FACTS AND ESTIMATES ON ICP CARE IN ONTARIO
Statistics on ICP care in Ontario are woefully thin. However, based on raw data gathered from Government sources such as Statscan and the Ministry of Education we can extrapolate some estimates. Here are some interesting numbers for you to consider.
IN THE BEGINNING….
Previously our research suggested there were approximately 350,000 children in ICP care. This number was provided by the CCPRN who received it through Ministry of Education channels. Things have changed since the October, 2014 release of the Ombudsman Report “Careless About Child Care” and the recent debate over Bill 10 in the House of Legislature.
According to the Ombudsman’s report, 22% of 1.8 million children 12 and under are in licensed care. About 30-33% of children are at home full time with parents while the other 45-50% are in informal care. “Informal” care includes family members, babysitters, neighbours, nannies, etc. In his report, the Ombudsman writes, “The Ministry estimates there are some 823,000 children of school age (starting at 3 years and 8 months) who are in unlicensed daycares when not at school or home – more than double the number who are in licensed care.” .” (source: section 30,p.11 of “careless about childcare” report by Ombudsman Andre Marin. Section 4. p.6 of the same report suggests that there are “more than 800,000 children in unlicensed care – newborns to age 12” How many more it does not specify.)
There are a couple of points of interest in this information. The first one is the claim that 22% of children are in licensed care. If you do the math you will find that 22% of 1.8 million equals 396,000. However, the Ombudsman reports a licensed capacity of 294,400 (the Ministry’s fact sheet - http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/kindergarten/LicensedChildCare_KeyFacts.pdf - states there are 292,900 licensed spaces in Ontario – another head-scratcher) – over 100,000 spaces less than the claim of 22%.
The second interesting number is the claim that 30-33% of children are at home full time with parents. A journalist with The Star, Brian Platt, contacted both the Ombudsman’s office and the Ministry of Education to question this data as he felt, as I do, that this number was very high. In response to his question, the Ombudsman’s office stated that they had received the information from the Ministry and the Ministry claimed they had no idea where the number came from.
The third is the number that represents children in ICP care: 823,000. According to his report, this information, provided to the Ombudsman’s office by the Ministry of Education. Yet, the Ministry now states that only 20% of the 1.8 million children are in ICP care (source: MPP Grant Crack’s statement November 4th, 2014). This equals 360,000, a difference of 463,000. The 823,000 does not include the 536,491 (source: statscan population) children between 1 and 4 years who are not in school, 20% of which equals 107,298.
So, what do we have? Depending on which numbers we use we have anywhere from approximately 467,000 to 930,000 children from age 1 to 12 in ICP care.
WHERE HAVE ALL THE SPACES GONE?
Our original calculation of 140,000 daycare spaces lost was based on pretty simple calculations. Again, the information we were provided with suggested there were 350,000 children in ICP care. Given that ICPs can care for up to 5 children simple division calculates that there are approximately 70,000 ICPs in Ontario. Again, these are approximations because nobody, including the government, has any real data on childcare with the exception of licensed spaces (and they don’t seem entirely clear on that, either.) If we assume an average loss of 2 spaces per provider, due to the inclusion of the provider’s own children and the two under two ratio (being mindful that some may not lose any children while others will shut their doors completely), we calculate 140,000 spaces.
However, we are now looking at much higher numbers: a minimum of 467,000 children in care. The new math suggests a minimum of approximately 93,000 ICPs resulting in an average loss of 186,000 spaces.
Again, while the number of providers and daycare losses are estimates, the raw data they are based on is from StatsCan and the Ministry of Education. The estimated number of providers is based on the number of children in care divided by the maximum number of spaces a provider can care for: 5. The estimates of the average loss per provider is based on anecdotal evidence provided by ICPs and parents over the last several months who are much more likely to know the childcare market more than a government bureaucrat.
A MATTER OF SAFETY…
There are claims from the government that the proposals in this Bill are to ensure the safety of children in ICP care. It’s no secret that Bill 10 and the Ombudsman’s investigation into unlicensed childcare came on the heels of the tragic and avoidable death of Eva Ravikovich.
In its bid to deflect attention from its own mishandling of the case the Ministry has been implying and as a result, the press and public have been inferring, that all unlicensed care is a risk to the safety of Ontario’s children. Comparing unlicensed providers who follow the law with unlicensed providers who break the law is like comparing pharmacists to drug dealers.
Here are the numbers regarding deaths and serious injuries. The information on deaths in unlicensed care was gathered from numerous news sources. The information on deaths in licensed care was gathered from the Ombudsman’s report as the Ministry of Education would not release the information to CICPO. The Ministry did, however, provide the information on serious injuries.
Deaths
While there were 6 deaths in unlicensed care over the period of 2010 to 2014 only one of them was considered accidental while in the care of an ICP following the DNA regulations. Here are the facts:
Jeremie Audette, 2, drowned on July 28, 2010, 5 providers and 31 children present. The providers were having a playdate in a yard with a pool. Since this accident, providers are no longer able to have playdates in one another’s homes and pools are restricted.
