Alberta Liberal Children’s Services Critic Weslyn Mather was speaking to local area childcare workers last Thursday evening at the College. Mather is taking on a campaign in reaction to a poll released by Public Interest Alberta, which indicates that just 37 per cent of Albertans support the federal government’s plan to cancel support for the expansion of childcare centres and day homes.
“I am most concerned about the level of wages and training that childcare professionals receive,” said Mather. “In light of the poll results, Minister Forsyth (Minister of Children’s Services) has an obligation to ensure that these professionals receive sufficient supports from this government.”
I attended the meeting and was surprised to learn that the average daycare worker makes less than $10.00 an hour. One of the ladies at the meeting has been in this field for more than 15 years, has a supervisory position and only earns $12.50 an hour. This shocked me. I was under the impression that daycare workers were under much the same rate as teachers. Shows what I know.
“It’s hard to find and keep good daycare staff.” Another person at the meeting said. “When you attend college for 2 years and have to maintain your accreditations for less pay than someone working at Starbucks, it’s a real sad situation. And it’s the children who suffer.”
I believe it is the parents’ responsibilty to find good child care. I think that care in a private home with a loving care giver is much more effective than a large group could ever be. It also gives options for everyone to find the best care for their child (which includes staying home). I am a stay at home mother of 2 and I run a private day home with 1 to 3 extra children at a time. I was with a government approved agency for awhile and I think the money goes to waste. The extra funding goes to admin fees instead of improving our childcare resources. That extra $200.00 per month for me would mean less stress and the ability to better care for the children I have. I agree wages in childcare are very low. Full time works out to about $2.30/hour per child not counting the cost of food. Day care centers charge much more for care than the average day home. I think it is in the parent’s best interest to have the money to find care. Yes some will choose care that is inadequate but there are always abuses of money. When you fund day care centers you cater to the lower income population. Low income parents only pay $25.00/month for childcare while our taxes pay the remaining $400.00. I wish I could get $400.00/month each to care for my own children. Just because I choose to stay home I am getting penalized even thought If I went back to work full time I would qualify for the full subisidy. I also think it is stupid that you cannot claim paying a parent or relative for childcare. Isn’t being with family the best for the child? I think that we need to start to focus on the best care for all children. Maybe that would have some effect on the problems we see in today’s children. We all pay taxes and should have the same options for finding childcare. Just a couple thoughts :).
- sorry for the soapbox!
Ok first of all, you don’t have to go to college for 2 years to work in a dayhome. If you do take 2 years of Early Childhood Development, sure, you are more likely to get hired at a daycare, -but I’ll bet you wouldn’t get hired over a doctor who took 7 years studying pediatrics. If a doctor was stupid enough to go to school for that long to work at a dayhome for $10/hour, that would be their problem. This is a free economy people.
Secondy, in my estimation, I think that alot of daycare owners and workers are mostly interested in protecting their government incomes, rather than looking to the welfare of the children. The whole “it’s the children who suffer” guilt-trip makes me sick! Unless you’re a truly inept parent, it’s no secret that a child is better off in their home, cared for by a loving parent. IMHO children suffer most by being in daycares or dayhomes in the first place.
I understand that some parents truly have no choice, so they have to send their child to a daycare or dayhome. Thankfully with my family we have found a way to have my wife stay at home with our children - it has been a sacrifice but I am 100% convinced that it has been worth it. The quality of my children’s nurturing years is much more important to me than the quality of the vehicle I drive, the house I live in, etc.
What infuriates me the most about the daycare system that liberal-minded people in this country want to propogate and support is this: It rewards parents who decide to turn the care of their children during their formative years over to a 3rd party. Why should someone else receive money to care for my children, yet my wife can choose to stay at home and care for them, and receive nothing!?!
That is insanity, and I for one welcome the new federal government’s initiative to address this issue!
Well stated SuperWilly!! I am %100 in agreement with you.
It would cost the Government far less to subsidize child care in the home, rather than in a daycare.
The false notion of institutionalized care being superior to family based care is the problem. Working poor, are still poor. Subsidizing daycare facilities does not improve a families financial situation, it just ensures that people are raising children that do not have a vested interest in how they develop. Families having choices and options for raising their children through access to funds is what will make the difference.
I am sure that the majority of us families upon having access to funds will endeavour to spend the money wisely and not just squandor it on booze, cigarettes and illicit drugs despite what some pompous elitist might think.
I love polls
Mather is taking on a campaign in reaction to a poll released by Public Interest Alberta, which indicates that just 37 per cent of Albertans support the federal government’s plan to cancel support for the expansion of childcare centres and day homes.
First of all - the Conservatives arent cancelling the program that subsidizes daycare and dayhomes, they are cancelling the expansion of that program (proposed in the last budget)and INSTEAD funding all parents. This doesnt cancel any existing program that people might already be getting. I would be interested to see exactly what the poll was asking people before I buy the fact that 63% of Albertans are supposedly opposed to the continued support of daycare and dayhome subsidies plus additional funding per child no matter what child support arrangements a family makes.
It is bizarre that our government gives tax concessions, and funding to daycare, but nothing to stay at home care or child care provided by a relative. Think about that. The government will pay a stranger to watch a baby, but provide nothing that enables Grandma to watch the baby - I am sure Liberals mean well, but that kind of social engineering is uncomfortable for me.
Social Engineering…
That is the key words and the key difference in policies is it not?
Institutionalizing child rearing with government approved, mainstreamed ideals, values and morals.
Oh what a perfect society can we build…
Willy said: Ok first of all, you don’t have to go to college for 2 years to work in a dayhome. If you do take 2 years of Early Childhood Development, sure, you are more likely to get hired at a daycare, -but I’ll bet you wouldn’t get hired over a doctor who took 7 years studying pediatrics. If a doctor was stupid enough to go to school for that long to work at a dayhome for $10/hour, that would be their problem. This is a free economy people. That’s a very assinine statement. We’re not talking about ‘free economy’ nor are we talking about the price of butter in Egypt. It’s about the care of our children. No! You’re right, we don’t have to have daycare workers with any credentials. They don’t need Early Childhood Development. Heck let’s get Nutty Larry who hangs out in front of the Sin Bin to look after our kids. We could probaly get away with paying him $5 bucks an hour to watch the kids. Why not? I heard he dances for nickels.
