1. Objectifs

Intentions :
This paper estimates «the effects of after-school care on child development of primary school–aged children using a unique policy implemented in Quebec that combined an increase in the provision with a decrease in the cost of after-school care.» (p. 620)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
Authors «use the Canadian NLSCY [National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth], which is a confidential, nationally representative biannual survey initiated in 1994–95 (cycle 1) and discontinued in 2008–9 (cycle 8). The NLSCY consists of two sample components. The first is a longitudinal cohort composed of children aged 0–11 at the time of interview in cycle 1. Those children are followed until cycle 8, when they reach 14–25 years old. In each of the following cycles, a new cohort of children aged 0–1 is added and followed until they turn 4–5 years old.» (p. 621) Authors use the NLSCY «to compare primary school aged children in Quebec before and after the reform with the same school-grade cohorts living in the rest of Canada (ROC).» (p. 619)

Instruments :
Questionnaires

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

Authors «find that the policy increases the use of after-school care by 6–10 percentage points while mainly substituting self-care and care provided by a sibling, thus achieving the policy’s primary goal of combating the phenomenon of latchkey children. [They] find an increase in children’s indirect aggression and a worsening in their reading and writing skills. Overall, the policy deteriorates the cognitive skills and improves children’s health. Those effects depend on the length of exposure. Full exposure significantly deteriorates the noncognitive and cognitive development of the child but improves his or her good-habits formation. Universal subsidies, especially for early child care, have been the topic of heated policy debates. [This] paper shows that subsidizing after-school care helped the Quebec government achieve its main goal of preventing the c phenomenon by cutting the prevalence of children in self-care by more than half. However, one of the policy goals (although not the main one) is to improve child development, which according to [the] results was not achieved. The relatively low-quality subsidized after-school care could have contributed to the negative development outcomes on the children. As public and private after-school care become increasingly prevalent, subsidizing care users instead of providers might induce a more efficient market where parents can choose the quality of care given their financial budget.» (p. 641-642)