India Caregiving

Return On
Investment:
Complete Report
JUNE 2022

Fraym • Mapping Humanity 1

Estimating the Return on
Investment of Child Caregiving
Programs

A Study of India

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 1

Table of Contents

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 4
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4
II. Existing Research and Analysis .......................................................................................... 5
India Childcare and Early Childhood Education and Development ........................................... 5
III. Survey Methodology ............................................................................................................. 6
Survey Scope .............................................................................................................................. 6
Sample Design ............................................................................................................................ 6
Child Caregiving Questionnaire Modules ................................................................................... 7
Figure 1 – Child Caregiving Questionnaire Modules, Survey Logic ....................................... 8
Survey Fielding and Data Collection Period ............................................................................... 8
Data Processing, Demographics, and Sample Weighting ......................................................... 8
Table 1 – Survey Sample Characteristics, Weighted and Unweighted .................................. 9
Table 2 – Child Caregiving Module Respondents, Weighted and Unweighted ................... 10
IV. Survey Results ..................................................................................................................... 11
Early Child Caregiving Landscape............................................................................................ 11
Table 3 – Child Care Usage Patterns, by Population Group ................................................ 11
Figure 2 – Subsidized Care Usage, by Population Group .................................................... 12
Childcare Costs ......................................................................................................................... 12
Table 4 – Average Cash-Based Childcare Costs, by Population Group .............................. 13
Stated Child Caregiving Preferences........................................................................................ 13
Table 5 – Stated Childcare Preferences, by Population Group............................................ 14
Caregiving Perceptions and Actual Usage Patterns ................................................................ 14
Table 6 – Most Common Childcare Types, National Results ............................................... 14
Table 7 – Public Perceptions about Childcare Usage Types, by Population Group ............ 15
Figure 3 – Age of Neighbor, Friend, or Relative Caregivers, National Results .................... 16
Satisfaction with Current Caregiving Situation ......................................................................... 16
Table 8 – Satisfaction with Current Childcare Arrangements, by Population Group ........... 17
Satisfaction Factors ................................................................................................................... 17
Table 9 – Childcare Aspects Cited by Satisfied Parents, by Population Group ................... 17
Table 10 – Childcare Aspects Cited by Satisfied Non-Primary Caregivers and Type ......... 18
Table 11 – Barriers to Switching Existing Childcare Arrangements among Dissatisfied
Parents, by Arrangement Type ............................................................................................. 20
Table 12 – Barriers to Subsidized Childcare Services, by Population Group ...................... 21

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 2

V. Return on Investment Projections..................................................................................... 21
Figure 4 – Key ROI Methodology Criteria and Assumptions ................................................ 24
Table 13 – Projected Incremental Earnings by Occupation Type, National Results ........... 25
Table 14 – Projected Child Caregiving Costs by Occupation Type, National Results ......... 25
ROI Summary Results .............................................................................................................. 26
Table 15 – Return on Investment Summary, India ............................................................... 26
VI. Public Attitudes about Subsidized Caregiving Support ................................................. 27
Support for Subsidized Care ..................................................................................................... 27
Figure 5 – Public Support for Subsidized Child Caregiving Services................................... 28
Government Program Prioritization .......................................................................................... 28
Figure 6 – Public Attitudes about Government Prioritization, Early Childcare Access versus
Primary Schooling ................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 7 – Public Attitudes about Government Prioritization, Early Childcare Access versus
Secondary Schooling............................................................................................................. 30
VII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 31

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 3

Abstract

Unpaid caregiving responsibilities represent a key barrier to women’s labor force participation in
many developed and developing countries, particularly while children are too young to attend
formal schooling. In this paper, we consider the child caregiving environment in India and
quantifies the potential economic returns of investing in early childcare programs. These potential
benefits focus on two key dimensions – increased labor force participation rates and increased
household income for currently unemployed primary caregivers. We estimate that addressing
primary caregivers’ childcare needs could lead to a 5-percentage point increase in the labor force
participation rate in India, which translates into roughly 46 million people joining or rejoining the
labor force. Furthermore, on average, for every $1 invested in accessible childcare services,
currently unemployed primary caregivers would expect to generate $8 in increased economic
activity. Public support for these types of subsidized child caregiving programs is extremely high
in India, with 93% of the population expressing support for such programs for needy families.
Super majorities of every demographic group (age, gender, socioeconomic status, and
urban/rural groups) support such programs. In fact, nearly two-thirds of Indians believe that early
childcare programs should be prioritized more than primary schooling provision. Therefore, the
Indian government could view early child caregiving investments not only as good economic
policy, but also good politics.

