Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care

Available, accessible and affordable ECEC is a key precondition for ECEC provision to translate into meaningful and long-lived benefits for vulnerable children. Despite substantial increases in enrolment rates in past decades, non-participation varies among children, particularly with children’s age and background. This chapter discusses the types of non-participation that should attract policy attention, given that there are differing opinions on whether children should be with their parents or in ECEC settings at the early age. It discusses the patterns of non-participation and the reasons behind it. Multi-faceted and inter-related effects of personal and environmental factors influence ECEC participation and require layered policy strategies. While accounting for these interactions, the chapter seeks to distinguish between direct and indirect barriers to participation. It examines approaches for directly addressing inequalities in participation, with a focus on policies that are not linked to the quality of ECEC itself (which is dealt with in Chapters 6 and 7), although higher quality can alleviate some informal barriers.

The overarching questions addressed in this chapter are:

• What is the scope of non-participation for children in ECEC and how does this relate to children’s characteristics?

• How have inequalities in ECEC participation evolved over time?

• Which barriers hinder vulnerable children’s participation in ECEC?

• How can OECD countries design policies that support equity in children’s participation in ECEC?

The chapter builds on data evidence on children’s participation in ECEC in OECD countries to set the stage for understanding how children engage in ECEC. It then examines the multi-faceted barriers that prevent equitable access to ECEC settings. It also discusses policy levers OECD countries can envision to address inequalities in children’s ECEC participation.

This section examines the scope of non-participation for children under 3 and at the pre-primary education level, and how non-participation relates to children’s personal or environmental characteristics. Even if percentages of non-participation are small, they remain problematic if they concern specific categories of children. This section investigates gaps in participation in different types of ECEC. The disparities in participation are analysed also with respect to the intensity of children’s participation hours in different types of ECEC.

Data on gaps in participation by children’s socio-economic background are not readily available at the international level for all OECD member countries. However, data from European OECD countries enable comparison of levels of participation in regulated centre-based and home-based ECEC (e.g. centre-based services, organised family day care and care services provided by qualified childminders), unregulated childminder care (e.g. babysitters or other childminders who are not organised or controlled by a structure) and informal care (e.g. unpaid care provided by relatives or friends). Despite increases in ECEC participation in recent decades, socio-economically disadvantaged children continue to engage less in ECEC services and particularly in regulated ECEC services that are likely to provide higher-quality education and care (Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2) (see Chapter 6). Inequalities are particularly pronounced for children under age 2, whereas children aged 3-5 tend to engage more on average in regulated ECEC services.

For children aged 0-2, participation in regulated centre-based and home-based ECEC is consistently lower in almost all OECD countries with available data in 2023 for children from disadvantaged backgrounds (32% on average) relative to more advantaged ones (51%). Participation gaps are particularly wide in Belgium, France, Ireland and the Netherlands (Figure 5.1). While Ireland displays higher engagement in unregulated childminder care, children from socio-economically advantaged backgrounds participate disproportionately more in this type of care. On average across countries with available data, socio-economically disadvantaged children are less likely to be engaged in unregulated childminder care and to be taken care of by relatives (informal care). Gaps in informal care participation may reflect differences in labour market participation of mothers from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds, whereby the former may be more likely to return to the workforce faster and work for longer hours (e.g. if they are in high-skilled occupations) and hence, to rely more extensively on informal care from their families.

Inequalities in participation for children aged 3-5 years-old reproduce the same pattern as for younger children (Figure 5.2). While more children of this age engage in ECEC (reflecting legal entitlements for ECEC participation and compulsory pre-primary years in a range of countries), children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds in European OECD countries still tend to be enrolled less in regulated ECEC services (86%) than advantaged ones (95%). Socio-economic gaps in participation in regulated centre-based and home-based ECEC tend to be more pronounced in countries with lower average participation in ECEC provision (such as Croatia, Czechia, Poland, Romania and the Slovak Republic). Other types of education and care – unregulated childminder care, informal care and after-school care – also tend to be more recurrent among socio-economically advantaged 3-5-year-olds. While evidence on after-school care may underestimate children’s participation (e.g. if parents incorrectly report after-school care hours as part of the regulated ECEC centre-based hours), available data show inequalities in some of the countries where after-school care tends to be more widespread (e.g. France, the Netherlands), which are likely to also come from more part-time work among socio-economically disadvantaged families.

When they participate in regulated ECEC, socio-economically disadvantaged children also tend to experience fewer hours of provision, although gaps in the intensity of participation are typically more moderate (Figure 5.3). Countries that display lower average hours of participation also tend to display larger inequalities in participation hours. These gaps are particularly pronounced in France, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden and for 0-2-year-olds and in France, Romania, Spain and Sweden for 3-5-year-olds. These differences in intensive participation in ECEC can also lead to inequalities between children when ECEC services have high quality.

Participation in ECEC services is shaped by a complex and dynamic interaction of factors. These factors are interwoven, creating an intricate web of barriers, particularly for socio-economically disadvantaged families (Figure 5.4). To understand the barriers to ECEC participation, it is critical to recognise the multi-layered nature of these barriers, ranging from immediate and tangible challenges such as cost and location to more subtle factors including social norms, parental perceptions or institutional biases. The literature offers a range of frameworks for conceptualising these factors to identify the drivers behind both participation and non-participation (Vandenbroeck and Lazzari, 2014[1]; Archambault, Côté and Raynault, 2019[2]; Carbuccia et al., 2023[3]) (see Annex A, Workshop 2). This chapter categorises these barriers into two broad domains: direct and indirect barriers, which together shape the landscape of ECEC participation.

Direct barriers include practical and structural challenges that hinder families from enrolling their children in these services due to problems with service availability, affordability and accessibility through logistical factors such as operating hours, geographical location and service capacity. Identifying these direct barriers is typically straightforward. Indirect barriers, in contrast, are more complex and nuanced, as they also involve families’ preferences and beliefs on what is best for their children.

Both direct and indirect barriers intersect with family characteristics, such as socio-economic status or cultural background, putting families in vulnerable situations at greater risk of facing multiple barriers to ECEC participation (Figure 5.4). For instance, while affordability is a major challenge for low-income families, simply removing financial barriers may not close participation gaps if ECEC centres remain inaccessible or unavailable in socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods, thus limiting logistical access. Similarly, targeted policies aimed at addressing direct barriers may fall short in reaching groups with historically low participation rates if indirect barriers persist – such as limited information about subsidies, mistrust of formal ECEC, or preferences for parental care (Carbuccia et al., 2023[3]).These indirect barriers can either amplify or mitigate the effects of existing direct barriers, making them equally essential to tackle in efforts to improve participation rates and address the root causes of non-participation.

System-level characteristics and the broader policy context further shape the presence and extent of these barriers. Funding models, for example, play a pivotal role – while funding mechanisms may incentivise private or for-profit providers to participate in subsidy programmes, these services are often more accessible to advantaged families due to additional costs of these services and demand-driven location choices (Slicker and Hustedt, 2022[4]). Similarly, family leave policies, housing policies and broader social welfare policies significantly influence families’ decisions to enrol their children in ECEC, with distinct implications for families across the socio-economic spectrum (see Chapter 4). A well-co-ordinated and inclusive approach across these policy domains is essential for mitigating both direct and indirect barriers to ECEC participation, creating a more equitable and inclusive ECEC environment (see Chapter 10).

Structural constraints related to the availability and affordability of ECEC services have been shown to play a key role in explaining low ECEC uptake in a range of OECD countries, especially for disadvantaged children (Pavolini and Van Lancker, 2018[5]).

