This chapter describes a series of policy tools whose objective is to make life easier for all families, and to avoid gaps in the support they may require. Parental leave is among these policy instruments, and has become a key feature of national family support packages across most OECD countries. Support and funding for Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) services are also widely spread across OECD governments, but the scale and form of these services presents considerable cross-country variation. On the other hand, out-of-school-hours (OSH) care services remain under-developed in most OECD countries. The chapter also reviews promising parenting support policies, which have been shown to have positive impacts both on parents and child well-being and development.
Evolving Family Models in Spain
7. Making family life easier for all
Abstract
To make life easier for all families, it is vital that policy tools fit together neatly and do not leave families with gaps in support. Policies like parental leave, ECEC, primary education and out-of-school-hours care all need to be framed in a consistent continuum of support for families. Although many OECD countries invest more heavily in kindergarten or primary school years, it is important that policy starts to invest in families with children early in childhood for both equity and efficiency considerations.
Parental leave
In most OECD countries, paid maternity, paternity, and parental leaves have become major features of national family support packages over the past few decades (OECD, 2019[1]). These entitlements are designed to be used during the first months/years of a child and can help parents achieve their work and family goals. In addition to protecting the health of working mothers and their new-born child, paid leave helps to keep mothers in paid work and provides parents with the opportunity to spend time at home with children when they are young (Adema, Clarke and Frey, 2015[2]; Rossin-Slater, 2017[3]; Thévenon et al., 2018[4]). All OECD countries except the United States have now national schemes that offer mothers a statutory right to paid maternity leave right around the birth (Figure 7.1, Panel A), usually for somewhere between 15 to 20 weeks.
In more recent years, paid leave policies have increasingly been used as a tool to promote gender equality and encourage the redistribution of unpaid work within the household. A growing number of OECD countries have introduced ‘fathers-only’ leaves, such as paid paternity leave and individual entitlements of fathers to paid parental leave, with the aim of encouraging men to spend more time with their children. Paternity leaves are usually well-paid and often lasts for around one or two weeks, to be used within the first few months of a baby’s arrival (Figure 7.1, Panel B).
Many OECD countries also provide parents additional paid parental and/or prolonged home‑care leaves. These entitlements give parents additional flexibility to balance their work and family life. Such leave can be used to prolong the period that the child is cared for at home (e.g. in the case of lack of good-quality child care), but it can also be used when a specific need arises, such as a sick child or a temporary closure of the child care facility. The length of paid parental and home‑care leave varies considerably across countries (Figure 7.1). In most OECD countries, parents can access between 6 and 18 months of paid parental and/or home‑care leave. However, in countries like Estonia, Finland, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and also France (though only for families with two or more children in the latter), parents can take paid leave until their child’s second or even third birthday.
Figure 7.1. Total paid leave entitlements in Spain are short for mothers compared to most other OECD countries, but long for fathers
Note: Data refer to paid leave entitlements in place as of April 2018 (January 2021 in the case of Spain to reflect recent changes in paternity leave) and do not reflect entitlements introduced or amended after April 2018. Data reflect statutory entitlements provided at the national or federal level only. They do not include regional variations or additional/alternative entitlements provided by states/provinces or local governments (e.g. Quebec in Canada, or California in the United States), or any employer-provided benefits that are paid beyond the statutory minimum duration. Payment rates during paid leave differ across countries. Data refer to statutory entitlements only and do not reflect the actual use of these entitlements, which may be influenced by cultural and societal norms and the preferences of parents. Periods of paid parental leave labelled “father-only” refer to individual non-transferable entitlements, “daddy quotas” or periods of an overall leave entitlement that can be used only by the father and cannot be transferred to the mother, and any weeks of shareable leave that must be taken by one or both parents in order for the family to qualify for “bonus” weeks of parental leave. In several countries, at least part of the period of paid parental leave available to mothers is sharable and may be taken instead by fathers, if parents wish. Data for France refer to the entitlement for a family with only one child. Families with two or more children can receive paid parental leave for a longer period.
Source: OECD Family Database, Indicator PF2.1: Parental leave systems, www.oecd.org/social/family/database.htm.
Spain has the longest and most generous paid paternity leave entitlement among OECD countries, but as the country does not offer additional paid parental leave, the duration of overall paid leave entitlements (the sum of maternity leave, paternity leave and parental leave) ranks in the bottom third of OECD countries. More specifically, maternity leave in Spain lasts 16 weeks, two weeks shorter than the OECD average of 18.1 weeks. Since January 2021, the same rights are granted to the other parent, making the Spanish paternity leave entitlement the longest in the OECD. Maternity leave and paternity leave periods are individual rights and are no longer transferable to the other parent. However, contrary to many other OECD countries, Spain does not offer additional paid parental leave (Figure 7.2), hereby limiting the impact of these leave entitlements on the work-life balance beyond the initial months of a child’s life.
Figure 7.2. Spain does not offer paid parental or home care leave, contrary to many other OECD countries
Notes: The “average payment rate” refers the proportion of previous earnings replaced by the benefit over the length of the paid leave entitlement for a person earning 100% of average national full-time earnings. If this covers more than one period of leave at two different payment rates then a weighted average is calculated based on the length of each period. In most countries benefits are calculated on the basis of gross earnings, with the “payment rates” shown reflecting the proportion of gross earnings replaced by the benefit. In Austria, Chile, Germany, Lithuania and Romania (parental leave only), benefits are calculated based on previous net (post income tax and social security contribution) earnings, while in France benefits are calculated based on post-social-security-contribution earnings. Payment rates for these countries reflect the proportion of the appropriate net earnings replaced by the benefit. Additionally, in some countries maternity and parental benefits may be subject to taxation and may count towards the income base for social security contributions. As a result, the amounts actual amounts received by the individual on leave may differ from those shown in the table. See OECD Family Database Tables PF2.1.C, PF2.1.D, PF2.1.E and PF2.1.F for details on benefit payment rules and conditions.
