The Provision of Childcare Services - A Comparative Review of 30 European Countries

8/9/2019 The Provision of Childcare Services - A Comparative Review of 30 European Countries

1/92

European Commission

The provision of childcare servicesA comparative review of 30 European countries


2/92

Opportunities o the European Commission. It was established to inancially support the implementation

candidate and potential candidate countries.

http://ec.europa.eu/progress
http://ec.europa.eu/progresshttp://ec.europa.eu/progresshttp://ec.europa.eu/progresshttp://ec.europa.eu/progresshttp://ec.europa.eu/progresshttp://ec.europa.eu/progress


3/92

European Commissions Expert Group on Gender and Employment Issue

The National Experts (* indicates non-EU countries)

Danile Meulders, Belgium (BE) Karoly Fazekas, Hungary (HU)Iskra Beleva, Bulgaria (BG) Frances Camilleri-Cassar, Malta (MT)

Alena Kkov,Czech Republic (CZ) Janneke Plantenga & Chantal Remery, Th

Ruth Emerek, Denmark (DK) Ingrid Mairhuber, Austria (AT)

Friederike Maier, Germany (DE) Ania Plomien, Poland (PL)

Reelika Leetmaa, Estonia (EE) Virgnia Ferreira, Portugal (PT)Ursula Barry, Ireland (IE) Elena Zamfir, Romania (RO)

Maria Karamessini, Greece (EL) Aleksandra Kanjuo Mrela, Slovenia (SI)Elvira Gonzlez Gago, Spain (ES) Magdalena Piscov, Slovakia (SK)

Rachel Silvera, France (FR) Hanna Sutela, Finland (FI)

Annamaria Simonazzi, Italy (IT) Anita Nyberg, Sweden (SE)

Alexia Panayiotou, Cyprus (CY) Colette Fagan, United Kingdom (UK)Ilze Trapenciere, Latvia (LV) Lilja Msesdttir, Iceland (IS)*

Ruta Braziene, Lithuania (LT) Ulrike Papouschek, Liechtenstein(LI)*

The provision o childcare A comparative review of 30 European


4/92

This report was nanced by and prepared or the use o the European Commissions Directorate-General or EOpportunities It does not necessarily represent the Commissions ocial position. Neither the Commission no

responsible or the use that might be made o the inormation contained in this publication.

photos 1, 5: iStock photo 2, 3, 4: 123RFFor any use or reproduction o photos which are not under European Communities copypermission must be sought directly rom the copyright holder(s).

Europe Direct is a service to help youind answers to your questions about

the European Union

Freephone number (*) :

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow accessto 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

1 2

3

5

4


5/92

T h e p r o v i s i o n

Executive summary (EN) ..............................................................................7

Rsum (FR) ....................................................................................................1

Kurzassung (DE) ...........................................................................................1

Introduction ...................................................................................................19

1. Investing in childcare services .......................................................2

1.1 Improving labour market participation ................................ ................................. .2

1.2 Improving fertility.................................................................................................................24

1.3 Improving social inclusion ............................ ................................. .................................2

1.4 Summary and conclusions .............................. ................................. ..............................2

2. Childcare services ...............................................................................29

2.1 Introduction ................................. ................................. ................................. ..........................2

2.2 The use of childcare services............................. ................................. ...........................3

2.3 Supply and demand ................................ ................................. ................................. .........3

2.4 Quality of childcare services ................................ ................................. .........................4

2.5 Affordability..............................................................................................................................4

2.6 Acceptability............................................................................................................................5

2.7 Summary and conclusions ............................... ................................. .............................54

3. Policy issues ..........................................................................................5

3.1 Childcare provision: achievements and challenges ............................. ..........5

3.2 Rebalancing time, money and services..................................................................60

3.3 Policies with regard to the quality of childcare services ..............................6

Contents


6/92


7/92


Country abbreviations

AT Austria

BE Belgium

BG BulgariaCY Cyprus

CZ Czech Republic

DK Denmark

DE Germany

EE Estonia

EL Greece

ES Spain

FI FinlandFR France

HU Hungary

IE Ireland

IS Iceland

IT Italy

LI Liechtenstein

LT LithuaniaLU Luxembourg

LV Latvia

MT Malta

NL The Netherlands

NO Norway

PL Poland

PT Portugal

RO Romania

SI Slovenia

SK Slovakia

SE Sweden

UK United Kingdom


8/92


9/92


Introduction

In recent decades, childcare services have become a mat-ter o serious public concern. Afordable and good-qualitychildcare services may improve the reconciliation o workand amily lie and thus oster labour market participation

and gender equality. Childcare acilities may also providean important answer to declining ertility rates, by lower-ing the cost o childbearing in terms o labour market andcareer opportunities. Finally there is a growing tendencyto see childcare services rom a social pedagogical per-spective. In this perspective the main policy rationale is nolonger the reconciliation o work and care, but rather thecontribution o childcare services to child development andsocioeconomic integration. The importance o providingchildcare services has also been recognised at the EU level.At the Barcelona Summit in 2002, some explicit conclusionsand targets were dened with regard to the provision ochildcare services. Conrming the goal o ull employment,the European Council agreed that Member States shouldremove disincentives to emale participation in the labourmarket and strive to provide childcare by 2010 to at least90 % o children between 3 years old and the mandatory

school age and at least 33 % o children under 3 years oage. The importance o these targets has been rearmed asrecently as 2008 in the employment guidelines (200810)adopted by the Council.

Taking into account recently published EU-SILC (EuropeanUnion statistics on income and living conditions) dataon the provision o (ormal and other) childcare services,this report provides an analysis o both the quantitative

and qualitative provision o childcare services or 27 EUMember States and three European Economic Area (EEA)countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It discussesthe extent to which the demand or childcare is covered,the importance attached to childcare services within thenational context, and the policies developed at the na-ti l l l t i th i i hild iliti

costly in terms o income and careethe ertility and participation argumas two sides o the same coin. In the the ertility rate is taken or grantedshould acilitate the combination o cpaid work. In the ertility argument, p

granted. Here childcare services are scombination o paid work with care tion to the reconciliation argument, tservices might also contribute to the gHigher participation in the labour mpoverty over peoples liespan and eimproved well-being o parents may ty and thus improve uture outcomeon children may even be more directservices may serve a child-developmthem with a rich, sae and stimulatinchildcare services may ofer an impchild development and socioeconom

The arguments in avour o childcare and most European countries have takthe availability o (quality) childcare s

Member States are ar rom reachingtargets. Barriers seem to be nanciaPerhaps one o the most complicatthe act that the policy objectives oequality, ertility and social integratiocompatible. Child development concambition to reduce child poverty matargeted at increasing childcare servictranslate into a policy avouring exten

or increasing the provision o childcarental leave acilities, however, or a avtive structure may not promote labouin large diferences in male and emalAnother complicated matter reers tchoice. Parents may difer in their pre

k d il t d

Executive summary (EN)


10/92

riends or neighbours). In the age category 02, the use o

ormal childcare arrangements in 2006 varies rom 73 %in Denmark to only 2 % in the Czech Republic and Poland.It appears that in seven Member States (Denmark, Neth-erlands, Sweden, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and UnitedKingdom) and Iceland and Norway the use o childcareservices is above or at the Barcelona target o 33 %. In anumber o countries, though, childcare services are onlyused on a part-time basis and may not cover a ull workingweek. The use o ormal care arrangements increases with

the increasing age o children. At age 3 up to the man-datory school age, Belgium ranks highest in 2006, witha use o ormal childcare arrangements o almost 100 %.At the other end is Poland, with a use o 28 %. O coursethe high user rate is to a large extent due to the inclusiono pre-school arrangements under the heading o ormalarrangements and the high coverage rate o pre-schoolarrangements or children in this particular age category.According to the Barcelona target, the actual coveragerate should be at least 90 % in 2010. It appears that nineMember States (and Iceland) meet the Barcelona target orscore rather high. When interpreting these gures, it hasto be taken into account, though, that in most countries,pre-school is only part time, as a result o which workingparents still need additional childcare acilities which maybe much less available.

The use o childcare acilities does not directly answerthe question o whether demand is ully met. The actualdemand or childcare is inuenced by the participationrate o parents (especially mothers), levels o unemploy-ment, the length o parental leave, the opening hours oschool and the availability o alternatives like grandpar-ents and or other (inormal) arrangements. A relativelylow coverage rate may thereore not indicate shortages,but alternative ways o looking ater young children, like

extended parental leave acilities or a home care allow-ance. In the Nordic EU Member States childcare is ramedas a social right (Denmark, Finland and Sweden). In othercountries, however, the supply o high-quality and a-ordable childcare acilities may be insucient. In partic-ular, ormal childcare acilities or the youngest children

t b i h t l i it b E

tries childminders appear t

education. Furthermore, ina large diference in educatpre-schools and crches, ochildminders on the other. Istrict requirements are oteernment. Private childmindsignicantly lower level o e

In most countries childcare s

means or another. There are ltween Member States. Witho costs, the share that parenin Sweden to as high as 80 %costs o childcare depend upcountries (with the exceptiomum to the childcare ee, income groups may attendhowever, also countries whrelatively more than mediumquite a ew countries childcasive. In addition, public chilprivate childcare is oten exavailability and afordability,ence the demand or childcaattitudes vary according toBelgium and France do child

erally accepted, including oother countries childcare aas positive or older childrendren. In addition, the numbresulting in a part-time use the Nordic countries, whereis accepted and used on a laand the well-being o childally a topic or public discuss

Policy issues

From a policy perspectiveservices raises several issueers to the underlying moti

i hi h dif


11/92


In efect, a number o countries seem to raise the pro-

vision o childcare services, although the actual growthrate is sometimes disappointing, partly because o budg-etary constraints. At the same time a number o countriesare rebalancing the policy mix between the provision oservices, time and money, with the aim to increase pa-rental choice, to improve the labour market position owomen or to promote amily lie. The result may not al-ways be a coherent model that provides a continuum osupport to amilies (the parents as well as the children).