Participation levels in OECD countries partly reflect an insufficient offer relative to demand for ECEC services, particularly for children under 3 years-old. The increasing recognition of ECEC benefits for children and families coupled with evolutions in female labour market participation has enhanced demand for ECEC services. While governments have expanded investments in children’s early years as a result (see Chapter 9), investments have not always been sufficient to match the rise in demand for ECEC services. Evidence from countries participating in the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) Starting Strong 2018 for settings covering children under age 3 shows that even in countries with relatively high ECEC enrolment rates, the sector still displayed room for growth – ECEC leaders in Israel, Germany and Norway reported high shares of children seeking enrolment but who were placed on waiting lists (OECD, 2020[6]). This finding is echoed by other surveys of parents in European OECD countries (OECD, 2020[7]).

Lack of availability of ECEC services can reflect a range of factors, including insufficient capital investments or an ineffective distribution of the ECEC network across the territory. In addition, in many OECD countries, staff shortages coming from limited staff attraction, high staff turnover and poor retention remain major obstacles to the expansion of ECEC provision. An ageing ECEC workforce also amplifies needs for ECEC staff. In 2022, almost one in three early childhood education (ISCED Level 0) teachers was above 50 years old on average across OECD countries, and in some countries this figure exceeded 40% (in Czechia, Estonia and Hungary for pre-primary education – ISCED 02; in Latvia and Lithuania for both early childhood educational development – ISCED 01 and pre-primary education – ISCED 02) and even 50% (in Italy and Portugal for pre-primary education – ISCED 02) (OECD, 2024[8]). The difficulty to attract sufficient male staff also deprives the sector of a pool of needed ECEC staff (OECD, 2019[9]).

Beyond the overall availability of ECEC provision, the geographic distribution of ECEC settings can also hinder equal access to ECEC. Where families live can be a key determinant of children’s access to ECEC services. Evidence from European OECD countries on geographic inequalities in ECEC accessibility shows that while for many families, accessibility is high, some families, particularly those in lower-income regions, are relatively underserved (Almeida et al., 2024[10]). Urban, dynamic areas but also rural, isolated ones often display relatively high unmet demand due to a shortage of facilities (OECD, 2020[7]; Eurostat, 2016[11]). Families living in areas that are closest to cities tend to have shorter travel times to ECEC services in contrast to those living in more remote areas (Almeida et al., 2024[10]; Hurley, Tham and Nguyen, 2024[12]). This also means, however, that urban areas tend to concentrate higher demand for ECEC due to requests coming from parents living in cities and from those coming from nearby areas. Lack of convenient transportation options can particularly hinder disadvantaged children’s access to ECEC services. Indeed, physical proximity to ECEC facilities is even more important for disadvantaged families who are less likely to be mobile (Carbuccia et al., 2023[3]).

The distribution of responsibilities for the organisation of the ECEC network matters for the distribution of ECEC services across the territory. The decentralisation of many ECEC systems, with shared responsibilities between central and sub-central authorities for ECEC funding, means local authorities’ investments and priorities likely play a key role the development of the ECEC network (see Chapter 9). While decentralised planning enables easier adaptation to local needs, it can also result in an inequitable access to ECEC services within countries and across different groups of children. Wealthier localities are more likely to raise revenues and spend at higher levels on developing new ECEC facilities. Evidence from Sweden shows that multi-level governance can result in variation between municipalities in the availability of ECEC and access to quality provision, even in the context of an integrated ECEC system with universal ECEC entitlement from age 1 (Garvis and Lunneblad, 2018[13]; Leseman and Slot, forthcoming[14]). In a similar vein, communities where awareness about the benefits of ECEC is higher tend to exhibit a higher demand for ECEC services.

Market dynamics can also result in insufficient coverage of certain areas (e.g. poorer or more isolated areas) and segregation of children by socio-economic background (Simon et al., 2022[15]; OECD, 2019[16]). Acquiring other centres is often a key objective of private for-profit chains, translating into expanding company chains rather than increasing the number of ECEC places (Simon et al., 2022[15]). In Australia and England (United Kingdom), “childcare deserts”, or areas with scarce ECEC, are more widespread in remote or disadvantaged areas and are estimated to cover a large share of the child population (for example, nearly half of under-5 year-olds live in “childcare deserts” in England) (Pollard et al., 2023[17]; Hurley, Tham and Nguyen, 2024[12]).

Lack of affordability of ECEC services remains one of the major barriers to socio-economically disadvantaged children’s participation in a range of OECD countries. Direct ECEC costs (e.g. fees) and also parents’ opportunity costs of staying at home and caring for their children matter in understanding the extent to which ECEC services are affordable to families (Carbuccia et al., 2023[3]). Evidence from the OECD net childcare cost indicator shows that costs for centre-based ECEC for young children can place an important burden on families’ budgets. While most OECD countries provide some form of support for parents to reduce the costs of ECEC, out-of-pocket costs remained substantial for families in several countries in 2023 (Figure 5.5). In Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, costs associated with centre-based care exceeded 20% of average earnings for a two-earner couple in full-time employment. In countries with relatively low gross childcare fees or benefitting from considerable government financial support, out-of-pocket childcare costs for families were lower. While single and low-income parents tend to benefit from additional financial support and hence, have lower out-of-pocket costs than double-earner families on average across OECD countries, parents still experienced high net costs in a few countries, particularly when gross fees are high (e.g. the United Kingdom and the United States) (OECD, 2022[18]). However, since data for this indicator come from 2023, they do not reflect any policy changes introduced later on.

While the type and degree of support for parents varies widely across OECD countries (Figure 5.5), (OECD, 2020[7]), such support may not be sufficient to address families’ financial constraints and facilitate children’s participation in ECEC provision. In 2016, in European OECD countries with available data, up to one in four low-income households with children aged 0-5 reported an unmet need for ECEC due to financial reasons (OECD, 2020[7]). Affordability reasons for disadvantaged families and lack of ECEC access were most recurrent in Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. In some European countries with available data in 2022, families with low work intensity still experienced substantial ECEC costs (25% or more of family budgets) in spite of substantial public support (Rastragina and Pearsall, 2023[19]).

Despite welfare policies across OECD countries designed to mitigate financial barriers and ensure the availability of ECEC services, many children still do not participate in these services because of indirect barriers. These barriers – such as limited awareness of available services, complex enrolment processes, and a lack of understanding of the benefits of ECEC – diminish the reach of policies designed to help vulnerable families. This, in turn, contributes to consistently lower participation rates among the children who would benefit the most from ECEC provision. This section examines these indirect barriers, how they disproportionately affect certain groups, and how system-level characteristics and policies can hinder ECEC services from being equitable in their reach and accessibility.

Accessible information on the availability and types of ECEC settings, how to apply, the cost and the various financial support options is essential to ensuring that ECEC policies effectively reach socio-economically disadvantaged families and facilitate their access to ECEC. Widespread communication of this information, along with support mechanisms, is critical to improving enrolment rates among harder-to-reach families. However, the complexity of the ECEC sector in many countries can lead to information gaps, particularly in the eligibility for available provisions, application and enrolment processes, and the costs and benefits of services. Non-transparent or complex application procedures, as well as inconsistent enrolment requirements across regions and ECEC settings, can make it difficult for parents to navigate the system. As a result, even in universal ECEC systems, these barriers may prevent families from fully accessing the services available to them (Hermes et al., 2021[20]).