Source: OECD Family Database, Indicator PF2.1: Parental leave systems, www.oecd.org/social/family/database.htm.
Entitlements to paid parental leave in OECD countries often come in the form of a certain number of weeks of leave payments that parents can divide as they see fit. In theory this approach provides both parents with the opportunity to take paid parental leave. However, in practice it is mostly mothers who take such leave (Moss, 2015[5]). Fathers often earn more than their partners, so unless leave benefits (almost) fully replace previous earnings, it makes sense from an economic point of view for the mother to take the bulk of the leave. Societal attitudes towards the roles of mothers and fathers in caring for young children, concerns around potential career implications and employer opposition to men taking parental or even paternity leave also contribute to a general reluctance among many fathers towards taking long periods of leave (Rudman and Mescher, 2013[6]; Duvander, 2014[7]). To promote male take‑up of parental leave, Sweden experimented with a gender equality tax bonus for couples that more equally shared the leave. But due to high costs and little impact on changing leave taking behaviour, it was abolished again (Duvander and Johansson, 2012[8]; (n.a.), 2015[9]).
To stimulate take‑up among men, several OECD countries now provide fathers (and mothers) with their own individual paid parental leave entitlements on a “use it or lose it” basis. These parent-specific entitlements can take different forms. Most common are “mummy and daddy quotas”, i.e. specific parts of an overall parental leave period that are reserved exclusively for each parent. For instance, in Iceland and Sweden, the “daddy quota” has led to a doubling in the number of parental leave days taken by men (OECD, 2016[10]). Other options include “bonus periods” – where a couple may qualify for extra weeks/months of paid leave if both parents use a certain amount of shareable leave, like in Germany – or the provision of paid parental leave as an individual, non-transferable entitlement for each parent.
Individual leave entitlements have been found to increase fathers’ engagement with their children. For example, fathers in Quebec on average increased the time they spent alone with their child(ren) by 2.2 hours per week years after they were eligible for the dedicated paternity leave (Wray, 2020[11]). Aside from having positive impacts on the relationship between fathers and children and between the parents, such increased responsibility for child care can also benefit mothers’ advancement in the workplace and thus improve gender equality. Experience from different countries also suggest that making sure that fathers have to take at least part of their leave non-concurrently with the mother is important to allow them to take on the same level of responsibility as mothers. The positive effects on later involvement in child care are more durable when fathers take leave rather than when they are unemployed (Meil et al., 2021[12]).
For parents who may be unable or unwilling to stop working completely, flexible or part-time leave arrangements may provide a solution (OECD, 2016[10]). These provisions can reduce the financial impact of taking leave and allow employees to combine work and family. Employers may benefit too, as they would not necessarily have to hire a replacement worker. In Germany, for instance, parents can work part-time during their parental leave, as long as they do not exceed an average of 30 hours per week in a month. However, the actual outcomes of flexible parental leave may not always be as positive for the parents as they envisaged. For example, a study of Norwegian fathers who took part-time leave found that many felt pressure to respond to work e‑mails and calls even when they were supposed to be on leave time (Brandth and Kvande, 2019[13]). In several countries, take‑up of (part-time) parental leave among men remains low even among men who worked part-time prior to the birth of their child (Périvier and Verdu, 2021[14]; Uzunalioglu et al., 2021[15]). Flexible parental leave may also include the ability for parents to stay home when their older child is sick. While in Spain, paid leave options are available for parents of severely ill children, other countries offer more generous leaves. For example, Portugal allows 30 days of leave to care for sick children under the age of 12; and Sweden 120 days, or longer if the child is seriously ill.
Access to paid leave tends to be more complicated for families with same‑sex parents and reconstituted families, and varies considerably across countries. Same‑sex couples’ access to family leave typically depends on other legal rights of same‑sex couples, like marriage or registered partnerships, legal recognition as parents, and adoption regulation (European Commission, 2019[16]). For instance, when EU countries allow same‑sex couples to be joint legal parents of a child, they almost always offer these families the same rights to family leave as are offered to other families. However, among EU countries that allow registered partnerships for same‑sex couples, only two countries offer the same leave rights to the same‑sex non-biological parent as any other parent. Similar requirements exist for reconstituted families, such as registered partnership or long-term cohabitation.
Early childhood education and care
The provision of early childhood education and care (ECEC) is central to a range of policy objectives related to families, children, labour markets and gender equality. Access to affordable ECEC gives parents with young children to opportunity to remain in paid work, which in return reduces poverty risks. ECEC is particularly important for women’s labour market opportunities and gender equality objectives since it is mostly mothers rather than fathers who adjust their employment patterns in face of care responsibilities (OECD, 2016[17]; OECD, 2017[18]). Evidence also suggests that participation in high-quality ECEC has positive effects on child cognitive and social development (Camilli et al., 2010[19]; Havnes and Mogstad, 2011[20]; OECD, 2013[21]), in particular for children from more disadvantaged backgrounds (Heckman et al., 2010[22]; Ruhm and Waldfogel, 2012[23]; Havnes and Mogstad, 2015[24]; García et al., 2016[25]).