Willy said: Secondy, in my estimation, I think that alot of daycare owners and workers are mostly interested in protecting their government incomes, rather than looking to the welfare of the children. The whole “it’s the children who suffer” guilt-trip makes me sick! Unless you’re a truly inept parent, it’s no secret that a child is better off in their home, cared for by a loving parent. IMHO children suffer most by being in daycares or dayhomes in the first place.
You have a jaded opinion. You can say it’s better for a child to stay at home but some will argue that a child that doesn’t participate in daycare or preschool lacks social skills. However, that’s not even close to the point, here. The point is, not everybody lives in the perfect nuclear family that would make your plan even remotely feasible. There is this situation called . . . what’s the word . . . ’single parent’. What’s your plan for that group?
I understand that some parents truly have no choice, so they have to send their child to a daycare or dayhome. Willy said: Thankfully with my family we have found a way to have my wife stay at home with our children - it has been a sacrifice but I am 100% convinced that it has been worth it. The quality of my children’s nurturing years is much more important to me than the quality of the vehicle I drive, the house I live in, etc. Good for you. But you know what. The way things are set up in our government, if you own a house you pay school taxes. You pay school taxes even if you don’t have kids. We all pay to spread the cost. It takes a village to raise a child type thinking. I didn’t invent it I just accept it. What infuriates me the most about the daycare system that liberal-minded people in this country want to propogate and support is this: It rewards parents who decide to turn the care of their children during their formative years over to a 3rd party. Why should someone else receive money to care for my children, yet my wife can choose to stay at home and care for them, and receive nothing!?! I agree. Childcare is childcare. I think you certainly should be getting a big tax break if you’re not gaining income to raise your children. It should be comparible to the incentives given to those whom choose to work. But the part where you talk about ‘formative years . . .’ I just hear “Blah, Blah, Blah!”
Willy said: That is insanity, and I for one welcome the new federal government’s initiative to address this issue!
Sweets said
“When you fund day care centers you cater to the lower income population.”
I am one of those people who recives a child subsidy from the government. You make it sound like being low income is a bad thing. I work a full time job, which requires my child to have full time care during the day. I don’t recive $400.00 a month to care for my own child, it goes straight to the child care center, and i have to make up the differance which is aprox 135.00 a month. I could sit at home and not work and not recive the subsidy, but then I would be reciving welfare. I work at a job where my wage is well above minimum wage, and still have a hard time making ends meet some months, i also recive no support from my childs father, and don’t live in subsdised housing. I would love to be able to sit at home and raise my child but i can’t, and i refuse to put her back in to a day home (which costs less) she loves the center she is at, and it makes me feel better that it is an accreddited center.
Hey Super!
“What infuriates me the most about the daycare system that liberal-minded people in this country want to propogate and support is this: It rewards parents who decide to turn the care of their children during their formative years over to a 3rd party. Why should someone else receive money to care for my children, yet my wife can choose to stay at home and care for them, and receive nothing!?!”
I think you would find if you talk to true “Liberal-minded” people is that they think much the same way you say you do…that it’s unfair for a stay at home Mom to be penalized by the system for keeping her kids’ best interests in mind. It’s certainly not a “Conservative” viewpoint that stay at home parents would get compensation comparable to a care-giver! I would say the most Conservative point of view would be that no one gets any subsidy whatsoever, and let them all figure it out for themselves.
I will continue to side with the leftist Pinko Commies on this one and say that there should be more in the way of tax-breaks/deductions/credits/whatever they heck you want to call it for care-givers, INCLUDING those who choose to care for their own children.
Why is the bolding all screwed up?
Chelsea said:
“I am one of those people who recives a child subsidy from the government. You make it sound like being low income is a bad thing. I work a full time job, which requires my child to have full time care during the day. I don’t recive $400.00 a month to care for my own child, it goes straight to the child care center, and i have to make up the differance which is aprox 135.00 a month. I could sit at home and not work and not recive the subsidy, but then I would be reciving welfare”
DangerMouse says:
I dont think she implied it was a bad thing, she just correctly observed that the subsidy is for just the one kind of care.
You fully admit that if you chose to stay home you wouldnt recieve the subsidy - dont you agree that the program as it currently exists only supports one form of child care?
How many mothers - like yourself perhaps might be able to swing raising their kids at home if that same subsidy that was paid out to a daycare for a child, could be used by the mom to support the children at home? Lots of single moms have to work, but for some families $800 for 2 kids might be enough money that they can afford have mom raise the kids at home - for many families the money the government pays out for child care subsidy is greater than the wage earned in the families #2 income.
you should feel comfortable with your childs care, but I personally would not feel any more or less safe with my child in an “Accredited” daycare than with mom or grandma or a non accredited dayhome that I was comfortable with. No one is right or wrong on that, but I see the point about college not making someone either a good or bad child care person IMO.
Longshot:
/shakes head….
Ok - well in terms of labeling a policy “Liberal” or “Conservative” you do realize that giving no tax breaks or subsidy to stay home parents is indeed the Liberal party of Canada’s official position on the issue.
You also realize that the child subsidy to every parent - allowing them to decide how to use it, is entirely a Conservative Party of Canada initiative right?
in fact the Liberals during the last federal election spouted off that families couldnt be trusted with child care money, that they would waste it on “beer and pizza” - So in point of fact …as it comes to this issue, Longshot is indeed a cold hearted conservative.
I’m annoyed that people are subsidized simply for having children… subsidized for child care… subsidized for education… subsidized for health care… it’s a LONG list!!
If everyone needs subsidies to have children,
why is anyone having children at all??
How about “incentives” to NOT have children???
Then there wouldn’t be a need for subsidies period!!