Across OECD countries, families from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to face information gaps in understanding ECEC systems, which contributes to lower uptake of these services, even when the services are free and widely available (Carbuccia et al., 2023[3]) (see Annex A, Workshop 2). Across European OECD countries that offer free provision with a guaranteed place for 3-5-year-olds (e.g. Estonia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Sweden), participation gaps persist, larger in some countries than in others (Figure 5.2). Research sheds light on why enrolment may remain low despite the efforts to make ECEC free and accessible, and why some families are more likely to use these services than others. In Germany, for example, socio-economically disadvantaged or immigrant families are more likely to experience barriers to accessing services due to a lack of information about the application process, key deadlines, and the need to apply early to secure a spot (Hermes et al., 2021[20]).

Families with an immigrant or refugee status are at an increased risk for information gaps about the availability of public services and their eligibility to benefit from them due to a combination of risk factors (Zimmermann, 2024[21]). Proficiency in the country's official language plays a key role in parents’ ability to navigate a new education system. Language skills help parents understand the welfare systems and comply with bureaucratic requirements to benefit from these services. Not knowing the official language can lead to social exclusion and a limited access to available services. Research from Germany, England (United Kingdom) and the Netherlands highlights that the language proficiency of immigrant parents significantly influences their utilisation of ECEC services (Wolf et al., 2020[22]). Systemic barriers, such as a lack of interpretation support in public services, can aggravate this risk further (Khatri and Assefa, 2022[23]).

While access to formal information channels is crucial for understanding welfare services, informal networks also play a significant role. Parents from culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds often struggle to use formal information sources and therefore tend to rely on informal networks, such as community contacts (Khatri and Assefa, 2022[23]). This reliance simplifies decision making by reducing the cognitive load, allowing parents to focus on more immediate concerns. This practice can, however, hinder a full understanding of available ECEC services – particularly if informal networks do not rely on ECEC – resulting in limited awareness of available options or the required procedures to access the services (Carbuccia et al., 2023[3]).

Administrative requirements that request parents to invest time to obtain documentation or complete extensive paperwork to verify eligibility can also pose challenges during the enrolment process, especially for families experiencing vulnerability. Enrolment processes in ECEC services may involve multiple steps, including choosing a programme (or finding one based on eligibility), applying for a spot, verifying eligibility, and completing the enrolment. The variability and complexity of these individualised processes can place a cognitive and logistical burden on families, particularly those with limited resources or familiarity with the system.

Administrative difficulties compound the already challenging childcare responsibilities many parents face, particularly those with long working hours, multiple children and no work flexibility. The need to update information and provide proof of changes in financial circumstances can lead to increased stress and frustration for parents when using these services (Halling and Baekgaard, 2023[24]). The challenges that come with the enrolment process can lead to cognitive short-cuts in decision making that parents may choose to forgo the benefits of formal ECEC services altogether (Jenkins and Nguyen, 2021[25]).

Administrative requirements can be especially challenging for families with precarious settlement or work status when accessing ECEC provisions. Benefiting from ECEC subsidies often requires documentation that is more readily available to families with stable living arrangements and access to other services for their children (e.g. healthcare for vaccination records). Parents with precarious living (e.g. temporary or undocumented residence) or working conditions (e.g. frequent job changes) are more likely to struggle with accessing these services as a result of difficulties with providing the required documentation (Naldini, Adamson and Hamilton, 2022[26]; Sainsbury, 2012[27]; Yoshikawa, 2011[28]). These barriers can render them ineligible for formal ECEC settings. For instance, in the United States, immigrant families were less likely to access public ECEC services if they did not hold US citizenship or receive additional assistance to support them through the documentation process to access these services (Johnson, Padilla and Votruba-Drzal, 2017[29]).

The impact of administrative challenges on ECEC enrolment rates is particularly evident with demand-side subsidies. Policies that offer vouchers or tax credits give financial support directly to parents, allowing them to choose among various ECEC providers. While this approach offers financial relief and supports parental choice, it also requires parents to be well-informed about the process to claim such benefits. The evaluation of North Carolina’s ECEC subsidy programme in the United States, for example, has shown that many Hispanic families struggled to provide the necessary documentation to access public services (Lin et al., 2022[30]). These challenges can lead to the discontinuation of the use of ECEC services among socio-economically disadvantaged children even when, for instance, updates of documentation are required (Jenkins and Nguyen, 2021[25]).

The understanding of the role of ECEC in children’s lives is necessary for motivating parents to use these services and enhancing ECEC participation in many OECD countries. However, parents’ views on ECEC vary across segments of societies (Redman, Harrison and Djonov, 2021[31]). Some parents of children under the age of 3 may view ECEC services as a childcare solution rather than as an experience supporting child development.

The perception of a false dichotomy between education and care, and the importance of parental care for children of different age groups contributes to varied views on the role of ECEC, particularly for children aged 3 and under. Policies addressing affordability and accessibility barriers alone may not be sufficient to challenge and shift these deeply rooted perceptions. For example, in Germany, despite the significant expansion of public ECEC services between 1997 and 2020 – making services widely available and free for 3-6 year-olds and subsidised for under 3 year-olds – the enrolment rates for children under 3 saw only minimal increases, while enrolment for 3-5 year-olds grew substantially (Gambaro, Schäper and Spiess, 2024[32]).

Parents' attitudes towards ECEC play a pivotal role in enrolment, alongside socio-economic factors (Tang, Kelly and Pic, 2021[33]). These attitudes can shift as parents become more aware of the developmental benefits of ECEC, which can lead to higher participation rates among younger children. A study in Spain, for instance, found that parents’ recognition of ECEC's role in fostering social skills, coupled with their mothers’ education level and employment status, are strong predictors of ECEC enrolment at younger ages (Villar-Aldonza, Mancebón and Sancho, 2023[34]).

The view that ECEC services are not suitable for younger age groups is also related to social norms that emphasise the importance of parental childcare, particularly provided by mothers. Research shows that this view is especially prevalent among families where the traditional role of women as the primary caregivers is entrenched (Aarntzen et al., 2020[35]; Aarntzen et al., 2019[36]). The belief in the superiority of parental care over formal ECEC settings persists, influencing ECEC participation in many OECD countries (Rose and Elicker, 2010[37]; Tang, Hallam and Sawyer-Morris, 2020[38]; Beatson et al., 2022[39]). On average across OECD countries, around 34% of individuals think that children suffer when their mothers work (Figure 5.6). In countries such as Mexico and Türkiye, this view is likely reflected in the low ECEC enrolment rates for children aged 0-2. However, in countries with universal ECEC systems that extend free provision to younger age groups, such as Korea, this view no longer aligns with actual enrolment rates, where participation among younger children is significantly higher.

In many OECD countries, social norms related to caregiving responsibilities contribute to gender-based disparities in employment and pay, with implications for children’s enrolment in ECEC services (OECD, 2023[40]). The effects are particularly severe for women in lower-wage jobs and with multiple young children, where caregiving demands constrain participation in the workforce (Kleven, Landais and Leite-Mariante, 2023[41]; Kleven et al., 2019[42]; Budig and Hodges, 2010[43]). High costs or limited availability of ECEC services often lead women to stay out of the labour market to provide childcare at home, reducing access to ECEC for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. (Gauthier, Emery and Bartova, 2016[44]; Debacker, 2008[45]). In turn, gender disparities in employment and pay reduce household income, increasing the risk of poverty and restricting children’s access to essential resources and services (Thévenon et al., 2018[46]; OECD, 2023[40]). In contrast, countries that have implemented gender-equitable policies – such as parental leave and expanded ECEC provision – tend to show more balanced labour market outcomes and higher ECEC participation rates, benefiting both parents and children (OECD, 2018[47]; OECD, 2023[40]).