All OECD governments provide support and funding for ECEC services, but cross-country differences in policy objectives affects the mix of policy measures and the scale of support. Some OECD countries, like the Nordic countries, provide comprehensive publicly-operated ECEC systems, with all children entitled to a heavily-subsidised place in public centre‑based care from a young age (often around their first birthday) (OECD, 2019[1]). Other countries (like Australia, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom), make greater use of cash supports and demand-side (fiscal) subsidies directed at parents, with the provision of services themselves left largely to the market, at least for very young children. Overall, despite growing ECEC enrolment and recognition of the value of high-quality ECEC, investments in this sector remain below public spending for later stages of education.
Spain has a relatively high coverage of formalised childcare (Figure 7.3), and while the out-of-pocket costs parents have to come up with to place their children in day-care appear comparatively modest in Spain, they can represent an obstacle for low-income families. A recent law calls for the development of a plan to improve the availability and costs of day-care for younger children, in particular for low-income families. Recent developments in several EU countries could provide interesting insights for Spain that can be considered for the implementation of the law:
As discussed in the Study on the Economic Implementing Framework of a Possible EU Child Guarantee Scheme by the European Commission (2021[26]), providing free childcare may solve the problem of affordability for children from poor families, but it does not necessarily solve the problem of accessibility when demand exceeds supply. To achieve equal enrolment opportunities, childcare would need to be available in diverse neighbourhoods. It is equally important to have clear priorities that balance economic functions (employment) and social functions (parent support, reduction of poverty) when confronted with shortage.
Germany developed ways to encourage local actors to develop the provision of collective childcare for young children through binding policies and by identifying a lead partner with legal and even financial responsibilities. Municipalities have the legal obligation to provide a childcare place either in centre‑based or in home‑based care for children from age 1, and in centre‑based ECEC for children aged 3 years and older. If a place is not offered to a child, parents can take legal action (Box 7.1).
A similar approach is used in Sweden, where each child aged 1‑5 should be offered a place in a pre‑school facility within four months of application to the municipality. Only the place is guaranteed, not the particular facility. The combination of national guidelines (including legal entitlements and maximum fees) and municipal governance ensures reasonable adaptation to local needs (e.g. childcare at odd hours), whereas the national curriculum and the presence of highly qualified professionals ensure basic quality (European Commission, 2021[26]).
The cases of Bulgaria and Slovenia illustrate that the most vulnerable children may need additional support, even in cases of universal access and means-tested fees (European Commission, 2021[26]). In situations of extreme poverty or significant cultural gaps between families and schools, additional services, such as additional support for teachers and building trust with families, are both needed and feasible.
While the coverage of ECEC in Poland is still below the EU average, it has been increasing rapidly in recent years through: (1) increases in funding with preferential access for areas with higher risks of unemployment and a weak economy; (2) targeting children from disadvantaged neighbourhoods and children with disabilities through easier access to the facilities and reduced or free‑cost ECEC provision; and (3) regular evaluation of the implementation to adjust the legislation when needed (European Commission, 2021[26]).
Figure 7.3. Participation in ECEC in Spain is around the OECD average
Note: For 0‑ to 2‑year‑olds: Data generally include children enrolled in early childhood education services (ISCED 2011 level 0) and other registered ECEC services (ECEC services outside the scope of ISCED 0, because they are not in adherence with all ISCED‑2011), but exact definitions differ across countries. Data for Korea are based on information supplied by Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI) to the OECD, and refer to children in the given age range at the start of the given year who were attending ECEC on 31 March of the given year. The statistic refers to 2019 for Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Poland; and is not available for a recent year for Switzerland and the United States. For 3‑ to 5‑year‑olds: Data include children enrolled in early childhood education and care (ISCED 2011 level 0) and primary education (ISCED 2011 Level 1). The statistic refers to 2017 for Greece, Poland and New Zealand. See OECD Family Database Indicator PF3.2 for more detail.
Source: OECD Family Database, Indicator PF3.2, http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm.
Box 7.1. Governance of ECEC services in Germany
German law specifies that municipalities have to provide a childcare place either in centre‑based or in home‑based care for children from age 1, and in centre‑based ECEC for children aged 3 years and older. If a place is not offered to a child, parents can take legal action.
Multi-level governance has led to a decentralised system of early education and childcare system. Responsibility for early childhood education and care (ECEC) services are shared between the federal government (Bund), the 16 state‑level parliaments and local government bodies who work in partnership with a wide range of non-governmental agencies and service providers. The Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSJ) is responsible at the central level, however, core competences are in the hands of the regions (Länder), which regulate ECEC within the framework set out by national legislation (for instance, the Social Code Book, and the Child and Youth Act). In most regions, the education department is in charge of ECEC and in some regions, the task fall to the social affairs department.
ECEC frameworks include unified and separate settings as well as home‑based family day care and out-of-school provision. In Germany, family day care for children under age 3 is considered equal to centre‑based ECEC in law (Social Code Book, Child and Youth Act, SGB VIII § 24). For children of 3 years or older, it is mainly used as an additional option if the opening hours of ECEC centres are not sufficient.
There is considerable variance in funding, provision and regulatory procedures at the local level. At the federal level, the BMFSJ is the main public body with responsibility and ‘stimulatory competence’ for ECEC. At the regional level, the 16 Ministries of Youth Affairs provide a framework for ECEC service provision and financing based on the main principles of the federal-level legislation and regulate certain issues not specified by federal law. At the local level, the municipalities (Kommunen) are in charge of organising and securing funding for early education and childcare provision in co‑operation with service provider organisations.
While the funding of ECEC provision is first and foremost a responsibility of the regions and the municipalities, parents may also pay fees, usually income dependent. Since funding practices are regulated through regional-level legislation, these differ considerably across the country. For example, Berlin and Hamburg offer free ECEC for all children. In Rhineland-Palatinia, ECEC is free from the age of 2. Bremen, Niedersachsen and Hesse waive the fees from age 3. Brandenburg, North Rhine‑Westphalia and Thuringia offer free ECEC for all children during the year before starting primary education.
