Jani Erola, Aleksi Karhula & Elina Kilpi-Jakonen: Home sweet home? Long-term educational outcomes of childcare arrangements in Finland. Presentation at TITA WP2 seminar 21.4.2016

1. Home sweet home?
Long-term educational outcomes of
childcare arrangements in Finland
TITA WP2 Meeting, Stockholm 21st April
Aleksi Karhula, Jani Erola & Elina Kilpi-Jakonen
University of Turku

2. To be published in:
Blossfeld, H.-P., Kulic, N., Skopek, J. & Triventi, M. (eds):
Childcare, Early Education and Social Inequality
– A Cross-national Perspective
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

3. Day care in Finland
● One of the most universal day care systems in
the world
● A subjective right to all child under pre-primary
age (6yrs)
● Currently does not exclude any subgroups
(children of unemployed parents, students
etc…)

4. The puzzle…
• 40 % + of children in home care
• Less than in any other Nordic countries with
less universal right to day care

5. Why?
1. Home care allowances (cash for care):
government + municipalities
2. Normative claims:
• Families should have freedom to choose (political
argument, see Hiilamo & Kangas 2013)
• Children suffer if taken care by someone else than
mothers too early (attachment ”theorists”)

6. The research questions
o Kids in home care doing better or worse in
education than day care kids? (=long term
outcomes)
o Differences explained by selection into
different child care arrangements by different
family backgrounds?

7. Pre-school child care arrangements
in Finland, I
● Maternity/parental leave 9 months after birth +
father leave 54 days
● After that, either home or day care
o Often mixed for very small children
o Day care includes: center or family care (80% vs.
20%)

8. Pre-school child care arrangements
in Finland, II
● Both heavily subsidized
o Day care free for low-income families, max. monthly
cost around 250 € /month
o Government home care allowance for first child 343
€ / month until age 3, some municipalities topping
● Pre-primary at age 6, free of charge

9. Historical background
● Women’s movement in the mid-1960s,
employers worried in the late 1960s (1972 the
smallest birth cohort since WWII)
● Law on day care in 1973
● Subjective right of children introduced in
1990 for kids under 3 yrs, extended to kids
under 6 yrs in 1996
● Gov. home care allowances 1991, day care
subsidies cover private institutions in 1996

10. High quality requirements
● In day care centers: Children under 3 years: 1
teacher / 4 childr., older: 1 teacher / 7 childr.
● Formal teacher qualifications of at last some of
the day care center staff required by
municipalities (but not by private institutions)
● BUT: Family care: max 4 children but no formal
requirements

11. In practise
● High quality day care expensive for
municipalities (av. 63 € /day in 2012)
● Has lead to municipalities-topped home care
allowances (in 2012 max 264€ / child, av. 148
€)

12. Children in day care as a percentage
of age group
Source: Alila et al 2014, Statistics Finland 2015

13. Previous studies
● Not much on child outcomes in Finland
● But several in other Nordic countries, e.g.:
o Havnes & Mongstad 2011, 2014 (NO): subsidized
day care has positive effects on low-inc. families,
negative in high-income
o Esping-Andersen et al 2012 (DEN): subs . day care
positive effects on low-income children
o Datta Gupta & Simonsen 2009 (DEN): No difference
between home and day care in early cognitive
outcomes

14. Data
● Administrative register data, >15 % of pop.
● 13859 children born 1989-1990, matched with
both parents, yearly follow-up to 2010
● Child care types according to paid home care
allowances (government + municipalities)
● Excluded children:
● With divorced, separ. or single parents at age 3
● With under 1 year-old siblings (as day care could
not be identified for them)

15. Child care type identified through
home care allowance
Home care allowance was only paid for under 3-
year-old children - cannot identify day care for
older children
Home care
allowance
No Children in public day care
Yes
At home
(or minority in private day care)

16. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Around age 1
Around age 2
Around age3
Later or never
parental leave
home care
day care
pre-primary
age

17. Descriptive Statistics: childcare

18. Outcomes for analyses
● Continuing from comprehensive school to
further secondary education by age 17 (non-
drop out)
● General secondary degree at age 20
● Entry into higher education at age 20

19. Explanatory factors
1. Gender
2. + Mother’s education and father’s education
(exogenous controls)
3. + Mother’s and father’s unemployment,
household income per consumption unit
(partly endogenous controls)

20. Results?

21. M1a M2a M3a M1b M2b M3b M1c M2c M3c
Age of entry into public day care (ref. Later or never)
Around the age of 1 0.01*** 0.01 -0.00 0.08*** 0.03*** -0.01 0.07*** 0.02** 0.01
Around the age of 2 0.03*** 0.02*** 0.01 0.14*** 0.06*** 0.02 0.09*** 0.03*** 0.01
Around the age of 3 0.01** 0.01 0.00 0.10*** 0.05*** 0.02* 0.07*** 0.03*** 0.02*
Female (ref. Male) -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.16*** 0.16*** 0.16*** 0.10*** 0.10*** 0.10***
Mothers education (ref. Less)
Upper secondary education 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.12*** 0.11*** 0.10*** 0.10***
Higher education 0.05*** 0.05*** 0.29*** 0.25*** 0.23*** 0.21***
Fathers education (ref. Less)
Upper secondary education 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.06*** 0.06*** 0.04*** 0.04***
Higher education 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.27*** 0.22*** 0.18*** 0.15***
Fathers unemployment (ref. Not unemployed) -0.01 -0.04*** -0.05***
Mothers unemployment (ref. Not unemployed) -0.01*** -0.05*** -0.03***
Houdehold income per consumption unit (ref. Lowest)
Second quantile 0.01 0.01 -0.01
Third quantile 0.02** 0.05*** 0.02
Fourth quantile 0.02*** 0.10*** 0.05***
Highest quantile 0.01 0.18*** 0.07***
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table 2. Logistic regression models of between the age of entry into the public day care and educational outcomes in the early
adulthood (results as average marginal effects (AME); N = 13859)
Dependent variable:
Entry into secondary
education at age 17
General secondary
degree at age 20
Entry into higher
education at age 20
Source: Own calculations based on the data set from Statistics Finland

22. Enrollment in secondary education
at age 17
M1: Clear selection
M2: Some positive association remaining
M3: All associations gone

23. General secondary degree at age 20
M1: Strong selection
M2: Clear positive association remaining
M3: Small or non. sig. associations

24. Entry into higher education at age 20
M1: Clear selection
M2: Some small positive association remaining
M3: Small or non. sig. associations

25. Heterogeneous Effects?

26. No statistically significant interaction with mothers
education (on any outcomes)

27. Municipality fixed effects
 No change
 Suggests municipality top-up does not change
outocomes – but influences absolute level of
home care

28. Summary
● Tertiary educated mothers most likely to choose
day care, low educated home care
● Models show positive effects for day care even
after controlling for parental education, weakest
for those entering day care at the age of 1
● Differences by mother’s education small in last
models = effects mediated through income and
labor market attach. of parents
(=overcontrolling)

29. Meaning…
Home may be sweet for some but on average kids
do better if they try the wild side!

30. Thank You
Aleksi Karhula (aleksi.karhula@utu.fi)
Jani Erola (jani.erola@utu.fi)
Elina Kilpi-Jakonen (elina.kilpi-jakonen@utu.fi)

31. Extras