Even when ECEC services are widely accessible and women’s labour force participation rate is high, decisions about whether to use these services often depend on the availability of alternative childcare options and parents’ preferences. In many OECD countries, informal, kinship-based childcare – particularly from family members like grandparents – is a preferred choice during a child’s early years (Zanasi et al., 2023[48]). In some contexts, high-income families more frequently opt for informal care, while in others, low-income families rely more on these arrangements (see Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2). Evidence from Germany, for instance, shows that during the expansion of ECEC services, formal ECEC enrolment rates for children from immigrant families increased more significantly than for children of the native-born. Native families, with stronger ties to extended family networks, are more likely to have easier informal care options (Gambaro, Schäper and Spiess, 2024[32]).

The perception that formal ECEC services are of lower quality than alternative forms of childcare can influence parents' decisions to opt for these alternatives. While there is no consensus on which specific quality aspects are most important to parents, a lack of trust in the quality of ECEC services can lead parents to seek alternative childcare arrangements. For low-income parents, finding affordable and trustworthy ECEC settings can be particularly challenging, making informal childcare provided by family members or people within their social network more appealing to them (Sandstrom and Chaudry, 2012[49]).

Studies from various OECD countries highlight the significance of quality indicators for parents when selecting ECEC services. In Sweden, for example, research shows that many parents, particularly mothers, prefer to limit the time their children spend in ECEC settings partly because of concerns about potential negative effects from long hours in large group settings, where teacher-child ratios may not adequately support children’s needs (Grönlund and Öun, 2020[50]). In Australia, parents rate several factors as highly important when choosing ECEC services, including the professional training of staff, effective communication between centres and parents, and staff’s ability to understand children’s needs (Beatson et al., 2022[39]). Similarly, in Ontario, Canada, research indicates that while parents' ECEC choices vary based on individual characteristics, factors such as centre licensing, staff qualifications, responsive staff-child interactions, and space availability are key considerations for many parents (Davidson et al., 2021[51]). Although the evidence is limited, studies also suggest that for children with special educational needs, the capacity of ECEC services to accommodate diverse needs influences parents’ decision to use these services or opt for parental care (Glenn-Applegate, Pentimonti and Justice, 2010[52]; Beatson et al., 2022[39]).

For parents from culturally diverse backgrounds, perceptions of ECEC quality extend to concerns about whether these settings provide a supportive environment for children’s cultural identity and thereby support their well-being. Parents may be reluctant to enrol their children in ECEC settings if they perceive a lack of cultural and emotional support provided to their children (see Chapter 7). For instance, a study conducted in Australia has shown that Indigenous parents had concerns about ECEC services not adequately reflecting or supporting their cultural practices and values (Sianturi, Lee and Cumming, 2022[53]). Similarly, a review of research evidence from Canada has shown that Indigenous parents preferred ECEC settings that are safe, nurturing, developmentally appropriate environments, supportive of children’s cultural and identity development (Freeborn, Mardhani-Bayne and Soetaert, 2023[54]).

Immigrant parents value the cultural diversity and inclusivity of ECEC services when choosing ECEC settings for their children. Experiences of discrimination can significantly impact the life experiences of immigrant parents as well as their parenting behaviours (Guerra et al., 2023[55]). Public services can lack the infrastructure or the capacity to provide culturally sensitive support for immigrant populations (Suphanchaimat et al., 2015[56]). These experiences can result in a general avoidance of services by immigrant families, including ECEC settings (Jessen, Schmitz and Waights, 2020[57]). Evidence from OECD countries indicates that immigrant parents are more likely to prefer informal forms of childcare through their social network to provide a culturally and linguistically responsive experience (Miller et al., 2014[58]; Trappolini et al., 2023[59]; Seibel and Hedegaard, 2017[60]).

This section focuses on a few policy directions countries can consider in their efforts to raise participation and ensure equitable access to ECEC provision for all children. Ensuring high-quality ECEC is a cornerstone of efforts to expand participation in ECEC systems and reduce inequalities. Policy levers to enhance quality in ECEC for all children are addressed in Chapter 6.

Legal entitlements send strong messages about the importance of child development in the early years. Legal entitlements tend to vary across and within OECD countries, with some countries providing free provision to all children aged 3-5 (e.g. France), while others provide a right to a place but limit the number of free years or target services based on family needs (e.g. United Kingdom) (OECD, 2020[61]). Governments across the OECD have also used such entitlements to drive expansion in supply and demand for ECEC. Some OECD countries have moved beyond legal entitlements to achieve more equitable ECEC participation by extending compulsory pre-primary education. Since 2013, 10 OECD countries have extended the duration of early childhood education to increase the number of years in mandatory pre-primary education (OECD, 2024[8]).

Universal free access remains an important policy objective to work towards for many OECD countries. While participation in ECEC has expanded across the OECD (see Chapter 1), increases in enrolment rates have not always benefitted children from more disadvantaged backgrounds. Socio-economic inequalities in regulated ECEC participation for children under the age of two have increased in more than half of OECD European countries with available data (Figure 5.7). However, in a few countries including Finland, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal, inequalities in participation have been reduced in the past decade. These countries tend to combine above-average ECEC participation in 2023 (Figure 5.1) with lower inequalities. More countries have succeeded in reducing inequalities in participation for children aged 3-5, potentially reflecting stronger investments at this level in contrast to younger ages. These figures also suggest the importance of targeted approaches to enhancing ECEC participation, as inequalities in ECEC access can remain even in systems that make ECEC widely available.

Free or publicly subsidised ECEC access requires adequate ECEC investments that can drive expansion in infrastructure and alleviate costs for families experiencing vulnerability (Box 5.1). Capital expenditure constitutes only a limited share of OECD countries’ spending on ECEC (see Chapter 9). Even when capital investments support sector expansion, governments also need to match such funding with current expenditure (e.g. to cover workforce salaries) to ensure ECEC services are operational. For legal entitlements to ECEC to translate into higher enrolment, they also need to be accompanied by suitable investments in infrastructure and provision of qualified staff, with targeted support for disadvantaged areas or for vulnerable children. They may also require designing regulations that place responsibility on local authorities to ensure sufficient places and meet quality objectives. Access, equity and quality need to be jointly considered.

A range of strategies can enhance ECEC spending for sector expansion. Redistributing public education spending across education levels may be one avenue, given that OECD countries tend to allocate the largest share of gross domestic product (GDP) to secondary education relative to other education levels (OECD, 2024[8]) (see Chapter 9). Countries with low levels of private contributions to ECEC spending can also consider tapping into private funding (e.g. through income-linked parental fees or incentives for employer investments in ECEC provision for their employees) to be able to redirect public resources to areas or children most in need.

Enhancing the planning of the ECEC network can help ensure ECEC provision reaches vulnerable children. The design of national objectives, guiding principles and criteria for investments can steer a more effective development of ECEC that ensures sector expansion meets equity and quality criteria (Box 5.1). This also entails enhanced co-ordination and alignment between different funding sources (e.g. central and sub-central) and also funding areas (e.g. measures targeting ECEC affordability, infrastructure, workforce, quality assurance) since the latter often tend to be funded separately rather than as part of an integrated system (NASEM, 2018[66]) (see Chapter 9).

To support sector expansion that addresses participation gaps, ECEC systems require effective targeting strategies that ensure resources reach the children and communities most in need (see Chapter 9). Funds can be targeted to areas or communities with insufficient ECEC services based on evidence of need. In addition, targeted transportation funding can also be allocated to enable children to access the nearest ECEC facility when there is no ECEC provision in their own community. The design of funding allocation mechanisms is key for mitigating inequalities across sub-central authorities and steering them towards specific policy objectives in terms of equity and quality (see Chapter 9). When central-level authorities allocate funds to sub-central ones for the development of the network, the criteria on which the allocation is determined (e.g. local demand, population growth, detailed analyses of needs) shape the extent to which funds reach vulnerable children and communities. Relying on local applications for capital grants or ineffectively targeting children or communities due to low data capacity to monitor ECEC supply means that new ECEC facilities are unlikely to be developed in areas most in need.