The development and enforcement of standards for ECEC services such as structural requirements (building, space, outdoors, and pedagogical materials), training levels of staff, staff-child ratios, and working conditions also differ between regions. For example, childminders must qualify through a specific course for family day care, the content of which varies between regions, however, several have adopted a curriculum developed by the German Youth Institute on behalf of the BMFSJ corresponding to 300 hours of training. In other regions, trainees are only required to complete a course of 30 hours.
Finally, the responsibility for monitoring and evaluating lies with the local authorities or other bodies operating ECEC settings. ECEC providers are expected to provide a detailed outline of their evaluation mechanisms and quality provision to obtain their operating license. However, the only region that carries out a systematic and centralised evaluation of the ECEC system is Berlin through the Institute for Quality Improvement in Early Childhood Provision.
Out-of-school-hours services
Childcare issues do not disappear once children enter pre‑primary or primary school (OECD, 2017[18]). Children in the educational system do spend a large amount of time at school, but opening hours are frequently incompatible with a full-time working week and school holidays are almost always longer than annual leave entitlements for employees. Informal care services provided by friends or relatives can help, but these are not always available and working families with school-age children often need to find additional formal solutions both before and after school, and also during school holidays. In most OECD countries out-of-school-hours (OSH) care services remain under-developed (European Commission - Directorate-General for Justice, 2013[27]; Plantenga and Remery, 2017[28]), which can present a major obstacle to full-time paid work for parents with school-age children. It may also help explain why many mothers in OECD countries continue to work only part-time even as their children grow up (OECD, 2016[17]).
Only a few OECD countries have developed extensive OSH care systems for school-age children. However, all too often the provision of OSH services depends on the goodwill of local authorities and/or stakeholder actions. In Denmark, Hungary, Slovenia and Sweden more than 50% of children aged 6 to 11 go to centre‑based OSH services during a typical week (Figure 7.4), with these rates reaching around 80% for children at the younger end of the age bracket (aged 6 to 8). In Denmark and Sweden, OSH services are often co‑ordinated with school authorities to provide all-day care for children, with services normally provided on school premises or nearby, and opening hours usually stretching until at least 5pm. In some OECD countries, the costs of OSH care are also subsidised. In Denmark, services are often offered free to low-income families, while in Sweden there is a maximum fee of around 2% of gross household income for the first child and lower rates for subsequent children, ensuring that OSH services are generally affordable for most families.
Figure 7.4. Participation in out-of-school-hours care is amongst the lowest in Spain
Note: Data generally reflect the proportion of children who use centre‑based out-of-school-hours care services for at least one hour during a usual week. Data generally cover the use of services offered before and/or after school hours only, and do not cover ‘school-going’ children who use centre‑based care services only during school holidays or only on days when schools are closed. Exact definitions do vary slightly across countries. See OECD Family Database (http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm) Indicator PF4.3. for country-specific notes and more detail.
a. Data for Australia refer to the age groups 6 to 8, 9 to 12 and 6 to 12 respectively; for Japan to children aged 7 to 11 and the age groups 7 to 8 and 9 to 11; and for the United States to children aged 5 to 11 and the age groups 5 to 8 and 9 to 11.
b. Data for the United States refer to 2011, and for Hungary and Norway to 2013.
Source: OECD Family Database Indicator PF4.3, http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm.
In Spain formal after-school care is still scarce. Autonomous communities can set school hours and terms to assist with the gap in care. However, there is a wide range of options for families with younger school-age children who still require near-constant care depending if services are private or public. Some families in Spain can utilise informal care through relatives while others rely on public after-school centres. According to an indicator based on the EU-SILC in 2017, only 5% of children attended such centre‑based care in Spain which is considerably lower than the 28.6% OECD average and is the lowest share among EU and OECD countries for which data were available. In some parts of the country, the regional authorities offer funding for out-of-school programmes, services and families school associations. These school families associations provide services that compensate for a lack of public services, particularly in well integrated communities and middle class neighbourhoods (Comas et al., 2013[29]).
Investing in subsidised childcare can lead to a decrease in the cost of children in terms of career and income opportunities thus stimulating (female) labour supply. Proving childcare services may also be part of policy focusing on social inclusion given that higher labour force participation is likely to reduce the risk of poverty. These interventions are particularly important given the impacts of poverty on children’s well-being and potential negative long-term effects on educational achievements and future changes. (Thévenon et al., 2018[4]; OECD, 2011[30]). Investment in good-quality child care services, including services for school ages children, can provide strong foundations for child-development including social, emotional and cognitive capacities (Acquah and Thévenon, 2020[31]; Plantenga and Remery, 2017[28]).. While the Barcelona objectives (Box 7.2) focuses on childcare for the youngest age groups (0‑2 years) and children in the age groups 3 years to compulsory school age, the European Pillar of Social Rights includes an initiative for work-life balance for parents and carers which was adopted by the Council of the European Union in June 2019.
Box 7.2. Barcelona objectives
In 2002, the Barcelona European Council recognised that availability, accessibility and affordability of high quality childcare facilities is crucial for enabling women and men, with caring responsibilities, to participate in the labour market. As a result the Barcelona objectives set two main targets with regard to the availability of high quality and affordable childcare facilities for pre‑school children:
“Member states should remove disincentives to female labour force participation and strive, taking into account the demand for childcare facilities and in line with national patterns of provision, to provide childcare by 2010 to 90% of children from age 3 until mandatory school age; and to 33% of children under 3 years of age.”