I. Introduction
Globally, female labor force participation is nearly 30 percentage points lower than for men (46%
versus 75%).1 Increased child caregiving responsibilities is a well-documented barrier to higher
female labor force participation.2 In the majority of countries, women disproportionately take on
child caregiving responsibilities that displace the time available for paid work. For example, in
India, the female labor participation rate (19%) is 50 percentage points lower than that of men
(69%). Gender disparities are even more pronounced among people with children in Sub-Saharan
Africa and most other developing regions.3,4 Unpaid childcare burdens materially restrict national
economic output, and it has been hypothesized that reducing childcare costs by 50% could
increase female labor supply by 6-10 percent in some country contexts.5

Building upon this literature, our study is among the first to comprehensively measure the potential
increase in labor force participation rates directly attributable to improved affordability and
accessibility of early childcare options in selected country contexts. Our household survey is
unique because it asks respondents about the precise economic activities that they or their
spouse/partner would pursue if they had access to affordable childcare options. While we expect
women to benefit disproportionately from such access, we focus on both female and male primary
caregivers. Moreover, our study also examines newly collected information about parents’

1
International Labour Organization, ILOSTAT database. Data retrieved on February 8, 2022. Female and
male labor participation rates.
2
Sarah Gammage, Naziha Sultana, and Manon Mouron (March 2019), The Hidden Costs of Unpaid
Caregiving, Finance and Development: International Monetary Fund, Vol. 56, Issue 01, pp 20-23.
3
The exception to the countries of Oceania, excluding Australia and New Zealand.
4
International Labor Organization (ILO): ILOSTAT blog. Having kids sets back women’s labour force
participation more so than getting married. March 3, 2020.
5
Sarah Gammage, Naziha Sultana, and Manon Mouron (March 2019), The Hidden Costs of Unpaid
Caregiving, Finance and Development: International Monetary Fund, Vol. 56, Issue 01, pp 20-23.
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 4
satisfaction with existing childcare arrangements as well as support for potential government
programs and policies amongst the broader Indian population.

This paper is organized as follows. In section II, we briefly summarize the current context
regarding childcare and early childhood development in India. In section III, we detail the
household survey methodology and data collection that form the basis for much of the analytical
results. This includes documenting the survey scope, questionnaire design, sampling, and
weighting procedures. Survey results form the basis of section IV, which discusses the early child
caregiving landscape, including usage, costs, preferences, perceptions, and satisfaction with
current childcare arrangements in India. For care satisfaction, we report on the distribution of
factors cited as most relevant to satisfied parents’ evaluations, as well as the key barriers to
changing childcare arrangements amongst dissatisfied parents. Next, in section V, we focus on
the core analytical contribution of this paper – the ROI methodology and results. Section VI
reviews public attitudes about subsidized caregiving support, reviewing overall public support for
and desired prioritizations of government programs. Finally, the paper concludes with a summary
of the key results.

II. Existing Research and Analysis

India Childcare and Early Childhood Education and Development

Formal schooling is an important part of early childhood development and a way to alleviate at
least some of the childcare burdens on families. As a result, child caregiving cannot be considered
in isolation from education.

The Government of India provides pre-primary education and early childhood development (ECD)
services through the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), a centrally sponsored and
state administered ECD program that has been in operation since 1975. The ICDS scheme,
renamed as “Anganwadi Services,” administers pre-school services, including early learning for
children aged 3-6 years, and early care and stimulation for children under the age of three.
Supplementary nutrition, health and nutrition, immunization, referral services and health check-
ups are also provided at the Anganwadi Centres. There were a reported 1.36 million functional
Anganwadi Centers in 2018, serving some 70 million children, pregnant women, and lactating
mothers.6 Additionally, the central government sponsors the National Creche Scheme, which
provides daycare facilities to children (ages 6 months to 6 years old) of working mothers. As of
2020, there were 6,453 functional creches across the country under the scheme.7 The Ministry of
Women & Child Development is responsible for both Anganwadi Services and the National
Creche Scheme.