Efforts to support more effective management of investment projects at the local level need to accompany public resources allocations. Central authorities can expand efforts to build the capacity of local authorities and ECEC providers (particularly smaller ones or those from disadvantaged communities) to plan and manage infrastructure projects, through professional development programmes, additional guidance, and simplified application procedures for central-level infrastructure funds (see Chapter 9). ECEC network planning platforms or co-ordination mechanisms at the sub-central level can also enable local authorities to work together and co-ordinate provision (e.g. between urban and suburban areas), learn from each other (e.g. when smaller or more disadvantaged localities cannot develop investment projects) and potentially engage in joint ECEC provision (OECD, 2018[67]). Efforts to build capacity at the local level for network planning thus require more vital collaboration between all stakeholders with roles and responsibilities in ECEC provision – vertically (across levels of governance) and horizontally (across local agencies or services with roles in ECEC funding, management, etc.) (see Chapter 4).

Enhancing public provision can also support ensuring equal availability of ECEC settings within countries and across different groups of children. While lowering cost barriers to enrolment is critical (see sections below), public management and central steering of sector development matter to address inequalities in service coverage in market-based systems and ensure services are created in areas most in need. Providing sufficient places is a challenge but expanding ECEC provision through the private sector risks leading to low quality and should therefore be closely monitored (see Chapter 9). Evidence from TALIS Starting Strong 2018 data show that publicly managed-centres are more likely than privately managed ones to be in rural areas or enrol larger shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds (OECD, 2019[16]). National and local policies and funding to enhance ECEC provision in specific areas need to be accompanied by regulations that set out quality goals for sector expansion and build the capacity of ECEC centres to deliver quality provision.

Strengthening ECEC network planning depends on effective monitoring systems that enable the identification of needs, allowing for targeted investments in areas where they are most beneficial, and tracking progress. While evidence on ECEC participation is more readily available at the national level, many gaps persist in assessing inequalities in ECEC access. Data sources often provide a snapshot of participation in specific types of settings (most often, centre-based and thus, failing to account for the diversity of ECEC provision forms), at a national level (rather than disaggregated at more local levels) or focused on a specific period (rather than in a longitudinal matter to enable tracking changes). In addition, evidence on the infrastructure needs of ECEC providers is seldom available or collected systematically.

Longer-term, dedicated financing mechanisms and central steering need to underpin ECEC data collections and monitoring mechanisms that enable understanding the demand for and supply of ECEC services. Identifying the causes of gaps in ECEC participation and how these gaps are distributed in the country is critical. On the demand side, collecting evidence on parental needs and preferences for ECEC services (e.g. in terms of hours, format, location) would support better tailoring of the ECEC offer to vulnerable families. On the supply side, data on infrastructure needs coupled with studies of real estate markets and available financing options for infrastructure development (particularly for small providers) can inform financing support needs (NASEM, 2018[66]).

OECD countries provide a range of supports to socio-economically disadvantaged families. The amount of support to cover ECEC costs matters. Closing equity gaps in ECEC would require more substantial investments, as illustrated by the experience of OECD countries that have enhanced participation (see Box 5.1).

The extent of public and private provision shapes the accessibility and affordability of ECEC services. While direct public provision can enable authorities to control fees and vary fees in proportion to parental income, the level and spending pattern of public resources shape the availability of sufficient places. In contrast, market-based systems can enable more flexible adaptation to demand, but also entail less control over fees and a risk that public subsidies translate into fee increases for parents in the absence of fee regulations (OECD, 2020[7]).

Beyond the provision of adequate funding, the design of supports, modality of funding, and regulations to contain ECEC costs for parents are therefore equally important. Early evidence from the 2000s on funding modalities in OECD countries highlighted that public supply-side investment models, managed by public authorities, tended to support higher quality and coverage relative to parent subsidy approaches (OECD, 2006[68]). Tax support incentives or support paid directly to parents may fuel more competition pressure on providers to operate efficiently and maintain delivery costs, while enhancing parental choice. At the same time, administrative burden associated with applying for or proving eligibility for support may hinder parents’ reliance on public support for ECEC and translate into lower ECEC participation. Parents may also be more inclined to base their choice on provider cost rather than quality, particularly since the latter is hard to assess. More generally, subsidies paid directly to providers tend to facilitate public authorities’ control over quality and provide greater accountability for public expenditure (Paull and Wilson, 2020[69]).

Regulations play a key role in containing prices and ensuring that public support for ECEC is not captured by providers rather than lowering costs for parents (OECD, 2020[7]). Fee controls, restrictions on profits and wages for subsidies, and hourly caps on reimbursements for costs in refundable tax credit schemes are a few measures used in OECD countries to limit the risk that public funding results in higher costs for parents (Paull and Wilson, 2020[69]). Evidence shows that fee control mechanisms can reduce ECEC costs for parents and support higher ECEC participation, as well as maternal employment, which enables an increase in tax revenues and lower transfers to families. However, fee control mechanisms may also result in shortages of available places or detrimental effects on quality (when providers reduce delivery costs to ensure financial sustainability) (Paull, Petrone and Wilson, 2020[70]). This illustrates the importance of setting fee caps at a level that ensures that provision remains operational and of intended quality (see Box 5.1 and Box 5.2). Quality standards need to accompany the design of fee control mechanism, both to ensure quality provision and to guide the definition of delivery costs meant to be covered by fees (Paull, Petrone and Wilson, 2020[70]). Funding conditionality that links receipt of resources and subsidies with compliance with quality standards and measures to enhance ECEC accessibility is equally critical in ensuring that funding supports greater quality and equity (see Chapter 9). Together with regulations on profits, funding conditionality plays a key role in market-based systems where fee controls are more challenging to implement.

The design of targeting mechanisms can enhance the effectiveness of public support for ECEC affordability and ensure spending efficiency in contexts of scarce resources. Evidence from European OECD countries shows that a few countries display “reverse targeting”, whereby ECEC support benefits higher-income families more. This may be due to tax income credits being used only by high-income families or loss of homecare allowances when parents start using non-parental childcare (Rastragina and Pearsall, 2023[19]). Carefully design targeting mechanisms and eligibility conditions is critical to ensure public resources reach those most in need. Accounting for a range of characteristics that can relate to disadvantage beyond income (e.g. family size, accounting for both children in ECEC and children of school-ages, or other characteristics that tend to lead to higher vulnerability depending on countries’ contexts) also shapes the effectiveness of targeted support. Tax-based support measures for low-income families may need to be balanced with additional targeted support measures to minimise “reverse targeting” (OECD, 2020[7]).

