Social Policy Essay

Childcare and the Welfare State:
The Impact of Canadian Public Policy within Recent Decades


The phrase, "children are our future" is often one that is uttered by many. This statement both is factually and metaphorically true, as one day the current generation will grow up and advance to the very positions that we now hold. With this thought in mind, it seems logical and reasonable that society would strive to enforce an overall better standard of living for children. It should be noted that many countries such as Canada do provide an innumerable amount of assistance that is often tasked to the government to aid in the developmental growth of children. This aid usually takes form in public policy, such as tax credits, incentives or social programs. While such assistance has become a solidified part of governmental responsibility it is worrying that child poverty whether on a grander international scale or a grassroots local scale is still incredibly prevalent. Canada has dedicated many of its resources to attempting to alleviate and reduce the causation for many low-income families who fall below the poverty line, and by default the children affected by circumstantial events. However the current childcare policy has been unsuccessful in reducing child poverty as many social programs target the caretakers as official benefactors and therefore eliminating the interest of the child as its first and foremost importance. Historically government programs have obstructed the development of children and the elimination of child poverty as it puts the interest of the family first rather than implementing social programs or tax breaks that would benefit the child from a grass roots incentive. The Canadian childcare policy has been unsuccessful in reducing child poverty because current implemented programs have varying degrees of interest in helping to shape society rather than eradicating child poverty. Due to the focus on family, Canadian policies have ultimately neglected the overall wellbeing of children and instead have focused on short term solutions rather than attempting to fix the rooted causation of poverty or helping to eliminate its cyclical nature.

This expository paper will cover certain main concepts, the first component will explain the reason that child poverty is prevalent within society, giving a historical analysis as well as current statistical observations about Canadian society in relation to contemporary data over the course of a the last two decades. This will in turn create a better understanding of the current situation within the country. The following topic that will be discussed is the National Child Benefit program as well as various other policies such as Family Allowances, which have been implemented throughout Canadian history, and the repercussions that have come along with them whether positive or negative. It is through this topic that the paper will demonstrate just how they have directly impacted children and whether or not they have helped to alleviate child poverty within Canada. Overall, this paper will attempt to explain the challenges that society faces with combining values and public policies, which have ultimately not led to the decrease of child poverty over the course of recent decades.

Poverty in Canada is a growing concern as the divide between classes has become more evident over time. With the decrease of the middle class, many families are finding it harder to cope with the higher cost of living and maintaining necessities for growing children. Children are therefore affected both directly and indirectly by low income earning parents or those who fall below the cutoff for the Canadian poverty line. As children are developing mentally as well as physically, living in poverty can have adverse effects upon them. The government over the past few decades has stated that it is important to help reduce poverty amongst children, "the well being of children was highlighted as a national priority within Canada in 1989 when an all-party motion of parliament called for the elimination of child poverty in Canada by the year 2000." (Crossley and Curtis, 237) Unfortunately poverty has risen since this pledge has been made, Crossley and Curtis state that "reports have indicated that poverty of children 0 to 18 was higher in 1996 than in 1989; children from 0 to 6 were worse off than they had been in 1976." (238) With these statistics in mind, Canada like many other developing nations implemented various policies, programs and incentives to help combat child poverty. "Every major industrialized nation has a set of programs that transfer between 10% and 30% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP) among the populace, a key goal of which is to improve the well being of those at r near the bottom of the income distribution." (Kentworthy, 1119) Even so, these policies and programs have yet to actually eradicate poverty, and many question if they are indeed useful tools.

It should be noted that while such programs are in place to deal with the problem of poverty, it must first be addressed as to how we distinguish what child poverty is. Considering that many children are unable to support themselves, they therefore are byproducts of the environment in which they live in. It can be concluded that child poverty is attributed to the situational environment and income earned by a parent or guardian. Though statistics do show that the persistence of socioeconomic developments which are correlated with lone parent families and wage dispersion could potentially be a factor that leads to the continuation of child poverty (Stasilius, 508) For families who are placed in certain circumstances "finding adequate childcare is a serious problem for many," (Gentleman and Whitmore, 245) and it is just as hard to provide for children simply based on lack of finance or of opportunity. Thusly, lack of financial equality amongst families may lead to segregation of communal or single income households who may fall near or below the poverty line. By understanding the situation that many parents face, it is easier to comprehend how they are affected by policies and programs that the Federal and Provincial governments have implemented over the course of the last few decades as well as whether or not they have been successful in carrying out the reduction of child poverty.