The objectives discern that the availability and use of childcare are influenced by several factors: namely legal entitlement to childcare, accessibility and quality as well as the adaptability of the services to the needs of parents, including distance to the childcare facilities and opening hours adapted to working patterns and needs.
In 2013, the European Commission’s report on the 2010 Barcelona objectives stated that, although progress was made since 2002, the provision of childcare was still not in line with the Barcelona targets and that significant improvements were needed to achieve a satisfactory level of availability, especially for children under 3. Since the 2013 report high quality early childhood education and care has also been recognised an important tool to tackle possible social disadvantages of children and is good for the cognitive and social development of children from an early age.
The 2018 report on the Barcelona objectives outlines that the targets were also restated in the European Pact for Gender Equality (2011‑20) and referred to in the Europe 2020 Strategy. Influence of the Barcelona objectives can be found in the European Pillar of Social Rights, work-life balance initiative adopted by the Commission in 2017 as well as the 2013 Commission Recommendation on ‘Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage’ and the Education and Training 2020 Strategic Framework.
Source: European Commission – Directorate‑General for Justice (2018[32]), Barcelona Objectives, European Union, Luxembourg, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/bcn_objectives-report2018_web_en.pdf?cookies=disabled
In many OECD countries, children are more likely to use centre‑based out-of-school-hours services when they come from relatively advantaged socio‑economic backgrounds.1 For example, in several OECD countries, participation rates in OSH services for 6‑ to 11‑year‑olds increase with household income. This is particularly the case in France, Germany and the Netherlands, where participation rates for children from high-income backgrounds are around 20 percentage points or higher than those for children from low-income backgrounds. Similarly, in a number of OECD countries, children are also more likely to use OSH services when their mother holds a university-level qualification. Gaps in participation rates between children whose mothers have and have not attained tertiary education are largest in France, Portugal and the Netherlands (18 to 20 percentage points). To stimulate participation of children from disadvantaged socio‑economic backgrounds, services in Denmark are often offered free to low-income families. In Sweden, there is a maximum fee of around 2% of gross household income for the first child and lower rates for subsequent children, to ensure that OSH services are generally affordable for most families.
Regulations and guidelines on child-to-staff ratios in out-of-school-hours services differ considerably across countries.2 In some countries, such as the Netherlands, New Zealand, and certain Länder in Germany, guideline child-to-staff ratios are as low as 10:1 (i.e. 10 children per member of staff), whereas in others like Greece and Poland guideline ratios are much higher at 25:1. Some countries (e.g. Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Spain) have no official guidelines or regulations. Generally, child-to-staff ratios for OSH services are a little higher than those for services for younger children3 – and especially very young children – which helps make OSH services relatively less expensive.
Regulations and guidelines on child-to-staff ratios in out-of-school-hours services differ considerably across countries.4 In some countries, such as the Netherlands, New Zealand, and certain Länder in Germany, guideline child-to-staff ratios are as low as 10:1 (i.e. 10 children per member of staff), whereas in others like Greece and Poland guideline ratios are much higher at 25:1. Some countries (e.g. Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Spain) have no official guidelines or regulations. Generally, child-to-staff ratios for OSH services are a little higher than those for services for younger children5 – and especially very young children – which helps make OSH services relatively less expensive.
The Out-of-school care: Provision and public policy (Eurofound, 2020[33]) report provides an outline of the organisation of OSH services, take‑up of OSH, activity types, and the main barriers of accessing OSH including affordability, availability and quality of services. The report provide insight about policies to support OSH provisions as seen by the examples below:
Local authorities in Denmark have the possibility of using elementary schools, their amenities and outside areas for play and recreational activities for children outside normal school hours. This option is called school-based leisure time facilities and has proven very popular with municipalities and parents. Municipal councils decide the level of parents’ monthly contributions for OSH. There are four types of subsidies available: (i) economic free seat (free place) subsidy for families with low income; (ii) sibling subsidy for families with more than one child; (iii) subsidy in relation to treatment for children with physical or mental disabilities; (iv) subsidy in relation to social work for children who need OSH because of social or pedagogical reasons.
Sweden seems to have one of the most developed OSH schemes. While OSH services initially focused on child supervision, the role of leisure centres has gradually shifted towards complementing compulsory schooling in terms of both education and play. The availability of OSH has increased significantly since then, and take‑up reached around 90% for children aged 6 to 9 years in 2017. With the majority of children already enrolled in OSH programmes, the main points of policy discussion now relate more to the quality of OSH than how to increase participation.
By far the most popular and widespread types of OSH activity are recreational. In Finland, the focus is also on play and other indoor and outdoor activities under adult supervision, including sports, music, arts, and crafts. In France, cultural activities (such as music, drama and drawing) dominate the curriculum, followed by outdoor sports initiatives. The activities are usually organised in cycles or in a logical progression so as to respect educational advancement, and they regularly lead to a final goal that depends on the nature of the activity (for example, show, object, game, book, tournament, artistic work).
An Australian guide to outside school hours care provisions has been developed for regional government schools to support school councils, principals and staff in Outside School Hours Care (OSHC) services. The guide provides an overview of legal requirements and regulations under the National Quality Framework and key information to support quality service delivery. The guide provide information relevant to decisions related to establishing an OSHC service and providers managed by either school councils or managed by a third party.
Positive parenting programmes
Reviews show that parenting programmes affect both parents and children positively (Taguma, Litjens and Makowiecki, 2012[34]) (OECD, 2012[35]). The Harvard Family Research Project found that about one‑third to one‑half of the variation in school outcomes between poor and not poor children can be accounted for by differences in parenting (Brooks-Gunn and Markman, 2005[36]). For instance, children whose parents often read to them show markedly higher scores in PISA 2009 than students whose parents read with them infrequently or not at all, regardless of their family’s socio‑economic background (OECD, 2011[37]). Parents strongly influence child outcomes and children’s cognitive and linguistic development, their understanding or knowledge of child development also plays an important role (Yoshikawa, 1995[38]). Parenting programmes can lay the basis for improved parenting.