Dmouse said “Why is the bolding all screwed up?”
view the source, post 6 signed off by Funguy… that post has a TON of *strong* tags, also referred to as *bold* tags… opening and closing, i counted TEN on one line of code alone. That is a ton… so i would imagine that one tag was left open, thereby affecting ALL the following html text… i wonder if it ever ends…
Danger mouse say:
“for many families the money the government pays out for child care subsidy is greater than the wage earned in the families #2 income”
I agree with that, there comes a point when you have more than one child in care that it simply does not pay to work.
and as for the “accredited” statment i made, i think it just comes down to me being more comfortable with a larger population of staff, to check up on each other, less chance of my child being taken advantage of.
and just for the record i did have some one else watch my child, my neibour, but it just got to the point where i could not afford it, when you end out paying 1/3 of your wage for care it makes it a bit asinine to continue.
maybe i am taking this a bit personal, but it seems like it is all i hear “single mother’s this” and “low income that” i would love it if i earned enough money to not require a subsidy, but i don’t. also i do think it is unfair that there is not working family type subsidy, just b/c you have two wage earners in a family does not mean it is any easier. more people means more expenses.
I have worked in daycare centres for over 11 years now and currently work in one in the city. I make less than $9/hour even with the govt wage enhancment program that was put in place a few years ago. I am currently in college as well as working full time at the centre in order to increase my knowledge and skills and that will give me about another 50 cents an hour.
i was involved in the push for centres to ask the govt for wage enhancement a few years ago and still have my copy of the letter i received from the children’s minister at that time. she said that the ONLY WAY for centres to increase staff wages was to increase the parents’ monthly fees. centres do not want to do this because we realise how much cost is involved and how it is difficult for parents to be able to afford childcare. but sadly, it has become the only way to increase staff wages.
i could make more money per hour working at the gas station that is down the street, i made more money as a courtesy clerk at safeway! there is something wrong with the system where someone packing grocery bags and checking pricing errors makes more money per hour than a person who cares for young children in a fully qualified and licensed centre. the same goes for those working in homes for the eldery actually, many of them have taken 2 years or more of specialised college and make barely above minimum wage.
staff turnover is a huge problem because people simply cannot afford to stay in daycare or dayhome positions. i have two children myself and the cost of their care is outweighing the benefits of me working at all. who wants to work 22 days a month and give over half their money to childcare before they pay the rest of their bills? the cycle goes around and around.
i know that people think my centre is rolling in money, but they do not think about how once the parents fees are in (providing all of the parents pay on time), HALF of the money goes directly to staff wages, even at these low amounts. the rest goes to the centre and operating fees. i have helped do the books at my centre, i know where the money goes, and it most certainly does not go into the director’s pocket. the centre runs at a loss most months in fact. but without putting up parent fees, there is no possible way to increase staff wages and keep quality, loving people in the job. the only reason i am still there is because my youngest attends the centre as well. once she is out of daycare and into school i do not know what i will do.
i LOVE my job but it does not pay enough to run a home and keep food on the table. if the govt cuts the funding we have been waiting for, many centres may have to either increase fees or consider closing down. it is very sad and people do not realise how much work goes into running a centre and keeping the quality staff there for the kids and their families. we cannot even find and keep good casual staff because they make far more money as a waitress/waiter and will not take the summer or casual positions. finding full-time staff is also difficult for the same reasons.
for those who are dissing people who receive subsidy benefits, you are letting a few bad apples spoil the bunch. currently at my centre, almost half of the children come from single-parent homes and are subsidized (meaning the parent doesnt pay the full fee, the govt pays a large portion). ALL of those single parents at my centre are working full-time jobs and one is in college full-time. not one of them is sitting at home on their tush while their child is being cared for by someone else. they are all trying to get ahead, but with full-time care costing over $500 a month at all the centres here (try over $800 in calgary and $1000 in vancouver), they HAVE to receive subsidy. if they didnt, they would have to stay home and go on social services to pay their rent and food.
i am one of those parents and if i did not receive govt aid, i would not be able to work unless i took a 12hour a day job out of town. how would that be better for my kids? and they would have to be in care even longer than they already are. my childcare fees would account for over half of my income if i stayed in my daycare job but did not have govt subsidy.
thats the catch-22,,, i love my job and love helping these kids in their preschool years, but the amount of pay barely keeps us afloat. perhaps i should have stayed with my abusive ex-husband who makes a lot of money so that i could stay home with the kids like so many here are suggesting is ‘the best’? well, its not the best for everyone and there is also the factor that parents (esp mothers) should have a choice if they want to stay in the workplace or not. this could go around and around all day, but the fact remains, i am a parent AND i work in a daycare AND i have provided private care before so i think i have seen pretty much all the sides to the coin with my own eyes.
i am pretty sure you are not gonna be up for posting this but what center do you work at??
hi chel i really would rather not say but its been running for over 18 years and we always have a waiting list and run at full capacity due mostly to ‘word of mouth’ praise and references. i love this centre and started working there in 95. its just getting really hard because when i first started there i didnt have kids and i was married so it was an extra added income. now its the sole income and im finding it difficult to keep up.
its sad because i have seen the kids grow up and then have their little siblings start in their place, you really get to know the families closely. but when my daughter starts school next year, i will no longer have subsidy because the govt gives nothing at all for children over age 6 and i will have to pay full-fee for before and after-school programs… its going to kill me if im still making this lower amount of money.
right now we have only had ONE applicant looking for full-time work in the past year! and only a handful for part-time or casual. if i leave or if my coworker leaves that is planning to move out of town when her kids are done highschool, the centre is going to find it hard to find a replacement because people just arent getting the pay that they need. its going to cost about $8,000 for the course i am taking but it only increases my pay $50/month. hardly seems worth it eh?
oh and i should add that we have tried several casual workers over the past couple of years to see if they would be good for the centre - one came in and sat down with a book and read that instead of being with the kids, so she was not called back. another went for her lunch break and didnt return and didnt call so again, another one not called back,,, yet another didnt show up half the time — its not the same as someone not showing up for work at safeway and having to close down a til or work short-handed for awhile. we want quality people who actually care about the job - but thats getting harder to find as people realise that the pay is just not there. we had a mom tell us recently that we must REALLY love our work because she found out how much we were getting paid and was appauled. she wrote a letter to the govt and gave us a copy because she loves the centre and wants her son there until he starts school (he is 2 right now). so while some people slam daycares, not all are in it for the money. and i would say that in medicine hat, very very few are in it as an enterprise, if any at all. i cant think of any centre right now that would be doing that because its not the money-making machine people think it is. my boss has been in daycare for about 30 years now i believe and loves it, and actually works with the kids as opposed to doing mainly office work.