Although government-supported Anganwadis are widely known and accessed in the country, and
government-sponsored creches are increasingly utilized, private preschools appear to be growing
in popularity and utilization. A recent study tracking 13,000 children in several states in India found

6
https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=181218
7
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1606292
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 5
that about 43% attended private schools.8 Regulatory guidelines for private preschools were
introduced in 2017 and have since been rolled out across the country.9

In 2013, the government adopted the National Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE)
Policy along with a National ECCE Curriculum Framework and Quality Standards. Then, in 2020,
the Ministry of Education released a new National Education Policy, which expanded the structure
of school education to cover three years of pre-school or Anganwadi (for ages 3-6), in addition to
the mandatory, formal enrollment in primary school beginning at age six. The policy recognizes
the importance of early childhood education, stating “universal provisioning of quality early
childhood development, care, and education must thus be achieved as soon as possible, and no
later than 2030, to ensure that all students entering Grade 1 are school ready.” 10

Data released by UNICEF and Countdown 2030 in 2021 indicate that 38 percent of children aged
36-59 months attend an early childhood education program. 11

Taking place in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, our survey necessarily considered the effects
of COVID-19 on childcare in India. The nationwide lockdown that went into effect on 25 March
2020 included an immediate halt to formal and informal early childhood activities, including
schools, creches, and Anganwadi centers. As a result, the burden of unpaid care work increased
dramatically, particularly for women. A study by Dalberg, for example, estimated that women’s
unpaid work in India, already ten times more than men, increased by at least 30 percent during
the pandemic.12

III. Survey Methodology

Survey Scope

The Caregiving ROI study analyzes existing household approaches to child caregiving,
satisfaction with existing early childhood services, obstacles to accessing care services, and
preferences for alternative care arrangements. We further assess public support for government-
subsidized childcare, among other issues, and examine whether existing primary caregivers
would enter or re-enter the labor force (and in what type of economic activity) if safe and quality
care services were available. For this study, we focus on caregiving for children under the age of
six.

Sample Design
The survey sample was designed to be nationally representative of all adults aged 18 or older
across India. We established interlocking quotas for age brackets (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54,

8
Ghosh, S., Dey, S. Public or private? Determinants of parents’ preschool choice in India. ICEP 14, 3
(2020).
9
Regulatory Guidelines for Private Play Schools: Guidelines for regulating private play schools for the
children of the age of three to six year. Education Division, National Commission for Protection of Child
Rights, 2017.
10
Ministry of Human Resource Development, National Education Policy 2020, 2020
11
https://nurturing-care.org/india-2021/
12
https://dalberg.com/our-ideas/addressing-womens-time-poverty-in-india/
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 6
and 55+), gender (female, male)13, and states. This created 300 distinct interlocking demographic
quotas for data collection.14 The number of target respondents assigned to each of these
interlocking quotas was determined based on available information from 2016 Demographic and
Health Survey. The final sample included 20,818 respondents. We also included a separate
additional socioeconomic quota based on household asset ownership patterns. There is an
extensive literature that documents the usage of this approach in a variety of settings. 15 In India,
we considered over 20 potential household assets and then selected scooter ownership and flush
toilet, since they exhibit the most desired distributions of ownership rates. The ideal
socioeconomic proxy measure(s) would exhibit a linear relationship with the same level of
increase or decrease in asset ownership rates for each quintile of the household-level population.
While imperfect, this approach ensures that the sample is more representative of the general
adult population and can be used for ex post reweighting as necessary.

Child Caregiving Questionnaire Modules

The survey questionnaire consists of three core modules on child caregiving. Respondents are
segmented into modules based on two characteristics. The first segmenting characteristic is
whether the survey respondent has at least one child under the age of six in the household. A
total of 6,356 respondents fell into this group. Respondents without young children in the
household are directed to the Public Policy and Caregiving Attitudes module, where they are
asked about their attitudes about national caregiving programs and a range of other issues. A
total of 15,462 fell into this second group.16

The second segmenting characteristic relates to those survey respondents with young children.
Households where someone other than the respondent or respondent’s spouse or partner
provides childcare are referred to as “non-primary caregivers” (n = 2,520) and were directed to a
series of questions on their existing child caregiving approach. Households where the respondent
or their spouse or partner currently provides childcare are considered “primary caregivers” (n =
1,328) and were directed to a series of questions similar to non-primary caregivers.17 However,
the latter also were asked questions concerning their demand for different types of care,
willingness to pay for care, current barriers to care, and about their expected economic situation
if safe and affordable childcare were accessible.

13
The sample quotas specifically focused on female and male respondents. However, the gender identity
question also included responses for transgender males, transgender females, and non-binary groups.
Statistically significant analysis of these gender identity groups was not possible due the limited number
of respondents.
14
This is calculated as follows: number of states (30) x the number of age brackets (5) x the number of
gender groups (2) = 300 distinct, interlocking quotas. Some union territories and states were excluded
from the quotas because of extremely small target sample sizes. Specifically, three union territories are
excluded from the quotas and three union territories are combined into a nearby state for quota targets.
15
For instance, see Ben Leo, Robert Morello, Jonathan Mellon, Tiago Peixoto, and Stephen Davenport.
2015. "Do Mobile Phone Surveys Work in Poor Countries?" CGD Working Paper 398. Washington, DC:
Center for Global Development. http://www.cgdev.org/publication/do-mobile-phone-surveys-work-poor-
countries-workingpaper-398.
16
Respondents in the first segmenting characteristic group (households with young children) also
completed the Public Policy and Caregiving Attitudes module.
17
We also use the term ‘parental caregiving’ later in this paper to refer to ‘primary caregivers’. It is
important to note, that while primary caregivers are typically the parents, this is not always the case.
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 7
 Figure 1 – Child Caregiving Questionnaire Modules, Survey Logic
Segmenting
Characteristic #2
Segmenting
Characteristic #1

