The economic costs of early vulnerability in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The study estimates the economic costs of early vulnerability in the light of population-level data showing that between 25% and 30% of Canadian children do not arrive at kindergarten meeting all of the developmental benchmarks they need to thrive both now and into the future. METHODS: The study examines Early Development Instrument (EDI) data across Canada as of 2008/09, and across time within British Columbia since 2001. We then link the BC EDI data with school achievement results on standardized tests in grades four and seven, along with graduation records and criminal justice information. RESULTS: The result is a synthetic cohort with which we can simulate the impact on economic growth of reducing early vulnerability in BC from its current rate of 29% to 10%, a threshold above which child vulnerability is biologically unnecessary. DISCUSSION: Nearly three times what it should be, a rate of early vulnerability that approaches 30% signals that the country now tolerates an unnecessary brain drain that will dramatically deplete our future stock of human capital. Economic analyses reveal that this depletion will cause Canada to forgo 20% in GDP (gross domestic product) growth over the next 60 years. The economic value of this loss is equivalent to investing $2.2 trillion to $3.4 trillion today at a rate of 3.5% interest, even after paying for the social investment required to reduce vulnerability.

Does public reporting measure up? Federalism, accountability and child-care policy in Canada.

Governments in Canada have recently been exploring new accountability measures within intergovernmental relations. Public reporting has become the preferred mechanism in a range of policy areas, including early learning and child-care, and the authors assess its effectiveness as an accountability measure. The article is based on their experience with a community capacity-building project that considers the relationship between the public policy, funding and accountability mechanisms under the federal/provincial/territorial agreements related to child-care. The authors argue that in its current form, public reporting has not lived up to its promise of accountability to citizens. This evaluation is based on the standards that governments have set for themselves under the federal/provincial/territorial agreements, as well as guidelines set by the Public Sector Accounting Board, an independent body that develops accounting standards over time through consultation with governments.

Is a pan-Canadian early child development system possible? Yes, when we redress what ails Canadian culture.

Canada lags behind other countries when it comes to investing in families with children. Canada, therefore, fails to promote health by not optimizing early development. The authors diagnose the Canadian failure. The problem is not research or fiscal capacity, but rather a sickness in Canadian culture. Four ailments are identified: Canadians are convinced they cannot afford new social investments, tend to treat illness rather than promote health, ignore that good family policy requires gender equality, and discount intergenerational justice. In response, the authors propose four policy solutions. Their pan-Canadian framework would cost $22 billion annually, not even one-half of current elderly and pension benefits. The new investment would reduce child vulnerability from approximately 30% to just 10% of children within 10 years. This reduction in early vulnerability would increase gross domestic product 20% more over 60 years than if Canadians tolerate the status quo.