The period o leave, or example, is not in all cases at-tuned to the provision o childcare services. In addition,the emphasis on acilitating parental choice may trans-late into adverse efects in the sense that socioeconomicdiferences between amilies increase.

Another important policy issue reers to the quality ochildcare services, in particular the quality o staf. Rais-ing the level o training would enhance their status andbring their proession more in line with that o teachers.Several countries are trying to raise the level o qualica-tions. Again, however, there may be important budgetaryconstrains which decelerate the introduction o these pol-icy measures. It is also important to decide on a coherentpicture o quality requirements that is or centre-basedand home-based childcare, or private and public in or-der to prevent negative interactions. Finally it is important

to note that the high prole o ch

the European employment strategat the level o the Member States. Atargets may not have a large impacdebates, the monitoring o progrstrategy does help to highlight the important policy priority.

Summary and conclusions

The results provided in this reporropean Member States on the Barcongoing debates suggest that thremain an important policy prioras well. Despite all the eforts andquality and afordable childcare asupply in quite a number o EuroStates. The availability o the EU-SIsessment o the current state o acareul monitoring o the measureMember States. This inormation, inemphasis on the provision o childccontext o the European employmprovide the necessary basis or a ptowards a coherent socioeconoming in mind the policy goals with rgender equality, ertility and socia


12/92


13/92


Introduction

Durant les dernires dcennies les services de gardedenants sont devenus un sujet dintrt public important.Des services de garde denants abordables nancire-ment et de qualit peuvent grandement contribuer con-

cilier travail et vie amiliale, et promouvoir ainsi lemploi etlgalit entre les hommes et les emmes. Les structuresde garde peuvent aussi ournir une rponse importanteaux taux de condit dclinants, car elles permettent dediminuer limpact de la maternit sur les opportunitsproessionnelles et sur la prsence sur le march du tra-vail. Il y a nalement une tendance croissante considrerles services de garde denants dun point de vue socio-pdagogique. Sous cet angle, la principale justicationpolitique consiste non plus concilier travail et gardedenants, mais plutt la contribution que les servicesde garde apportent au dveloppement de lenant et lintgration socio-conomique. Limportance de lofre deservices de garde denants a aussi t reconnue au niveaueuropen. Au sommet de Barcelone en 2002, des conclu-sions et des objectis explicites ont t dnis en ce quiconcerne lofre de services de garde. Tout en conrmant

lobjecti du plein emploi, le Conseil europen de 2002 adcid que les Etats membres devaient supprimer les l-ments dissuasis la participation des emmes lemploiet semployer ofrir des services de garde denants dici2010 au moins 90 % des enants dont lge va de 3 ans celui de la scolarisation obligatoire, et au moins 33 % desenants ayant moins de 3 ans. Limportance de ces objec-tis a t rappele rcemment travers ladoption par leConseil des Lignes directrices pour lemploi (200810).

Prenant en considration les donnes SILC rcemmentpublies sur lofre (ormelle et autre) de services de gardedenants, ce rapport ournit une analyse de lofre quan-titative et qualitative des services de garde denants des27 Etats membres de lUE et de trois pays de lEEE, lIslande,l N t l Li ht t i C t t it d l

garde denants de qualit a un imdemploi des emmes. Un plus haentraner une augmentation de lmes et les emmes, une croissance amliorer la viabilit du systmetuel, surtout si lon tient compte d

population. Un autre argument sode garde denants pourraient cole taux de condit en rendant lemoins coteux en termes de revproessionnelles. En ralit, la coemmes sont des arguments qui aces dune mme mdaille. Dans demploi, le taux de condit estquis et les services de garde denla combinaison entre responsabilirmunr. Dans largument sur la considr comme acquis. Dans cgarde denants sont supposs aentre travail rmunr et responplus de largument sur la conciliatde garde peut aussi contribuer lola pauvret. Un taux demploi plus

de pauvret tout au long de la vie,lesse. Lamlioration du bien-tre rduire la pauvret des enants, et aspectives utures des enants. Lefmme tre plus direct: des servicesqualit peuvent contribuer au dveen lui procurant un environnementAinsi, les services de garde denande aon importante au dveloppe

socio-conomique de lenant.

Les arguments en aveur des servisont bien connus et la plupart depris des initiatives an daugmentegarde (de qualit). Touteois, de nom

t l i d tt i d l bj

Rsum (FR)


14/92

promouvoir la prsence des parents (et en particulier des

mres) sur le march du travail et peuvent rsulter en degrandes disparits de nombre dheures de travail entrehommes et emmes. Il aut aussi prendre en compte laproblmatique du choix des parents. Les parents peuventavoir des prrences difrentes concernant le travail etla amille et la plupart des politiques publiques ont tend-ance avoriser le choix des parents. Le rsultat peut treun mlange compliqu darrangements horaires exiblesde travail, dallocations et de services (gardes denants)

qui peuvent ne pas tre ncessairement trs cohrents et/ou pas trs avorables du point de vue de lgalit entre leshommes et les emmes.

Les services de garde denfants

Lofre de services de garde denants abordables nan-cirement et de qualit est extrmement importantepour des parents qui travaillent. Touteois, en Europe, ladisponibilit et le cot des services de garde denantssont extrmement difrents. Les donnes EU-SILCindiquent que dans certains pays les parents recourenttrs souvent des services ormels bass sur les struc-tures daccueil (y compris lducation prscolaire), tandisque dans dautres pays ils ont plus recours dautrestypes de services (comme les puriculteurs/trices priv(e)s et/ou le soutien amilial, les amis ou les voisins). Dans

la catgorie des 0-2 ans, lutilisation des services ormelsen 2006 varie de 73 % au Danemark seulement 2 %en Rpublique Tchque et en Pologne. Il apparat quedans sept Etats membres (Danemark, Pays-Bas, Sude,Belgique, Espagne, Portugal et Royaume-Uni), ainsi quenIslande et en Norvge, le recours aux services de gardedpassent lobjecti de 33 % x Barcelone. Cependant,dans un certain nombre de pays, les services de gardesont utiliss mi-temps et ne couvrent pas une semaine

de travail entire.

Le recours aux services de garde ormels augmente aveclaugmentation de lge des enants. Dans la catgorie de3 ans ge de scolarisation obligatoire, la Belgique est lamieux place en 2006 avec un taux dutilisation des serv-i d d i i i l 100 % E b d l h ll

Le recours aux structures de

tion du niveau de satisactiorelle de services de garde dtaux de participation parentvail, par le taux de chmagrental, par les horaires scolairecours des solutions de charge aux grands-parents sitions inormelles. Un aibledonc pas ncessairement

mais peut reter lexistencrentes, par exemple les polallocation pour la garde deEtats membres nordiques, lconstituent un droit social (FTouteois, dans dautres payde qualit et abordables nsante. En particulier, lofredenants en bas ge est assede pays europens. Pour les scolarisation obligatoire, loles horaires ne correspondetravail. De plus, il existe dvdans plusieurs pays.

Outre la disponibilit, la quun poids important dans le

courir aux structures daccugarde des enants se rreau dveloppement social,lenant. Le manque de stsujet est problmatique. Dtives indiquent, l encore, lautre. Le ratio personnel/de trs ortes variations duautre aspect est le niveau d

trices qui dans certains pablent avoir un niveau dduplus, dans quasiment tous difrence au niveau de lamaternelles, les pr-coles epuriculteurs/trices priv(e

t t i d


15/92


amilles bas revenu payent relativement plus que celles

disposant dun revenu moyen ou lev. Dans bon nombrede pays les services de garde sont considrs comme peuabordables. De plus, si les services de garde publics peu-vent tre peu coteux, les services du priv sont souventchers. Outre la question des cots et de la disponibilit, lesnormes culturelles peuvent aussi inuencer la demandede services de garde. Dans la plupart des pays les attitudesvarient suivant lge de lenant. Les services de garde pourles enants les plus jeunes semblent tre gnralement

accepts uniquement en France et en Belgique. Dans laplupart des autres pays les structures daccueil sont gn-ralement considres positive pour les enants plus gs,mais pas pour les enants en bas ge. De plus, le nombredheures peut constituer un problme, avec pour rsultatune utilisation temps partiel des structures daccueil.Mme dans les pays nordiques o lutilisation des servicesde garde (pour les enants plus gs) est accepte et uti-lise grande chelle, la problmatique dtre une bonnemre et celle du bien-tre des enants dans les structuresde garde sont priodiquement sujet de discussion auniveau politique.