All Respondents

Survey Fielding and Data Collection Period

In India, the survey vendor’s panel includes over 15 million potential respondents, who have been
pre-screened to facilitate reliable and representative samples across regional, gender, age, and
socioeconomic status parameters. These panel respondents are regularly recruited through both
online and offline means to ensure coverage of difficult to reach demographic groups. Particularly
close attention was given to ensuring coverage of poorer and more marginalized demographic
groups.

Data collection occurred between 1 February 2022 and 2 March 2022. The final survey sample
included 20,818 Indian respondents aged 18 or older. The average survey completion time was
10 minutes and 7 seconds.

For survey execution, the survey vendor utilized a number of industry best-practices to quality
check responses. These included: (i) regularly testing and validating on a rolling basis to ensure
participants and their responses are real and accurate; (ii) comparing answers from respondents
to pre-collected information on the same respondents for consistency, such as the same age,
gender, socio-economic status, and geography; (iii) recontacting a percentage of respondents for
quality assurance and oversight purposes.; (iv) checking for straight lining (e.g. answering "C" for
all questions in a particular series or module); and (v) checking speed of completion rates, (e.g.
flagging observations that took 1/3 or less of the median time to complete the questionnaire).
Responses that failed any one of these tests were automatically removed from the data.

Data Processing, Demographics, and Sample Weighting

Modest divergence was found between sample characteristics and the general population
parameters according to available data from the 2016 Demographic and Health Survey. Post-hoc
weights were created to correct for these differences. An iterative proportional fitting process was
used to simultaneously balance the distributions of the following parameters: gender, age, urban
status, state, and socioeconomic status. Table 1 below details the demographic characteristics of
respondents by gender, age group, urban status, state, socioeconomic status, and caste. Both

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 8

weighted and unweighted proportions are presented, as well as the unweighted count or number
of respondents.

Table 1 – Survey Sample Characteristics, Weighted and Unweighted

Weighted Unweighted Unweighted

Proportion Count Proportion
Gender
Male 52% 10,855 50%
Female 48% 10,963 50%
Age
18-24 20% 4,447 20%
25-34 24% 5,789 27%
35-44 19% 4,865 22%
45-54 16% 3,527 16%
55+ 21% 3,190 15%
Urban
Urban 36% 16,370 75%
Rural 64% 5,448 25%
State
Andaman and
<1% 24 <1%
Nicobar Islands
Andhra Pradesh 4% 806 4%
Arunachal Pradesh <1% 23 <1%
Assam 3% 517 2%
Bihar 8% 1,433 7%
Chandigarh 1% 146 1%
Chhattisgarh 2% 415 2%
Delhi 2% 399 2%
Goa <1% 27 <1%
Gujarat 5% 1,086 5%
Haryana 2% 547 3%
Himachal Pradesh 1% 95 0%
Jammu and Kashmir 1% 206 1%
Jharkhand 3% 414 2%
Karnataka 5% 1,460 7%
Kerala 3% 483 2%
Madhya Pradesh 6% 1,147 5%
Maharashtra 9% 2,339 11%
Manipur <1% 40 <1%
Meghalaya <1% 45 <1%
Mizoram <1% 23 <1%
Nagaland <1% 28 <1%
Odisha 4% 507 2%
Puducherry <1% 177 1%

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 9

 Punjab 2% 327 1%
Rajasthan 6% 1,038 5%
Sikkim <1% 34 <1%
Tamil Nadu 6% 1,520 7%
Telangana 3% 712 3%
The Dadra and Nagar
Haveli and Daman <1% 21 <1%
And Diu
Tripura <1% 104 <1%
Uttar Pradesh 15% 3,541 16%
Uttarakhand 1% 193 1%
West Bengal 8% 1,941 9%
Socioeconomic Status (SES) 18
Low SES 36% 6,500 30%
Medium SES 34% 6,657 31%
High SES 29% 8,661 40%
Caste
None of them 29% 6,986 32%
OBC (other backward
35% 7,509 34%
class)
Prefer not to answer 3% 780 4%
Scheduled Caste 26% 5,198 24%
Scheduled Tribe 7% 1,345 6%
Total - 21,818 -

Table 2 below details the segmenting characteristics of survey respondents that received each of
the three distinct child caregiving questionnaire modules.

