal Debt for Future to
Pay
Fiscal Debt Growing since
Baby-boomers
Environmental Debt for Future
to Pay
Environmental Debt Growing or Shrinking?
Family Policy for
Young Children
Country
Central Government Debt, % GDP
% increase since 1973 Tonnes CO2/Capita
Change in GHG, % 1990 level Score/10
Sweden 38% 5.0 13% 10Norway 26% 7.9 -22% 8Finland 38% 10.6 0% 8Denmark 38% 8.8 -6% 8France 61% 5.7 -12% 8NZ 28% 7.7 18% 6Netherlands 50% 10.8 -2% 5UK 75% 8.3 -18% 5Germany 44% 9.8 -21% 4Switzerland 21% 5.7 1% 3US 53% 18.4 16% 3Australia 8% 18.5 82% 2Ireland 27% 9.8 23% 1Canada 36% 133% 16.5 47% 1Source OECD CANSIM IEA UNFCCC UNICEF
Intergenerational Injustice
Believe myths, not reality
Spring 2010 poll:
82% of British Columbians under-estimated or did not know early vulnerability rate.
86% overestimate how generous Canadian family policy is.
Result: many don’t see smart family policy
as…Productivity policy
Recruitment & Retention policyCrime reduction policy
Health policyGender equality policyDebt elimination policy
Result: Many don’t see the cost of maintaining the
status quo.
Another generation of vulnerable children, and an economy to match.
Result: Many don’t see the cost of maintaining the
status quo.
Another generation of vulnerable children, and an economy to match.
Thank you.
• Paul Kershaw, Ph.D.• The University of British Columbia• College for Interdisciplinary Studies• Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP)• http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/PaulKershaw.htm• e-mail: [email protected]
School Achievement (1960s) Associates with Economic
Growth (1960-2000)
Cond
ition
al G
rowt
h
Conditional Test Score
-4-2
-02
4
-1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1
+.63% of GDP/year
Source: Hanushek and Woessmann (2008): The Relationship between Economic Growth (1960-2000) and Test Scores (1960).
From the BC Government:
15%vulnerabl
e
BC Government Strategic Plan for 2008/09 - 2010/11, p. 30
Beyond Left and Right
Critiquing Illness Treatment in Favour of Investing in the Determinants of Health must become NON-PARTISAN
This critique is stifled because, culturally speaking, publicly funded medical care is so important to our sense of selves as Canadians, it is a common feature of our social fabric to which we point when distinguishing ourselves from our neighbours to the south.
Being ‘Canadian’ May Be Making Us Less Healthy!
If we leave unquestioned the place of medical care in our commitments to social policy, we risk our health by failing to invest in its social determinants (Kershaw, 2008).
Historical GDP and Revenue ($ millions)SK: Revenue as Share of GDP. Change over Time
SK 1994 Revenue: 21.1% of GDP
SK 2008 Revenue: 19.1% of GDP
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
($) B
illion
s
SK: 1994 vs 2008 Revenue =
$1.29 Billion
Child, 0-12 MonthsIncome Time Services Sum SFP Gain
With SFP 47245 24635 1583 71005 +18140Before SFP 38967 24635 52864
Child, 12-24 MonthsIncome Time Services
With SFP 46500 12618 8459 67578 +20892Leave: 6 Months.
Employ: 2*35 hours*26 weeks.Enabled by parent $2550 parent ECEC payment (less $550 tax relief)Before SFP 46686 Paid work 2*40 hours * 52
weeks. Enabled by $5760 in ECEC (less $1400 tax relief)
46686
Couple, no child, Average plus ½ Average Income$79890 Gross Income$49704, Disposable income after taxes, housing and routine health
Avg + ½ Avg Child, 24-36 MonthsIncome Time Services Sum SFP Gain
With SFP 40199 6159 16919 63276 +16590Before SFP 46686 Paid work 2*40 hours * 52
weeks. Enabled by $5760 in ECEC (less $1400 tax relief)
46686
Avg + FT Caregiver Child, 24-36 Months
Income Time ServicesWith SFP 29358 3079+20206+9763 6920 69326 +12734Before SFP 33164 23428 56592
Couple, no child, Average plus ½ Average Income$79890 Gross Income$49704, Disposable income after taxes, housing and routine health
Child, 0-12 MonthsIncome Time Services Sum SFP Gain
With SFP 47245 24635 1583 71005 +18140Before SFP 38967 24635 52864
Child, 12-24 MonthsIncome Time Services
With SFP 46500 12618 8459 67578 +20892Leave: 6 Months.
Employ: 2*35 hours*26 weeks.Enabled by parent $2550 parent ECEC payment (less $550 tax relief)Before SFP 46686 Paid work 2*40 hours * 52
weeks. Enabled by $5760 in ECEC (less $1400 tax relief)
46686
Couple, no child, Average plus ½ Average Income$79890 Gross Income$49704, Disposable income after taxes, housing and routine health
Avg + ½ Avg Child, 24-36 MonthsIncome Time Services Sum SFP Gain
With SFP 40199 6159 16919 63276 +16590Before SFP 46686 Paid work 2*40 hours * 52
weeks. Enabled by $5760 in ECEC (less $1400 tax relief)
46686
Avg + FT Caregiver Child, 24-36 Months
Income Time ServicesWith SFP 29358 3079+20206+9763 6920 69326 +12734Before SFP 33164 23428 56592
Couple, no child, Average plus ½ Average Income$79890 Gross Income$49704, Disposable income after taxes, housing and routine health