Are childcare subsidies unfair to SAHM?

[MotherWol]

There's a letter in today's Guardian: Give Parents a Real Choice on Childcare arguing that the current system of childcare subsidies discriminate against SAHMs and don't acknowledge that the work they do is economically valuable, and that there should be equal financial support offered to families with a SAHP.

The campaign group behind the letter, Mothers At Home Matter, are focused on the benefits that a SAHM (their wording) is hugely beneficial to families and society, but stigmatised by a society that values economic activity over everything else.

I don't know whether it's their exclusive focus on women staying at home with children that set my feminist alarm ringing, but my gut reaction is that choosing to stay home with your children isn't equally important at a societal level to working, however important it may be to to families at an individual level, and therefore it's fair enough that there's no SAHM subsidy.

We already have maternity rights to enable women to take spend the first year of their child's life with them, although those benefits could arguably be significantly better. Also arguably better support is needed for families of children with disabilities where returning to work isn't possible due to their child's needs, but in the absence of those factors, is it really fair to expect the state to meet the cost of women choosing not to return to work?

I realise this is a thorny issue, and I honestly don't believe all mothers should be in paid work immediately after having children - they should be free to make the choice that's right for their families. But if the consequence of being a SAHM means losing one income, is it fair to expect equal subsidy from the state to compensate for that?

I think parents being around more to parent is an advantage and society is very different now than it was years ago where families never needed 2 people on full time wages to just live
Doesn't have to be just mum though , kids have two parents
Also years ago families helped each other but this is often not possible now
Children seemed to not have so much stress as they appear now and not everyone who return to work does because they want fo , many many do it because they can't afford not too and if there was a way to stay at home a little longer or work part time and it was financially doable many would opt for that

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves what research can you link to that says there are no benefits to having a Sahm ?
Its always a put down on mumsnet to sahm isn't it
I choose to stay at home when mine were little as I wanted that time with them
I have so many working friends who feel guilty shifting them off to nursery at a you g age and who found it really hard, how is that good for a child or mother
Shouldn't it be about choice ? Some people can't wait to get back and thats fine , others would prefer not to and that should be fine also
Why not allow tax allowance to be fully passed to help
After all many people who receive childcare top ups won't be paying anywhere near enough to pay it back

I volunteer extensively in my community, while working fulltime. And I'm not alone, virtually everyone else volunteering with me works too or is retired. Often people are working part time or flexibly. I also know plenty of SAHPs who don't do any volunteer work.

If people want to find the time to volunteer they will.

One could also argue that in many volunteer roles, professional knowledge or experience gained from employment is very useful.

@TheOnlyBeeInYourBonnet if you work full time then you can't always volunteer during school hours like a sahm mum would ? And many just take a few years out and have worked so have professional knowledge
If your working full time and volunteering evenings , weekends etc , when do people actually spend time with their kids
Families do seem to spend a lot less time with each other nowadays and looming around at society we don't seem in a better place than 40 years ago ( not looking at materialistic things )

Typical mumsnet bashing of SAHM as usual

@TriangleBingoBongo the 15 hours at age 3 (and for some 2 year olds) is not childcare. It's early years education.

Haven’t read the whole thread but… here in France the issue of childcare / early years education is very much a perceived as a question of sexual equality, by making it equally possible for mothers and fathers to work or not as each family sees fit.

Affordable, state-funded childcare is available to everyone. Some aspects of it are paid for and are means-tested but nothing in the public sphere is expensive, and there are many different options from nannies to micro crèche to larger crèches. From 3 months to 2/3 years, public creches are available 7am to 7pm at very low cost. At 2/3 years children can start maternelle (nursery school, completely free except for school lunches). The school day runs 0800 to 16h30 four days per week, with before, after and Wednesday school care (means tested, generally very cheap) available and often provided on site. School proper starts at 6yrs, similar timetable as above. By the time secondary starts age 11 children are generally considered old enough to be left home alone etc.

my point is: because it’s tax payer funded and state-provided, it’s available more-or-less equally to everyone. I choose not to use it when my children were younger - I was a SAHP until they started maternelle at 3 yrs old, and they only went part time for the first year. But if I had wanted to, I could have gone to work full time, 3 months after giving birth - and it would have been totally affordable. It would have been my choice.