La question des politiques

Du point de vue des politiques lofre des services de gardedenants soulve plusieurs questions. Un sujet important

concerne les motivations sous-jacentes pour investir dansles services de garde, qui peuvent difrer de la simple ga-rantie dune uture ofre demploi promouvoir le dvel-oppement de lenant. Une prdominance de lintrtdu march du travail peut conduire, par exemple, unepolitique plutt stricte de lofre, surtout si on la compare une politique mettant laccent sur limportance du rledes services de garde des enants en termes dinclusionsociale. Une autre question importante concerne la com-

binaison politique concrte entre allocations nancires,possibilits de congs (maternit et parental) et services.La dcision concrte ce propos peut dpendre des d-bats ondamentaux concernant le mode dorganisationsouhaitable de la socit ou porter plutt sur des consid-rations pratiques sur ce qui est aisable nancirement.D l l liti t t t i i

des emmes lemploi, ou encore

amiliale. Au nal le rsultat nest pcohrent ofrant un ensemble de un soutien continu aux amilles (aquaux enants). La priode de conpas toujours en syntonie avec lofrDe plus, laccent mis sur la acilitapeut se traduire par des efets nuisles difrences socio-conomiquesvent augmenter.

Une autre question politique imqualit des services de garde, et edu personnel. Augmenter le nivearait amliorer leur statut et placer ligne avec celle des enseignants. Pdaugmenter le niveau des qualiclexistence dimportantes contrainvent ralentir lintroduction concrtece cas aussi il est important de ddes qualits requises aussi bien psur la garde des enants domicile structures daccueil et aussi bien que pour le priv de aon prvegatives. Enn, il est important de ndonne aux services de garde denEuropenne pour lEmploi a eu un

des Etats membres. Bien que les opuissent ne pas avoir un grand imbats sur les politiques nationales, leiss dans le cadre de la stratgie demettre en vidence le sujet des gaque priorit politique importante.

Rsum et conclusions

Les rsultats ournis dans ce rapprelles des Etats membres europe jectis de Barcelone, et les dbatque la question des gardes denanpolitique importante dans le utur peforts et malgr toutes les amliort d il d lit t b


16/92


17/92


Einleitung

In den vergangenen Jahrzehnten hat sich die Kinderbe-treuung zu einer wichtigen Angelegenheit von fent-lichem Belang entwickelt. Eine bezahlbare Kinderbe-treuung von guter Qualitt kann die Vereinbarkeit von

Arbeits- und Familienleben verbessern und damit dieTeilnahme am Arbeitsmarkt und die Gleichstellung derGeschlechter rdern. Einrichtungen zur Kinderbetreu-ung knnen auch eine bedeutende Lsung r die sin-kende Fertilittsrate bieten, indem die Kosten r Kinder,die durch Einkommensverzicht oder reduzierte Karriere-mglichkeiten entstehen, gesenkt werden. Schlielichgibt es eine steigende Tendenz, die Kinderbetreuungvon einem sozial-pdagogischen Gesichtspunkt zu be-

trachten. Von diesem Gesichtspunkt aus ist der wich-tigste Grundsatz nicht mehr die Vereinbarkeit von Arbeitund Betreuung, sondern der Beitrag der Kinderbetreu-ungs-Einrichtungen zur Entwicklung des Kindes und dersoziokonomischen Integration. Wie wichtig es ist, Ein-richtungen zur Kinderbetreuung zur Vergung zu stel-len, wurde auch au EU-Ebene anerkannt. Beim EU-Gipelin Barcelona 2002 wurden einige deutliche Schlussolge-

rungen und Ziele im Hinblick au die Bereitstellung vonKinderbetreuungs-Einrichtungen estgelegt. Der Euro-pische Rat hat das Ziel der Vollbeschtigung bekr-tigt und die Mitgliedstaaten augeordert, Hindernisseaus dem Weg zu rumen, die Frauen an der Teilnahmeam Arbeitsmarkt hindern. Weiterhin sollten die Mitglied-staaten sich darum bemhen, bis 2010 Einrichtungen zurKinderbetreuung r mindestens 90 % der Kinder im Al-ter zwischen drei und dem Pichtschulalter und r min-

destens 33 % der Kinder unter drei Jahren zur Vergungzu stellen. Die Wichtigkeit dieser Ziele wurden krzlichim Jahre 2008 in den beschtigungspolitische Leitlinien(2008-2010) vom Rat besttigt.

Unter Einbeziehung der krzlich verfentlichten SILC-D t B it t ll (f tli h d ti )

Investition in die Kinderbetreu

Es gibt mehrere Grnde, die dar gliedsstaaten in die KinderbetreuunEin klassisches Argument bezieht dass die Vergbarkeit von guten

ten eine positive Auswirkung au dieam Arbeitsmarkt zur Folge hat. Eineknnte die Gleichstellung der GesWirtschatswachstum vorantreiben der heutigen Wohlahrtsstaaten vesichtlich einer alternden Gesellschment weist au die Tatsache hin, dazur Erhhung der Fertilittsrate Kosten r ein Kind, die durch Ein

reduzierte Karrieremglichkeiten eden. In der Tat knnen die Argumeder Fertilitt als zwei Seiten derselbwerden. Bei dem Teilnahme-Argumrate vorausgesetzt und die Kinderbeeinbarkeit von Familien und bezahBeim Fertilitts-Argument wird diesetzt. Hier soll die Kinderbetreuung

bezahlter Arbeit und Familienlebenzum Argument der Vereinbarkeit kder Kinderbetreuung auch zur ArmEine hhere Teilnahme am Arbeitsder Armut, die im Laue des Lebenallem im Alter. Die bessere nanziekann auch zur Senkung der Kinderarbesserung der Zukuntsaussichten Auswirkung au die Kinder knnte s

Eine gute Kinderbetreuungssttte kkindlichen Entwicklung dienen, indvielltige, sichere und stimulierenIn diesem Sinne knnten Kinderbewichtigen Beitrag zur Entwicklung ziokonomischen Integration leisten

Kurzfassung (DE)


18/92

sttten ausgelegt ist. Sie knnte jedoch genauso leicht zu

einer Politik hren, die einen lngeren Erziehungsurlaubbzw. eine Erhhung des Kindergeldes rdert. Allerdingssind der verlngerte Erziehungsurlaub oder eine erhhtenanzielle Frderung r das Arbeitskrteangebot nichtrderlich und knnten zu groen Unterschieden bezglichder Arbeitszeit von Frauen und Mnner hren. Eine weiterekomplizierte Angelegenheit betrift die reie Elternwahl. DieEntscheidungen der Eltern im Hinblick au die Arbeit unddie Auswirkungen au die Familie knnen unterschiedlich

sein und meist untersttzt die fentliche Politik die reieElternwahl. Das Ergebnis knnte zu einer komplexen Mi-schung aus Mglichkeiten bezglich der Arbeitszeit, der -nanziellen Frderung und der Dienstleistungen hren, dienicht zwangslug einheitlich ist bzw. sich nicht vorteilhatau die Gleichstellung der Geschlechter auswirkt.

Kinderbetreuungssttten

Erschwingliche und vergbare Kinderbetreuungsstttenvon hoher Qualitt sind r berusttige Eltern von enor-mer Bedeutung. In Europa ist jedoch die Vergbarkeit undErschwinglichkeit der Kinderbetreuungssttten sehr unter-schiedlich. Die EU-SILC-Daten deuten darau hin, dass in eini-gen Lndern Eltern umassenden Gebrauch von fentlichenEinrichtungen (einschlielich Vorschulerziehung) machen,wohingegen Eltern in anderen Lndern mehr au sonsti-

ge Lsungen (wie Tagesmtter beziehungsweise Familie,Freunde oder Nachbarn) bauen. In der Altersgruppe vonnull bis zwei Jahren variierte 2006 die Inanspruchnahme derKinderbetreuungssttten von Dnemark mit 73 % bis Tsche-chien und Polen mit nur 2 %. Es scheint, dass die Inanspruch-nahme der Kinderbetreuungssttten in sieben Lndern (D-nemark, Niederlande, Schweden, Belgien, Spanien, Portugalund Grobritannien) sowie Island und Norwegen ber oderbei dem in Barcelona estgelegten Ziel von 33 % liegt. Je-

doch wird die Kinderbetreuung in einigen Lndern nur inForm einer Teilzeitbetreuung in Anspruch genommen unddeckt wahrscheinlich nicht die gesamte Arbeitswoche ab.Die Inanspruchnahme von fentlichen Betreuungseinrich-tungen steigt mit dem Alter der Kinder. Innerhalb der Alters-gruppe von drei Jahren bis zum Pichtschulalter war Belgien2006 t St ll b i i Ki d b t ttt

Die Inanspruchnahme der K

keine Antwort au die Frage,deckt wird. Der tatschlichesttten wird durch die Teilnah(Mtter), die Arbeitslosenratelaubs, die fnungszeiten dervon alternativen Optionen, wung durch Groeltern oder Dienst stehende) Betreuunrelativ geringe Deckungsrate

Engpsse hin, sondern mgtionen der KinderbetreuungErziehungsurlaub oder Zusczuhause stattndet. In den nwird Kinderbetreuung beha(Finnland, Dnemark und Schanderen Lndern die Vergund erschwinglichen Kinderzureichend sein. Vor allem sc

entlichen Kinderbetreuungsin einigen europischen Lndbarkeit ist r Kinder von drei Jhher, wobei die fnungszeimmer mit den Arbeitszeiten aus gibt es in den meisten Lregionaler Ebene.

