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
27% of kindergarten children are
vulnerable in Saskatchewan.
Vulnerability above 10% is not
biologically necessary.
Most vulnerable children are
not poor!
 Life Course Problems Related to
Early Life

2nd 3rd/4th 5th/6th

Decade
Early Decade Decade Old Age
Vulnerability
• School Failure • Obesity • Coronary Heart • Premature
Disease Aging
• Teen Pregnancy • Elevated Blood
Pressure • Diabetes • Memory Loss
• Criminality
• Depression
 BC: Unique Population Laboratory:
Early Vulnerability  Quality of Labour Supply

Kindergarten Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 12

Population Population Population Population
Criminal
activity
 to cut
incarceration
by a third
The next generation’s Human Capital
If Then
University eligible
Vulnerability
grades
At K At G.12
# of children

29% 41.5%

Low Score on scale of EDI High

and
% achieving university eligible grades
The next generation’s Human Capital
If Then
University eligible
Vulnerability
grades
At K At G.12
# of children

10% 55.6%

Low Score on scale of EDI High

and
% achieving university eligible grades
 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
1000 Reduced early
Reduced
vulnerability vulnerability
(10%) increases GDP
800
That’s throwing away
by
20%
$117 billion now
+ interest over 60 years!
600
BC GDP Status Quo
($Billions) (29% vulnerable)
400
Baseline growth
First cohort graduates
Baseline growth
200
plus 0.63% GDP
First cohort of 5 year olds benefit per year
We are here from 15 by 15 policy
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Years
 Gov’t of Sask Goal:
Growth

Investment in family policy is the

foundation for a robust human
capital strategy.
 2008

Environmental Environmental
Debt for Future Debt Growing
to Pay or Shrinking?
Change in GHG, %
Tonnes CO2/Capita 1990 level
5.0 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
Northern Human Services Partnership 44.4%
Northwest RIC 32.1%
Regina RIC 29.6%
Canada Normative II 27.2%
Saskatoon RIC 27.1%
Saskatchewan 27.1%
Prince Albert RIC 25.8%
Northeast RIC 25.5%
Southeast RIC 25.4%
West Central RIC 23.4%
Moose Jaw-South Central RIC 22.5%
Southwest RIC 20.8%

Percent .0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%
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 Poverty
Service Poverty
Income Poverty
Reflects appreciation of costs imposed by residential school system; reserves, etc.
 Smart Family Policy
0 to18 months
Time: improve parental leave
Services: monthly access to health check-ins
and parenting support 0-18 months
18 months to six years
Time: re-think „full-time‟ work
Services: early learning and care 18 months to
school entry
0 to six years
Low-income: make work pay
Low-income: increase welfare
 Child (from month 3 to 15) Lower Earner
Parental Leave Parents both take 6 months to (takes all 12 months)
(year: 2008) care. Disposable income relative
to couple without children

Country Year Can$ (controlling for PPPs) Year Can$

Denmark 12,915 1,971
Germany 1,166 Target:
1,054
Sweden 1,105 $-1,532
-2,530
Quebec -2,548
Austria -3,295 -391
Czech Republic -5,945 372
Slovak Republic -6,958 -2,251
Finland -8,468 -4,694
Netherlands -8,624 -9,258
Spain -9,941 -5,641
UK -10,036 -6,274
Belgium -10,298 -6,448
Norway -10,687 -7,307
Canada (outside of Quebec) -10,353 - 11,779 -6,971
New Zealand -12,592 -18,999
Italy -15,160 -11,653
France -16,085 -8,480
Australia -16,343 -13,235
Ireland -19,044 -10,397
USA -23,119 -16,389
Japan -24,019 -10,866
 Leave 

$24635 in Parental Time in year 1

$12618 in Parental Time year 2

Supplemented by
Healthy Child Check-Ins & Parenting Support
 Public expenditure on ECEC
services (0-6 years)
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
Finland
France
Hungary
Austria
United Kingdom
Canada (outside Quebec)
• Few spaces
United States
• Insufficient quality
Netherlands
• High cost
Germany
• Inadequate Inclusion
Italy
Australia OECD UNICEF & EU
Canada 0.25% avg. benchmark
Sask. 0.17% 0.7% 1.0%
0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%
% of GDP
Source: Adapted from Starting Strong ll: Early Childhood Education and Care, September 2006, p.11
Regulated Early Care and
Education, by province(2008)
ECEC Expenditure Children 0-5 for
on Children 0-5, whom there is a
including K’garten regulated full or
(% of GDP) part-time centre
Province based CC space (%)

