childcare: welfare or investment?

Childcare: welfare or investment?ijsw_665 173..181ijsw_665 173..181

Conley A. Childcare: welfare or investment?Int J Soc Welfare 2010: 19: 173–181 © 2009 The Author,Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and theInternational Journal of Social Welfare.

Childcare (also called day care or preschool) has generallyserved three purposes: to care for children while parents areemployed; to provide early childhood education; and to caterto the needs of poor and disadvantaged children. This articleproposes that the welfare approach to childcare be augmentedby a social investment approach to enhance human and socialcapital investments among low income families and commu-nities and to contribute to wider social development goals.The Head Start program in the United States and theIntegrated Child Development Scheme in India are used toillustrate this argument.

Amy ConleySan Francisco State University, USA

Key words: childcare, human capital, social capital, socialinvestment, day care, preschool

Amy Conley, Department of Child and Adolescent Development,College of Health and Human Services, San Francisco StateUniversity, 1600 Holloway Avenue, SCI 389, San Francisco, CA94132, USAE-mail: [email protected]

Accepted for publication February 2, 2009

Childcare is the supervision of children while theirparents work or are engaged in other activities. It isoften known by other terms. Day care is commonlyused as a synonym, though a large number of parentswork evening and night shifts and require odd-hourcare. Preschool and nursery school are types of child-care, but do not give a sense of the extended care hoursand parental support offered by childcare providers.The term kindergarten is also used to denote childcare,especially in Europe. Calling childcare babysitting dis-misses its importance and the skills needed by careproviders (Scarr & Eisenberg, 1993). The term usedoften depends on the primary function of care, whetherto serve the needs of working mothers or to providebenefits to children (Scarr, 1998).

Childcare has traditionally served three importantpurposes: substitute care for children while theirparents work; educational opportunities to promotecognitive and emotional development; and interven-tions intended to help poor and disadvantaged children(Scarr & Eisenberg, 1993). This last model is the focusof the article. From the first public nurseries to today’spublicly funded Head Start programs and child careprovisions for welfare mothers, the “welfare” model ofchildcare has had a mixed commitment to educationand care giving, behavioral management, provision ofsocial and health services, and socialization to themainstream culture and English language, amongother goals. Services are intended to compensate fordisadvantages associated with poverty by providingeducational enrichment commonly available to middle-class children (Scarr, 1998).

This article contends that childcare with enrichedservices for disadvantaged children represents an invest-ment in their capacities, not simply a form of welfare.

The article has been developed based on secondary datato stimulate debate on the role of childcare in socialwelfare. A brief description of the social investmentapproach and the mechanisms of human and socialcapital are provided and serve as background for adiscussion of two national childcare intervention strate-gies (in the USA and India) and the ways in which theyfoster investment in the capacities of children, families,and communities. The Head Start program in the USAand the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS)program in India were selected as examples of twonationally implemented childcare programs that explic-itly benefit poor children and communities. Servingmillions of children, these programs are large-scalesocial experiments with significant policy implicationsfor a social investment strategy. The article concludesby arguing that investment-oriented childcare for poorchildren is compatible with the larger goals of thesocial development approach, and can be productivelycombined with remedial approaches to better promotethe social welfare of children and families.

Childcare

Historically, care provided for children has transformedin concurrence with societal changes. In the USA, sinceits inception, working-class women have been expectedto engage in productive labor. When engaged in agri-cultural and household labor, women often broughtsmall children with them. Care was also shared, amongparents, older siblings, extended family, and commu-nity members. With industrialization came new chal-lenges for the combination of productive labor withchildcare. As employment shifted to factories, condi-tions did not permit women to both work and care for

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00665.xInt J Soc Welfare 2010: 19: 173–181

INTERNATIONALJ O U R NA L O F

SOCIAL WELFAREISSN 1369-6866

© 2009 The Author(s)Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare.Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 173

small children, forcing them to rely increasingly onmale breadwinners for support. For indigent women,such as widows and immigrants, who were forced towork, social reformers of the Progressive Era estab-lished public nurseries to provide childcare beginningin the 1840s. These initiatives heralded the beginning ofthe childcare movement in the USA. Public nurseriesgenerally excluded African Americans, who wereemployed in disproportionate numbers, prompting theestablishment by female Black reformers of nurseriesand kindergartens. Similar efforts took place in Europe,with childcare centers for working parents establishedin most major European cities and industrial centersby the mid-19th century (Encyclopedia of AmericanHistory, 2007).

Efforts to educate young children, not simplyprovide for their physical care, began with FriedrichFroebel’s establishment in Prussia of the first kinder-garten in 1837. The kindergarten movement empha-sized the psychological and social development ofchildren aged 4 to 6 or 7 through play and organizedactivities. In the mid-to-late 19th century, the kinder-garten model was widely adopted throughout Europeand North America. In the USA, kindergarten wasestablished as part of the public education system(Shapiro, 1983). Kindergartens were traditionally orga-nized for part-day, and therefore best accommodatedmiddle-class families with one parent at home (Scarr,1998). Many private American preschools and kinder-gartens operate according to pedagogical models thatemphasize the development of creativity and indepen-dence, such as Montessori, which allows for child-directed learning using teacher-selected materials.