i have that problem too, my daughter will turn 6 in november and her subsidy will be done then as well, but i have heard talk from some girls where i work that there is a city funded subsidy for after school care and such, you have to go down to city hall to apply.
hi chel, i know that there used to be but my oldest is 8 and i have inquired several times about subsidy and there is none. as far as i was told by his school, the city stopped doing the subsidy years ago. there are some options such as finding larger centres such as kiddie kampus because they have an after-school program and have their own subsidy through their non-profit organization. but i do not know how many spaces they have each year. i know that some of the kids at my son’s school go there afterwards. there may be other centres that do that as well.
for me, i do not want my kids going over to another place after school because i have no way of getting them there and i work til 5 each day. it will be about $400 a month for the two of them in the program! that and my rent will total over $1000 which is well over half of what i earn. its very frustrating. i wrote the prime minister about it a few weeks ago and in fact just received a reply today saying the federal government will not be involved in subsidizing school-aged children and said i need to contact the provincial goverment (which i have already been doing for years).
it would be nice if the city has started their subsidy program up again but i have not heard of it. i will check it out but the last time i asked again was in september. doesnt help much for when the kids are off in the summer tho! have you looked at the cost of the programs? cheapest i found was $95 a week and its only one week at a time you can apply for. others are up to $300 a week and only half a day! its outrageous.
one more thing to note is that a certain local MP once told the directors of a few centres (including mine), that childcare workers were “nothing more than glorified babysitters”. this bothered my director in particular because we had HIS children at our centre for years.. apparently we were good enough back then, but are not good enough now? why is that i wonder?
correction, local MLA (where is that edit button haha)
2 things:
1) I dont think anybody in this thread implied that child care workers are over paid.
2) I think everyone is sensitive to the costs of child care for families - under any arrangement.
Many familes are frusterated that the child care solutions are heavily slanted to 3rd party care - and as a father of 1 almost 2 I personally dont think that is always the ideal. Its not like you have to be in the daycare camp or the “other” camp. I support child care subsidy for daycare and dayhomes - I recognize that for some families thats the only choice they have…BUT the current system pre conservatives was discriminating against the traditional family. Under our current tax system my family would qualify for:
1) Child Care Subsidies for daycare - we are “poor” enough that we qualify, though I am not compaining about our lot in life or anything, BUT only if my wife works and we put our child in an “accredited” facility.
2) I can write off child care expenses for my son - IF and only if a total stranger is watching him. If my wife stays home I dont get any extra deduction. $4800 for child care in tax breaks for strangers $0.00 for Mommies.
3) I can pay a complete stranger to watch my child - and get subsidy - but that same subsidy cant be collected to have Grandma watch the baby.
The system is soo tilted to just 1 solution…and while many parents like the daycare solution, I dont think parents that would make another choice are insulting the people want/need daycare. I am insulted by the idea that someone who went to college is automatically considered the ideal care giver - when in my hierchy of priorities I would rather have Mom, Dad, Grandparents or close friends over top of that solution. The system has not been very “familiy” freindly for the last 13 years.
Daycare workers are not paid very well, neither are dayhome workers - but even that expense, from the government spent another way might have families utilize other child care solutions. I would love a situation where the PARENTS decided what to do with the subsidization instead of the government.
I know that we all have diffening opinions and I apologize to anyone who might think I am attacking single moms or low income families (I happen to be in that category). What I am frustrated about is the government rewarding those who are working while penalizing those who choose to stay at home with their children. Funguy, it is a fact that a child’s moral standards are set in place by the time they are 5 years of age. Do you want someone else to set that level? I for one do not. I believe that a community is resposible to help raise children but the ultimate responsibility is mine as a parent. I run the dayhome I have because I respect the values of the parents of the children I care for. I try to treat each of these children as my own and I truely care about their personal development. I have to be careful who I have in my home as the children here also influence mine. I had some children before who were introducing subject matter and behaviours that I did not agree with. I know that my children are not perfect but I do want to be in control of what they watch/hear/talk about. If you need childcare you do. I know that some people have no choice. I do not judge or look down on these people. Life is not perfect. I do think, however, that a loving parent will find the best care for their child. I am infuriated by parents who are so selfish as to say I want to work for me and are willing to have someone else raise my children 180 hours a month. If you need the finances I can understand and then subsidy is a great help but if you don’t why did you have kids in the first place. If we focus on training our children to be respectful, loving individuals I believe we have done our jobs as parents. This is not an easy task but I believe this is what is required.
Hey Mouse,
Sorry I wasn’t clear in my political statements. I was using the term “Liberal-minded” and Conservative with regards to general positions in the political spectrum. The idea of no subsidies and a “laissez faire” approach is traditionally righ wing conservative, while subsidizing things and what not is typically left-wing or “Liberal”. You are entirely correct on your assesment of party platforms. It’s interesting on this topic that that the main left and right parties in Canada have taken stances on the opposite side of the political spectrum!
there is actually a subsidy amount parents can apply for when a family member is looking after their child. im not sure when this started, but certainly since nov 05. i believe it is $300 but dont quote me. my only family member here is medically unable to help care for my kids so i havent looked into it further, but yes there are and have been subsidies available for those who have their children in care of a family member.
i agree that its not really fair to give subsidy amounts mainly to people who have their child in a licensed centre/dayhome. but as many working mothers at my daycare who do NOT qualify for subsidy said, $1200 does not increase their chances or choices for finding care. one is going back to work in a month after maternity leave and does not have anywhere to put her son. her family is in saskatchewan, her husbands family overseas, and she is still looking for somewhere for her son. getting $1200 in july is not going to help her when soooooo many people wont take infants. she has contacted many private care givers on top of centres and dayhomes and baby spaces are very limited. when they find out he is not quite a year old, they say ‘im sorry, we do not take infants’.. or the infant spaces in centres are full and have a long waiting list.