Table 2 – Child Caregiving Module Respondents, Weighted and Unweighted

Weighted Unweighted Unweighted

Proportion Count Proportion
Segmenting Characteristic #1
No young children in the
68% 15,462 71%
household
Young children in the
32% 6,356 29%
household
Total - 21,818 -
Segmenting Characteristic #2
Non-Primary Caregiver 43% 2,520 40%
Primary Caregiver 57% 3,836 60%
Total - 6,356 -

18
We define socioeconomic status through an asset ownership approach based on the 2016 DHS,
selecting the two assets which best tracked DHS national wealth index trends. In India, respondents who
have neither a flush toilet nor a scooter are considered Low SES. Respondents who have only one of the
two assets are considered Medium SES and respondents who own both assets are considered High
SES.
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 10
IV. Survey Results
Early Child Caregiving Landscape
The majority of Indian parents of a child under the age of six serve as their primary caregivers.
More specifically, 56% of adults with young children state that parents are the primary caregivers.
Facilities or hired caregiving services outside of the home is the next most frequently cited
caregiving arrangement (24% of respective households).

For this study, we are particularly interested in disaggregating results for marginalized sub-groups
of Indian society. Marginalized groups can be excluded from mainstream social, economic,
education and/or cultural life due to unequal power relationships and historic inequities. In this
analysis, we specifically consider individuals who are of lower socioeconomic class and who
belong to a backwards caste or a non-Hindu religion as a marginalized sub-group for specific
attention where appropriate and possible. As noted above, we proxied for household income with
questions about the ownership of key assets (flush toilet and scooter). Poor or “low” income
respondents owned neither key asset and “high” income respondent owned both.

Table 3 – Child Care Usage Patterns, by Population Group

Marginalized High SES

National19 Parents Parents
Yourself 33% 27% 41%
Your spouse or partner 23% 15% 34%
Relative 7% 7% 5%
Facility or hired caregiver
outside of your home (e.g.,
childcare center, nursery,
preschool, creche) 24% 36% 12%
Hired caregiver in your home
(i.e., a nanny) 6% 7% 5%
Neighbor or friend 4% 5% 2%
Other 2% 2% 1%

Overwhelmingly, across sub-groups, the most common childcare arrangement is care

administered directly by the parents. The use of primary caregivers is significantly different
between marginalized parents and high socioeconomic status parents.20 Three-quarters of high
SES parents consider themselves the primary caregiver compared to 42% of parents in the
marginalized group – a 33 percentage point difference. Relatedly, marginalized parents also tend
to rely more on hired caregiving services compared to high SES parents: over a third of
marginalized parents rely on these services compared to 12% for high SES parents. One
explanation for this could be that while there is a cultural preference for direct caregiving by
parents (as seen below), marginalized parents may not be able to afford this arrangement, as
both parents are likely to need to work to support their families.

19
For the remainder of this section, national refers to adults with at least one child under the age of six,
unless otherwise stated.
20
Respondents are not necessarily the parents of the young child in the household, as the survey does
not collect information on the role of the respondent in the household. Rather, this is defined as adults
with young children in the household that are considered marginalized.
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 11
There is little variation in the outsourcing of caregiving to a hired caregiver in the home, relative,
neighbor or friend for care across sub-groups. Usage for these types of childcare are all below
10%.

Finally, 28% of parents with a child under six report that they currently use subsidized childcare.
These are parents who report using a childcare service that is provided at a reduced cost (i.e.,
through a subsidy or voucher) due to support from the government, a religious institution, or a
non-governmental organization. Unsurprisingly, subsidized care usage is higher among
marginalized parents (47%) and lower among wealthier parents (14%). In fact, the high usage of
subsidized care among marginalized parents likely explains the higher usage of care facilities as
compared to high SES parents. While nearly half of marginalized parents use subsidized care,
there are still opportunities to continue expanding access to affordable, quality care in vulnerable
communities.

Figure 2 – Subsidized Care Usage, by Population Group

Percent of Population Group

Childcare Costs

Our study examined whether parents of young children pay for child caregiving services, and if
so, whether those payments are in cash or in-kind. Specifically, we look at the cost of childcare
among households where parents are not the primary caregivers. These costs capture
households relying on neighbors, friends, or relatives, as well as hired caregivers and facilities
such as preschools and nurseries.