Zustzlich zu der Vergbarketungen eine wichtige Rolle bKinderbetreuungssttten in Qualittsbeurteilung der Kinemotionale und kognitive Edas Kind eine Rolle. Der groStatistiken zu diesem Thema Vergbare, eher qualitative DSchwankungen in Europa hin

zum Beispiel, scheint sich sehschen Lndern zu unterschepekt ist das Ausbildungsnivemanchen Lndern scheint dtreuungspersonen eher niedes in den meisten Lndern gd A bild i d

T h


19/92


kommen abhngig. Die nordischen Lnder (mit Ausnahme

von Island) haben einen Maximalgebhr r die Kinderbe-treuung estgelegt und in anderen Lndern knnen Elternmit geringem Einkommen die Kinderbetreuung kostenlosin Anspruch nehmen. Es gibt jedoch auch Lnder, in denenFamilien mit einem verhltnismig geringen Einkommenhhere Beitrge leisten mssen als Familien mit mittlerenoder hohen Einkommen. In einigen Lndern gilt die Kinder-betreuung als teuer. Darber hinaus kann die fentlicheKinderbetreuung erschwinglich sein, whrend die private

Kinderbetreuung hug teuer ist. Neben der Vergbarkeitund Erschwinglichkeit knnen sich auch gesellschatlicheNormen au den Bedar an Kinderbetreuungssttten aus-wirken. In den meisten Lndern ndert sich die Einstellungje nach Alter des Kindes. Nur in Belgien und in Frankreichscheinen Kinderbetreuungssttten allgemein berwortetzu sein. In den meisten anderen Lndern ist man der Mei-nung, dass Kinderbetreuungssttten r grere Kinder, jedoch nicht r sehr kleine Kinder geeignet sind. Darber

hinaus kann die Anzahl der Stunden ein Punkt sein, der zueiner Inanspruchnahme der Kinderbetreuungssttten inForm von Teilzeitbetreuung hrt. Sogar in den nordischenLndern, in denen die Kinderbetreuung (r grere Kin-der) allgemein berwortet wird und in groem Umanggenutzt wird, wird das Thema Gute-Mutter-Sein und dasWohlergehen der Kinder in den Betreuungssttten hin undwieder fentlich diskutiert.

Politische Angelegenheiten

Aus der politischen Perspektive wirt das Bereitstellen vonKinderbetreuungssttten mehrere Fragen au. Eine wichtigeFrage bezieht sich au grundlegende Motive r eine Inves-tition in Kinderbetreuungssttten und kann sich von der Si-cherstellung des kntigen Angebots an Arbeitnehmern bishin zur Entwicklungsrderung der Kinder erstrecken. Die

vorherrschende Besorgnis bezglich des Arbeitsmarkteskann beispielsweise zu einer sehr strikten Politik im Hinblickau die Vergbarkeit hren. Im Vergleich dazu gibt es auchdie Manahmen, die die wichtige Rolle der Kinderbetreu-ungseinrichtungen in Verbindung mit der sozialen Integra-tion betonen. Ein weiterer wichtiger Aspekt betrift die po-liti h Mi h i ll F d itli h

zeitig versucht die Politik in vielen

weg bezglich der Vergbarkeit vound Geld zu nden. Dabei ist das Zzu rdern, die Stellung der Frau auverbessern oder die Familie an sich zgebnis ist nicht immer ein kohrenttinuum der Familienrderung (r bietet. Beispielsweise ist die Dauer nicht immer an die Vergbarkeit sttten angepasst. Des Weiteren k

reien Elternwahl nachteilige Auswgen, die dazu hren, dass soziokozwischen den Familien vergrert w

Ein weiterer wichtiger politischer Berder Kinderbetreuungssttten, besser qualitt des Betreuungspersonals. Inniveau angehoben wird, kann deren deren Beru dem Lehrerberu angen

Lndern wird versucht, das AusbilduAuch hier knnen sich bedeutendgen au die tatschliche DurchhrManahmen hemmend auswirkeneine Entscheidung in Hinblick au eden Qualittsanorderungen zu lleselwirkungen zu vermeiden. Dies gilung in Einrichtungen als auch r hung, r den privaten und fentlicist es auch wichtig zu beachten, dasder Kinderbetreuungssttten innerBeschtigungsstrategie einen EinMitgliedstaaten hat. Obwohl die Zielona keinen groen Einuss au alleDebatten haben, ist eine berwachuLissabon Strategie hilreich, um das Tals eine wichtige politische Prioritt h

Zusammenfassung und Schlus

Die in diesem Bericht dargelegten liche Erllung der Barcelona-Ziele dMitgliedstaaten und die ortdauernt d hi d d Th Ki d


20/92



21/92


In recent decades, childcare services have become amatter o serious public concern. Afordable and good-quality childcare services may improve the reconciliationo work and amily lie and thus oster labour market par-ticipation and gender equality. Childcare acilities mayalso provide an important answer to declining ertility

rates, by lowering the cost o childbearing in terms o la-bour market and career opportunities. Finally there is agrowing tendency to see childcare services rom a socialpedagogical perspective. In this perspective the mainpolicy rational is no longer the reconciliation o work andcare, but rather the contribution o childcare services tochild development and socioeconomic integration.

The importance o providing childcare services has also

been recognised at the EU level. At the Barcelona Sum-mit in 2002, some explicit conclusions and targets weredened with regard to the provision o childcare services.Conrming the goal o ull employment, the EuropeanCouncil agreed that Member States should remove dis-incentives to emale labour orce participation and striveto provide childcare by 2010 to at least 90 % o childrenbetween 3 years old and the mandatory school age andat least 33 % o children under 3 years o age. These tar-gets are part o the European employment strategy ando the (current and past) integrated guidelines askingMember States to apply a lie-cycle approach in theiremployment policies.

Since 2007, harmonised EU statistics on the provision o(ormal and other) childcare services exist within the con-text o the EU statistics on income and living conditions

(SILC). On the basis o the SILC datsome comparisons across countriprogress towards the Barcelona taSILC data contain inormation on thing a usual week or which childcareschool is attended. However, there r

gaps in inormation at the EU level. Lple, about the quality, afordabilityinstitutionalised childcare and aboushare o children covered by childcgets and the existence o an uncove

Taking into account the SILC dataan analysis o both the quantitativvision o childcare services or the

and three EEA countries IcelaNorway. It discusses the extent to childcare is covered, the importacare services within the national cies developed at the national levvision o childcare acilities. As sucand extends the discussion o childCommissions previous network oPlantenga and Remery, 2005). Theollows. Chapter 1 deals with the imservices within the context o labogender equality, the ertility rate aChapter 2 evaluates the availabilitability o childcare services. Chapcent policies developed at the natto the provision o childcare serviprovides a short summary and the

Introduction


22/92



23/92


Investing in childcare services1.There are several reasons why countries might invest inchildcare services. A classical argument reers to the actthat the availability o good-quality childcare serviceshas a positive impact on the emale participation rate. Ahigher participation rate may increase gender equality,oster economic growth and help improve the sustain-

ability o the present-day welare state, especially in thelight o an ageing population. Another argument pointsto the act that childcare services might increase ertilityrates by making a child less costly in terms o income andcareer opportunities. In act, the ertility and participationargument may be interpreted as two sides o the samecoin. In the participation argument, the ertility rate istaken or granted and childcare services should acilitatethe combination o care responsibilities with paid work.

In the ertility argument, participation is taken or grant-ed. Here childcare services are supposed to acilitate thecombination o paid work with care responsibilities. Inaddition to the reconciliation argument, the provision ochildcare services might also contribute to the goal o re-ducing poverty. Higher participation in the labour orcereduces the risk o poverty throughout peoples liespanand especially in old age. The improved well-being oparents may also reduce child poverty and thus improveuture outcomes or children. The efect on children mayeven be more direct: good-quality childcare services mayserve a child-development purpose, providing the childwith a rich, sae and stimulating environment. As suchchildcare services may ofer an important contributionto child development and socioeconomic integration.