Unicef (2020[39]) broadly defines parenting programmes as a set of activities or services aimed at improving how parents approach and execute their role as parents, specifically their parenting knowledge, attitudes, skills, behaviours, and practices. Parenting programmes reinforce parents’ child rearing skills and promote the family’s social integration. Within various parenting support interventions, positive parenting strategies have shown to have lifelong impacts on child well-being and development. Positive parenting focuses on parental behaviour based on the best interest of the child that is nurturing, empowering, non-violent and provides recognition and guidance which involves setting of boundaries to enable the full development of the child.
Overall findings from parenting programmes indicate that:
parents feel more secure in interactions with their children, boost their sense of well-being and benefit their children;
parents increase self-confidence in good parenting, particularly for poor families;
parents better understand appropriate educational practices and improve children’s educational outcomes, especially in literacy;
parents are more likely to talk directly with the practitioner and be better able to help their children at home with learning and homework;
participants reduce their reliance on public assistance, find employment, earn college credit or degrees, and own homes after their experience with the programme; and
access points provided at ECEC centres or through home visits have been reported as key in empowering parents to engage in their children’s learning.
Gains in parenting skills and knowledge of child development and learning were found through participation in education courses and engagement in the ECEC service (Ministry of Education, 2008[40]). Furthermore, training parents of pre‑schoolers to help their children’s learning at home has been found to have positive results on later school achievements, regardless of family background or income (Graue et al., 2004[41]). Early Head Start parents participating in programmes offering child development services with parenting education through home visits were found to be more supportive of their children during play, more likely to read to their children every day, and less likely to smack their children than parents who did not participate (Love et al., 2005[42]).
Parenting support policies can take alternative forms. On the one extreme, universal support available to all parents is offered as a preventative action to combat social inequalities; though some families can still receive more intensive support than others. At the other end of the spectrum, these policies involve more targeted support, with an explicit aim to correct dysfunctional practices and ensure child protection, emphasising parental responsibility, through for example, mandatory parental actions or parental support coupled with threats of sanctions.
In Spain, autonomous communities develop family support plans and laws with the help of advisory bodies comprising of relevant stakeholders and representatives. Autonomous Communities are setting up positive parenting programmes focused on supporting disadvantaged families to raise children in contexts of pervasive poverty and structural sociocultural exclusion. Through their work of representing and working with families and children, active participants in the local welfare system such as local entities, social partners and family-specific NGOs have the potential to contribute in other areas of family support such as the development and implementation of positive parenting programmes. Parenting programmes outlined in the social services catalogue of different Spanish regions include examples such as Family Classrooms (Aulas de Familia) in Castilla – La Mancha; The Family Competence Programme in the Balearic Islands; Programme for the Development of Emotional, Educational and Parental Competences in Asturias.
However, insufficient funding and personnel and an unclear focus on which goals are being pursued places the autonomous communities in need of co‑ordination to ensure minimum availability, standards of quality and efficiency. The co‑ordination could also be used to share good practices and lessons learned, from both internal and international initiatives. For instance, the European Platform for Investing in Children (EPIC) provides information on a range of positive parenting interventions and their effectiveness. The platform differentiates programmes by best practices, promising practices and emerging practices.
Best practices
1. The Home‑Start programme, which is implemented in many EU countries, is a home visiting intervention in which volunteers with childcare experience (usually parents) give support to struggling families with children at least one of who is of preschool age. Home‑Start targets families and mothers that are under stress or have little parental experience or lack a social support network. Home‑Start offers friendship and emotional and practical support helping to prevent family crisis and breakdown and emphasising the pleasures of family life.
2. Incredible years developed in the United States is a preschool basic parent programme consists of eight to 12 weeks of 2‑2.5 hour parenting sessions designed to teach parents how to recognise and treat their child’s emotional and behavioural problems through positive parenting. This programme can be used for parents of preschool children who already have or are at-risk to develop conduct problems (including antisocial behaviour, frequent anger, and a propensity towards violence). This programme has also been successful in Sweden and the United Kingdom (Axberg, Hansson and Broberg, 2007[43]; World Health Organization, 2013[44]).
3. Triple P Positive Parenting Program is a multilevel parenting programme set originally in Australia to prevent and offer treatment for severe behavioural, emotional, and developmental problems in children. The transferability of the programme has proven a success in a number of OECD countries including Switzerland (Cina et al., 2011[45]), the Netherlands (Graaf et al., 2009[46]), Japan (Fujiwara, Kato and Sanders, 2011[47]), Germany (Hartung and Hahlweg, 2010[48]), Australia (Morawska et al., 2011[49]), the United Kingdom (Tsivos et al., 2015[50]) and New Zealand (Chu et al., 2015[51]). In Australia, the Triple P intervention for parents of children with early-onset disruptive behaviour problems, has been adapted into an internet-delivered self-help version. The intervention provides interactive instruction on the use of core positive parenting skills which are presented in sequenced modules and in a linear format (i.e. module completion opens access to the next module), which allows users to review previously completed modules. This online version has demonstrated effectiveness in a number of RCTs, demonstrating improvements in parental confidence, positive parenting behaviours and improvements in the child’s social functioning and reductions in aggression (Sanders, Baker and Turner, 2012[52]) (Sanders et al., 2014[53]) (Acquah and Thévenon, 2020[31]).