Nationally, about two-thirds of respondents who utilize childcare pay 2,500 Rupees (about 33
USD) or more per month, with both subsidized care users and high SES parents paying these
types of higher costs
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 12
 Table 4 – Average Cash-Based Childcare Costs, by Population Group

Subsidized Marginalized High SES

National Care Users Parents Parents
Prefer not to answer 2% <1% 2% <1%
Up to 999 Rp per month
(< USD $13) 15% 7% 14% 16%
1,000-2,499 Rp per month
(USD $13-$33) 16% 10% 9% 19%
2,500-6,999 Rp per month
(USD $33-$92) 32% 39% 40% 30%
7,000+ Rp per month
(USD $92+) 35% 44% 35% 34%

Interestingly, subsidized care users appear to pay higher costs as do marginalized parents,
whereas there is more variation in spending among wealthier parents. Subsidized care users
and marginalized parents pay the most per month relative to other subgroups: 83% of
subsidized care users and 75% of marginalized parents outsourcing care pay at least 2,500
Rupees (about $33) per month. In comparison, only 64% of high economic status parents pay
the same amount every month.

We saw earlier in Table 3 that only about a quarter of high SES parents are outsourcing care.
Higher costs among subsidized care users and marginalized parents are likely driven by a
reliance on caregiving facilities such as preschools and nurseries rather than on hired
caregivers in the home, relatives, or neighbors. Additionally, about half of all marginalized
parents rely on subsidized care, which explains the relatively smaller gap between subsidized
care users and marginalized parents in payment patterns.

Stated Child Caregiving Preferences

Direct caregiving by the parents is the preferred type of childcare for Indian parents, no matter
their socioeconomic or caste status, with half indicating a preference for a childcare
arrangement involving themselves or their spouse. This is followed by 31% who prefer to
outsource responsibilities to a hired caregiver or a facility. Another 11% prefer to rely on a
relative, neighbor or friend for providing caregiving in the home. The least popular arrangement
involves care in the home of a friend, neighbor or relative, with only 9% of parents reporting a
preference for this type of arrangement.

Consistent with national trends, both marginalized and high economic status parents show a
preference for direct caregiving. Roughly half of all marginalized parents and high
socioeconomic status parents prefer an arrangement involving themselves or their spouse or
partner (48% and 50%, respectively). Furthermore, 19% of marginalized parents and 21% of
high SES parents report preferring the second most popular arrangement: an external facility
run by the government, a religious group, NGO or private business. These trends across groups
suggest that there is a strong social preference for direct caregiving by the parents, but that
childcare facilities can be the next best option when direct caregiving is not possible.

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 13

 Table 5 – Stated Childcare Preferences, by Population Group

Marginalized High SES

National Parents Parents
At your home, provided by a relative, neighbor or a friend 11% 12% 11%
At your home, provided by you 24% 24% 24%
At your home, provided by your spouse or partner 25% 24% 26%

At your home, provider by a hired caregiver (i.e. nanny) 11% 10% 10%

Childcare in the home of a friend, neighbor or relative 9% 11% 8%

Other 1% 1% 1%
Preschool or childcare center run by the government,
20% 19% 21%
religious group, NGO, or private business

Caregiving Perceptions and Actual Usage Patterns

Personal preferences for childcare align closely with community perceptions and with the true
distribution of childcare arrangements across the country. Nearly half of parents show a
preference for direct childcare, which is only an 8-percentage point difference from actual
arrangements and only a 5-percentage point difference from community perceptions. The same
pattern can be observed for facilities. While 20% of parents indicated a preference for childcare
facilities, 24% of them currently use facilities as their main arrangement and 18% perceive
facilities as the most common arrangement in their community. It is important to note that, though
personal preferences appear to be aligned with actual usage patterns, this is not necessarily
indicative of satisfaction with current caregiving arrangements.

Table 6 – Most Common Childcare Types, National Results

Personal Community Actual

Preferences Perceptions Responses
At home or nearby, provided by a relative, neighbor or a
friend 20% 22% 11%

At your home, provided by you or your spouse/partner 49% 44% 57%

At your home, provided by a hired caregiver (i.e. nanny) 11% 13% 6%

Other 1% 2% 2%
Preschool or childcare center run by the government,
religious group, NGO, or private business 20% 18% 24%

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 14

 Table 7 – Public Perceptions about Childcare Usage Types, by Population Group

Primary Marginalized Subsidized High SES

National Caregiver Parents Care Users Parents
At a childcare center or
18% 19% 17% 17% 21%
preschool
At home, provided by a hired
13% 13% 12% 14% 14%
caregiver
At home or nearby, provided by
22% 17% 26% 31% 18%
a relative, neighbor, or friend
At home, provided by the father 14% 13% 16% 18% 9%
At home, provided by the mother 30% 36% 27% 20% 37%
Other 2% 2% 2% 0% 1%