she feels that the govt should not cut the funding that was promised because with it, centres can expand. mine could almost double our capacity if we got the funding to work on our expansion. but at the moment we cannot because the ONLY income is from parent fees. it is the same for most centres here in town.
i also agree that stay at home parents should not be left out and not get tax breaks. i wish it wasnt a ‘one or the other’ situation. i wish the govt could come up with a plan to honour the funding to licensed care as well as provide monies to those who choose private care or stay at home. even if they cut the funding a bit for the licensed care and used the rest for the other factors… but instead they want to cut it all. that does not really give parents the ‘choice’ that they are making out. it might pay for a few months of care, but if you cant find a place to put your child, what good is that going to do?
http://www.child.gov.ab.ca/whatwedo/childcare/page.cfm?pg=About%20Kin%20Child%20Care%20Funding%20Program
The Kin Child Care Funding Program provides eligible low-income families $300 per month per child to pay relatives to care for their children. This program provides families with flexible alternatives for child care where there are limited options; for example, in rural locations, or during non-traditional work hours.
To be eligible, parents must be working, seeking work, attending post secondary education, have a special need, or have a child with a special need. The relative caregiver must not reside in the child’s family home, but may care for the child in either the family home, or the caregiver’s home.
Eligibility for Kin Child Care funding is based on:
Total gross family income
Reason for child care
Minimum 50 hours of care required per month
Children are preschool age and not attending Grade 1
************************
http://www.child.gov.ab.ca/whatwedo/childcare/page.cfm?pg=Stay%2D%20At%2D%20Home%20Parents%20Support
Eligible stay-at-home parents may qualify for a new subsidy of up to $100 per month, for each preschool age child who is participating in an approved early childhood development program.
Approved early childhood development programs refer to community-based services, including licensed nursery schools that provide opportunities for pre-school children - either on their own, or with a parent - to participate in activities that promote healthy child development.
**********************
oh and i meant to say that my earlier comments were in response to a big part of the main topic - the amount that licensed staff are paid. that is what 75% of the topic was about. other issues have come up in the comments section, but not much regarding the actual topic itself.
FYI - The Kin Child Care Funding Program is NOT available to Medicine Hat residents. Seems our wonderful city does not believe in “Families supporting families”.
wow thats a new thing for me to learn today. we got a letter from the medicine hat sect of the family and children’s services back in november listing that very program, so i assumed that it meant it was available here. perhaps they just mailed a general letter that came from the govt, but it was mailed from our office here in town.
i agree that things need to be shifted around so everyone can benefit. some of my friends are stay at home moms and they dont get any help for anything at all money-wise.
The missus called a couple of months ago and was told it was not available here… They did say they had recieved a number of calls on it though and may look at it again.
The wheels of progress mounted on a buggy, pulled by a mule.
thats very interesting. i didnt think that the local division could pick and choose which provincial programs they would be offering. they dont give the money, the govt does. they handle the paperwork and inspections and things like that for this region but since the money doesnt come from the city, it wouldnt be ‘medicine hat’ that chose not to do this, it would be the prov govt. i wonder if you were mis-informed and i will be calling to check into this today since it doesnt make sense to me that its not offered here.
it definately happens when people are misinformed because when my son was sick about 6 years ago, i was being crushed under the cost of his medication. i phoned alberta health care several times asking if there was something for subsidizing prescriptions for low-income other than having to join blue cross. i was told NO repeatedly. after losing my apartment because i chose my son’s medication over paying rent, i learned about the Alberta Child Health Benefit which pays 100% of dental, medical, eye, and ambulance services for children in low income families! its been going for years and years and no one i called told me about it. its part of blue cross and alberta health care. so these things happen, thats for sure. ill see what i can find out today because that has me very intrigued. i know one thing online says an example of ‘need’ for the KCP is living in a rural area but its not listed as a requirement, just an example
She was told that Social Services for our region directs the funding in our region and selects the programs that they participate in. They said at the time, in evaluating the program, that it did not provide enough benefits overall for them to participate in.
Let me know if you have any better success though
Best of luck
so basically they couldnt be bothered to do the paperwork for it i suppose. thats just mental! i tried to find something online that shows which programs are avail here but i couldnt. it just keeps sending me back to the main alberta site with the list of childcare programs and kin care is one of those. just plain weird. i will ask them why its not offered here as well. even with all my years in daycare and receiving subsidy myself, i had no idea the regional divisions could pick and choose. thats unfair! many people dont even know about this program so how does the region really know if its needed or not? i hadnt heard of it until november but my boss said she has.
As with everything else down here it seems that this region deliberately restricts access to programs and services with respect to lower income families and kids.
I guess they wouldn’t want to encourage too many of “those” kind of people to stick around down here.
If it wasn’t for having “older” family down here (that I can’t convince to move…) we would move in a heartbeat. It sure isn’t the $100.00 a month I am saving in utilities keeping us down here.
I worked in childcare for years after having taken the childcare program at the college. Whether we like it or not, some children will always have to go to daycare. Living is expensive and daycare is even more expensive.
Given this, you need to understand that most of these children, sadly, are there 8 hours a day. They need all the education and socialization they can get and it is up to the childcare workers to give it to them.Let me tell you, it is HARD. I took care of eight to ten 4 and 5 year old all day everyday and it is quite something to come up with all your own programming, games and activities for them. I loved working with children and did it for the love of the job, becuase i only made 6.50 an hour. I had to quit because the real world came knocking on my door and I couldn’t afford to work in daycate anymore.
I was a really good childcare worker and the industry is losing people like me everyday becuase the government won’t give us more money. It is not about being greedy or just thinking about money - it is the realization that a person has a really hard time living on $10 hour - and being stressed and busy all the time to boot.
I called the Subsidy Adviser directly this morning and she said that YES we do indeed have the kin childcare program as well as all the others. That is what i thought… the regional authority does NOT have the power to pick and choose which provincial programs it will cover, and she does not know why people were given the incorrect information. She said that she finds it doubtful anyone in their office would have passed on that wrong info. She said anyone wishing to apply for that would go to the office and pick up the Kinship Package.
i dont know who passed on that info but this program has been in place since at least November and its province-wide, not just for southeast alberta. the city of medicine hat does not do any subsidy programs at all, that we are aware of, but the province does and the people here are hired to carry that out and oversee it, not make decisions on what programs to participate in. Hope that clears it up for some.