The arguments in avour o childcare services are well

known and most European countries have taken ini-tiatives to increase the availability o (quality) childcareservices. However, many Member States are ar romreaching the Barcelona childcare targets. The Joint Em-ployment Report (JER) 2006/07, or example, indicatesthat the potential contribution o women to raising the

t l t t i till t ll l it d A

may result in large diferences in ming time patterns. Another complthe issue o parental choice. Parepreerences with regard to work and most public policies tend choice. The result may be a compl

acilities, nancial allowances andnecessarily be very coherent and/vourable rom a gender equality p

In the ollowing pages the case care care services is outlined in soSection 1.1 provides an overview comes and illustrates the impact labour market behaviour o men

1.2 ocuses on ertility trends ano amily ormation, whereas Sectsocial inclusion and child develop1.4 contains a short summary. Eacoverview o cross-national difereoverview o the relevant literatureo childcare subsidies. As such thisgoal: to illustrate the diferences bcountries in work and amily patterole o childcare services in this res

Improving labour m1.1

participation

The Lisbon targets o 2000 state

rate in the EU should be raised toemployment rate to 60 % by 20economic developments have betained eforts are needed to reac(JER 2007/08: 4). Graph 1 shows to all the EU Member States and thTh dif b t th hi h


24/92

o almost 81 %, whereas in Malta the emale employmentrate is just below 37 % (data or Liechtenstein missing).Graph 2 also indicates that 15 EU Member States (andIceland and Norway) have met or exceeded the Lisbontarget o 60 % emale employment: Denmark, Sweden,the Netherlands, Finland, Estonia, the United Kingdom,Latvia, Austria, Germany, Slovenia, Cyprus, Lithuania, Por-tugal, Ireland and France. At the other end it appears thatGreece, Italy and Malta are still ar rom the Lisbon target,as the emale employment rates are under 50 %.

The diference between total and emale employmentrates indicates that throughout Europe there is still a largegap between the employment rates o men and women,

with women alling signicathe countries in this respect. Tder gaps are ound in the soGreece, Italy, Spain and Cypalso score rather unavourader gaps are ound in Swedecentage points). Lithuania aavourably. When interpretinthat the Lisbon targets anment data are based onworking hours are not takenpart-time more oten than mgap, as presented in GraphWhen measured in ull-time

Graph 1. Total employment rate 2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

BGBELUFRLTEUESCZSIPTLVIEEEDEFICYUKATSENLDKNOIS

Employmentrate%

NB: EU = EU-27.

Source: Eurostat, EU labour orce survey 2007. For IS and NO: Eurostat employment statistics 2006.

Graph 2. Employment rate of women 2007

100



25/92

calculated or the EU-27 increases to 20.6 percentagepoints compared to 14.2 percentage points when meas-ured in headcount. The Dutch gender gap particularly in-creases rom 12.6 percentage points when calculated inheadcounts to 29.1 percentage points when calculated inull-time equivalents (see or more details the appendix).

An important reason or employment diferences betweenmen and women is the diferent impact o parenthood.Whereas men with children tend to work more than menwithout children, the opposite is true or women: womenwithout children have higher employment rates than wom-en with children. The diferent impact is illustrated in Graph4, which compares the absolute diference in employment

rates o men and women without the presence o any chil-dren and with the presence o a child aged 06 within theage group 2049. Remarkably, the impact o parenthoodon men is rather similar in the Member States and hoversaround 10 percentage points (data or Sweden, Iceland,Liechtenstein and Norway missing). For women, however,th i t dif id bl Th hi h t

thereore increase the relative re(Jaumotte, 2003; OECD, 2007). Emrelationship between childcare cparticipation are consistent with costs go down, labour orce pespecially among mothers. For GSpie (2002a, 2002b), or examplechildcare possibilities intensiy thticipation rate o mothers aboveGermany. In Greece two evaluatiothe availability o public childcare the activation o important numbwomen (Data RC 2006; EETAA 2006Euwals et al. (2007) show that be

participation o women in the lacome less reliant on the presence to the authors this is probably relathe availability and afordability oA recent study in Austria revealedcorrelation between the labour-m

th d th il bilit d

Graph 3. Employment gender gap 2007

Percent

agepoints

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DKLVISBGFRSIDEUKPTRONLPLHUBEATEUSKIELUCZCYESITELMT

NB: EU = EU-27.

Source: Eurostat, EU labour orce survey 2007. For IS and NO: Eurostat employment statistics 2006.


26/92

care services reduce the likelihood o labour participationo the mother: an EUR 1 increase in the hourly price oday-care centres reduces the probability o employmentby 32 % (Borra, 2006). A Polish study shows that amongsuch variables as education, age structure, maternityleave, institutionalised childcare, public transport, levelo urbanisation and sociocultural traits, the most impor-tant actor that afects the emerging pattern o womensproessional activity rates in Poland is the availabilityo childcare. The lowering o the provision o childcareplaces in nurseries and pre-schools negatively afectedactivity rates o women (Mickiewicz and Bell, 2000). Ata more general level, gures rom the European Unionlabour orce survey 2005 (module on reconciliation be-

tween work and amily lie) seem to suggest that the lacko childcare acilities prevents a considerable group o in-active women rom participating in the labour market. Inaddition, insucient childcare acilities seem to restrainthe average working hours among emale employees(see Eurostat employment statistics and LFS Ad hoc mod-

l R ili ti b t k d il li )

contributes not only to raisalso to securing employmeRC, 2006; EETAA, 2006).

When studying the efectivon raising emale labour sutaken into account. The rsto substitution efects. A ullcare arrangements, or exaparents to substitute inormones. As a result, the increabe (ar) larger than the incparticipation. Another issuecare subsidies on the hours

in the labour orce. Whereasmarket participation may befect on working hours is atake-home wage would crsubstitution efect that worthe desired hours o work. h t b t k i t

Graph 4. Employment impact of parenthood on men and women 2

Percent

agepoint

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

LTCYELITLUNLESFRPLMTEUFIATIELVUKBGEEDESKHUCZ

Source: Eurostat, EU labour orce survey 2006.



27/92

State. In combination with increased lie expectancy thisresults in an ageing population and, in the longer run,a decline in population size. Graph 5 shows the averageage o mothers at birth o the rst child. In the majority othe 30 European countries this average has exceeded 25.The highest average age is ound in the United Kingdom(29.3 years) and Spain (29.2). In Estonia, Latvia, Bulgariaand Romania it is below 25 (data or Belgium, France, It-aly, Malta and Liechtenstein missing). Graph 6 shows theertility rates in European countries in 2006. The highestertility rates are ound in Iceland and France, and thelowest in Poland and Slovakia. Despite national difer-ences, the total ertility rates are now below replacementlevel or all EU Member States.

Traditionally, the decline in ertilplained by reerring to the increorce participation. The higher level o women and the concomita proessional career increases to children. This standard econoexplain, however, the reversal o ttive correlation between ertility aCountries with a higher rate o emas Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Swehave relatively high ertility rates, wa low emale participation level (SPoland) ertility has dropped belthat the wide availability o reconc

Graph 5. Mothers average age at birth of first child 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

LVEESKPOHUCZISATCYPTSINODKFIELEUIESELUNLDEESUK

Mothersage

NB: EU = EU-25.

Source: Eurostat. Data or DK: 2001. EE, EL, ES and UK: 2002. BE, FR, IT, MT and LI: not available.

Graph 6. Total fertility rates 2006

2.5


28/92

Nordic countries supports ertility decisions. In contrast,combining childrearing and being in employment seemsmost incompatible in the Mediterranean countries andsome central European countries (OECD, 2007, 34).

The impact of childcare subsidies

Several studies have underlined the importance o child-care acilities within the context o childbearing behaviour.Ermisch (1989), or example, concludes that the availability

o childcare services in some OECD countries has lessenedthe reduction o ertility rates associated with the higherlabour orce participation o women. Del Boca et al. (2003)illustrate or Italy that childcare availability has a positiveefect on ertility rates, while higher childcare costs havethe opposite efect. It proves, however, rather dicult toanalyse the specic relationship between the ull rangeo policies and ertility rates. DAddio and dErcole (2005)relate actual childcare costs or households with two chil-

dren aged 2 and 3 years, cared or on a ull-time basis in apublic or publicly recognised day-care acility, to the totalertility rate. As expected, in countries where actual child-care costs are lower, ertility rates are higher. The correla-tion is, however, not signicant. According to the authors,this might be related to the act that only the costs o apublic day-care acility is taken into account and not theactual availability. Research, however, indicates that it isthe combined efect o childcare availability andcosts thatis most important (DAddio and dErcole, 2005, 55).

In a more sophisticated statistical analysis on ertility ratesin 16 OECD countries, the authors nd that ertility ratesare higher in countries where the direct costs o raisingchildren are lower, where the share o women workingpart-time is higher, where the length o parental leave islonger and where childcare enrolment rates are higher.

In addition, simulations o our policy reorms (taxes andtransers that lower the direct costs o children, greateravailability o part-time employment or women, longerperiods o parental leave and greater availability o or-mal childcare or pre-school children) indicate that thesepolicies may be efective in raising ertility levels, thoughthi dif di t t I S i d G

leads to higher rates o wto motherhood. The efectlarge (Rinduss et al. 2007). birth rates o women in theyears 19962000 have beenprovision o childcare. The cthat a sucient supply o oan impact on the decision East Germany. In contrast, inavailability o inormal child

The study concludes that thsupply structures in the or(Hank et al., 2003). In Polandto have the rst child begaal., 2007), which coincided acilities, increased labour mand higher participation in Kotowska et al. (2007), thafect the decision to have

accessing and maintaining to care and education o chhours to childcare.