I'm not going to respond to your insinuation that I don't spend enough time with my children because I manage to have financial independence while contributing to my community.

Has your toddler/old people group thought about running outside business hours to attract a broader group of volunteers? As family time is so important to you, perhaps you could all go together on a Saturday morning, I'm sure your husband will enjoy the opportunity to give back to society too.

I think if families choose to have one parent stay at home (or both, rota, each doing part time hours), they should be remunerated equal to the parents who choose to send their kids off to be looked after by other people.
Why are we paying others (nursery staff) to look after our kids, yet don't pay parents who prefer to look after their own children?

This is certainly not my experience, and I don't think that generally SAHPs are doing any more in the way of 'community cohesion' than working parents.

In neither of my community volunteering roles (Brownie leader and trustee for our community library) is there a single SAHP. A couple of retirees but the vast majority of us are working full-time and volunteering alongside our families. There aren't any SAHPs amongst the Scout group leaders either.

No doubt many SAHPs do community volunteering roles but as a section of society they aren't doing any more than other sections of society and I think it's disingenuous to suggest that they provide unique societal benefits as a group.

It's not good for us to opt out of the workplace because it puts women in a point of vulnerability. It is not great for women to be financially dependent on men. Yes, in individual scenarios it works out fine, but overall it's not a great idea is it.

Wait you're asking why we don't pay parents to parent?? Isn't that like the same reason why no one pays me to clean my own house, even though I'd pay a cleaner to do it, or cook my own food, even though chefs get a wage?

It's not good for us to opt out of the workplace because it puts women in a point of vulnerability. It is not great for women to be financially dependent on men. Yes, in individual scenarios it works out fine, but overall it's not a great idea is it

Exactly!! It would be a huge step back.

I disagree that raising children well is less economically valuable than working.
Do it right and you significantly reduce the chances of physical and mental ill health, increase chances of high educational achievement/skill development, greater opportunity for child to be happy and productive member of society when older.
It's a hugely sound economic investment - social services, NHS, education system, benefit system, police, prison system, support services - all pay the cost for poor childhoods as well as the individual themselves. There are business and jobs centred around catering for SAH parents and their pre-school children. They are an active and valuable group and I do think it's worth a discussion about the effects of recognising this in a financial way.
It may also protect women from becoming reliant on a partner's wage by staying at home.
The early years are so important for so many reasons. Just look at one aspect alone - nutrition - and how funds and education could help lay a really strong foundation which would have lifelong benefits.
Of course my early paragraph refers to raising children well, and this can be done (or not done) in or out of the home, and my gut reaction is anyone who is doing this vital work deserves more recognition than they are getting - whether that's nursery staff, childminders, grandparents or SAH parents.
It totally aligns with my principles to value this work which has historically (and presently) been overlooked as it happens in the domestic sphere and is associated with women/children/caring etc.
It's definitely worth a conversation.

I volunteer in the local community and have done for years. Never found it a problem to fit it in around dd and work - dd had hobbies that she attended on a weekly basis, and I always fitted my voluntary commitments in around them.

I think it's a myth that SAHMs are the only , ones who volunteer in the local community, as that isn't my experience at all, but I suspect that's because SAHPs tend to congregate in certain types of voluntary role whereas working people tend to congregate in others. There are no SAHPs on the governing board of our local school, for example, and haven't been during the many years in which I have served as a governor. Likewise on the boards of the two charities that I'm involved with as a trustee. Typically, those are roles that are aimed at working people because of the professional skills that are required, and so I guess that's mainly who they attract. Other roles might be aimed more at SAHPs. Having worked for a number of charities over the years, including roles where I've had responsibility for coordinating volunteers, it certainly isn't my impression that SAHPs do the bulk of volunteering in the community. Students and retired people are the most heavily represented groups in my experience, with a good scattering of working people and SAHPs in between.

I agree with this.
Plus good quality childcare should be affordable and available for all.