Duy-An Nguyen, died of severe head trauma, Jan. 2011. Provider charged with manslaughter.
Eva Ravikovich, 2 died July 2012. No cause of death reported. 27 children present. Eva Ravikovich’s provider was reported five times. The Ministry responded only to one complaint, issued a warrant and never followed up. The girl's mother has filed a $3.5 million lawsuit against the operators and the Ministry of Education, claiming negligence. Excerpt from “The Education Ministry, which oversees child care in Ontario, outlined its position in a notice of motion filed Monday, stating it “does not owe the plaintiff” — the dead toddler’s family — a “duty of care,” and that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the child-care business where Eva died was unlicensed and unregulated by the province."
Allison Tucker, almost 3, drowned in July 2013 in babysitter’s condo. There were a total of three children in care; Allison and two belonging to the provider.
Aspen Juliet Moore, 9 months old, died while asleep in November 2013. No cause of death reported or confirmation of number and ages of children involved.
Abdul Rahman Alkulaib, 4 months old, died while asleep in Feb. 2014. The manner of death was undetermined. No details as to how many children in care.
Of all six of these cases only one, that of Allison Tucker, was reported as accidental while in the care of an ICP in compliance with the current regulations. One could argue that the death of Jeremie Audette also occurred in the care of an ICP in compliance with the regulations as there were no restrictions on playdates or pools prior to that accident. However, the provider did not inform or request permission from her clients’ to take the children in her care to this playdate.
Over the same period, 2010 to 2014, there were two deaths in licensed care: twice that of ICP care.
Even without factoring in that ICPs care for twice the number of children in licensed care you have twice the risk of death.
Serious Injury
The following information on serious injuries was provided at MPP Garfield Dunlop’s request by the Ministry of Education:
Between September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2014 there were 559 serious injury reports in ICP care.
During the same period there were 585 serious injury reports in licensed care.
Again, factor in that there are twice as many children in ICP care and you have a risk factor over 2 times higher in licensed care.
Oversight
It is important to note that the Ministry’s claim that Bill 10 will improve oversight is a gross exaggeration at best. This Bill has no more power to find illegal home daycares than the previous Day Nurseries Act. The truth is that the government does NOT know and cannot know what is going on behind closed doors in Ontario. Therefore the Ministry will have to continue to rely on the public to report non-compliance before the it has any notion that a provider is breaking the law. The only deterrent this Bill offers to running an illegal daycare is the stiffer fines applied to those WHO ACTUALLY GET CAUGHT. However, there is no question that the stiffer fines will result in providers going underground to avoid being reported. They will no longer be walking children to and from school nor will the children any longer be attending playgroups or going to parks, libraries or play-centres. As a result, the children will definitely suffer further and there will only be two groups of people that will be able to report non-compliance: close neighbours who know how many children can be legally cared for and have an opportunity to count the number of children entering and exiting the providers home and the provider’s own clients – who are unlikely to report unless they are disgruntled.
MY BRAIN HURTS…
Another reason the Ministry gives for proposing the two under two ratio is to “improve safety and help foster the learning, development, health and well-being of children”.
The following are the current and proposed ratios in licensed care: (source :
Group Size Age groupings and ratios:
18 mths(0-1.5 years); 1:33 ratio, max.10
18-30 mths (1.5 - 2.5 yrs): 1:5 ratio, max. 15
30 mths (2.5 years) - 5 yrs: 1:8 ratio, max. 16
44 - 67 mths (3.7 – 5.3 yrs): 1:10 ratio, max. 20
56 -67 mths (4.7- 5.3 yrs): 1:12 ratio, max. 24
68 mths-12 yrs (5.7- 12 yrs):1:15 ratio, max.30
Note that the proposed age groupings, ratios and group sizes would be optional: operators could choose to use the existing model or the new proposed model.
Proposed age groupings and ratios:
0-1 yrs; 1:3 ratio; max. 10
1-2 yrs: 1:5 ratio; max. 15
2-4 yrs: 1:8 ratio; max. 16 or 24
4-6 yrs: 1:13 ratio; max. 26
6-8 yrs: 1:15 ratio; max. 30
9-12 yrs: 1:20 ratio; max 20
Clearly, neither the current or proposed ratios in licensed care are consistent with those proposed for ICP care. One wonders how a child’s requirements for optimum development change depending on whether or not the government has issued a license to the operator. It’s possible the Ministry would argue that the providers in licensed care are RECEs but then why wouldn’t the ICPs who also hold ECE diplomas, as well as those who are teachers or trained in child development and/or psychology be exempt from the two under two restriction? The other reason they cite is the fact that licensed operators are inspected quarterly to ensure safety. Unlicensed caregivers are just as capable of removing five children from a burning building as a licensed operator. An emergency that involves five children requires the same action, regardless of whether the provider holds a license or not.
In conclusion, the Ministry of Education can insist that Bill 10 will improve safety and oversight in childcare without any negative impact on accessibility or affordability but the numbers say otherwise.