Perceptions about the most common type of caregiving arrangement in a community vary
moderately by subpopulation. All groups underestimated the popularity of facilities and direct
caregiving relative to actual arrangements, and overestimated the popularity of arrangements
dependent on relatives, neighbors and friends. Interestingly, marginalized parents and subsidized
care users perceived direct caregiving arrangements to be less common than other groups. Some
43% of marginalized parents and 38% of subsidized care users perceived direct caregiving as
the most common arrangement in their community, compared to 57% in reality. Marginalized
parents and subsidized care users additionally overestimated the popularity of informal
arrangements dependent on relatives, neighbors and friends. Roughly a quarter of marginalized
parents and 31% of subsidized care users perceived this arrangement as the most common,
compared to only 11% of actual usage among parents.

While a caregiving arrangement involving a neighbor, friend or relative was perceived as the
second most common arrangement, relatively few parents use this arrangement in actuality.
Those that do use this arrangement predominantly employ relatives or friends who are younger
adults, between 18 and 34 years of age. About 39% of parents who outsource care to friends and
relatives employ someone who is a young adult. Notably, employing children as caregivers also
appears relatively common, with 17% of households reporting this type of arrangement.

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 15

 Figure 3 – Age of Neighbor, Friend, or Relative Caregivers, National Results

Satisfaction with Current Caregiving Situation

In addition to understanding the current landscape of childcare arrangements, we analyzed
parents’ satisfaction with such arrangements. A mismatch of some parents’ satisfaction with their
existing arrangements suggests there may be alternatives for certain populations.

Approximately 6 out of 7 Indian parents with children under six (85%) are either satisfied or
somewhat satisfied with their current childcare arrangement. One-tenth of parents are dissatisfied
or somewhat dissatisfied and 5% are neutral.

Although most Indians are happy with their childcare arrangement, there are some relevant
distinctions between subpopulations. Primary caregivers and high SES parents report the highest
levels of satisfaction at 93%. Only 3% of primary caregivers and 4% of high economic status
households are dissatisfied with their current arrangement. By comparison, both marginalized
households and households using subsidized care have lower satisfaction levels, at 77%. Parents
relying on friends or relatives are the least satisfied, reflecting the relative unpopularity of this
arrangement, with only 72% reporting satisfaction.

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 16

 Table 8 – Satisfaction with Current Childcare Arrangements, by Population Group

Neither satisfied
Satisfied Dissatisfied
nor unsatisfied

National 85% 10% 5%

Primary Caregivers 93% 3% 4%

Non-Primary Caregivers 76% 19% 6%
Marginalized Parents 77% 18% 5%
High SES Parents 93% 4% 3%
Subsidized Care User
77% 20% 3%
Households
Family, Friend, or Relative
72% 19% 9%
Care User

Satisfaction Factors
Our study considered the following aspects of existing childcare satisfaction: cost and
affordability, convenience of location, good quality, safety, and norms.21 Among parents of young
children who are satisfied with their childcare arrangements, over half cite safety and/or good
quality as a key satisfaction factor. Cost and affordability is a slightly less important factor, with
only 41% of satisfied parents citing it. Finally, social norms do not appear to play a large role, in
that only 30% of parents with young children report this factor.

Table 9 – Childcare Aspects Cited by Satisfied Parents, by Population Group

Primary Marginalized Subsidized High SES

All Groups Caregivers Parents Care Users Parents
Cost & Affordability 41% 42% 28% 29% 57%
Quality 57% 63% 47% 47% 73%
Safe 55% 61% 36% 36% 71%
Convenient Location 45% 47% 33% 34% 57%
It’s What Others in
Community Are 30% 28% 25% 25% 33%
Doing (i.e., norms)
*Note: Proportions do not add up to 100% because respondents could select multiple options.

Marginalized parents and subsidized care users who are satisfied with their childcare
arrangements are substantially less likely to cite cost as a key reason for satisfaction. Less than
a third of marginalized parents and subsidized care users report cost and affordability as a reason
for satisfaction. Similarly, satisfied marginalized parents and subsidized care users are less likely
to report good quality, safety or convenience as key satisfaction factors compared to other groups.

21
Throughout this section, proportions do not add up to 100% because respondents could select multiple
options.
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 17
Less than half of marginalized parents and subsidized care users cite good quality, and about a
third cite safety and convenience as reasons for satisfaction.

