The Hidden Costs of Universal Child Care

Heavily influenced by this Economist article.

For decades, one of the most frustrating problems for families has been the high expense of child care. Politicians in wealthier, first-world countries have been seeking out solutions for the issue; for instance, in the United States, households with two working parents and small children often pay as much for child care as they do for housing. Many average citizens don’t realize the substantially negative outcome when faced with having to pay for child care. Couples delay parenthood, have fewer offspring, or have one parent — usually the mother — departing from the workforce due to the financial impracticality of returning. A staggering number of politicians hope to shine new light upon the current issue. The future mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, wants to follow the example of states like New Mexico, which have made child care free for kids as young as six weeks old. In other countries, like Australia, Britain, and New Zealand, subsidies are also rising.

At first glance, the idea seems both useful and kind: help families pay for child care, help mothers get back to work, and give kids a chance to learn early on. But when you go past the political excitement and think about what the research really provides, the picture becomes much more complicated. The average American would think that universal, from-birth child care is a guaranteed thing, but for millions, it’s a luxury. This is the harsh truth. The best available data shows that it can significantly hurt children, especially if the programs are rushed, underfunded, or have too many participants in the mix.

The Perry Preschool Project in Michigan and Quebec’s universal child care program, which began in 1997, are two of the most well-known early development studies that might help you learn more about the subject. They represent opposite sides of the spectrum. On one end of the spectrum, Perry is a simple yet extremely helpful piece of software. In the 1960s, a preschool program for low-income three-year-olds was established, meeting every day for two and a half hours and with extremely low student-teacher ratios. The program also featured weekly home visits. The curriculum was extremely hands-on and pricey. According to economist James Heckman, investing in education would yield long-term benefits such as higher salaries, lower crime, greater graduation rates, and better life outcomes, with a 7–10% annual return. These findings influenced initiatives such as Britain’s Sure Start and most of the pre-kindergarten movement in the United States. They also sparked global interest in extending early childhood education.

But Quebec’s plan demonstrates what happens when governments attempt to implement this type of idea on a broad scale and at a low cost. Quebec charged $5 per day for full-time child care in an attempt to achieve the same results as Perry. Because the program was so successful, many more mothers began working. When researchers examined the children who were nurtured in this manner, they discovered the opposite of Perry’s success. Children enrolled in the universal program had lower social and physical skills, as well as higher levels of anger, anxiety, and hyperactivity.

In comparison to the rest of Canada, youth crime increased, and as they grew older, they reported being less satisfied with their life. In short, the program improved parents’ job life while hindering their children’s development. According to James Heckman, Quebec’s facilities resembled “warehouses,” which are not conducive to young children’s development.This distinction poses a crucial question: why do some initiatives benefit children while others harm them? Quality and age are usually the distinguishing factors.

Perry and other similar programs were designed for three- and four-year-olds, who benefit from socialization and disciplined learning. However, the demands of babies and toddlers are vastly different. They require a lot of one-on-one time with adults in order to mature, which includes constantly talking to them, receiving emotional support, and being close to them. These limitations make baby care extremely expensive because a single caregiver can only care for two or three newborns at a time. By the time they enter primary school, one teacher can supervise twenty to thirty students. By preschool, the ratio increases to twelve to fifteen children for every adult. There are no “economies of scale” for babies.

This is why universal infant care is so hazardous. If governments do not invest much on quality, programs will undoubtedly fail. Quebec isn’t the only place like this. The National Demographics Institute of France discovered that children who began center-based care at age one had more behavioral issues by age two than toddlers raised by their parents or in-home child care providers. Even in countries like Finland, which is famed for its excellent childcare, things remain tricky. In Finland, the quality of center-based baby care is so good that children’s development suffers more than that of those who enter public care after the government pays a stipend to encourage mothers to stay at home after ten months. However, it is important to realize that Finland spends significantly more on early childhood education than most other countries, making it difficult for American states such as New York to compete.

However, evidence consistently demonstrates that universal prekindergarten for children aged three to five provides significant benefits. According to studies conducted in Boston using a lottery approach, pupils who were picked for pre-K were more likely to complete high school and attend college. Pre-kindergarten in Tulsa improved children’s social, emotional, and cognitive skills. These findings support what many parents already know: children thrive in organized settings with other children around the age of three. The debate only occurs when policymakers employ the universal approach to babies, which raises costs significantly and transforms benefits into potential harm.

Based on these data, it is clear that the question is not whether governments should pay for early education or provide assistance to families, but rather how. I agree with The Economist that politicians are heading for the two worst extremes. Some politicians, on the other hand, want mothers to stay at home for years, making it difficult for women to work and achieve financial independence. Some argue that universal centers are underfunded and fail to meet newborns’ developmental needs. Neither of these options makes sense. A better idea would be to expand universal pre-kindergarten rather than universal baby care. It would also be preferable to prioritize quality over universality, support targeted programs for families in most need, and provide flexible financial assistance or extended parental leave so that parents may pick what works best for them. A great policy should make parents’ lives easier while not impeding their children’s advancement.

Finally, everyone agrees on the goals: reduced stress for families, better outcomes for children, and more equitable chances for women in the job.

However, universal child care from birth is not the solution to all problems, as some politicians claim. The findings indicate that children suffer when quality is not maintained. And until policymakers are prepared to address the true expenses of providing quality child care, they risk repeating Quebec’s mistakes from years before. As students, we should be paying attention to our own futures and, possibly, the futures of our families. Child care policy encompasses more than just what politicians say. It impacts babies, and how leaders handle it now will have long-term consequences for a whole generation.