Well now…
>>”She said that she finds it doubtful anyone in
their office would have passed on that wrong info.”
A government worker giving false, wrong, or misleading information??? I know, it is hard to believe isn’t it…
K, Would you be able to e-mail me the name of the person you chatted with?
i would if i knew your email addy LOL but the listed telephone number for the subsidy office is 529 3172 if my memory is working at all this evening. they will be able to tell you about it, and if you want the head hancho, she is the Subsidy Advisor, Karen P (not sure if im allowed to put her last name out on the web lol)
and believe me, ive been told incorrect info by govt agencies many times so i know it happens!
My bad…
I guess I assumed it would be on the member list some where…
But ic their is no member list
BTW, my wife said that initially she had spoken with the person whom we shall not name again, she then referred my wife to her boss. It was he that told my wife that they were not presently participating in the program but would look into it again as they were recieving so many calls on it…
too funny
Thanks
P.S. Yo, site guru’s, where is the member list?
all confusing eh? but its like when i called canada immigration to ask about getting dual citizenship for my son (he was born in england, i want a canukian passport for him too),,, they said canada doesnt do dual citizenship. i knew this was wrong so i asked the guy for the website addy,,, while i was on the phone with him i clicked the link that says ‘List of countries Canada has dual citizenship agreements with’ or something like that. i read it to the guy and he said ‘oh’… um hello??
the only thing i can think of is if she phoned around the time the programs were being implemented. we didnt receive notice at my centre until the new subsidy plans were already in place - it was on the radio and in the papers and parents were asking us about it and we had no clue. so perhaps some wires were still crossed but that would have been around oct/nov.
i specifically asked the advisor today if we have been in it all along and she said yes, that the office does NOT pick and choose which programs we can do. its up to the prov govt and they just handle the cases in our region. but it doesnt change the fact that sometimes mistakes are made and people are not given the right info.
I am just returning to part time work after my one year mat leave and have had a hard time with the idea of leaving my little 1 year old daughter in another person’s care. We however have great friends that have a dayhome that we trust and know she will receive great care at.
I do agree that there should be some sort of funding for moms that would choose to stay at home with their kids (I hopefully can afford to stay home after baby #2 arrives in January). And, I think it’s silly that you can’t use childcare by a relative as a tax benefit at all. I would much rather my daughter be able to stay at grandma’s if I had to go to work, but it doesn’t make sense if she’s losing time from her own work and I can’t pay her for the same care I can use as a tax benefit somewhere else.
It really is a catch 22 for most people with this whole situation though…child care workers are upset they don’t make enough money, and in the same sentence are upset that it costs so much for child care. I personally don’t think it should be up to the government to subsidize every little thing as it just comes from tax payers dollars anyway.
I don’t qualify for any sort of funding/subsidy, or the child tax benefit or anything of the sort, which is fine and I’m ok with since we make a decent wage. But I am committed to paying a little more for good child care out of our own pockets. And, I know we pay more in income taxes because of all the different programs that the liberals have set up. If we were to back step a bit and reduce everyone’s income tax/GST/property tax etc., so we don’t take as much away in the first place, wouldn’t that be a little smarter than later trying to find the right program that everyone qualifies for?
I also don’t think it’s fair that some people only have to commit $25/month for someone else to look after their children. I know some people will be upset with that, and I understand that getting by on a little more than minimum wage must be hard…but it’s all in your priorities. (i.e. if you smoke it’s what, $10/day = $300 per month? Or if you eat out at McDonalds every day instead of buying groceries it’s another $300 extra per month?) Having kids is going to cost money, and you have to set up your budget accordingly whether you’re a single parent or traditional ‘nuclear’ family or whatever.
Anyway, there’s my 2 cents…not sure where I was going with that lol
yes some tax breaks or whatnot would be a way to make sure that everyone can make ends meet. i dont know what other people have happen with their taxes, but when i claim what i have paid for childcare, my family allowance amount goes down so i dont bother claiming it at all. it doesnt do any good toward my tax return, as in doesnt increase it at all, and instead makes my monthly CCTB lower (that has never made sense to me but thats the way it has always been). so i cant claim it either or im at a loss.
for childcare workers saying in one sentence that they dont make enough to stay in the job and then say in the next that parent fees should not be increased, that is because it is the only way a centre makes any money TO pay the staff. if we want to be paid more so that we can stay in a job we love and stop such a high staff turnover (which stresses children and their parents), the only option is to increase parent fees. we dont want to do that. at my centre the fees have only gone up once in about 5 years and even then it was only $35 a month. its difficult when parents want trusting, reliable care, but every month they come in and have to meet new staff and then that person leaves and they have to meet someone else all over again. thats why the staff turnover has to be dealt with too. its never-ending.
for the budgeting, yes im sure there are parents out there that smoke a lot and buy mcdonalds instead of cooking dinner, but not everyone is like that. i would also hope they dont spend $300 a month on cigs! but i know there are definately some out there that do that. i eat out maybe once or twice a month with my kids, havent ordered takeout in over a month, and rent a movie maybe once every two weeks for 99 cents at the Shell. i dont go out to the bar, i dont go anywhere other than work or to the mall. last month i bought a CD for $17 and felt guilty, but i work full-time so why shouldnt i treat myself to something once in awhile? if i paid the full daycare fee and didnt have subsidy, i would not be able to survive on what i earn at all. $505 for daycare and $550 for rent let alone everything else? whoa, thats scary and i cant even think about it! not everyone that is on lowincome spends money on things they ’shouldnt’ but at the same time if they work 9 hours a day why cant they indulge just a little here and there? otherwise they might just lose their sanity. people are always quick to judge without knowing anything about the family at all.
i do agree that they should spread the tax breaks across the board for everyone but if people want good care for their children, and the govt regulates us to make sure that we are doing that, then they should stand behind it to support it as well.