In addition, ECEC fee scales and entitlements need to be designed carefully and may require cross-government collaboration to support the use of ECEC and participation in the labour market of mothers in general and of both parents in the case of low-income families. Policies that encourage shared parental leave combined with ECEC supports can help shift caregiving expectations more equitably between parents, further normalising maternal workforce involvement while increasing ECEC enrolment (Fluchtmann, 2023[71]; Thévenon, 2013[72]). Policies that improve the accessibility and affordability of ECEC services can thus also mitigate indirect barriers to ECEC participation (see sections below). In addition, universal and targeted ECEC policies can help mitigate the motherhood penalty on the labour market (Andringa, Nieuwenhuis and Van Gerven, 2015[73]), thereby raising family income with a range of possible benefits for children. Additionally, policies that encourage shared parental leave combined with gender balancing incentives and ECEC supports can help shift caregiving expectations more equitably between parents, further normalising maternal workforce involvement while increasing ECEC enrolment (Fluchtmann, 2023[71])

Developing flexible ECEC provision is essential for addressing the diverse needs of families and promoting greater participation in ECEC services (OECD, 2017[76]). Flexibility in operating hours, duration, frequency and types of provision can enhance accessibility for families facing various responsibilities and constraints. Accommodating different family schedules through a range of ECEC options can support parental engagement and influence their decisions on ECEC services (Baxter, Hand and Sweid, 2016[77]). By offering variable hours, part-time slots and drop-in services, ECEC programmes can support parents who have variable work schedules or those who prefer to remain actively involved in their children's early development. In addition, flexible service provision can equally support reaching more remote or isolated areas where standard settings may be more costly to establish due to insufficient numbers of children.

When designed to be accessible and affordable, flexible ECEC arrangements can support greater participation of women in the labour force. Evidence from Finland and the United Kingdom shows that flexible ECEC arrangements are more frequently used or needed by socio-economically disadvantaged and single parents (Rönkä et al., 2017[78]; Rutter et al., 2012[79]). Access to affordable and flexible ECEC options, therefore, can facilitate women from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds entering or re-entering the workforce or sustaining employment following childbirth, and therefore reduce the caregiving burden that disproportionately affects women. Moreover, the integration of alternative service models, such as co-located ECEC and community resources, facilitates holistic support for families, allowing for better awareness of the services and their benefits (see Chapter 10). This not only alleviates the logistical challenges that parents face but also enhances the overall effectiveness of ECEC services in reaching children and families, facilitating their transition into formal ECEC environments.

Information services and targeted outreach can also mitigate barriers to participation in ECEC coming from information gaps. Research from OECD countries highlights the role of information services and support networks in closing these gaps for socio-economically disadvantaged or immigrant families (Hermes et al., 2021[20]; Weixler et al., 2024[80]). These services can assist parents in the application and enrolment process by providing information on eligibility criteria, service availability and enrolment timelines. To ensure equitable access to these resources, it is important to offer the services through diverse and inclusive communication channels. Integrating these channels into frequently used early childhood services, such as healthcare, social services and other social hubs accessed by families, can play a key role in reaching vulnerable families, ensuring that even those who may not actively seek information are well-informed (see Chapter 10).

ECEC systems with better-designed administrative structures can simplify the enrolment process for all families. Administrative systems that unify the application and enrolment process across providers and different segments of the sector can reduce the time and cognitive burdens resulting from having to navigate multiple deadlines, eligibility requirements, application and enrolment procedures. Well-designed systems that incorporate digital support mechanisms – such as automatic reminders, accessibility formats and multilingual assistance – can help ensure that parents are informed of service availability and important deadlines, preventing them from missing critical steps in the enrolment process.

Administrative requirements designed with at-risk families in mind can improve their access to ECEC services and further enhance the effectiveness of these services in reaching families. Application and enrolment procedures that prioritise at-risk groups can help reduce waiting times, ensuring that families are not discouraged by complex processes. By simplifying documentation requirements for verifying service eligibility, potential administrative barriers that lead to non-participation or discontinuation of services can be removed. This approach can help reduce the risk of negative interactions with the system, facilitating engagement by harder-to-reach groups and their access to ECEC services.

To promote equitable access to ECEC, streamlining and expanding the eligibility criteria within administrative systems is important, particularly in contexts without legal entitlements to ECEC services. When selection criteria for ECEC placement are determined locally or by individual providers, inconsistencies can arise, impacting access and coverage, especially for more vulnerable populations (European Commission, 2018[81]). In response, several countries have introduced guiding principles or standardised selection criteria at the central level to promote uniformity in access. These criteria may consider factors such as parental employment status, family structure, or citizenship or legal residence. However, they need to be carefully designed and build upon robust data systems to avoid inadvertently excluding some families, ensuring that vulnerable children are not further disadvantaged due to their socio-economic backgrounds. Box 5.3 presents some initiatives that respond to information gaps by providing support services and simplifying the application and enrolment procedures.

Quality is one of the primary factors influencing decisions around ECEC, often shaping whether parents trust in services (Saleem et al., 2021[85]). Ensuring that all ECEC services are high-quality (see Chapter 6) could foster greater trust among parents, encouraging more families to choose formal ECEC services over informal alternatives. Equally important is enhancing transparency and communication with parents regarding ECEC quality, such as through the publication of monitoring reports (e.g. with information on quality standards, staff qualifications and safety measures) and information on the developmental benefits of formal services.

Building trust plays a key role in encouraging participation in ECEC services among harder-to-reach communities. In marginalised or underserved communities, concerns about the quality of ECEC services, cultural sensitivity and inclusion, and ability of these services to address children's unique needs can result in heightened levels of mistrust. Addressing these concerns requires more than simply increasing access to high-quality ECEC settings; it requires fostering relationships and engagement with communities, ensuring transparency in service provision, and promoting shared leadership in both decision making and service delivery (Lansing et al., 2023[86]), which can entail involving community members and parents in service delivery as well as in day-to-day activities in ECEC centres.

Initiatives that support community involvement in ECEC services can provide families from diverse backgrounds with culturally-responsive options for their children’s needs, thereby increasing trust in these services among hard-to-reach families (Haight et al., 2018[87]). The services led in collaboration with community members can respond to and prioritise the social and cultural needs of families and foster an inclusive environment that matches the expectations of parents from culturally diverse backgrounds. Evidence from neurosciences indicates that children are more responsive to adults who are close to their environments (see Annex A, Workshop 1 and Chapter 7). Involving staff from the local community can therefore also raise the quality of the interactions that children experience in ECEC settings, and the trust that parents have in ECEC services.

Leveraging community resources can enhance access to information, raise awareness and encourage participation among families who may otherwise lack access to formal information channels. Access to ECEC services for families facing multiple barriers often depends on the availability of information shared within social networks. To effectively reach families at risk of exclusion, outreach efforts need to be culturally sensitive and tailored to the specific needs of diverse communities. Training individuals within these communities to serve as local advocates and trusted intermediaries can be an effective strategy for raising awareness and fostering engagement in public services (Schaaf et al., 2020[88]). Examples of initiatives that recognise the need for community engagement to address some of the barriers to ECEC participation are discussed in Box 5.4.

[36] Aarntzen, L. et al. (2019), “Work-family guilt as a straightjacket. An interview and diary study on consequences of mothers’ work-family guilt”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 115, p. 103336, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103336.

[35] Aarntzen, L. et al. (2020), “How individual gender role beliefs, organizational gender norms, and national gender norms predict parents’ work-Family guilt in Europe”, Community, Work & Family, Vol. 24/2, pp. 120-142, https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2020.1816901.

[92] ACCC (2023), Childcare inquiry -Final report, https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC%20Childcare%20Inquiry-final%20report%20December%202023.pdf?ref=0&download=y (accessed on 3 December 2024).

[10] Almeida, V. et al. (2024), “Geographic inequalities in accessibility of essential services”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 307, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/12bab9fb-en.

[73] Andringa, W., R. Nieuwenhuis and M. Van Gerven (2015), “Women’s working hours: The interplay between gender role attitudes, motherhood, and public childcare support in 23 European countries”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 35/9/10, pp. 582-599, https://doi.org/10.1108/ijssp-10-2014-0073.