Newfoundland & Labrador 18% 17.3

Prince Edward Island 24% 41.0
Nova Scotia 30% 22.1
New Brunswick 34% 19.9
Quebec 61% 25.0
Ontario 36% 19.6
Manitoba 36% 20.6
Saskatchewan 18% 9.1
Alberta 10% 17.4
British Columbia 22% 18.3
Northwest Territories 59% 23.3
Nunavut 14% 20.2
Yukon Territory 69% 28.3
Source: Author calculations based on The Big Picture, Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2008
 ECEC  more parents
synchronize earning and caring

But 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 services
One earner couple: 40  35 hours * 1 parent; ECEC
 additional employment time for parent 2.
 Low-Income Policy :
Provincial Comparisons
Child Poverty Rates by Province
40% poor children live with
2007: 16.7 an adult who works full-
time full-year.
In Work Supplement to Earnings*
Low Income ($26,620) Families with Toddler (2008)

Yearly Can$ Yearly Can$

Australia
Province Lone Mother 1-Earner Couple
+$7890
Quebec +5694 +5954
Target =
Alberta +4954 +6220
$6160, rank
Saskatchewan +3573 +7863 3rd

Ontario +2469 +2233

BC +1173 +1535
Australia
Newfoundland +580 +414
+$10658
Nova Scotia +501 +1336
Target =
New Brunswick -608 +40 $5943, rank
Manitoba -803 +1271 7th

PEI -5635 +289

*After child care service and routine health subsidies vs. costs; plus housing subsidies
Child Poverty Rates by Province
Policy mechanisms (tax
2007: 16.7 expenditures) not reaching some
citizens? 45% of Aboriginal
children are poor?
NDI after housing and routine health care
Lone Mother with Toddler on Income Assistance (2008)
Canadian Currency
(controlling for purchasing power parities)

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

$0
Belgium
US

Sweden
Czech

Canada

Denmark
Ireland

NZ

Neth
Australia
Germany

UK
Finland
Slovak
Italy

Spain

Japan

Austria
Norway
France

-$5,000
Income after Average Prov. Urban Rent and Routine Health:
Lone Mother + Child Age 2 on Social Assistance (2008)

Province Yearly Can$

Quebec 10,615 Target:
Newfoundland 9,478 $12,500
Sweden
PEI 8,686
5th
Saskatchewan 8,438

New Brunswick 7,378

Manitoba 6,617

Nova Scotia 5,342

British Columbia 4,638

Ontario 4,110

Alberta 2,916
The price of smart
family policy...
 The cost of
reducing vulnerability?
Funding for Community Funding for Parents
Services Time

$554 million $138 million

$842 Income

Million $150 million

=

/Year $288 million

$842 Million in Saskatchewan?!?
Eventual returns outweigh costs by 6/1

Less than half what we spend cumulatively

on Old Age Security and RRSPs.

About 20% of total fed/prov health care

spending.
$842 Million Increase in Spending?
Provincial Health Care Spending
($ Billions) 1998 - 2008

SK: $1.2 Billion

SK $1 Billion
Business = Key Beneficiary
in Short-Term
$842 million minus…
Short-term returns to Sask
employers from Smart Family Policy
Productivity: $68 million
Retention: $157 million
Private insurance premiums
$ 3 million
Parental leave top up
$ 5 million
$233 million
Minimum wage…
Short-term returns for
elected officials
$609 million minus…
Short-term returns to Government
Child welfare: $37 million
GPs, Emerg, Hospitalization:
$70 million
Prescription drugs $ 6 million
Workers Comp $28 million
Labour supply $49 million

$189 million
$420 million minus…
Paid for half of SFP, and haven’t
even counted
K-12 efficiencies
Health 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 million

Low-income support
$150 million
Time to care ????
 Annual crime
reduction savings
grow to $116 million,
Year 4-11
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!
Recommit to Gender Equality to Make Progress on
Family Policy/Health Promotion in the early years
2008 2008
Family Policy Gender Gap
Country Score/10 Ranking
Sweden 10 3
Norway 8 1
Finland 8 2
Denmark 8 7
France 8 15
New Zealand 6 5
Netherlands 5 9
UK 5 13
Germany 4 11
Switzerland 3 14
US 3 27
Australia 2 24
Ireland 1 8
Canada 1 31

Sources: World Economic Forum and UNICEF

Disease Fetish:
Trends in Saskatchewan spending
Share of Total Expenditure:

1985 2008
Health 29.4% 38.4%
Education 18.7% 21.3%
Social Services 9.4% 6.5%
 Life Course Problems Related to
Early Life

2nd 3rd/4th 5th/6th

Decade Decade Decade Old Age

• School Failure • Obesity • Coronary Heart • Premature

Disease Aging
• Teen Pregnancy • Elevated Blood
Pressure • Diabetes • Memory Loss
• Criminality
• Depression
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
 Intergenerational Injustice
2009
Fiscal Debt
Fiscal Debt Growing since
for Future Baby-
to Pay boomers
Central
Government % increase
Country Debt, % GDP 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
Growing Environmental
Fiscal Debt Environmental
since Debt
for Future Baby- Debt for Growing or
to Pay boomers Future to Pay Shrinking?
Central
Government % increase Change in GHG,
Country Debt, % GDP since 1973 Tonnes CO2/Capita % 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 Family