Improving soc1.3

Next to reconciliation, soccreasing prominence in tcountries. In this respect, sreer to parents, more partimigrant mothers, or to chgeneral increase in the emgle mothers ace particularwith work and amily comparent amilies (o which male headed) are generally

o poverty. The disadvantaent households is evident developed within the contprocess. Graph 7 shows thparents with at least one dpoverty compared to twod d t hild E i ll



29/92

migrant workers may ace two main orms o potentialdisadvantage, reerring to structural and socioculturalintegration. Structural integration reers to access toeducation, employment, income and economic inde-pendence and this depends partly on the resources themigrant arrives with and partly on the institutions o thereceiving countries. Sociocultural integration reers todiferences in religion and social values, including gen-der roles within the amily and how the receiving coun-try responds to diferences. All immigrant and migrantworkers ace these disadvantages, but women may be aparticularly vulnerable group because o limited labourmarket opportunities and/or limited independent rightsor social security (see Fagan et al., 2006: 115).

Reducing child poverty is another important challengeunder this heading. At 19 %, the risk o poverty amongchildren is higher than that o the general population.The risk appears to be connected with low work intensityo the household. According to the Joint Report on So-

i l P t ti d S i l I l i 2008 b t 10 %

the risks are equal. In general, corates o child poverty (under 5 % odren) do so because they combineemployment with an efective redithrough the tax benet system (O

Role of childcare subsidies

Increasing maternal employmentimproving amily income. In act, ket participation is the best and mtion against poverty in a amily wAndersen, 2002). Improving the and amily by investing in good-

thereore prove to be an efectivesocial inclusion and reducing poand afordable childcare acilities tonomy o single mother and/or mby preventing benet dependenerational transmission o poverty. littl h th f t hi

Graph 7. At risk of poverty rate by household type 2006

%o

ftotalpo

pulationconcerned

0

10

20

30

40

50

ROSKATFRELBGSEPLNLITEUBECYMTESHULVUKPTEECZLTIELU

Single parents at lea

Two adults househo

NB: EU = EU-25 estimate.

Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC 2006. BG and RO national HBS 2006.


30/92

day care as a key institution in shaping lie chances. It ispresumed that to obtain social equality and to avoid pov-erty and marginalisation, all children need to be includedin good learning collectives. In this perspective, childcareinvestment no longer serves the labour market possibili-ties o the parents, but rather the development options

o the child. National studies provide some evidence onthe benets o high-quality childcare acilities. A Nor-wegian study, or example, indicates that children whodevelop good language skills beore school starts havebetter social development and better reading abilities inthe primary grades than children with lagged languageskills (Nergrd, 2002). In Latvia, pre-school educationin kindergartens has an important impact on the social

inclusion o children in mainstream education; anotherstudy reports positive efects on health (Trapenciere etal., 2003). In Poland, regions with higher levels o childrenaged 35 years in pre-school education score higher on(amongst other things) educational attainment and in-come o population; they have higher standards o liv-i hi h l li ti l t b t

centres has negative implicment, school success and/oand Spie, 2002a). In morseems to depend on the qhours o attendance and th

Summary and 1.4

Summarising the main resusubstantial diferences acroemployment rate. The presepact on male employmentment rather heavily, espec

Hungary and Slovakia. Totaplacement level in all EU Meespecially low in countries wlevels. Child development increasing prominence in countries. The risk o child

t d ith l k i t

Graph 8. At risk of poverty rate for children aged 017 years and total pop

%o

ftotalpo

pulationconcerned

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

NLFRSEATBECZBGSKMTEULUEEPTIEELUKESHULTITPLLV

C

T

NB: EU = EU-25 estimate.

Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC 2006. BG and RO national HBS 2006. IS, LI, NO: not available.



31/92

Introduction2.1

Personal services are extremely important in the lives oworking parents. This applies in particular to childcareservices, as care responsibilities constitute a major obsta-cle to (ull) employment. The importance o afordable and

accessible quality childcare provision has long been recog-nised by the European Council and the European Union. InMarch 1992 the Council o the European Union passed arecommendation on childcare to the efect that MemberStates should take and/or progressively encourage initia-tives to enable women and men to reconcile their occupa-tional, amily and upbringing responsibilities arising or thecare o children (92/241/EEC). Ten years later, at the 2002Barcelona Summit, the aims were ormulated more explic-

itly and targets were set with regard to childcare. Conrm-ing the goal o ull employment, the European Councilagreed that Member States should remove disincentivesto emale labour orce participation and strive, taking intoaccount the demand or childcare acilities and in line withnational patterns o provisions, to provide childcare by2010 or at least 90 % o children aged between 3 yearsand the mandatory school age and at least 33 % o childrenunder 3 years o age.

Assessing the availability o childcare services is notan easy task, however. National statistics are not easilyconverted to a common standard, given the act thateach country has its own unique constellation o child-care arrangements, consisting o services and acilitiessuch as leave arrangements, day-care centres, kinder-gartens, amily-type care arrangements, childminders

at home, (pre)school education systems, etc. In par-ticular, the dividing line between ormal and inormalarrangements may be rather uid and difer betweencountries. The care arrangements or young children,in particular, oten consist o rather inormal arrange-ments, which nevertheless play an important role inth li t D t d t bl it

dren and an education system or ocountries, however, children may bucation system during school hourcare system outside these hours. Atake account o these interrelationterpretation o the available data.

to take the time dimension into acbe provided on a ull-time or part-to childcare places available or thbeing cared or outside the amilya partial as well as a potentially mthe efective scale o childcare acment o the methodological com2004; Plantenga and Remery, 2005

The problems with regard to chisome extent solved by the introdan statistics on income and livingwhich are supposed to become theor statistics on income and livingmon indicators or social inclusionlaunched in 2003 in six EU Membermark, Greece, Ireland, Luxembouras Norway. In 2004, the 15 EU Mem

ered (with the exception o Germand the United Kingdom which 2005) as well as Estonia, Iceland aMember States (with the exceptio2005. In principle the EU-SILC wilannual data:

cross-sectional data pertaining t

tain period with variables on inexclusion and other living condi

longitudinal data pertaining to inover time observed periodically

Th EU SILC t i th d t

Childcare services2.


32/92

Taking the EU-SILC data as a starting point, this chap-ter comments on these data and extends the inorma-tion as ar as possible. To start with, Section 2.2 pro-vides inormation about the use o childcare servicesor the dierent age categories. As the EU-SILC datado not answer directly the question o whether de-mand is ully met, Section 2.3 will provide some na-tional inormation about the link between the shareo children covered by childcare, the Barcelona targetsand the existence o an uncovered demand. Section

2.4 evaluates the available inormation on the qual-ity standard or childcare services, whereas Section2.5 gives inormation about the overall level o costsand the aordability o childcare services or dierentincome levels. Section 2.6 contains inormation aboutthe attitudes o parents and/or society at large on theuse o childcare services, while Section 2.7 summarisesthe conclusions.

The use o childcare services2.2

Childcare services consist o a wide variety o ormal andinormal arrangements, with rather uid and country-specic transitions between social support services,the educational system and the actual care system. Inthis section we will assess the use o childcare servicesin the EU-27, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, ollow-

ing the structure o the EU-SILC questionnaire. Giventhat the EU-SILC is a household questionnaire, the dataprovide inormation on the receipt o childcare (ormalor other) by children. Given the Barcelona targets, dis-tinctions will be made between the arrangements orchildren in the age category 02 years, those between3 years and the mandatory school age and school chil-dren up to the age o 12 years.

Childcare arrang2.2.1

the age category Graph 9 summarises the uchildren in the youngest athe EU-SILC statistics. It inormal arrangements, as a the same age group. Formspect reer to education achildcare at centre-based s

a collective crche or anoing amily day-care organor private structure. It apptween the lowest and the70 percentage points, wito children cared or in owhereas the Czech RepublA more detailed analysis wtries there are large difere

acilities by age: in almosthe child, the more likely at home, especially by thegroups, such as grandpareDenmark, or example, onlage o 1 year are in public or age-integrated institutiobines and includes crche, tre). Newborn children sp

with parents, while they aleave. In the latter part o tstart gradually in day-careSweden, hardly any childrein public childcare since thon parental leave. This is alo the 1-year-olds since p12 months, and can be spr

Graph 9. Use of formal childcare arrangements, 02-year-olds

70

80

B l t tUse o ormal childcare arrangem



33/92

o time. In Estonia, the proportion o children in child-care also depends signicantly on the age o a child.Only 11.3 % o children up to 1 year are in a childcareacility, while more than hal o 2-year-olds make use osuch acilities. In Norway, nally, the coverage rate orchildren under 1 year is only 3 %, which is explained bythe parental leave arrangement. Among 12-year-olds,coverage rates reach 51 % and 73 %, respectively.

