I think when people talk about universal childcare, what they mean can vary on a few different dimensions.
First, how is it provided? Is it provided through a market-based intervention like a tax credit or voucher that enables families to go out into the market, so to speak, to purchase childcare on their own — or is it a supply-side intervention where government takes an active role in creating new childcare seats and provides those either directly or through contracts with third parties to families?
Second, who is providing it? In some cases, public schools do; in other cases, not-for-profit community-based organizations. We also have private businesses providing childcare as well as home-based providers, which can be either not-for-profit or for-profit.
The third dimension is: Who is helped? Some people believe that we should just provide subsidies for the lowest-income families, on the theory that people who have enough money to purchase childcare themselves will — and so by giving some help to lower-income families you’ll get to universality. Some people mean what Mayor Mamdani means: provision for all, like public schools, as a way to achieve universal coverage.
Within that issue of “who is helped,” there is the question of how much help is actually provided — is it free or just subsidized? We’ve seen some federal plans for universal childcare that say things like, “No one will pay more than X percent of their income.” So it will be public, everyone will receive some assistance, but it will be different amounts for different families and not completely free.
Finally, within a program that’s universal, is there targeting for students with disabilities and those who require different services or are you providing exactly the same thing for every child no matter what?
Great Job Josh Wallack & the Team @ Jacobin Source link for sharing this story.