Fiscal Debt Growing since Environmental Environmental Policy for
for Future to Baby- Debt for Future Debt Growing Young
Pay boomers to Pay or Shrinking? Children
Central
Government Debt, % increase Change in GHG, %
Country % GDP since 1973 Tonnes CO2/Capita 1990 level Score/10
Sweden 38% 5.0 13% 10
Norway 26% 7.9 -22% 8
Finland 38% 10.6 0% 8
Denmark 38% 8.8 -6% 8
France 61% 5.7 -12% 8
NZ 28% 7.7 18% 6
Netherlands 50% 10.8 -2% 5
UK 75% 8.3 -18% 5
Germany 44% 9.8 -21% 4
Switzerland 21% 5.7 1% 3
US 53% 18.4 16% 3
Australia 8% 18.5 82% 2
Ireland 27% 9.8 23% 1
Canada 36% 133% 16.5 47% 1
Source OECD CANSIM IEA UNFCCC UNICEF
 Intergenerational Injustice
2009 2008 2008

Fiscal Debt Family

Fiscal Debt Growing since Environmental Environmental Policy for
for Future to Baby- Debt for Future Debt Growing Young
Pay boomers to Pay or Shrinking? Children
Central
Government Debt, % increase Change in GHG, %
Country % GDP since 1973 Tonnes CO2/Capita 1990 level Score/10
Sweden 38% 5.0 13% 10
Norway 26% 7.9 -22% 8
Finland 38% 10.6 0% 8
Denmark 38% 8.8 -6% 8
France 61% 5.7 -12% 8
NZ 28% 7.7 18% 6
Netherlands 50% 10.8 -2% 5
UK 75% 8.3 -18% 5
Germany 44% 9.8 -21% 4
Switzerland 21% 5.7 1% 3
US 53% 18.4 16% 3
Australia 8% 18.5 82% 2
Ireland 27% 9.8 23% 1
Canada 36% 133% 16.5 47% 1
Source OECD CANSIM IEA UNFCCC UNICEF
 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 policy
Crime reduction policy
Health policy
Gender equality policy
Debt 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: paul.kershaw@ubc.ca
 School Achievement (1960s) Associates
with Economic Growth (1960-2000)
4
2

+.63% of GDP/year
Conditional Growth

-0
-2
-4

-1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1

Conditional Test Score

Source: Hanushek and Woessmann (2008): The Relationship between Economic Growth (1960-2000) and Test Scores (1960).
From the BC Government:

15%
vulnerable

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).
 SK: Revenue as Share of GDP. Change over Time
Historical GDP and Revenue ($ millions)
200

180

160

140

120 SK: 1994 vs 2008

Revenue = SK 2008 Revenue:
($) Billions

100 $1.29 Billion 19.1% of GDP

80

60
SK 1994 Revenue:
40 21.1% of GDP

20

0
 Couple, no child, Average plus ½ Average Income
$79890 Gross Income
$49704, Disposable income after taxes, housing and routine health
Child, 0-12 Months
Income Time Services Sum SFP Gain
With SFP 47245 24635 1583 71005 +18140
Before SFP 38967 24635 52864

Child, 12-24 Months

Income Time Services
With SFP 46500 12618 8459 67578 +20892
Leave: 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 46686
weeks. Enabled by $5760 in
ECEC (less $1400 tax relief)
 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 Months
Income Time Services Sum SFP Gain
With SFP 40199 6159 16919 63276 +16590
Before SFP 46686 Paid work 2*40 hours * 52
46686
weeks. Enabled by $5760 in
ECEC (less $1400 tax relief)

Avg + FT
Caregiver Child, 24-36 Months
Income Time Services
With SFP 29358 3079+20206+9763 6920 69326 +12734
Before 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 Months
Income Time Services Sum SFP Gain
With SFP 47245 24635 1583 71005 +18140
Before SFP 38967 24635 52864

Child, 12-24 Months

Income Time Services
With SFP 46500 12618 8459 67578 +20892
Leave: 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 46686
weeks. Enabled by $5760 in
ECEC (less $1400 tax relief)
 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 Months
Income Time Services Sum SFP Gain
With SFP 40199 6159 16919 63276 +16590
Before SFP 46686 Paid work 2*40 hours * 52
46686
weeks. Enabled by $5760 in
ECEC (less $1400 tax relief)

Avg + FT
Caregiver Child, 24-36 Months
Income Time Services
With SFP 29358 3079+20206+9763 6920 69326 +12734
Before SFP 33164 23428 56592