The childcare and early childhood education move-ments developed to serve different purposes. Childcarearose from the need for alternative care for workingparents, whereas early childhood education was devel-oped to offer mostly middle-class children a part-timelearning experience. Yet with more and more mothersworking, and with growing understanding of the impor-tance of early childhood development, the two goalshave largely merged into childcare services that provideboth caregiving and education (Scarr & Eisenberg,1993). Childcare has also been used to intervene in thelives of poor and immigrant children. High qualityearly intervention services can, in some cases, amelio-rate exposures to risks in the home. A longitudinalstudy of effects of childcare on child development,conducted by the National Institute of Child Health andDevelopment, found that low-income mothers whosechildren spent part of the day in high quality childcareinteracted more positively with peers than did similarchildren who were not in care or were in low qualitycare. Government subsidies of care often providehigher quality services than low-income parents canafford on their own; comparison studies of publicly

subsidized childcare centers and community-basedcenters that rely on private payments tended to rate theformer more highly (Phillips & Adams, 2001).

Among Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD) countries, early childhood edu-cation and care is generally publicly funded throughsubsidies or tax credits, and either publicly providedthrough facilities at or near primary schools, or pro-vided by a mix of private nonprofit institutions such aschurches and parents’ cooperatives. Costs are largelyassumed by the government; only in Anglo-Americancountries do parents cover the majority of costs throughfees. The predominant model for childcare amongOECD countries is provision of subsidized preschoolservices for children aged 3–6. A smaller percentage ofchildren aged 0–2 tend to receive government-providedor subsidized care. The best developed systems can befound in France, Belgium, and Italy, where upwards of95 percent of children aged 3–6 receive free preschooleducation lasting 7 or 8 hours and supplementaryprograms providing care over the lunch hour, beforeand after school, and during holidays. Administrativecontrol of early childhood programs often echoes thehistorical divide between care and education; the mostcommon pattern in Europe is administrative oversightby social welfare for infants and toddlers and by edu-cation for children aged 3–6 (Kamerman, 2000). Publicfunding for early childhood education and care inEuropean and Nordic countries reflects a common viewthat such services constitute a public good by offeringsocialization experiences to children and preparingthem for school and later life (Waldfogel, 2001).

By contrast, governmental involvement with child-care in the USA has been intermittent and focusedon the connection to gainful employment. The federalgovernment became involved in childcare during theDepression, and again during World War II, to facilitatefemale employment. After World War II, the federalgovernment largely withdrew its support and encour-aged women to give up employment to care for theirchildren. Despite this advice, maternal employmentincreased throughout the 20th century, exponentiallyincreasing the need for childcare (Boschee & Jacobs,1997). Federal funding since this time has essentiallybeen limited to the Head Start program (described indetail later in this article) and to childcare subsidiesfor welfare recipients. While many other Western,industrialized countries (notably in Scandinavia) haveestablished comprehensive, government-funded and-operated childcare systems, the USA has resisted thisapproach. An initiative to establish universal child-care (the Comprehensive Child Development Act)was passed by the US Congress in 1971, but vetoedby President Nixon, who cited his unwillingness toendorse communal childcare over a family approach(Cohen, 1996).

Conley

174© 2009 The Author(s)

Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare

While childcare for disadvantaged children has his-torically been viewed primarily as a means to encourageparental employment while addressing some of the defi-cits associated with poverty, another paradigm hasemerged that conceptualizes childcare as an investmentstrategy for the future. This model emphasizes thatinterventions for young children not only provide careand basic services at a certain point of time, but that theyalso pay a rate of return over time by increasing theaccumulation of human and social capital, which makesfamilies stronger and more connected to their commu-nities, and children better equipped for a healthy andproductive life. The next section describes the socialinvestment approach and how it can be implementedthrough the development of human and social capital.

Social investment

A developmental perspective is emerging in the fieldof social welfare that connects social interventionswith economic development. Major advocates of thisapproach include Sen (1999) and his capabilityapproach, Giddens (1998) and his concept of the socialinvestment state, and Midgley (1995, 1999) and hiscolleagues’ work on social development (Midgley &Sherraden, 2000; Midgley & Tang, 2001). Socialinvestment is a strategy that seeks to invest in the capa-bilities of individuals, families, and communities and tointegrate economic growth with people’s wellbeing toensure equal participation and access to the benefits ofdevelopment (Beverly & Sherraden, 1997). Three clearprogrammatic requirements for the social developmentapproach have been laid out by Midgley (1995, 1999):social development initiatives must clearly articulatethe integration of social and economic efforts and beinstitutionalized through formal arrangements; eco-nomic planning must support social welfare; and socialpolicies must support economic aims by contributing todevelopment, rather than simply consuming resourcesas with conventional, remedial models.

Under this approach, social problems are addressedcomprehensively through prevention efforts as well asremediation. The central aim is productivist: to gener-ate a rate of return on investments, manifested asincreased capacities for participation in economicactivities among those traditionally served by govern-ment social programs (Midgley & Tang, 2001). Variouspolicy and programmatic methods for implementingsocial development have been devised, and can bebroadly classified as investments in the capacities ofindividuals, investments in communities, investmentsto promote employment, and investments to encouragethe development of assets among the poor. Overarchingall the social development strategies is a commitmentto cost-effective programs, to address criticisms oftraditional social services as wasteful, inefficient, and

bureaucratic, and to ensure that social programs areefficient and effective in meeting their goals. Keyamong the social development methods are investmentsin human capital and social capital, which build indi-vidual’s capacities and strengthen their relationshipswith others (Midgley & Sherraden, 2000). These typesof investments are particularly relevant to childcare andwill be discussed next.