Social programs have often been introduced to satiate the needs of citizens, and programs that were tailored for children also emerged in the same way. The introduction of Family Allowances within Canada came to be through the discontent of workers in 1943, within the World War Two era. (Blake and Keshen, 208-209) During this time, Family Allowances were used as an alternative measure for wage increases, as there was a growing discontent towards the pay rates during that time (Blake and Keshen, 209). However, it must be noted that the Allowances were not meant to be a form of wage stabilization even while they were used to provide a supplementary fee that would coincide with the living costs and maintenance of children within the family. "In Canada, allowances are payable for every child under the age of 16 who has been registered for them, who is resident in Canada, is maintained by a parent or other person, and who, if of school age, is in regular attendance" (Madison, 134) While this was considered a beneficial incentive during this time period, it was not without stipulations, there were certain rules and regulations, and families were expected to maintain strict guidelines that they were to follow in order to continue receiving funding, as well as being put towards certain items.
The specific items for which allowances were most often used, in order of importance, were: children's clothing; food; medical care; savings, which included bank accounts and insurance for the benefit of the children; education, recreation, or music lessons; and, finally, miscellaneous purposes beneficial to children. (Madison, 137)
While these stipulations state specifically what the money would be spent on, there is a blurred line of comprehension when it came to its use and functionality within the household. To elaborate, while the money needed to be spent on necessities pertaining to the aforementioned specifications, it was just a matter of hearsay and technicality. There was no exact proof that the money would be spent on bettering the life or overall wellbeing of the child. Therefore, the use of Family Allowances was received by either a parent or guardian whose sole responsibility it was to use accordingly. While this is not applicable to all families during this time, there is no denying that the theoretical use of Family Allowances would have been beneficial.

Another reason in which Family Allowances have not helped to reduce child poverty is that relation to low-income families; there was more of an outside pressure to use the money for wage stabilization. Family Allowances as previously mentioned did end up supplementing the wages of parents, guardians, and those who provide for children; while the money was a helpful incentive, it does not negate the fact that it was initially used to suppress the anger of workers. It seems that whilst there is a need to end child poverty, there is always pressure to conform society to a particular image. This has been displayed throughout Canada's longstanding history of social assistance. Interest groups within society would use such programs to mold these marginalized economic groups into what they believed society should look like, thus taking away the importance of poverty reduction and delegitimizing its importance.

After the change and eventual end of Family Allowances, the Canadian government introduced the National Child Benefit (NCB). This social program was introduced in July of 1998 as part of Canada's Child Tax Benefit and contained two parts, the first being a federally refundable tax credit and the second being financial incentives provided through the provinces (Milligan and Stabile, 307). The National Child Benefit was considerably different from Family Allowances as it was not tailored to working families, but instead provided to those that were unemployed as well. "Moreover, the National Child Benefit system was an attempt to implement structural reforms to how governments responded to the needs of low income families with children." (Blake and Keshen, 216) Therefore, the program's overall aim was to promote the workplace by encouraging returning to the workplace as well as helping reduce child poverty. This was a shift from how the government once treated social assistance and showed a development of interest in those who were within the lower income bracket, and overall was a shift in Canada's welfare system. However, "as with so many federal initiatives in recent years, the National Child Benefit was an attempt to show that Canadian federalism is fixable and that it worked." (Blake and Keshen, 217) The constant pressure to conform to society's standards has hindered the true nature of social assistance, which is to aid those who are at a disadvantage, and thus allow them to become productive members of society. With the constant pressure of trying to fix problems short term, the government is unable to truly help eradicate child poverty as social programs and assistance are unable to function as they are supposed to.

With the NCB being divided into to parts, this portion will focus on the accumulation of money that has been supplied through provincial incentivized tax-credits. As the second portion of the program was provided through the provinces, it allowed the spending programs to fund child-care subsidies and health promotion programs, "while the tax credits took the form of straight transfers or earned income credits. The provincial credits also affect and provide variation in incentives to work. For example, Ontario provides a Child Care Supplement for Working Families." (Milligan and Stabile, 309) There is no doubt that the financial gain within the families is beneficial for reducing poverty, this can be witnessed as "between 19 to 27% of the total decline in social assistance receipt among single mothers can be accounted for by the integration of social assistance payments with the NCB supplement." (Milligan and Stabile, 325) Therefore the NCB allows for a positive outcome, even so with the amount of resources provided to the NCB, the decline in poverty rate and the gap for families with children, it is not at all alarming; this would have occurred on a grander scale if a larger sum of the funds from the Benefit were provided to the poor (CDPAC, 9). The transferring of money from the government straight to families does provide a short-term solution, but it does not solve the root of the problem for child poverty. "There is no doubt that poverty can be reduced by transferring money to the poor. In fact, Canada has had great success using this approach with individuals over 65 years of age. (CDPAC, 9) The focus on reduction of child poverty though solely economic means is one that has proven to falter in understanding the rooted causes for poverty and finding a like-minded solution to eradicate it.

Consistently spending money in the form of tax credits or other solely money based incentives does not help as poverty will still continue to exist and the needs of the children will not be met. The Canadian childcare policy has been unsuccessful in reducing child poverty because current implemented programs have varying degrees of interest in helping to shape society rather than eradicating child poverty. In creating policies such as Family Allowances and The National Child Benefit that are mainly comprised of cash based incentives, the government thus ignores the root causes of child poverty such as lack of adequate education, cost of living, and job opportunities for lower income families. While child poverty is a problem that is not controlled by those who are affected, it is directly related to issues on a much larger scale as children from certain ages are dependent upon their primary caregivers. Social policy and the Canadian Welfare state in itself is not meant to be a system in which individuals are to constantly rely upon, instead it is meant to be a crutch that is to be used as a temporary solution until able to be fully autonomous again, instead by creating programs that continuously allow families to collect money, the government has created a cyclical process in which people have come to rely upon. Instead of continuously donating money, the government should thusly invest in more direct and long terms methods of public policy such as the implementation of daycare, focusing on education and affordable housing, all of which would be more beneficial to the children and would also encourage parents to return to the workforce.




Din 1