Here is a great article by the CBC from about a month ago -
INDEPTH: DAY CARE
Day care in Canada
CBC News Online | May 10 2006
It was first proposed in 1970 – a program that would provide affordable day care across the country. It was promised when Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives swept to power in 1984. And again four years later.
By the time Jean Chrétien’s Liberals did some political sweeping of their own in 1993, promises of a national day-care strategy had fallen victim to the realities of a government wallowing in debt. With budgetary knives sharpened and drawn, day care would have to wait.
But the economic climate began to shift – and in 1997, Quebec introduced its own day-care system, offering spaces at $5 a day. Demand quickly surpassed supply.
By 2001, there were nearly 600,000 regulated day-care spaces across the country. Just under 235,000 of them were in Quebec. While only one in five Quebec kids had access to these spaces, the rate was much better than the national average of one in eight children.
As successive governments ran up surplus after surplus, the call for more money for day care began to be heard again.
In October 2004, the newly elected Liberal minority government declared in its throne speech, “The time has come for a truly national system of early learning and child care.”
During the campaign leading up to the June 28, 2004, election, the Liberals promised $5 billion to create 250,000 child-care spaces by 2009. The plan pointed to Quebec’s now $7-a-day day-care plan as a model.
The speech said:
Parents must have real choices; children must have real opportunities to learn. The time has come for a truly national system of early learning and child care, a system based on the four key principles that parents and child care experts say matter – quality, universality, accessibility and development.
The Government will put the foundations in place with its provincial and territorial partners, charting a national course that focuses on results, builds on best practices and reports on progress to Canadians. Within this national framework, the provinces and territories will have the flexibility to address their own particular needs and circumstances.
The Martin government signed deals with each province before the government fell, and Canadians once again were faced with an election. During the campaign, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper introduced his own child-care plan. Called “Choice in Childcare,” it provided cheques of $100 a month to parents for each child under six. The money could be spent by parents as they saw fit. It would be also be treated as income and taxable in the hands of the parent with the lower income.
When the Conservatives won the election, they announced the first cheques to parents would go out July 1, 2006, and quickly moved to cancel the Liberal plan.
Human Resources and Social Development Minister Diane Finley sent letters to the provinces confirming that the government will terminate the $5-billion series of federal-provincial child-care deals after the first year is up.
The new government’s first budget in May 2006 made the plan official.
Day-care activists warn that the cut in funding will be a blow to Canada’s day-care system, but to call day care in Canada a “system” may be a stretch.
In October 2004, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development released a report that described Canada’s child-care system as a chronically underfunded patchwork of programs with no overarching goals. It found that many centres were shabby and many workers were poorly trained. As well, staff turnover at many centres was very high.
The report also found a shortage of available regulated child-care spaces – enough for fewer than 20 per cent of children aged six years and younger with working parents. In the U.K., 60 per cent of children find regulated child care; in Belgium, 63 per cent; in France, 69 per cent; in Denmark, 78 per cent.
The OECD recommended that Canada boost its child-care spending to the OECD average of about 0.4 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. It’s currently half that.
It also recommended integrating child care with kindergarten, and improving the training and recruitment of workers.
There are calls for even more. The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada issued a report of its own on the heels of the OECD report. It, too called for more money. The association wants Ottawa to commit at least one per cent of GDP – or about $10 billion – for day care within 15 years. The report argues:
“The amount is a ‘modest and minimum’ investment for the one-third of Canadian youngsters under 6, compared to the 6% of GDP now devoted to educating older children.”
But the report also warns that devoting so much public money to child care would likely attract foreign corporate day-care chains, eager to be part of a growing market. The report recommends Ottawa ensure that the money it spends on day care be earmarked for the public/non-profit system.
It wants the federal government to pass legislation that protects provinces and territories that wish to expand services in the public/non-profit sector from being challenged by foreign for-profit chains that want to get into the act.
Those concerns are echoed in yet another report. This one – by two economists from the University of Toronto – found that the quality of care at non-profit centres averaged 10 per cent better than day-care centres established to make money.
Gordon Cleveland and Michael Krashinsky looked at 325 day-care centres across the country. They examined 42 different components of child care on a scale of one to seven. Components included personal care such as diaper changes, the educational character of toys, and how well information is exchanged with parents.
While most centres got mediocre rankings, the top-ranked ones were mostly non-profits and the bottom-ranked ones were commercial.
The report also concluded that sole proprietors provided the best care among the commercial operators. Incorporated businesses (a single centre or part of a chain) provide lower quality care. Partnerships and other commercial providers provide much worse quality on average.
“I’m not a politician and I don’t know all the ins and outs of policy. But what I do know is that quality matters. It’s hard to get quality in for-profits. A 10 per cent increase in quality at non-profits is very substantial,” Cleveland told CBC News.
StatsCan weighs in
According to Statistics Canada, 53 per cent of Canadian kids received some care from someone other than their parents in 2001. That’s up from 42 per cent in just seven years.
About 25 per cent of those children were enrolled in a day-care centre as their main care arrangement, but a growing number are now being cared for by relatives. Over the same seven-year period, the proportion of kids cared for by a relative grew from eight per cent to 14 per cent. The proportion of children who were looked after in someone else’s home by a non-relative fell from 44 per cent to 34 per cent.
And it’s not just an urban phenomenon. The growth in the use of day care is even more pronounced in rural areas. Statistics Canada says that in 1994, 36.5 per cent of rural kids used some form of day care. By 2001, that rate had grown to 50.5 per cent.
The OECD holds the Quebec system up as a model for the rest of Canada, but the program has had its critics.
There are nearly 235,000 children enrolled. Another 35,000 kids are waiting for spots to open up. Some centres have stopped adding names to their lists.
The Action démocratique du Québec called the program a “Soviet-style” service and said the waiting lists are typical of a socialist system. The ADQ’s 2003 election platform called for $30-a-day vouchers for parents, which they could spend on public or private care.