Human capital and social capital

The term “human capital” was first used by TheodoreSchultz in an article entitled ‘Investment in HumanCapital’ in (Schultz, 1961), and later expanded into abook of the same name. His colleague Gary Beckerfurther developed and popularized the idea in severalpublications, including Human Capital: Theoreticaland Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Edu-cation. Becker (1975: 9) defines investment in humancapital as “activities that influence future monetary andpsychic income by increasing the resources in people.”Previous to the elucidation of human capital, there wasa gap in formal economic theory regarding the associa-tion between education, training, age, and income.Through economic analysis of these phenomena,Becker demonstrated that education and trainingproduce a rate of return to the individual and to societyin much the same way as investment in physical capital(Woodhall, 2001). Rate of return is measured in quan-tifiable terms – for example, increased income associ-ated with years of education. Cost is also factored in;there is cost to the employer or society for providing theeducation, as well as direct and opportunity costs forthe individual (Becker, 1975). Further research has cor-roborated Becker’s finding, with the most significantreturn found in primary education and basic literacy(Coclough, 1982; Psacharopoulous, 1985).

Extending the work of Schultz and Becker,Heckman (2000) has made a special case for invest-ment in early intervention. Heckman has made thepoint that earlier models of human capital neglected torecognize the “dynamic complimentarity of learn-ing . . . learning begets learning” (Heckman, 2000: 4).By supporting the foundational development of cogni-tive and non-cognitive skills associated with learning atan early age, greater learning can be achieved through-out a lifetime. While the American education systemplaces greatest emphasis on cognitive skills, Heckmanargues that social-emotional skills also contributesignificantly to adult success, manifested in adults asmotivation and self-confidence. For these reasons,investments in human capital for the young producegreater returns than interventions to remediate skilldevelopment for adults.

In addition to education and early intervention,research on investment in basic needs, namely nutrition

Childcare: welfare or investment?

© 2009 The Author(s)Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 175

and healthcare, has also demonstrated significantreturns. By meeting these basic needs, countries canrealize cost savings through fewer missed days of workdue to illness, extended working lives, increased enroll-ment of children in school, improved ability to learn,and reductions in healthcare treatment (World Bank,1993). Contributions to basic needs and primary edu-cation appear to have synergistic relationships – boost-ing resources in one area (e.g. better nutrition) can leadto improvements in another (e.g. education), ultimatelyresulting in greater stores of human capital that connectback to economic participation as well as other socialgoods, including increased connectedness, participa-tion, and stability among people and society. This hasbeen called a “virtuous circle” because development inany area complements others and acts in synergisticways to enhance human development (Beverly &Sherraden, 1997). Investment in human capital mayalso compensate for inherited disadvantage and thuscontribute to the reduction of social exclusion(Esping-Andersen, 2002).

Expanding human capital to the social realm ofhuman relationships is essentially the work of PierreBourdieu, James Coleman, and Robert Putnam, thethree main theorists who have developed the concept ofsocial capital. The central theme of social capital is afocus on the importance of human connections in net-works of family, community, and society for positiveindividual and collective outcomes. In Bourdieu’smodel, it is the relationships that enable elites to main-tain control over economic capital for themselves andtheir progeny (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1973). Socialcapital is “the sum of resources” derived from partici-pation in a densely connected network (Bourdieu &Wacquant, 1992: 119). James Coleman (1988) seessocial capital as connections among family and com-munity members that enable access to a given individu-al’s human capital in order to develop new humancapital, and is therefore particularly significant in rela-tion to children and adolescents. Just as economictheory defines financial and human capital as creating areturn, social capital also creates a rate of return forindividuals and for societies. However, in contrast toeconomic and human capital, which are private goodsindividually realized, social capital represents a publicgood that may benefit all members involved in a struc-ture (Coleman, 1988). For Robert Putnam (1993,2000), social capital is a quality present in dense net-works that possess behavioral norms, expectations, andmutual trust, and which produce beneficial outcomesfor individuals and society. As with Coleman, Putnamsees social capital as a public good that arises as aby-product of social interaction. Social capital is anessential quality for collective action that enforcescooperation instead of selfishness through networks ofcivic engagement and norms of reciprocity.

Human capital and social capital theory have impor-tant implications for interventions that promote childdevelopment and wellbeing. With oft-repeated phrasesof “investing in our children” and “it takes a village toraise a child”, the application of human capital andsocial capital to early childhood development seemsapparent, yet large-scale governmental programs onbehalf of children often fail to take advantage of thesynergies promised by human capital and social capitalcreation. At-risk families all too frequently lack posi-tive support from their communities. Due to poverty,such families may also have limited resources to investin improving their children’s life chances. Interventionsthat help children and families create a network ofsocial connections and build human capital may resultin a number of secondary benefits, including the pro-motion of positive parenting behaviors (Cochran &Niego, 1995) and increased participation in children’sschooling (Sheldon, 2002). Two governmental inter-ventions for children, one in the USA and one in India,will be considered for ways in which they promote thedevelopment of human capital and social capital. Pos-sible ways to improve upon program design to bettercapture the benefits of social investment will also bediscussed.