In order to provide a uller picture o the use o childcare

services, Graph 10 combines the inormation on ormal ar-rangements o Graph 9 with inormation on other arrange-ments. Other arrangements in this respect are dened aschildcare by a proessional childminder at the childs homeor at the childminders home and childcare by grandpar-ents, other household members (outside parents), otherrelatives, riends or neighbours. It should be taken intoaccount that the sum o the score on ormal and other ar-rangements may exceed 100 % as parents might combine

diferent arrangements to cover a ull working day. Fromthe table it appears that countries such as the Netherlands,Portugal, the United Kingdom, France and Luxembourgscore relatively high on ormal arrangements but seem tocombine these arrangements with an equally well-devel-oped system o other arrangements. Slovenia and Cypruscombine a medium score on ormal arrangements with amuch higher score on other arrangements, whereas quite anumber o countries that score low on ormal arrangements

have a high score or other arrangements. This is particularlythe case or Greece, Hungary, Austria and Poland. Only ourcountries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland) do notseem to combine ormal arrangements with home-basedamily day care and/or childcare provided by riends andamily. Countries that score below 25 % or both ormal andother arrangements are Latvia, Malta, Slovakia, Lithuaniaand the Czech Republic.

The use o ormal childcare acilitieindicator to monitor the provision the diferent Member States. On ttor, it appears rom Graph 9 that (Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, gal and United Kingdom) and Icelalready met the Barcelona targetbourg and at some distance At the lower end o the ranking, Sltria, the Czech Republic and Polan

or less (gures or Bulgaria, Romaare missing). For a correct interpreit is important to note, though, tries between ormal and other acompletely comply with the EU-Sexample, the SILC data on ormalinclude childminders, (assistantespaid directly by parents. Howevemajority o childminders must b

thereore considered as a orm o tional statistics. This is, in act, the mor very young children. Due to roccupational status o childmindehelping amilies to access this onumber increased 3.5 times betwthese childminders were includeo ormal arrangements (which worthcoming years), France would

lona target o 33 % or the youngestrast, the SILC gures or the Nethwith regard to ormal arrangemecompared to national statistics. Fomay be partly explained by the inin the category o ormal arrangemhowever, generally not consideredports working parents. Playgroups

Graph 10. Use of formal and other childcare arrangements, 02-year-olds

70

80


34/92

service; the majority o children that attend a playgroupdo this or two daily periods (oten two mornings o3 hours) per week.

Graph 11 gives some more detailed inormation on theuse o other arrangements diferentiating between home-

based childcare on the one hand and the use o amilyand riends on the other. It appears that in seven coun-tries (Netherlands, Iceland, Portugal, United Kingdom,France, Luxembourg, and Ireland) the use o home-basedchildcare (not organised/controlled by a public or privatestructure) amounts to 10 % or more. A real outlier in thisrespect appears to be Portugal, where the use o this kindo acility amounts to 35 %. Family and riends appear tobe important in a number o countries, but especially inthe Netherlands, Portugal, Cyprus, Greece and Hungary.This is to a large extent due to the involvement o grand-parents in the provision o care at home. In Greece, orexample, the most common care arrangement or babiesand inants o working parents is still at-home care by il b ll d t P t h l

can enter nursery school at ents make use o this possis ree o charge as opposeor 03-year-olds outside thcare and not on education)as a result o a declining nu

more children under the agartens (which in principlaged 36 years). In 1997 ar23 years attended a kindeure had increased to 25.5 seem to have taken place grouping together o educamay be justied by the act parents to combine their pAt the same time, the timments becomes even morepre-school is only part-timeing day, parents may need which may be much less av

Graph 11. Use of home-based childminder and/or family/friends, 02-

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

HUELLVDEIEEECYFIITSILUFRNOUKPTISESBESENLDK

Family/riends

Home-based child-minder

Percentage

Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC 2006 (provisional). Data or DE and NO: EU-SILC 2005. Data or SI not included because o small sample size. BG, RO and



35/92

assistants (rom 9.0010.00 a.m. to 6.008.00 p.m.) mayneed longer opening hours. Also in Slovenia, ormal ar-rangements are mostly used or 30 hours or more, whileother orms o childcare are used more or between 1and 29 hours. As the majority o both women and menin Slovenia are in ull-time employment, these data could

be understood as reecting choices o parents, who areusing ormal arrangements as the main childcare solu-tion during working hours, while other arrangements areused in addition to ormal arrangements.

In other countries, part-time arrangements are muchmore common. In Germany, or example, there used tobe a heavy emphasis on part-time arrangements, yet

over the last couple o years, the otended although considerable diformer East and the ormer Westobserved. In the Netherlands, childvided on a ull-time basis, but the be limited to a ew days per wee

level o part-time employment inresult, only 4 % o the children armal arrangements or more than 3another 3 % o the children are inor more than 30 hours a week). Inemployed mothers typically workresponds to a high part-time use oner breakdown o the part-time p

Graph 12. Use of formal childcare arrangements by hours, 02-year-olds

P

ercentage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

SKMTHUELLVDEIEEECYFIITSILUFRNOUKPTISESBESENLDK

Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC 2006 (provisional). Data or DE and NO: EU-SILC 2005. BG, RO and LI: not available.

Graph 13. Use of other childcare arrangements by hours, 02-year-olds

60


36/92

that many part-time childcare places involve less than 20hours. Similarly, in Norway the choice o the number o

hours o care has been considered an important policyaim, as part o the general aim o ree choice and diver-sity in childcare services. In recent years there has beenincreasing policy emphasis on providing exible timecontracts or the users.

In more general terms, a comparison between the hourso ormal and other arrangements indicates that in all

countries, home and/or amily based arrangements gen-erally involve ewer hours than the ormal arrangements.This applies also to countries such as Greece, Hungary,Austria and Poland that to a large extent depend on theprovision o other arrangements. This seems to imply thatother arrangements are not ully compatible with ormalarrangements; rather they may be used as a complementto ormal services or in case ormal service are lacking they may be combined with other inormal services in

order to cover a ull-time working day. Graph 14 providessome details on the average amount o time used in or-mal and other childcare arrangements or 13 countries.This average is calculated or children attending at least 1hour per week (data or other countries are not availabledue to small sample sizes). It appears that most countriesare in the right hand corner, although in some countries(notably the United Kingdom, Ireland, Cyprus and Portu-gal) the average number o hours o other care exceeds

the average number o hours o ormal care.

Flexibility

A nal issue that has to be taken into account or the young-est age group reers to the exibility o the services. Flex-ibility in childcare acilities might reer to opening hours(during the day, week and year and during non-standard

hours) and to exible use oduring the year. Flexible a

important or parents workinings, nights, weekends andnities seem, however, rathecountries have hardly any cehours. Some o the larger townumber o nurseries and kining evening and night hoursin our diferent municipaliti

hour service. In France therestop crches and crches thhours care between 6 a.m. examples are provided by Sden, more than hal o all ming childcare arrangements Finland, the Act on Day Carehave to provide childcare ating during the night, the we

nicipalities the demand or talmost ully met. With respeyear, childcare during summseveral countries. In Italy, oin August and in July only a rable. In Belgium, only 10 % premises are open and 40 %

Childcare arrang2.2.2

the age category school age

Graph 15 provides data onservices or the age categoschool age. The Barcelona coverage rate should be a

Graph 14. Average number of hours of formal and other care by age class and cou

50



37/92

nine EU Member States meet the Barcelona target orscore rather highly: Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland,

Sweden, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and the UnitedKingdom. Other countries score at least 50 %, the onlyexception being Poland with a score o only 28 %. Com-pared to the scores or Graph 9 it seems that the use oormal care arrangements increases with the increasingage o children. O course this is, to a large extent, dueto the inclusion o pre-school arrangements under theheading o ormal arrangements and the high coverage

rate o pre-school arrangements or children in the agecategory 3 years to the mandatory school age.

In Belgium, or example, children in the age category2.56 years have universal and ree access to publiclyprovided pre-school arrangements, as a result o whichthe enrolment rate is 90 % at 2.5 years and almost 100 %o the children aged 3 years. In Iceland, there is a strongemphasis on the individual right o a child to a place at

pre-primary school and on the educational and peda-gogical role o childcare services. Partly as a result othis, the share o children aged 35 years old in ormalcare arrangements reached 97 % in 2006. Germany in-troduced a legal entitlement or subsidised childcare orchildren aged 3 years up to the mandatory school age in1996. In Spain, the proportion o children attending pre-school services has continuously grown during the last15 years, especially in the case o children aged 3 years,

whose schooling rate has increased rom 38 % in 1991 to96 % in 2005. The Portuguese government, taking intoaccount the Barcelona target, promised that 100 % o5-year-olds would attend pre-school by 2009, and that90 % o 35-year-olds would also be included by 2010. InHungary it is compulsory that children attend kindergar-ten or 1 year beore they start primary school, whereasin Liechtenstein a space at nursery school is guaranteed

or every child aged 46 years. Finadom, the national childcare strate

titlement or all 34-year-olds to in pre-school education, which isper week during school term-timIn case the child remains in a eeents receive the equivalent as a entitlement is due to be extended15 hours per week by 2010. Pilot been established.