[2] Archambault, J., D. Côté and M. Raynault (2019), “Early Childhood Education and Care Access for Children from Disadvantaged Backgrounds: Using a Framework to Guide Intervention”, Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 48/3, pp. 345-352, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-01002-x.

[77] Baxter, J., K. Hand and R. Sweid (2016), Flexible child care and Australian parents’ work and care decision-making Jennifer A. Baxter, Kelly Hand and Reem Sweid, Australian Institute of Family Studies.

[39] Beatson, R. et al. (2022), “Early Childhood Education Participation: A Mixed-Methods Study of Parent and Provider Perceived Barriers and Facilitators”, Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol. 31/11, pp. 2929-2946, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02274-5.

[43] Budig, M. and M. Hodges (2010), “Differences in Disadvantage”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 75/5, pp. 705-728, https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410381593.

[3] Carbuccia, L. et al. (2023), Unequal access to early childcare : What role do demand-side factors play ? A PRISMA systematic review, https://hal-sciencespo.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03894961.

[82] Child and Family Agency of the Flemish Community of Belgium (n.d.), Kind en Gezin diensten, https://www.kindengezin.be/nl (accessed on 18 December 2024).

[51] Davidson, A. et al. (2021), “Policy Frameworks and Parental Choice: Using Conjoint Analysis to Understand Parental Decision Making for Child Care”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 43/5, pp. 1335-1363, https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x211022386.

[45] Debacker, M. (2008), “Care strategies among high- and low-skilled mothers: a world of difference?”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 22/3, pp. 527-545, https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017008093476.

[62] EllingsÆter, A., R. Kitterod and J. Lyngstad (2017), “Universalising Childcare, Changing Mothers’ Attitudes: Policy Feedback in Norway”, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 46/1, pp. 149-173, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279416000349.

[81] European Commission (2018), Commission Staff Working Document - Proposal for a Council Recommendation on High Quality ECEC Systems.

[11] Eurostat (2016), Children by household type, income group, degree of urbanisation and main reason for not meeting needs for formal childcare services, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/income-and-living-conditions/database.

[71] Fluchtmann, J. (2023), “Supporting equal parenting: Paid parental leave”, in Joining Forces for Gender Equality: What is Holding us Back?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8f056391-en.

[54] Freeborn, C., A. Mardhani-Bayne and C. Soetaert (2023), “Quality and educator dispositions for indigenous families in the urban early learning and child care context: a scoping review”, International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, Vol. 17/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-023-00108-5.

[32] Gambaro, L., C. Schäper and C. Spiess (2024), “Crowded‐out? Changes in informal childcare during the expansion of formal services in Germany”, Social Policy & Administration, https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13067.

[13] Garvis, S. and J. Lunneblad (2018), Inequalities in access to early childhood education and care in Sweden. The Equal Access Study.

[44] Gauthier, A., T. Emery and A. Bartova (2016), “The labour market intentions and behaviour of stay-at-home mothers in Western and Eastern Europe”, Advances in Life Course Research, Vol. 30, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2015.12.002.

[52] Glenn-Applegate, K., J. Pentimonti and L. Justice (2010), “Parents’ Selection Factors When Choosing Preschool Programs for Their Children with Disabilities”, Child & Youth Care Forum, Vol. 40/3, pp. 211-231, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-010-9134-2.

[64] Government of Canada (n.d.), Deputy Prime Minister highlights new Early Learning and Child Care Infrastructure Fund in Vancouver, https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2023/07/deputy-prime-minister-highlights-new-early-learning-and-child-care-infrastructure-fund-in-vancouver.html (accessed on 18 December 2024).

[90] Government of Canada (n.d.), Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework, https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/indigenous-early-learning/2018-framework.html (accessed on 18 December 2024).

[84] Government of the United Kingdom (n.d.), Family Hubs and Start for Life programme, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/family-hubs-and-start-for-life-programme (accessed on 18 December 2024).

[50] Grönlund, A. and I. Öun (2020), “Minding the Care Gap: Daycare Usage and the Negotiation of Work, Family and Gender Among Swedish Parents”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 151/1, pp. 259-280, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02366-z.

[55] Guerra, R. et al. (2023), “Intergroup relations, acculturation orientations, and adaptation of Turkish immigrant descent parents across Europe.”, Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000627.

[87] Haight, W. et al. (2018), “A scoping study of Indigenous child welfare: The long emergency and preparations for the next seven generations”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 93, pp. 397-410, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.08.016.

[24] Halling, A. and M. Baekgaard (2023), “Administrative Burden in Citizen–State Interactions: A Systematic Literature Review”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 34/2, pp. 180-195, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad023.

[20] Hermes, H. et al. (2021), Behavioral Barriers and the Socioeconomic Gap in Child Care Enrollment, http://www.iza.org.

[12] Hurley, P., M. Tham and H. Nguyen (2024), International childcare: Mapping the deserts, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University, https://content.vu.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/2024-09/childcare-deserts-international-report.pdf.

[65] Ireland’s Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (n.d.), Equal Start Programme Rules, https://first5fundingmodel.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Equal-Start-Rules-2024-2025.pdf.

[25] Jenkins, J. and T. Nguyen (2021), “Keeping Kids in Care: Reducing Administrative Burden in State Child Care Development Fund Policy”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 32/1, pp. 23-40, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab020.

[57] Jessen, J., S. Schmitz and S. Waights (2020), “Understanding day care enrolment gaps”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 190, p. 104252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104252.

[29] Johnson, A., C. Padilla and E. Votruba-Drzal (2017), “Predictors of public early care and education use among children of low-income immigrants”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 73, pp. 24-36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.11.024.

[23] Khatri, R. and Y. Assefa (2022), “Access to health services among culturally and linguistically diverse populations in the Australian universal health care system: issues and challenges”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 22/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13256-z.

[41] Kleven, H., C. Landais and G. Leite-Mariante (2023), The Child Penalty Atlas, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, https://doi.org/10.3386/w31649.

[42] Kleven, H. et al. (2019), “Child Penalties across Countries: Evidence and Explanations”, AEA Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 109, pp. 122-126, https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20191078.

[83] Korea’s Ministry of Education (n.d.), Go First School, https://enter.childinfo.go.kr/icms/main/IntroPage.html (accessed on 18 December 2024).

[86] Lansing, A. et al. (2023), “Building trust: Leadership reflections on community empowerment and engagement in a large urban initiative”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 23/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15860-z.

[14] Leseman, P. and P. Slot (forthcoming), Strong ECEC systems - A conceptual framework for thematic analyses.

[30] Lin, Y. et al. (2022), Child Care Subsidy Staff Share Perspectives on Administrative Burden Faced by Latino a Applicants in North Carolina, https://www.hispanicresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/HC-NC-CCDF-brief_FINAL.pdf.

[58] Miller, P. et al. (2014), “Immigrant families’ use of early childcare: Predictors of care type”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 29/4, pp. 484-498, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.011.

[26] Naldini, M., E. Adamson and M. Hamilton (2022), “Migrant families’ access to ECEC and family policies: The Australian and Italian case compared”, Frontiers in Sociology, Vol. 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.894284.

[66] NASEM (2018), “Transforming the Financing of Early Care and Education”, Transforming the Financing of Early Care and Education, https://doi.org/10.17226/24984.

[91] New Zealand’s Ministry of Education (n.d.), , https://www.education.govt.nz/parents-and-caregivers/early-learning/available-assistance/increasing-participation-early-learning, https://www.education.govt.nz/parents-and-caregivers/early-learning/available-assistance/increasing-participation-early-learning.