The Head Start program in the USA

Head Start is a federally funded governmental programwith the explicit goal of preparing underprivilegedchildren for primary education. Funding is providedthrough the Administration for Children and Families, adivision of the Department of Health and Human Ser-vices, and programs are administered by public andprivate agencies, which in turn provide services on thelocal level. Since its inception in 1965, more than 25million children have participated in cities, towns, andrural areas across the nation (Administration for Chil-dren and Families, 2008). The two eligibility criteriaare age (prenatal enrollment of pregnant mothers tochildren 3 years of age for Early Head Start; ages 4–5for Head Start) and family income (at or below 100% ofthe poverty line, or US$20,650 for a family of fourresiding in the contiguous 48 states in 2007) (Admin-istration for Children and Families, 2007). Generally,only about one-third of those eligible receive services,as the funding allocated by Congress has never beensufficient to meet the total need (Garces, Thomas, &Currie, 2002).

An implicit goal of Head Start is to address theconcept of privilege and improve life outcomes for poorchildren (Garces et al., 2002). Conceived during theWar on Poverty, Head Start was ‘designed to help breakthe cycle of poverty’ by comprehensively addressingthe needs of poor children and families (Child CareResource Center, 2008: 1). Since that time, Head Start

Conley



has continued to offer preventative services to addressearly potential risk factors. In addition to high-qualitychild development programs, Head Start programsoffer children and families an array of medical, dental,mental health, and nutritional services. Services areindividualized to the child’s and family’s needs, takinginto account development, culture, and language. Pro-grams also reach out to parents to promote involvementin their children’s education. During the fiscal year2007, 27 percent of Head Start staff were parents ofcurrent or former participants, and nearly 910,000parents contributed volunteer time in their localprogram. Involvement of the father is a program prior-ity, and in the fiscal year 2007 more than 225,000fathers participated in events designed to facilitatetheir involvement with the program (Administrationfor Children and Families, 2008).

Literally thousands of studies have been conductedon Head Start in the more than 40 years since theprogram began, with methodologies that have becomemore sophisticated and rigorous over time to account forissues such as self-selection bias (Love, Chazan-Cohen,& Raikes, 2006). Longitudinal studies of Head Startconducted by the Rand Corporation have found thatparticipation is associated with significant and persis-tent gains in cognitive test scores and school attainment(as measured by grade repetition) for white childrenwhen compared with siblings who attended preschooland those who did not, while for black children, partici-pation in Head Start resulted in temporary gains incognitive test scores that were lost by third grade, withno effect on grade retention. Participation in Head Startgave both white and black children greater access topreventative health interventions such as immuniza-tions, compared with siblings with no preschool, buthad no measurable effect on nutritional status as mea-sured by height-for-age (Currie & Thomas, 1995). ForLatino children, participation in Head Start was associ-ated with statistically significant gains in cognitive testscores and reduction in likelihood of grade repetition,compared with siblings who attended and did not attendpreschool, with greatest gains for children of native-born and Mexican origin mothers, and little benefit forchildren of other immigrants and Puerto Rican children,compared with their siblings with no preschool. Basedon these studies, Head Start appears to go further inclosing the gap between poor children and their moreprivileged peers for whites and Latinos than for blackchildren (Currie & Thomas, 1996). Differences in ben-efits accrued by Head Start attendance among differentracial/ethnic groups may be related to home environ-ment, heterogeneity in program delivery across sites,and quality of schools attended post-completion ofHead Start. Mixed findings in the area of cognitivedevelopment have prompted vocal critics such asDouglas Besharov (2005) to suggest that Head Start

needs to be revamped and possibly de-funded in favor ofother types of early childhood programs, while otherscounter that Head Start should not be judged on cogni-tive outcomes alone, but on the broader concept of‘social competence’, which emphasizes the child’sability to function in his or her environment and laterlife (Love et al., 2006).

Head Start not only positively impacts children, italso aims to benefit their families. Anecdotal evidencepoints to greater feelings of self-efficacy and pride forfamilies who become involved with their children’sHead Start program, and success stories of parents whowere inspired to better their own lives by pursuingfurther education and career opportunities with inspira-tion and support from Head Start staff (Zigler &Muenchow, 1992). While Head Start has done an admi-rable job of trying to involve parents in building thehuman capital of children, as per Coleman’s model, itcould certainly do more to actually achieve the goal ofbreaking the cycle of poverty. Here Bourdieu’s interpre-tation of social capital theory can provide insights forpossible improvements to program design. According toBourdieu’s theory and research, education can helplower classes gain exposure to the ideas and tastes thatconstitute cultural capital, enabling social mobility.However, classroom education alone cannot rival con-stant exposure in the home. Nevertheless, in an unequalsociety, it may be the only prospect for providing somedegree of equality of opportunity, if not outcomes. Chil-dren from families that lack the resources to ensureoptimal development should receive universal access toHead Start services. The goals of the program topromote social capital in order to improve life outcomescould/should be made more explicit. The interventioncould thus place greater emphasis on building the socialnetworks of families through connections with formalresources such as social service providers. Such formalresources could then serve as a substitute for the naturalresources of well-connected relatives and friends thatelite families possess. Head Start can only be a point ofdeparture, not an end point. While Head Start does offersome long lasting gains, in and of itself it is insufficientto achieve the goal of equalizing conditions amongyoung children. If the USA were serious about this goal,it would call for greater investments in underprivilegedchildren throughout the span of their childhood andadolescent years.

