Cr ches partnership

							   Public Childcare and
preschools in France: Political
        arguments for reform


  Blanche Le Bihan, LAPSS –ENSP and
  Claude Martin, Directeur de recherche
    CNRS and University of Rennes 1
    I. Family policies in France: a
            success story?
• France is problably one of the EU member
  states which defined explicitly family and
  childhood as a State concern from the very
  beginning of the 20th century;
• In that sense, childhood was understood as a
  « common good » and a human capital
• The low level of fertility during the 19th century
  and the trauma of the 1st world war explain a
  pro-natalist issue
• The end of the 19th century and the first third of
  the 20th century combine the elements for the
  definition and institutionnalisation of an explicit
  « family policy »
  Policy debates, public problems
    and family policy reframing
• New problems mean new measures and
  different phases of the French Family
  Policy (FFP)
  – 1945-1965: FFP golden age
  – 1965-1975: Women rights’ revolution
  – 1975-1985: Rediscoving poverty in a rich
    country. Equity issue
  – 1985-2005: Regulating unemployment with
    family policies
     French public debate at the
    beginning of the 21st century
• These different phases are not real turning
  points, but rather a combination of new
  objectives with old ones
• The old doesn’t disappear. The new is
  piled up on the old (incrementalism)
• This means that ideas, arguments,
  rhetorics are combining themselves in the
  public debate
• But politicization of family issues is
  particularly strong at the moment
     II. Main arguments, main
            oppositions
1. Family is the basic institution: promote
   universal norms
2. The equity challenge: to support the
   more needy
3. Family policy as an element of
   employment policy (developing services
   and « emplois familiaux »)
1. Family is the basic institution of
               society
  – Main French expectation: to succeed his/her
    family life
  – So family is still considered as the main condition
    for happiness
  – And on the contrary, family is also the main factor
    to explain social problems, the source of them
  – Public responsibility : to defend and protect family
    institution and define universal norms
      • Importance of family law
      • Definition of a « policy of marriage »
      • Definition of a « police des familles » (as stated
        by Jacques Donzelot), which means to control
        and punish family irresponsibility and deviance
2. To support the more needy

– A universal family policy which gives the
  same whatever the level of resources of the
  households is considered as unfair
– Family policy has to be an element of social
  policy with an objective of equity
– More « means-tested » allowances
– A policy of services
– Positive discrimination
        3. Family policies to promote
                employment
• From 1985 to 1997, family policy reforms to
  promote conciliation between work and family
  responsibilities (for women only) were at the
  same time focusing on employment issue
  – Example of the flat rate paid parental leave
  – Example of the benefits to help parents to pay for
    childminders and home-helpers
• Some experts underline that this trend was an
  implicit employment policy hidden behind an
  explicit family policy
          III. New needs, new
            experimentations
• 1. The offer of care services is important in
  France
• 2. New needs: flexible hours of work
• 3. The development of local
  experimentations
   1. The offer of care services
• The offer of care services in France is
  important:
  – Crèches and childminders for children under 3
    years old (from 8.30 to 18.30)
  – School, school care centers, day care centers
    and childminders for children from 3 years old
    (from 8.00 to 18.30)
  – Chilminders at home (16 €/hour) with
    important taxe advantages (flexible
    arrangements)
Caring of children from 4 months to 2 years
         ½ (Drees inquiery, 2006)
Crèches                     10%
Grand-parents               6%
Childminders at home        1%
Family                      1%
Parents (one parent does    50%
not work)
Parents (both work)         11%
Childminders (assistantes   21%
maternelles)
 The school (école maternelle)
(Drees inquiery, ER n°497, juin 2006)
• 25% of 2 years old children at school at
  least during mornings
• 97% of 3 years old children at school
• 99% of 4 years old children at school
   2. The growing flexibility of working
                 hours
• The problem concerns childcare before 8.00, after 18.30,
  during the week ends.
• This notion refers to very different working conditions.
  The common point is that these hours are staggered
  which means not in phase with the standard hours of
  work, or with the normal opening of many public and
  private services
Two main criteria to define atypical working hours:
   – Variable/invariable
   – Regular/irregular
• Two main variable to define the impact of these working
  hours on family life:
   – Negociability
   – predictability
    3. The development of local
         experimentations
• Services which are affordable for everyone
  (from 1€ to 9€, depending on the income
  of the family)
• Home-based childcare services, which is a
  main advantage for the chikd, who
  remains in his familiar environment.
• Three main principles
       A partnership principle
• The services are developed at a local level and
  are funded by two main financers: the
  municipality and the Family Social Fund (Caisse
  d’allocation familiale).
• The absence of the firms.
• A financial partnership is necessary: based on
  commitments of each partner.
• Several forms of financial investment.
• other types of partnerships: technical
  assistance, advice, organisations of meetings …
       A professional service
• The recruitment of qualified employees
• The organisation of a real supervisory
  structure
• Three main advantages
• The problem of the activity of the
  employees: the development of flexibility
          A service based on
           complementarity
• Developing the complementarity of the
  activities of the employees
• The complementarity of the service with
  traditional public services
• The adaptation of the service to the
  situation of the family
  Advantages and Limits of these
       innovative systems
• A solution to organise a stable care
  arrangement and combine work and family
  life. 70% of the families are lone parents
  and use the experimental service as one
  of the resources available to organise their
  care arrangement.
• Their experimental dimension and the
  necessity to stabilise the financial
  investment of the public partners.