[75] NSW Government (2024), Start Strong overview, https://education.nsw.gov.au/early-childhood-education/operating-an-early-childhood-education-service/grants-and-funded-programs/start-strong-funding/start-strong-overview (accessed on 15 November 2024).

[8] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.

[63] OECD (2023), Exploring Norway’s Fertility, Work, and Family Policy Trends, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f0c7bddf-en.

[40] OECD (2023), Joining Forces for Gender Equality: What is Holding us Back?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d48024-en.

[18] OECD (2022), Family Database, PF3.4: Childcare support: Definitions and methodology, https://webfs.oecd.org/Els-com/Family_Database/PF3-4-Childcare-support.pdf (accessed on 12 September 2024).

[74] OECD (2022), Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care in Luxembourg: A Focus on Non-formal Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/04780b15-en.

[61] OECD (2020), Early Childhood Education: Equity, Quality and Transitions, https://intrans.issa.nl/sites/default/files/2023-02/C%29%20international%20framework%20transitions%20part%201_0.pdf.

[7] OECD (2020), “Is Childcare Affordable?”, POLICY BRIEF ON EMPLOYMENT, LABOUR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS, http://oe.cd/TaxBEN. (accessed on 15 December 2023).

[6] OECD (2020), Quality Early Childhood Education and Care for Children Under Age 3: Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/99f8bc95-en.

[9] OECD (2019), Good Practice for Good Jobs in Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/64562be6-en.

[16] OECD (2019), Providing Quality Early Childhood Education and Care: Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/301005d1-en.

[47] OECD (2018), How does access to early childhood education services affect the participation of women in the labour market?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/232211ca-en.

[67] OECD (2018), Responsive School Systems: Connecting Facilities, Sectors and Programmes for Student Success, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264306707-en.

[76] OECD (2017), Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276116-en.

[68] OECD (2006), Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264035461-en.

[93] OECD (n.d.), Net childcare costs, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/net-childcare-costs.html (accessed on 16 January 2025).

[70] Paull, G., C. Petrone and C. Wilson (2020), Early Learning and Care and School-Age Childcare - Towards a New Funding Model - Working Paper 4 - Mechanisms to Control Fees Charged to Parents for Early Learning and Care and School-Age Childcare.

[69] Paull, G. and C. Wilson (2020), “Early Learning and Care and School-Age Childcare - Towards a New Funding Model - Working Paper 2 - International Approaches to Funding Early Learning and Care and School-Age Childcare to Reduce Costs for Parents”.

[5] Pavolini, E. and W. Van Lancker (2018), “The Matthew effect in childcare use: a matter of policies or preferences?”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 25/6, pp. 878-893, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1401108.

[17] Pollard, T. et al. (2023), A fair start for all - A universal basic services approach to early education and care, The New Economics Foundation, https://neweconomics.org/uploads/files/Early-years-education-childcare-report-web.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2024).

[19] Rastragina, O. and E. Pearsall (2023), “Net childcare costs in the EU, 2022 - Analysis for working families and disadvantaged families”.

[31] Redman, T., L. Harrison and E. Djonov (2021), “Education versus care for infants and toddlers: the Australian early childhood challenge”, Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 192/13, pp. 2118-2127, https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2021.1990904.

[78] Rönkä, A. et al. (2017), “Flexibly scheduled early childhood education and care: experiences of Finnish parents and educators”, Early Years, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2017.1387519.

[37] Rose, K. and J. Elicker (2010), “Maternal child care preferences for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers: the disconnect between policy and preference in the USA”, Community, Work & Family, Vol. 13/2, pp. 205-229, https://doi.org/10.1080/13668800903314366.

[79] Rutter, J. et al. (2012), Childcare for Parents with Atypical Work Patterns: The need for flexibility Daycare Trust Childcare for Parents with Atypical Work Patterns.

[27] Sainsbury, D. (2012), Welfare States and Immigrant Rights, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654772.001.0001.

[85] Saleem, S. et al. (2021), “What Do Parents Want in Terms of Early Childhood Education and Care?”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 33/7, pp. 1270-1288, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.1952391.

[49] Sandstrom, H. and A. Chaudry (2012), “‘You have to choose your childcare to fit your work’: Childcare decision-making among low-income working families”, Journal of Children and Poverty, Vol. 18/2, pp. 89-119, https://doi.org/10.1080/10796126.2012.710480.

[88] Schaaf, M. et al. (2020), “The community health worker as service extender, cultural broker and social change agent: a critical interpretive synthesis of roles, intent and accountability”, BMJ Global Health, Vol. 5/6, p. e002296, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002296.

[60] Seibel, V. and T. Hedegaard (2017), “Migrants’ and natives’ attitudes to formal childcare in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 78, pp. 112-121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.05.017.

[53] Sianturi, M., J. Lee and T. Cumming (2022), “A systematic review of Indigenous parents’ educational engagement”, Review of Education, Vol. 10/2, https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3362.

[15] Simon, A. et al. (2022), “Acquisitions, Mergers and Debt: the new language of childcare”.

[4] Slicker, G. and J. Hustedt (2022), “Predicting participation in the child care subsidy system from provider features, community characteristics, and use of funding streams”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 136, p. 106392, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106392.

[89] Stadtteilmütter (n.d.), Stadtteilmütter, https://www.stadtteilmuetter.de (accessed on 18 December 2024).

[56] Suphanchaimat, R. et al. (2015), “Challenges in the provision of healthcare services for migrants: a systematic review through providers’ lens”, BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 15/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1065-z.

[38] Tang, J., R. Hallam and G. Sawyer-Morris (2020), “Preschool Parents’ Perceptions of Early Care and Education Arrangements: A Latent Profile Analysis”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 32/3, pp. 480-500, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1774280.

[33] Tang, J., C. Kelly and A. Pic (2021), “Latent profile analysis of toddler parents’ perceptions of early care and education arrangements”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 129, p. 106206, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106206.

[72] Thévenon, O. (2013), “Drivers of Female Labour Force Participation in the OECD”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 145, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k46cvrgnms6-en.

[46] Thévenon, O. et al. (2018), “Child poverty in the OECD: Trends, determinants and policies to tackle it”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 218, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c69de229-en.

[59] Trappolini, E. et al. (2023), “Migrants’ choices pertaining to informal childcare in Italy and France: A complex relationship between the origin and destination countries”, Population, Space and Place, Vol. 30/1, https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2736.

[1] Vandenbroeck, M. and A. Lazzari (2014), “Accessibility of early childhood education and care: a state of affairs”, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, Vol. 22/3, pp. 327-335, https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2014.912895.

[34] Villar-Aldonza, A., M. Mancebón and J. Sancho (2023), “Factors Explaining the Schooling of Children Under 3 Years of Age: Evidence from Spain”, Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 52/6, pp. 1071-1082, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01494-8.

[80] Weixler, L. et al. (2024), “Increasing access in the ECE enrollment process: Evidence from an information intervention in New Orleans”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 68, pp. 54-64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.04.001.

[22] Wolf, K. et al. (2020), “Determinants of early attendance of ECEC for families with a Turkish migration background in four European countries”, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, Vol. 28/1, pp. 77-89, https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2020.1707364.

[28] Yoshikawa, H. (2011), Immigrants raising citizens : undocumented parents and their young children, Russell Sage Foundation.

[48] Zanasi, F. et al. (2023), “The prevalence of grandparental childcare in Europe: a research update”, European Journal of Ageing, Vol. 20/1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-023-00785-8.

[21] Zimmermann, T. (2024), “Explaining differences in decision-relevant educational knowledge between parents with and without an immigrant background in Germany”, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, Vol. 90, p. 100894, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2024.100894.