The Integrated Child Development Scheme in India

Another way in which human capital and social capitaltheory can inform program design can be examined inthe context of early child development programs inIndia. More than 30 years ago, India launched the ICDSto provide comprehensive services through community-based centers for children under 6, pregnant and nursing



mothers, and, more recently, adolescent girls. Nutritionis the centerpiece of the program: daily nutritious mealsand nutrition education are provided to participants. Yetnutrition is only the gateway to a host of other servicessuch as immunizations, health checks, and informalpreschool education. The ultimate goal is to promote thesurvival and health of young children. In 1995,UNESCO estimated that 18.6 million women and chil-dren benefited from the program (Siraj-Blatchford,1995). The program has been targeted at rural and tribalservices, where 91.5 percent of programs operate, withurban slum areas as a secondary geographical focus (8.5percent). The government of India has long-term plansto universalize implementation of the program, withfinancial assistance from supporters, which include theWorld Bank and UNICEF.To this end, services are beinggradually expanded.

Though the administrative system spans thenational, state, and regional governments, ICDS is“rooted in the communities it serves” (Siraj-Blatchford,1995: 8). The ICDS locus of activity is a local or villagecenter, called “Anganwadi” (meaning “courtyard”),which is staffed by a female worker and a helper whocooks and distributes meals. The two staff members arevoluntary workers paid a small honorarium to runprograms for 4 hours a day (Chandrasekhar & Ghosh,2005). While perhaps not utilized to its maximumpotential, community is nevertheless the linchpin of theICDS program. The theoretical basis of the ICDSprogram “associates parents-families (women in par-ticular) and community as the key and cardinal partnersin the process of development” (Lal & Paul, 2003:148). Anganwadi workers are hired from the local com-munity. As part of their efforts is to engage the com-munity in the ICDS program, Anganwadi workers buildrelationships with the local schools, women’s groups,and village councils. Success of Anganwadi centersdepend on the local community’s ability to support theprogram with minimal government assistance and inte-grate the services into community life (Sonty, 1992).Enhancing community participation is a central goal ofthe current expansion (Lal & Paul, 2003).

A number of important goals around nutrition,immunization, and education are ‘integrated’ into ICDSservices. ICDS is the primary governmental strategy toreduce child malnutrition, an entirely preventable con-dition that affects more than half of all preschool agechildren in Asia and results in diminished intellectualcapacity, reduced productivity, increased sickness, andgreater likelihood of premature mortality. Even if latercorrected, malnutrition in early childhood has lastingeffects on physical and intellectual development,making nutritional interventions significant contribu-tors to human capital (Mason, Hunt, Parker, & Jonsson,1999). Since the inception of ICDS, improve-ments have been documented in child survival and

development, including reductions in severe malnutri-tion, from 15.3 percent in 1976–1978 to 8.7 percent in1988–1990 and declines in infant mortality, from80/1,000 live births in 1991 to 72/1,000 in 1998(Bhargava, 2000). Compared with areas without ICDSprograms, ICDS service locations have lower percent-ages of low-birth weight babies, lower infant mortality,higher immunization coverage, higher utilization ratesfor health services, and better child nutrition as mea-sured by fewer severely malnourished children. Onereason is the greater access to healthcare that resultsfrom ICDS services. Research has also documentedpositive effects of preschool on basic literacy andnumeracy (National Institute of Public Cooperationand Child Development, 1992). Attendance in ICDSprograms appears positively associated with primaryschool attendance (Sonty, 1992). While the ICDSprogram has reached greater numbers of children thancomparable efforts in other Asian countries, the inten-sity and quality of services varies across programimplementation, leading to mixed results among differ-ent states, with malnutrition rates ranging from a low of28 percent to a high of 63 percent (Mason et al., 1999).Challenges to the delivery of nutrition services includedifficulties in reaching the 0–3 population (who are notserved in the early childhood education program), tar-geting services to children below the poverty level(serving additional children stretches thin resources),and potential reductions in food given to a child in thehome because of their participation in ICDS (becausethe food provided by the program is intended to besupplemental) (Khullar, 1998). Greater outreach effortsto children under 3 years of age are part of governmentplans for expansion, as are increased focus on womenand adolescent girls and stronger community involve-ment (Lal & Paul, 2003).

The ICDS program has attracted criticism as wellas praise. Given the prevalence of malnutrition andfunding limitations, services are intended to be targetedtowards women and young children with greatest need.Despite program implementation in poorer villages andslums and outreach by Anganwadi workers to homes ofthe poorest families, services may nevertheless beunderutilized by their intended recipients and providedto some families who are better off (Khullar, 1998). Thepreschool portion of activities has been described asunderresourced, with the government providing stan-dardized teaching materials such as charts of animals,alphabet, numbers, etc., but not providing funding fordevelopment or replenishment of educational materials(Arora, Bharti, & Mahajan, 2006). Excessive paper-work has been noted at all levels of staffing (Khullar,1998), with Anganwadi workers in particular requiredto maintain a variety of records, including attendancerecords, food and fuel logs, registers with participants’demographic information, and inspection registers with

Conley



notes from supervisors and others visitors. These tasksare both time consuming and challenging for those withpoor mathematical skills (Gupta, 2001). Lack of carefulevaluation has been noted, with no randomized controltrials of the ICDS intervention (Kapil, 2002) or cost-benefit analyses (Khullar, 1998) conducted to date. Thedata provided by Anganwadi centers are not indepen-dently verified and may contain inaccuracies (Khullar,1998). As a consequence, the studies conducted onICDS are certainly less scientifically valid than those onHead Start. While the program has tremendous poten-tial, it is time now, after more than 30 years, for rigor-ous evaluation.