Promising practices
4. Community Mothers’ Programme targets first-time parents living in disadvantaged areas and is aimed at providing support and encouragement to first-time parents through home visits from volunteer “community mothers”. The programme focuses on promoting parent capacity and parent empowerment, specifically by developing of positive parenting skills and enhancing parents’ self-esteem. Some of the methods used include the promotion of parents’ potential through a behavioural approach in which parents are encouraged to stimulate, breast-feed, and praise their children, as well as ensure their safety.
5. The Parents Plus Early Years Programme (PPEY) is a 12‑week positive parenting course for parents of 1 to 6‑year‑old children, especially designed for parents to learn to manage their child’s behavioural problems or mild developmental disabilities. The course consists of seven, two‑hour group meetings with 8‑12 parents and 1‑2 facilitators, and five individual sessions with parents, child and a therapist.
References
[9] (n.a.) (2015), “Parental leave bonus to be scrapped in 2017”, The Local, https://www.thelocal.se/20150916/parental-leave-bonus-to-be-scrapped-in-2017/ (accessed on 2 December 2021).
[31] Acquah, D. and O. Thévenon (2020), “Delivering evidence based services for all vulnerable families”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 243, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/1bb808f2-en.
[2] Adema, W., C. Clarke and V. Frey (2015), “Paid Parental Leave: Lessons from OECD Countries and Selected U.S. States”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 172, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrqgvqqb4vb-en.
[43] Axberg, U., K. Hansson and A. Broberg (2007), “Evaluation of the Incredible Years Series – An open study of its effects when first introduced in Sweden”, Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 61/2, https://doi.org/10.1080/08039480701226120.
[13] Brandth, B. and E. Kvande (2019), “Flexibility: some consequences for fathers’ caregiving”, in Moss, P., A. Duvander and A. Koslowski (eds.), Parental leave and beyond: Recent international developments, current issues and future directions, Policy Press, Bristol.
[36] Brooks-Gunn, J. and L. Markman (2005), “The contribution of parenting to ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness”, The Future of Children, Vol. 15/1, pp. 139-168.
[19] Camilli, G. et al. (2010), “Meta-analysis of the Effects of Early Education Interventions on Cognitive and Social Development”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 112/3, pp. 579-620, http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=15440 (accessed on 16 December 2017).
[51] Chu, J. et al. (2015), “Parent and Adolescent Effects of a Universal Group Program for the Parenting of Adolescents”, Prevention Science, Vol. 16/4, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0516-9.
[45] Cina, A. et al. (2011), “Enhancing positive development of children: Effects of a multilevel randomized controlled intervention on parenting and child problem behavior”, Family Science, Vol. 2/1, https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2011.601903.
[29] Comas, M. et al. (2013), Més que un gra de sorra. Les Associacions de Mares i Pares d’Alumnes (AMPA) a Catalunya., Fundació Jaume Bofill.
[7] Duvander, A. (2014), “How Long Should Parental Leave Be? Attitudes to Gender Equality, Family, and Work as Determinants of Women’s and Men’s Parental Leave in Sweden”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 35/7, pp. 909-926, https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14522242.
[8] Duvander, A. and M. Johansson (2012), “What are the effects of reforms promoting fathers’ parental leave use?”, Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 22/3, pp. 319-330, https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928712440201.
[33] Eurofound (2020), Out-of-school care: Provision and public policy, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef18108en.pdf.
[26] European Commission (2021), Study on the economic implementing framework of a possible EU Child Guarantee Scheme including its financial foundation, https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8382&furtherPubs=yes (accessed on 23 August 2021).
[16] European Commission (2019), Leave policies and practice for non-traditional families, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&furtherPubs=yes&langId=en&pubId=8239 (accessed on 27 August 2021).
[32] European Commission - Directorate-General for Justice (2018), Barcelona objectives, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/bcn_objectives-report2018_web_en.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2021).
[27] European Commission - Directorate-General for Justice (2013), Childcare services for school age children - A comparative review of 33 countries, European Union, Luxembourg, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d7463ff6-d0a3-425e-a411-d95091f36b15/language-en (accessed on 23 August 2021).
[47] Fujiwara, T., N. Kato and M. Sanders (2011), “Effectiveness of Group Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) in Changing Child Behavior, Parenting Style, and Parental Adjustment: An Intervention Study in Japan”, Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol. 20/6, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9448-1.
[25] García, J. et al. (2016), “The Life-cycle Benefits of an Influential Early Childhood Program”, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. 22993, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, https://doi.org/10.3386/w22993.
[46] Graaf, I. et al. (2009), “Helping Families Improve: An Evaluation of Two Primary Care Approaches to Parenting Support in the Netherlands”, Infant and Child Development, Vol. 18/6, pp. 481-501.
[41] Graue, E. et al. (2004), “More than teacher directed or child initiated: Preschool curriculum type, parent involvement, and children’s outcomes in the child-parent centers.”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 12/72, https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v12n72.2004.
[48] Hartung, D. and K. Hahlweg (2010), “Strengthening parent well-being at the work-family interface: A German trial on workplace Triple P”, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 20/5, https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1046.
[24] Havnes, T. and M. Mogstad (2015), “Is universal child care leveling the playing field?”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 127, pp. 100-114, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JPUBECO.2014.04.007.
[20] Havnes, T. and M. Mogstad (2011), “No Child Left Behind: Subsidized Child Care and Children’s Long-Run Outcomes”, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Vol. 3/2, pp. 97-129, https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.3.2.97.
[22] Heckman, J. et al. (2010), “The Rate of Return to the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program.”, Journal of public economics, Vol. 94/1-2, pp. 114-128, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21804653 (accessed on 16 December 2017).