Quebec’s largest employers’ group, the Conseil du patronat, suggested a similar plan that would give families a $5,000 allowance for each child to spend as they please.
one thing ive wondered tho - my mom privately babysat for over 10 years and always wrote receipts for the parents when tax time came, and had to claim her earnings too, so why cant people use relative care for tax purposes? is it because the relative is looking after the child for free? because if thats the case, obviously a tax break is not needed. maybe im missing something here lol. there is a subsidy program for low-income that are having a close relative look after the kids (tho there is not one for private care and i think that there should be). if i paid for private care right now, i would be paying in excess of $500 a month even if i only had to pay $2/hr so i totally understand where the ‘choices’ arent really there for parents that should be.
K, sorry I wasn’t meaning to get you personally about child care workers wanting more, but having to charge the parents more to get anywhere, I just mean it’s a real catch 22 in so many ways.
Lots of us do have to pay more than $600 per month for child care and don’t get subsidies for it at all. Also, that’s not even including if you have more than one child! And if a close relative is looking after our little ones, we don’t get a subsidy or tax benefit or anything.
As for SOME people spending too much on ‘frivolous’ things, I realize there are lots out there (like you for instance) who don’t do this kind of thing (and YES for sure indulge when you can!) But, some of the patients I’ve seen on welfare plans have been in the store buying their cartons of cigarettes at the front till. Then they come to complain to me about how Ralph Klein actually takes taxes off their cheques, and after they pay the $300 for smokes, they barely have enough left over for any groceries for the kids etc. To me, that’s almost saying they could have likely done without half of that money since it went straight to cigarettes. (and ya, people are spending >$300/month on smokes…that’s $3600 per year being blown up in smoke) It seems crazy to me, but again I thank heaven that I never got started and addicted to something so powerful.
Now I’m not trying stir the kettle about how much money deserving people need or get on welfare, just sharing a couple personal experiences on how people may not be spending their money appropriately.
Anyway, back to the child care issue, it’s a hot subject obviously and I don’t think there is a clear cut answer that’s going to help everyone out there. Helping out stay at home moms would be great, but I think it would be abused in some way in time, so another catch 22 there. Well, I should go tend to my little one, she’s up from her nap
i think everything is a catch 22 thats for sure! i really understand the meaning of that now lol. i actually have two kids who need care, one is in before/after school and there are no subsidies for that. so i pay as much as a two-income or other one-income family does. soon both kids will be in that and i dont know how im going to be able to pay for it. i make ‘too much’ for any social services help yet i qualify for daycare subsidy and the food bank. not sure how that works out, but ive gone down to SS and tried to get them to help just with my bus passes to work and my eldest’s school bus pass and they said no, oh well. thats where the whole childcare pay things comes in, im furthering my education even more right now (also have my first year teaching courses), but i dont know if i can afford to stay in my job when my youngest starts school next year. ill be paying four times as much for her just being in before and after school care! so someone with 11+ years experience in childcare and 2-3 years of college is probably going to have to go work at safeway again cos i will get paid more there
thats where the big catch 22 is in my family at least.
I feel for you with that respect K, I hope it works out for you when your little one goes to school. Good to hear you’re furthering your education where you can so maybe it will be easier in the future to make ends meet.
I don’t know if you can do it, but if you had to pay 4X more for before and after school, would it work out to be cheaper to pay for full time but only have the child there before and after? I don’t know if that’s allowed or not, as I’m pretty new to the whole child care system, but who knows?
the thing with the before and after school care is that you have to pay by the hour. there is no fulltime fee and no one after age 6 gets subsidy unless they go to a place like kiddie kampus that has its own afterschool care subsidy through their organization but spots are limited and since im at work i cant take the kids there after school anyway. they are in the school program itself. at the moment its $3/hr so when both kids are there it will be $6/hr. right now i pay around $200 a month for my oldest being in the school care program so it will be the same on top of that when my daughter starts it will double, and thats only if the price remains $3/hr and doesnt go up. fun fun. but thats life i guess.
but thats where the whole original article got to me, that people starting at starbucks make more per hour than people who have gone to college for training in childcare, which i think is a pretty important field. i saw signs at dominos pizza saying drivers start at 10-12 or 10-14 per hour and felt crestfallen because im working fulltime and have two kids alone and am taking college courses all at the same time and it feels like its for ‘nothing’ sometimes. i really want to stay in my job so hopefully i can figure something out next fall!
Wow…starbucks workers (no offense to any personally) making more than child care workers doesn’t seem right, you’re right K. Taking care of 4-5 kids (or more) can be pretty intensive, and an all day thing with no breaks. Even safeway workers make quite a bit for stocking shelves don’t they? Hardly seems fair.
I’m glad my friend that has the dayhome has chosen to stay home and take on my little one when I go back part time, I don’t know if I could do the same with all the kids around!
yeah im not dissing what other people make either, its just frustrating sometimes. the govt talks about how important it is to care for children properly but doesnt really care what we make. they did start a wage enhancement program but with my new level from taking college courses, that bumped me to the next tax bracket and a huge chunk of money went back to CPP EI and income tax. fun, but its the same in any job really. if they want good quality programs for children like in that article that was just posted, they also need to back it up. centres wont HAVE good staff and low turnover if they cant pay the wages people need to survive. and not all kids, sadly, are best cared for in the home like people suggest. i have worked with kids for many years and see lots of stuff going on that would make people shudder. so sometimes its better that a child be in a centre or dayhome or whatever kind of care outside the home. not all parents take a concern with what their kids learn or do during the day, its a sad fact. my son went to a small dayhome before he was old enough to come to my centre and he ended up being physically hurt there and i had to report it. for ME, i dont like my kids being in the care of only one person when they are young and cant tell me whats going on. so i like the daycare setting. everyone has choices and i agree, more in the spectrum should be supported. but i guess thats why the govt wont support much for private/family care - because they cant regulate it and make sure that things are safe, healthy, clean, etc. but now they want to take away what was promised to other places. we get calls almost every day with people looking for childcare but we are totally full, as are most centres in town. with the funding we were hoping for, we could have increased by about 13 spaces… might not seem like much but if every qualifying centre in town did that, maybe there would be over 100 new spaces… but we cant do it without funding or increasing daycare fees for parents (which of course we dont want to do, so everyone is stuck). this past month, because it was a long work month, about 65% of parent fees went towards staff wages… we cannot possibly get more wage increases when that much is gone already. we need it for supplies, food, etc for the kids.