Although not explicitly recognized in the literature,Anganwadi centers give expression to social capitaldevelopment. Shared interest in children is the entrypoint to knit community members closer together.There is intergenerational closure, as both mothers andchildren participate in the programs. ICDS alreadybuilds the ‘organizational’ type of social capital, whichhas the quality of deliberately creating social capitalthat can be appropriated for achieving program goals.The government could also explicitly build the othertypes of capital described by Coleman (1990), in par-ticular social capital resulting from beneficial acts per-formed for someone else that results in the creation ofobligations. If each parent were to take responsibilityfor other children in addition to their own – perhaps bymaking them clothes or growing produce for them – alayer of criss-crossing obligations would be createdamong the parents. In a time of need, these obligationscould be invoked. For example, a woman who bakedbread for another family could invoke that obligationwhen her son is seeking an apprenticeship with thefather’s firm. Another type of social capital that couldbe encouraged is the type that promotes the formationof norms and sanctions. Parents could agree on certainparenting approaches and the ensuing norms and sanc-tions would ensure that parents adhered to theseexpectations. Imagine a village in which children werelax about doing their homework. Parents could collec-tively decide to enforce rules at home that childrenmust complete their homework each night. Thoseparents who were previously uninvolved in their chil-dren’s education would be motivated to supervisionthe completion of homework to avoid public disgrace.Any effort by Anganwadi centers to build communityrelationships will channel benefits for children. Onceformed, social capital will promote the development ofhuman capital for the children. The need to promotecommunity ownership of Anganwadi centers has beenrecognized as the only means to ensuring participa-tion, efficiency, and accountability. Preparing andempowering communities to take this role is the nextstep in the evolution of ICDS (Muralidharan & Kaul,1999).

Childcare and social investment

The welfare approach to childcare needs to bere-conceptualized as an investment strategy andexpanded to serve more disadvantaged children; thetwo case studies reviewed in this article demonstratehow this can be done. The Head Start program in theUSA and the ICDS program in India contribute to thepractical ends of caring for children while parentswork, and providing educational services to enhanceschool readiness while also providing significantinvestment in the human capital of children and thesocial capital of their families and communities. Ratherthan simply representing short-term services and costexpenditures, interventions such as these that buildhuman and social capital actually enhance capacitiesfor economic development. Early investment in chil-dren prevents future health and social problems, thusbecoming cost-effective (Midgley, 1999). Targetedinvestment in young children has been touted as pro-ducing a high rate of return over time and acrosssystems, including education, health, and law enforce-ment (Parlakian, n.d.), and longitudinal studies ofchildhood programs (e.g. the High/Scope Perry Pre-school Project) support this assertion (Schweinhart,2002). As James J. Heckman, Nobel Laureate in Eco-nomic Sciences, concluded: “The real question is howto use the available funds wisely. The evidence supportsthe policy prescription: Invest in the very young”(Heckman, 1999: 6).

Investments in the care of children produce positiveexternalities to society (Haveman & Wolfe, 1994).Children who are provided with high quality care andeducation grow into adults with practical skills thatenable economic participation, and emotional intelli-gence that allows for the development of relationships,trust, and reciprocity (Heckman, 1999). Benefits can bequantified in simple economic terms, such as incometransfers to the elderly when children reach workingage, and in more diffuse public goods, includingan educated, moral, and caring society (England &Folbre, 1999). Another way of considering benefits iscosts saved, from reductions in crime, unemploy-ment, welfare dependence, and out-of-wedlock births(Haveman & Wolfe, 1994). Emphasizing human capitaldevelopment in early childhood programs can result ininvestments in education and basic needs that allowchildren to realize their full developmental potential.Purposeful use of social capital in program design ishighly advisable to capture the goods it promises:greater social equality by spreading access to culturalcapital to a greater segment of society, as per Bourdieu;deeper connections that foster the development ofhuman capital as in the Coleman model; and increasedreciprocity and trust, which in turn leads to strongercommunities, according to Putnam.



Efforts to implement a social investment approachto childcare will inevitably face economic, political,and cultural challenges. Governments in the USA andother nations are often loath to increase expenditure,even with research suggesting a long-term pay-off forinvestment-oriented programs. In the current politicalenvironment, social programs for the poor are unpopu-lar, with the political tide favoring curtailment overexpansion. Consideration of equity in policy develop-ment raises the question of who is likely to benefit fromsocial policies, and whether benefits will be equallydistributed among groups. With certain minoritiesoverrepresented among the poor, an income-targetedprogram is likely to serve larger numbers of Latino,African American, and immigrant children, whichcould raise objections among other groups. Culturalbeliefs around childcare may also influence whichgroups benefit, with some cultures preferring informal,family-based care over formal childcare. Nevertheless,a social investment approach to childcare holdspromise for improving the lives of vulnerable childrenand families, which outweighs the potential costs andchallenges.

