Mujica Mota R, Lorgelly P K, Mugford M, Toroyan T, Oakley A, Laing G, Roberts I
Management School, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Child Care Health Dev. 2006 May;32(3):287-302. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00606.x.
Children born into poverty have lifelong disadvantages compared with those more fortunate; social interventions seek to break this cycle of poverty and deprivation. Early Years Centres are one such intervention. These were established in deprived areas in the UK to provide high quality out-of-home day care. This paper reports the results of an economic evaluation conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial of one of these centres in the Borough of Hackney, London.
Participants were randomized to receive either high quality day care as provided by the centre or to other child care that they secured for themselves where they chose to do so. Information on resource use (early years education and care, as well as health and social care) was collected over an 18-month period; this was valued using appropriate unit costs. The cost of education, social and health care together with the value of productivity gains and out-of-pocket costs were then compared with the effectiveness of the intervention, increased labour force participant in mothers.
From the societal perspective, the value of employment outweighs the costs of health and social services used, and in both groups there are cost savings. These are greater in the intervention group, therefore Early Years day care is an efficient use of resources. However, there is a net cost to the public sector of providing the intervention. The cost of achieving an additional mother in the labour force at 18 months is pound38 550 (85% CI of -pound1273, pound416 172).
From the societal perspective, over an 18-month period, all child care is cost saving, but high quality day care provided by the Early Years Centre is a cost-effective alternative to day care provided by other local services in Hackney. The public sector, however, incurs added expense from this intervention.
与那些较为幸运的孩子相比,出生在贫困家庭的儿童一生都处于劣势;社会干预旨在打破这种贫困和匮乏的循环。早期教育中心就是这样一种干预措施。这些中心在英国贫困地区设立,以提供高质量的户外日托服务。本文报告了一项经济评估的结果,该评估是在伦敦哈克尼自治市对其中一个中心进行的随机对照试验的同时进行的。
参与者被随机分配,要么接受该中心提供的高质量日托服务,要么接受他们自行选择的其他儿童保育服务。在18个月的时间里收集了资源使用情况(早期教育和保育,以及健康和社会护理)的信息;使用适当的单位成本对这些信息进行了估值。然后将教育、社会和医疗保健成本以及生产力提高的价值和自付费用与干预措施的效果进行比较,即母亲劳动力参与率的提高。
从社会角度来看,就业的价值超过了所使用的健康和社会服务成本,并且两组都有成本节约。干预组的节约更大,因此早期教育日托是资源的有效利用。然而,提供干预措施对公共部门来说有净成本。在18个月时使一名母亲进入劳动力市场的成本为38550英镑(85%置信区间为-1273英镑,416172英镑)。
从社会角度来看,在18个月的时间里,所有儿童保育都能节省成本,但早期教育中心提供的高质量日托是哈克尼其他当地服务提供的日托的一种具有成本效益的替代方案。然而,公共部门因这种干预而产生了额外费用。