In other countries the situation sthough. In Slovakia, only 68 % 36 years attended a kindergartthere was a signicant drop in theis close to the 69 % in 1989, suggtive trend over the last couple o ypublic the number o kindergarte1989 and 2005 by approximately 3

o this development, the numbera kindergarten dropped rom 96 %2005. Since 2005, however, childnal pre-school year) have ree accilities. In Latvia there is a real shoand kindergarten teachers. Sincehave been obliged to guaranteeeducation or all children o the agOn average, however, only about

tend kindergartens. There has alsocrease in the number o all pre-schincluding sel-contained pre-schoage category 35 years, as well as ptached to primary schools or 6-yemean that accessibility has decreabecause o increased distances thecially in rural areas. However, in term

Graph 15. Use of formal childcare arrangements, 3 years to mandatory school a

100

Forma


38/92

children in pre-schools, the overall trend has been show-ing a long-term increase, rom 29.5 % o children aged

35 in 1990/91 to 44.6 % in 2006/07. For the 6-year-olds,the data indicate an increase rom 95.2 % to 97.4 % overthe same period. I these scores are correct, the Polishscore in Graph 15 seems too low; a score o approximate-ly 55 % would be more in line with the national statistics.Finally in Romania the participation in pre-primary edu-cation decreased between 1989 and 1995 rom 63.3 % to55.1 %, since when it has systematically grown each year

up to 73.4 % in 2005. The level o participation in educa-tion in kindergartens remains relatively low because osocioeconomic actors (a lack o minimal resources tosend children to kindergarten), and because o regionalactors (a lack o kindergartens in several localities in ru-ral areas and a lack o interest in kindergartens in somecommunities, such as the Roma minority).

Formal and other arrangements

In comparison to the youngest age category, the otherarrangements, reerring to home-based childmindersand amily/riends, play a much more limited role in thechildcare arrangements or children aged 3 years to themandatory school age (see Graph 16 or more details).In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland theuse o other arrangements is practically zero, whereas inSpain, Latvia, Malta and Lithuania the use is below 20 %.

In only three countries do other arrangements scoreabove or at 50 %: the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Hun-gary. In the Netherlands, part-time pre-school arrange-ments are topped up by other arrangements in whichamily and riends play a major role. In Slovenia, rela-tives, neighbours and riends also play an important rolein matching pre-school arrangements with a ull-timeworking day.

Hours

Although the coverage rateto the mandatory school aage rate or the youngest aginto account that in most part-time, as a result o whiadditional childcare acilitiavailable. Graphs 17 and 18ormal and other arrangem

in Iceland, Denmark, EstoniaLatvia, Lithuania and Polana large extent organised onor 30 hours or more). Acrosthe highest coverage rate omandatory school age in oor more hours a week. In Eschildcare institutions have otill 6.00 or 7.00 p.m. Anothe

most o the kindergartens The usual opening hours ar

In contrast, other countriearrangements on a part-ticases being Ireland and thedren enter the primary sch4 years, with school hours and 1.00 p.m. or the rst

most 3-year-olds either acover two mornings per weties on a part-time basis. Adren start primary school, ited to approximately 25 hwith a high part-time scoGermany and Austria. In thours o attendance in exc

Graph 16. Use of formal and other childcare arrangements, 3 years to manda

100



39/92

(12.5 hours per week or 34-year-olds) are rarely avail-able in school-based nurseries. In Austria and Germanythe school system is still dominated by hal-day schools,which translate into a large part-time score among theormal arrangements in Graph 17. Finally it can be notedthat almost all other arrangements or pre-school chil-

dren are organised on a part-time basis, indicating thecomplementary use o these arrangements (see Graph18 or urther details). The only outliers in this respectseem to be Greece and Poland: the heavy involvemento grandparents and childminders in the provision ocare at home is translated into a relatively high rate oull-time other arrangements or children aged 3 yearsto the mandatory school age.

Childcare arrangemen2.2.3

children

Graph 19 presents the data o childschool-going children. The EU doesthe provision o care or this age cate

point o view o reconciling work andthe well-being and saety o childrened. From the graph it appears that close to 100 %; only Greece and thebelow 90 %. These relatively low scoline with national statistics, though.on ormal arrangements are combiother arrangements indicating that o

Graph 17. Use of formal childcare arrangements by hours, 3 years to mandatory sch

Pe

rcentage

0

20

40

60

80

100

LVELCZATSKPTFIHUNOSIEECYDEUKNLITESSEIEFRDKISBE


Graph 18. Use of other childcare arrangements by hours, 3 years to mandatory scho

60


40/92

especially important in the Netherlands, Hungary, Luxem-bourg, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. In the Nether-lands, the relatively high score on other arrangements indi-cates the non ull-time school hours in combination with aninsucient supply o ormal out-o-school care. Grandpar-ents, neighbours and riends thus complement the ormal

arrangements in order to cover a ull working day. In theUnited Kingdom inormal childcare arrangements remainan important part o amily lie. In a given week ormal andinormal childcare are used to roughly the same extent, byaround 4 out o 10 amilies in both cases, with many parentsusing a combination. The widespread use o inormal carereects a combination o parental preerences and a lack osuitable local and afordable ormal services.

Hours

Finally Graphs 21 and 22 proarrangements or school-goIt appears that even or schschool day in most countrie

less than 30 hours a week). Twhich has organised the schsis. Other countries with a recare are: Belgium, Italy, IcelaLatvia and the United Kingdomous regarding time schethe minimum amount. For time schedule is typical rom

Graph 19. Use of formal childcare arrangements, mandatory school age to

Percentage

0

20

40

60

80

100

MTSILULTCZPTATHUESEEDKNOISSEFINLCYITFRIEBE


Graph 20. Use of formal and other childcare arrangements, mandatory school ag

100



41/92

two aternoons when service is provided rom 2.20 to4.30 p.m. Extra school activities may be provided or 11.5hours beore or ater the usual schedule. Lower secondaryschools ollow the school schedule rom 8.00 a.m. to 2.00p.m. with additional extra-activities or two or three times aweek in the aternoon. A ull-time service is provided only

or primary schools, between 8.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m., withpossible extensions or pre- and ater-school additional ac-tivities rom 7.30 and until 6.00 p.m. In Portugal in 2006, theull-time school has been implemented at the rst 4 yearsor children aged 610 years, making it compulsory or allprimary schools to deliver ater-school activities between3.00 and 5.30 p.m. As a result, there has been a dramaticincrease in the level o out-o-school care provision.

Supply and deman2.3

When interpreting the gures in Staken into account that the use o cnot answer directly the question ully met. The actual demand or c

by the participation rate o parenunemployment, the length o popening hours and the availabilitas grandparents and or other (inIn Finland, or example, the coverrangements or the youngest aging to Graph 9, 26 %, which is wetarget o 33 %. Yet childcare aci

Graph 21. Use of formal childcare arrangements by hours, mandatory school age to 12

Percentage

0

20

40

60

80

100

SKDEMTSILULTCZPTATHUESEEDKNOISSEFINLCYITFRIEBE

30 h.

1-29 h.


Graph 22. Use of other childcare arrangements by hours, mandatory school age to 12-

50


42/92

supply. In act, since 1990 Finnish children under 3 yearsare guaranteed a municipal childcare place, irrespective

o the labour market status o the parents. In 1996 thisright was expanded to cover all children under schoolage. This entitlement complements the home care allow-ance system, which enables the parent to stay at home tocare or his/her child with ull job-security until the childis 3 years old. Partly due to the popularity o the homecare alternative, the supply o public day-care serviceshas met the demand since the turn o the 1990s.

As in Finland, a ew other European countries have or-mulated a social right to (ormal) childcare services. InDenmark, or example, all municipalities have to oera childcare guarantee when the child is 6 months old.In act in Denmark there is a tendency to see childcareas much as an oer to the children in their develop-ment as democratic citizens,as an oer to the parentsto have their children cared or while they are working.

In Sweden, public childcare constitutes an important

part o the social inrastrucder equality in the divisio

almost all children aged 1public childcare. In Norwanavian countries, childcarright. Yet, since the late 19the common political goasince 2005, the number ocreased, moving the Norinto the same league as thother countries, however,and aordable childcare In particular, ormal childcest children seem to be inaged 3 years up to the mais higher but the openingnot always match workingdetails in this respect. Thebased on the national rep

March 2008.

Box 1. Supply and demand of childcare facilities

BEThe main problem or parents with children is out-o-school care. The supply o this tyerogeneous and ragmented.

BG Limited supply o (and demand or) childcare services or the youngest children.

CZThe demand or childcare acilities ar exceeds supply, especially or the youngest age cage o pre-school acilities or children below 5 years.

DKChildcare is a legal right; since 2006 all municipalities have had to oer a childcare 6 months old.

DEThe demand or childcare or children under 3 years is considerably higher than theEspecially in the ormer West Germany the insucient provision o ormal childcare olabour market.

EE There is a shortage o childcare places or almost all age categories, but especially or c

IE

Options or childcare services are limited and oten extremely costly. What has come childcare crisis has been the subject o considerable debate in the media but has not cant way centrally within the political system.



43/92

LTThe availability o childcare services is limited. In addition, there is an insucient number o pgartens in most urban and rural areas.

Documents

The Provision of Childcare Services - A Comparative Review of 30 European Countries