To realize the vision of a social developmentapproach to early childhood initiatives, greater publicsupport must be marshaled to develop and expand pro-grams. Framing programs for disadvantaged childrenas social investments rather than welfare expendituresmay increase their popularity. Surveys have shown thatthe term ‘childcare’ makes many think of babysitting.When terms like education and school readiness areused, larger segments of the public favor increasedpublic support (Gruendel & Aber, 2006). Presentingearly childhood initiatives as social investments canemphasize the host of potential long-term savings thatcan be realized by averting social problems as well associetal gains associated with increased capacities ofchildren and families to participate in the economy. Inthis way, public support may be rallied for initiativesthat go beyond welfare to represent a true investment inthe future.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to express gratitude to JamesMidgley for his thoughtful comments on early drafts ofthis article.

References

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department ofHealth and Human Services (2007). Head Start FamilyIncome Guidelines for 2007. Retrieved from the Office ofHead Start, http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/Program%20Design%20and%20Management/Head%20Start%20Requirements/IMs/2007/resour_ime_119a1_032107.html[date last accessed 8 October 2008].

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department ofHealth and Human Services (2008). Head Start ProgramFact Sheet, Fiscal Year 2008. Retrieved from the Officeof Head Start, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/fy2008.html [date last accessed 8 October 2008].

Arora S, Bharti S & Mahajan A (2006). Evaluation of Non-Formal Pre-School Educational Services Provided atAnganwadi Centres (Urban Slums of Jammu City). Journalof Social Sciences, 12(2): 135–137.

Becker GS (1975). Human capital: A theoretical and empiricalanalysis, with special reference to education. New York,Columbia University Press.

Besharov D (2005). Head Start’s broken promise. Retrievedfrom the American Enterprise Institute for Public PolicyResearch, http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/childcare_edu/brokenpromise.pdf [date last accessed 22 February2007].

Beverly S, Sherraden M (1997). Investment in human develop-ment as a social development strategy. Social DevelopmentIssues 19: 1–18.

Bhargava R (2000). India (2). Paper presented at the Multi-country Study Mission on Integrated Local CommunityDevelopment, 23–30 November 2000, Republic of China.Retrieved from Integrated Community Development.

Boschee MA, Jacobs G (1997). Child care in the United States:Yesterday and today. Retrieved from the National Networkfor Child Care, http://www.nncc.org/Choose.Quality.Care/ccyesterd.html [date last accessed 22 February 2007].

Bourdieu P, Passeron JC (1973). Cultural reproduction andsocial reproduction. In: Brown R, ed. Knowledge, educationand social change, pp. 71–112. London, Tavistock.

Bourdieu P, Wacquant LJD, eds (1992). An invitation to reflexivesociology. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Chandrasekhar CP, Ghosh J (2005). The unfulfilled potential ofthe ICDS. MacroScan. Retrieved from MacroScan, http://www.macroscan.org/the/fiscal/mar05/fis210305ICDS.htm[date last accessed 15 January 2006].

Child Care Resource Center (2008). Project Head Start back-ground and mission. Retrieved from CCRC, http://www.ccrcla.org/home/index.asp?page=147 [date last accessed 8October 2008].

Cochran M, Niego S (1995). Parenting and social networks. In:Bornstein MH, ed. Handbook of parenting: Volume 3: Statusand social conditions of parenting, pp. 393–418. Mahwah,NJ, Erlbaum.

Coclough C (1982). The impact of primary schooling oneconomic development: A review of the evidence. WorldDevelopment 10: 167–185.

Cohen AJ (1996). A brief history of federal financing for childcare in the United States. The Future of Children 6(2): 26–40.

Coleman JS (1988). Social capital in the creation of humancapital. The American Journal of Sociology 94: S95–S120.

Coleman JS (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge,MA, Harvard University Press.

Currie J, Thomas D (1995). Does Head Start make a difference?American Economic Review 85: 341–364.

Currie J, Thomas D (1996). Does Head Start help Hispanicchildren? Retrieved from the UCLA Economics Departmentwebsite, http://www.econ.ucla.edu/people/papers/currie/LATHDST.PDF [date last accessed 18 December 2006].

Encyclopedia of American History (2007). Child care. Retrievedfrom answers.com: http://www.answers.com/child%20care[date last accessed 20 February 2006].

England P, Folbre N (1999). Who should pay for the kids? TheAnnals of the American Academy of Political and SocialScience 563: 194–207.

Esping-Andersen G (2002). A child-centered social investmentstrategy. In: Esping-Andersen G, Gallie D, Hemerijck A,Myles J, eds, Why we need a new welfare state, pp. 26–67.New York, Oxford University Press.

Conley



Garces E, Thomas D, Currie J (2002). Longer-term effects ofHead Start. American Economic Review 92: 999–1012.

Giddens A (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democ-racy. Cambridge, Polity Press.

Gruendel J, Aber JL (2006). Bridging the gap between researchand child policy change: The role of strategic communica-tions in policy advocacy. In: Aber JL, Bishop-Josef SJ, JonesSM, McLearn KT, Phillips DA, eds, Child development andsocial policy: Knowledge for action, pp. 43–58. Washington,DC, American Psychological Association Press.