I disagree that raising children well is less economically valuable than working.
Do it right and you significantly reduce the chances of physical and mental ill health, increase chances of high educational achievement/skill development, greater opportunity for child to be happy and productive member of society when older.
It's a hugely sound economic investment - social services, NHS, education system, benefit system, police, prison system, support services - all pay the cost for poor childhoods as well as the individual themselves.

What's your evidence for this? Is there research that suggests that children of WOHPs are more likely to end up on benefits or in prison etc than the children of SAHPs? Please link to the peer reviewed studies that demonstrate this, as most of the studies that I have seen suggest that there is little if any difference in outcomes.

OK, I've just re-read your post and see that you've acknowledged that you don't need to be a SAHP to raise your children well. Quite right, but then, what's the point of saying it at all - we all know that good parenting leads to better outcomes for children, but that has fuck all to do with whether people are WOH or SAH.

It has to do with SAH or WOH because if certain aspects of either of those situations could be improved, then why not talk about it?
I suppose it comes down to plain old poverty at some point - if a childcare provider didn't have the funds to do a good job, they'd shut down. A SAHP doesn't have that option. Of course you can be a great parent with low financial means, but if we are really valuing the importance of childhood etc, it's worth a conversation about how we are supporting those staying at home to raise children, are we doing enough to allow them to give really good quality care?
It's the same for providers too, they are not funded well. Could they be much better if they were?
It's such a unique window, the early years, and I don't think as a whole we are doing enough in that time to set children and families up, whether it's in the home or out.

What research can you link to that says there are no benefits to having a Sahm ?

Sorry, I didn't phrase it very well if that's how it came across. Of course there are benefits of having a sahp for the couple in terms of how they want to organise their lives and share their workload, but those benefits are at a family level rather than at a societal level. What most research does seem to suggest is that there are no real differences in outcomes for the children either way.

No, in answer to your question, it wouldn't be fair. Having children, and staying home rather than work, is a perfectly valid and reasonable choice that is their right to make. We shouldn't question whether their role is more or less important. But why should others pay for that?

Children with disabilities are an entirely separate category though, and parents should be given the appropriate and financial support they need, to enable them to do what they wish to.

Why are we paying others (nursery staff) to look after our kids, yet don't pay parents who prefer to look after their own children?

Well, paying nursery staff to look after children so parents can work provides the economy with two jobs which would generally be considered by the government to be a GOOD THING.

I suspect government help with childcare is less generous than many SAHMs may believe. But if £32* a month means so much to you ...

*The amount of government help I used to get to pay my £1000 a month childcare bills

I suppose it would be good to look at SAHP with different financial means and look at outcomes for that.
Rather than funding the parent, is to worth instead funding the things that do improve outcomes?
Could you have funding/hours that you could choose to spend on early years education through a provider (childcare basically) or classes, activities, meals for babies/children if you were at home. All that contact with professionals and other parents and socialisation and early years/parenting education could only be a good thing right?
The effects of lockdown on development have started to be assessed, so would some kind of funding basically allow for the opposite of lockdown for stay at home parents? That lack of means/easy access/awareness might otherwise prevent them benefiting from?

Another thing to think of is some kind of extended parental leave. Like maternity leave but longer and much more focused on both parents if they are around, so it doesn't become an extended time away from the workforce for the woman, it becomes an expected part of a working parent's life to have reduced/flexible hours for a period of time. And an established way back into the workforce for those who have been away a while, either updating/retraining/prior agreement with previous workplace or designated roles for those coming back from parental leave, something like that.

We've pretty much accepted paid maternity leave and that was really contentious for a while and some did (and still do) describe that as paying mums to sit around/paying them to parent, but I think we know how valuable having the option is. There's just a shitty gap between end of mat leave and start of school basically that I don't feel we're getting at all right.

This seems fair to me.

It's not good for us to opt out of the workplace because it puts women in a point of vulnerability. It is not great for women to be financially dependent on men. Yes, in individual scenarios it works out fine, but overall it's not a great idea

You need to choose a husband who views the money he earns as family money. If he doesn't then don't procreate with him.

I wasn't financially vulnerable when I was a SAHM - joint account, joint mortgage. If he'd upped and left I would have got a job, CM and UC.

Very few woman with children are financially independent. And most SAHMs return to work at some point.

And I've never volunteered!