IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v22y2019i7p878-896.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk perception, regulation, and unlicensed child care: lessons from Ontario, Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Linda A. White
  • Michal Perlman
  • Adrienne Davidson
  • Erica Rayment

Abstract

In 2014, the Province of Ontario, Canada undertook a number of legislative changes regarding child care. Part way through the process, a series of tragic focusing events occurred: a number of infants and children died in unlicensed child care over a short period of time. Despite these events, the Province chose to allow a portion of the family child care (FCC) sector to remain unlicensed and essentially unregulated in a sector that is otherwise subject to strict licensing and regulation. Drawing on research on risk regulation, we analyse FCC regulation in comparison to other sectors and find that FCC is surprisingly under-regulated, given the health and safety risks. Legislative debate analysis reveals a number of rationales for non-regulation. In addition to pragmatic political concerns such as costs associated with licensing, analysis reveals concerns about choice and accessibility over quality and safety. We conclude with a call for a research agenda to further examine parents’ and policy-makers’ perceptions of risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Linda A. White & Michal Perlman & Adrienne Davidson & Erica Rayment, 2019. "Risk perception, regulation, and unlicensed child care: lessons from Ontario, Canada," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(7), pages 878-896, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:22:y:2019:i:7:p:878-896
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2017.1422786
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2017.1422786
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2017.1422786?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:22:y:2019:i:7:p:878-896. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.