The BC Affordable Child Care Benefit (ACCB), delivered by the Ministry of Education and Child Care, is a monthly payment to help eligible families with the cost of child care. It is an important part of the province’s Poverty Reduction Strategy.

The amount of funding a family receives depends on several factors such as:

• family size
• type of child care and age of children
• the number of days of care needed
• any special needs of the children
• household income

Before April 2022, the ACCB was delivered by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
Our office received two complaints about the ACCB and how it was administered. Our investigations found the ministry had acted unfairly in how it determines the payment amount a family receives. The ministry accepted the recommendations we made to address the unfairness.

Issue #1: Transition months

The amount of ACCB a family may receive decreases over time, as the age of the child in care increases. Children under 19 months are eligible for the highest maximum benefit. The benefit decreases when children turn 19 months and it decreases again when they turn 37 months. This is set out in the Child Care Subsidy Regulation. The months where a child ages into the next category are transition months. Since 2007, the ministry had paid families the lesser benefit amount at the start of the transition month (which the ministry said was the intended policy), even if the child did not reach that age until later in the month (the regulation required the pro-rated lesser amount only be paid as of the child’s birthday). The ministry told us it did not realize that the regulation was inconsistent with the ministry’s policy intent, and when it learned of this problem, it took steps to fix it.

On September 13, 2021, a change to the regulation allowed the lower benefit amount to be applied on the first day of the month where a child reached 19 months and 37 months. However, before this change to the regulation, the ministry’s practice did not follow the law. The benefit amount decreases as a child ages, so families received less in transition months than what the regulation said they should receive. The ministry paid the lower benefit amount before the child reached the transition age.
For many years, the ministry did not know its practice was inconsistent with the regulation. Our investigation revealed that, as of November 27, 2020, the ministry knew the way it was administering the benefit did not follow the regulation.
We found that this was contrary to law under s.23(1)(a) of the Ombudsperson Act.

To address this issue, we recommended that the ministry identify all benefit recipients who had a transition month between November 27, 2020, and September 13, 2021, and to pay them the benefit amount they should have received. The ministry agreed.
By March 2024, the ministry had identified 3,702 families eligible for 3,767 payments totalling $801,034.76 (some families may receive payments for more than one transition month, for example, in the case of siblings). This includes families who received the subsidy from February 2020 to October 2020, due to backdated benefits that were issued after November 27, 2020.
The ministry is taking steps to confirm contact information for eligible families to provide the payments.
We are pleased that the ministry is compensating affected families, and we will continue to monitor and report publicly on the ministry’s progress in locating and compensating all affected families.

Issue #2: Defining “full-time care”

The ministry calculates the benefit amount a family receives by calculating the number of full days where child care is required, for work or other eligible reasons including going to school and looking for work. A family can receive the benefit for up to 20 days each month. We received and investigated a complaint from a parent who worked a full-time schedule but did not receive a full-time benefit. The ministry denied the parent the benefit because she worked 12-hour shifts, four days in a row, followed by four days off. Despite this parent working full-time hours, the ministry calculated her subsidy based on the 16-days she worked each month. The ministry’s calculation did not consider that she worked full-time hours. This was unfair and it adversely impacted this parent by reducing the benefit amount she received.

Our investigation revealed that the ministry’s full-time benefit calculation assumed people could demonstrate a need for child care five days per week. For example, this included caregivers who work a ‘standard’ Monday to Friday work week. As a result, full-time shift workers or parents with irregular schedules, might not be considered as working full-time or having full-time child care needs. This also meant that a parent who worked part-time, five hours a day, five days a week (25 hours a week), received a higher benefit than a parent who worked 12 hours a day, four days a week (48 hours a week).

We found that the Child Care Subsidy Regulation unfairly distinguished between the people eligible for this benefit based on their work schedules. The regulation was improperly discriminatory, contrary to s.23(1)(a)(iii) of the Ombudsperson Act.
The regulation unfairly disadvantaged those with full-time work schedules that did not follow the ‘standard’ five day per week work schedule. When we brought this to the ministry’s attention, it agreed that the wording of the regulation created inequity based on how it treated people’s work schedules.

To remedy the unfairness, we recommended that the ministry compensate the parent who made the complaint because the way the ministry calculated her eligibility was inconsistent with practice and she should have been eligible for the full subsidy. The ministry agreed and compensated the parent for the benefit shortfall.

We also recommended that the ministry seek approval to amend the regulation relating to full-time care. The ministry agreed to begin this work. In March 2024, the ministry told us about the changes it is considering. It has consulted with First Nations rights and title holders and Indigenous partner organizations about the approach it is considering. We are encouraged by the ministry’s progress, and hope for a timely change to the regulation.
We will continue to monitor and report publicly on the ministry’s progress in implementing our recommendation.