[42] Love, J. et al. (2005), “The Effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-Year-Old Children and Their Parents: Lessons for Policy and Programs.”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 41/6, https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.88.
[12] Meil, G. et al. (2021), “The Impact of Paternity Leave Compared to Unemployment on Child Care and Housework Distribution in Spain”, Journal of Family Issues, p. 0192513X2110544, https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X211054469.
[40] Ministry of Education (2008), Outcomes of early childhood education: Literature review, New Zealand, https://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/885_Outcomes.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2021).
[49] Morawska, A. et al. (2011), “Evaluation of a Brief Parenting Discussion Group for Parents of Young Children”, Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, Vol. 32/2, https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181f17a28.
[5] Moss, P. (ed.) (2015), 11th International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research 2015, http://www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/Leavenetwork/Annual_reviews/2015_full_review3_final_8july.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2017).
[1] OECD (2019), Rejuvenating Korea: Policies for a Changing Society, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/c5eed747-en.
[18] OECD (2017), The Pursuit of Gender Equality: An Uphill Battle, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264281318-en.
[10] OECD (2016), “Parental leave: Where are the fathers?”, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/policy-briefs/parental-leave-where-are-the-fathers.pdf.
[17] OECD (2016), “Walking the tightrope: Background brief on parents’ work-life balance across the stages of childhood”, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/els/family/Background-brief-parents-work-life-balance-stages-childhood.pdf.
[21] OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: Excellence through Equity (Volume II): Giving Every Student the Chance to Succeed, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201132-en.
[35] OECD (2012), “Encouraging Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) - Research brief: Parental and Community Engagement Matters”, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/education/school/49322478.pdf.
[30] OECD (2011), Doing Better for Families, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264098732-en.
[37] OECD (2011), “PISA in Focus Nr. 10: What can parents do to help their children succeed in school?,”, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/49012097.pdf.
[14] Périvier, H. and G. Verdu (2021), “Can Parental Leave be Shared”, Sciences Po OFCE Working Paper, No. 6.
[28] Plantenga, J. and C. Remery (2017), “Out-of-school childcare: Exploring availability and quality in EU member states”, Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 27/1, https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928716672174.
[3] Rossin-Slater, M. (2017), “Maternity and Family Leave Policy”, IZA Discussion Paper Series, No. 10500, http://ftp.iza.org/dp10500.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2017).
[6] Rudman, L. and K. Mescher (2013), “Penalizing Men Who Request a Family Leave: Is Flexibility Stigma a Femininity Stigma?”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 69/2, pp. 322-340, https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12017.
[23] Ruhm, C. and J. Waldfogel (2012), “Long-term Effects of Early Childhood Care and Education”, Nordic Economic Policy Review, Vol. 1, pp. 23-51.
[52] Sanders, M., S. Baker and K. Turner (2012), “A randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of Triple P Online with parents of children with early-onset conduct problems”, Behaviour Research and Therapy, Vol. 50/11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2012.07.004.
[53] Sanders, M. et al. (2014), “A Comparison of Online Versus Workbook Delivery of a Self-Help Positive Parenting Program”, The Journal of Primary Prevention, Vol. 35/3, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-014-0339-2.
[34] Taguma, M., I. Litjens and K. Makowiecki (2012), Quality Matters in Early Childhood Education and Care: United Kingdom (England) 2012, Quality Matters in Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264176867-en.
[4] Thévenon, O. et al. (2018), “Child poverty in the OECD: Trends, determinants and policies to tackle it”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 218, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/c69de229-en.
[50] Tsivos, Z. et al. (2015), “A pilot randomised controlled trial to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the Baby Triple P Positive Parenting Programme in mothers with postnatal depression”, Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 20/4, https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104514531589.
[39] Unicef (2020), Designing Parenting Programmes for Violence Prevention: A Guidance Note, https://www.unicef.org/media/77866/file/Parenting-Guidance-Note.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2021).
[15] Uzunalioglu, M. et al. (2021), “When Does Expanded Eligibility Translate into Increased Take-Up? An Examination of Parental Leave Policy in Luxembourg”, Social Inclusion, Vol. 9/2, pp. 350-363, https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i2.3787.
[44] World Health Organization (2013), European report on preventing child maltreatment, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/217018/European-Report-on-Preventing-Child-Maltreatment.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2021).
[11] Wray, D. (2020), “Paternity Leave and Fathers’ Responsibility: Evidence From a Natural Experiment in Canada”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 82/2, pp. 534-549, https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12661.
[38] Yoshikawa, H. (1995), “Long-term effects of early childhood programmes on social outcomes and delinquency”, The Future of Children, Vol. 5/3, pp. 51-75.
Notes
← 1. OECD Family Database, Indicator PF4.3.C. Participation rates in centre‑based out-of-school-hours services by equivalised disposable income tertile, and Indicator PF4.3.D. Participation rates in centre‑based out-of-school-hours services by mother’s education level, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/PF4-3-Out-of-school-hours-care.pdf.
← 2. OECD Family Database, Table PF4.3.A. Guidelines on child-to-staff ratios in centre‑based out-of-school-hours services for school-age children, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/PF4-3-Out-of-school-hours-care.pdf.
← 3. OECD Family Database, Table PF4.2. Quality of childcare and early education services, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/PF4-3-Out-of-school-hours-care.pdf.
← 4. OECD Family Database, Table PF4.3.A. Guidelines on child-to-staff ratios in centre‑based out-of-school-hours services for school-age children, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/PF4-3-Out-of-school-hours-care.pdf.
← 5. OECD Family Database, Table PF4.2. Quality of childcare and early education services, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/PF4-3-Out-of-school-hours-care.pdf.