Gupta A (2001). Governing Population: The Integrated ChildDevelopment Services Program in India. In TB Hansen &Finn Stepputat (eds). States of Imagination: EthnographicExplorations of the Postcolonial State, pp. 65–96. Durham:Duke University Press.

Haveman RH, Wolfe BL (1994). Succeeding generations: On theeffects of investments in children. New York, Russell SageFoundation.

Heckman J (1999). Policies to foster human capital. NBERWorking Paper 7288. Retrieved from National Bureau ofEconomic Research, http://www.nber.org/papers/w7288[date last accessed 18 December 2006].

Heckman J (2000). Invest in the very young. Retrieved from theOunce of Prevention Fund, http://www.ounceofprevention.org/includes/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/Heckman%20Invest%20in%20the%20Very%20Young%20Final%20PDF.pdf [date last accessed 18 December 2006].

Kamerman SB (2000). Early childhood education and care: Anoverview of developments in the OECD countries. Interna-tional Journal of Educational Research 33: 7–29.

Kapil U (2002). Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS)Scheme: A Program for Holistic Development of Children inIndia. Indian Journal of Pediatrics 69: 597–601.

Khullar V (1998). Integrated child development services: Acritique of evaluation techniques. Economic and PoliticalWeekly, March 7, 537–545.

Lal S, Paul D (2003). Towards universalization of integratedchild development services. Indian Journal of CommunityMedicine 28(4): 147–152.

Love JM, Chazan-Cohen R, Raikes H (2006). Forty years ofresearch knowledge and use: From Head Start to Early HeadStart and beyond. In: Aber JL, Bishop-Josef SJ, Jones SM,McLearn KT, Phillips DA, eds,Child development and socialpolicy: Knowledge for action, pp. 79–95. Washington, DC,American Psychological Association Press.

Mason J, Hunt J, Parker D, Jonsson U (1999). Investing in childnutrition in Asia. Asian Development Review 17(1, 2): 1–32.

Midgley J (1995). Social development: The developmentalperspective in social welfare. Thousand Oaks, CA, SagePublications.

Midgley J (1999). Growth, redistribution, and welfare: Towardsocial investment. Social Service Review 73(1): 3.

Midgley J, Sherraden M (2000). The social development per-spective in social policy. In: Midgley J, Tracy MB, LivermoreM, eds, The handbook of social policy, pp. 435–446. Thou-sand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, Inc.

Midgley J, Tang K (2001). Social policy, economic growth, anddevelopmental welfare. International Journal of SocialWelfare 10: 244–252.

Muralidharan R, Kaul V (1999). Integrated early childhooddevelopment: The Indian experience. In: Eldering L,Leseman PPM, eds, Effective early education: Cross-cultural perspectives, pp. 287–304. New York, FalmerPress.

National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development(1992). National evaluation of Integrated Child DevelopmentServices. New Delhi, NIPCCD.

Parlakian R (n.d.) Growing up healthy. Retrieved from Zeroto Three Policy Center, http://www.zerotothree.org/site/DocServer/GrowUpHealthy.pdf?docID=1722 [date lastaccessed 18 December 2006].

Phillips D, Adams G (2001). Child care and our youngest chil-dren. The Future of Children, 11: 34–51.

Psacharopoulous G (1985). Return to education: A further inter-national update and implications. Journal of HumanResources 20: 583–597.

Putnam R (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions inmodern Italy. Princeton, Princeton Paperbacks.

Putnam R (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival ofAmerican community. New York, Simon & Schuster.

Scarr S (1998). American child care today. AmericanPsychologist 53: 95–108.

Scarr S, Eisenberg M (1993). Child care research: Issues, per-spectives, and results. Annual Review of Psychology 44: 613–644.

Schultz TW (1961). Investment in Human Capital, AmericanEconomic Review 51: 1–17.

Schweinhart LJ (2002). How the High/Scope Perry Preschoolstudy grew: A researcher’s tale. Research Bulletin, 32.Retrieved from High/Scope Educational Research Founda-tion, http://www.pdkintl.org/research/rbulletins/resbul32.htm[date last accessed 18 December 2006].

Sen AK (1999). Development as freedom. New York, Knopf.Shapiro MS (1983). Child’s garden: The kindergarten movement

from Froebel to Dewey. University Park, Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press.

Sheldon S (2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs aspredictors of parent involvement. The Elementary SchoolJournal 102: 301–316.

Siraj-Blatchford I (1995). Nourish and nurture: World Food Pro-gramme assistance for early childhood education in India’sIntegrated Child Development Services. UNESCO EducationSector Monograph, No. 3.

Sonty N (1992). A multimodal approach to prevention: Areview of India’s Integrated Child Development Scheme. In:Albee GW, Bond LA, Cook Monsey TV, eds, Improvingchildren’s lives, pp. 191–199. Newbury Park, SagePublications.

Waldfogel J (2001). International policies toward parental leaveand child care. The Future of Children 11: 98–111.

Woodhall M (2001). Human capital: Educational aspects. Inter-national Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences:6951–6955.

World Bank (1993). World development report 1993: Investing inhealth. New York, Oxford University Press.

Zigler E, Muenchow S (1992). Head Start: The inside story ofAmerica’s most successful educational experiment. NewYork, Basic Books.



childcare: welfare or investment?

Documents