The high similarity in reactions between marginalized parents and subsidized care users can be
explained by the fact that the majority of marginalized parents are subsidized care users. Despite
subsidized care offering reduced fees, it does not appear that affordability is driving marginalized
parents and subsidized care users towards subsidized care. Since subsidized care users indicate
that they pay higher average costs compared to other groups, subsidized care may not be
sufficiently affordable and may still be consuming a large portion of the expenses of lower income
households.

High socioeconomic status parents report high rates of satisfaction across almost all relevant
factors: costs, quality, safety, and convenience. Three in four high SES parents who are satisfied
with their caregiving arrangement report good quality as being a key factor, and 71% report safety
as being a key factor. As with the national figures, social norms are the least cited.

Table 10 – Childcare Aspects Cited by Satisfied Non-Primary Caregivers and Type

Childcare Center Neighbors, Friends,

Users or Relatives
Cost & Affordability 41% 34%
Quality 46% 53%
Safe 40% 49%
Convenient Location 44% 36%
It’s What Others in Community
37% 21%
Are Doing
*Note: Proportions do not add up to 100% because respondents could select multiple options.

While childcare center users are slightly more satisfied with cost and affordability compared to
marginalized parents and subsidized care users, less than half report good quality as a primary
reason for satisfaction. A moderately high proportion of satisfied parents relying on friends or
relatives report being satisfied because of the good quality and safety of care. 53 percent of these
parents cite good quality as a reason and 49% cite safety as a reason for satisfaction.
Interestingly, childcare center users report the highest rates of satisfaction with the social norms
aspect compared to all other groups (37%).

Finally, parents that utilize neighbors, friends, or relatives report quality as the most cited factor,
though the level of satisfaction is still lower than primary caregivers and high SES parents. Across
all sub-groups, this type of childcare arrangement reports the lowest levels of satisfaction with the
social norms aspect, which likely reflects the relative unpopularity with this arrangement that was
identified earlier (Table 6 and Table 7).

Given that parental caregiving is the most preferred form of childcare, and that the majority of high
economic status parents have this arrangement, it is unsurprising that parental caregivers and
high economic status parents generally report high satisfaction with the quality and safety of their
arrangements. Conversely, the lower satisfaction with cost, quality and safety observed across
subsidized care users and marginalized parents could be an indication that further policy reform
is necessary to improve the quality and safety of the associated childcare facilities.

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 18

Barriers to Changing Childcare Arrangements

Our study explored what may be preventing dissatisfied parents from switching to another
childcare arrangement. Understanding the barriers can help decisionmakers improve policy
options.

COVID-19 restrictions and a lack of local options are by far the most cited barriers to changing
childcare arrangements. Nationally, just under a third of dissatisfied parents say that COVID-19
restrictions or facility closures discourage them from switching to an alternative arrangement. This
is unsurprising, given that most Anganwadi centers were closed starting in March 2020. About
one-fourth of parents note that there are no other childcare service options in their community.
Dissatisfied parents additionally express apprehension over the safety of alternative
arrangements, with 22% expressing such concerns. By contrast, location does not appear to
factor heavily into childcare barriers, with only 13% of dissatisfied Indian parents worrying about
the location convenience of alternative arrangements.

Parental caregivers dissatisfied with their current childcare arrangements are most concerned
with the safety of alternative arrangements as well as the impact of COVID-19 restrictions, and
least concerned about location convenience. About one fourth of dissatisfied primary caregivers
shared worry about the safety of alternative arrangements, and about one fourth referenced
COVID-19 restrictions as a barrier to switching to another arrangement. Consistent with national
results, few dissatisfied primary caregivers (8%) reference inconvenient location as a reason for
not switching to another form of childcare.

Marginalized parents dissatisfied with their current arrangements cite COVID-19 restrictions and
a lack of options as factors influencing their decision not to switch to an alternative form of care.
27% of marginalized parents point to COVID-19 restrictions, while 26% point to a lack of options
in their community. Compared to other groups, relatively fewer marginalized parents highlight cost
or poor quality as barriers to switching to another arrangement. Only 15% of marginalized parents
report cost, and only 11% of marginalized parents report poor quality as a barrier.

Similarly, among dissatisfied subsidized care users, the main reasons for not switching to an
alternative form of care include COVID-19 restrictions and limited options in the community. About
a third of subsidized care users highlight restrictions, and about a third highlight limited options
as key factors for not switching to another arrangement.

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 19

 Table 11 – Barriers to Switching Existing Childcare Arrangements among Dissatisfied
Parents, by Arrangement Type

Friends, Childcare
All Primary Marginalized Subsidized High SES Family, or Center
Groups Caregivers Parents Care Users Parents Relatives Users
Too Expensive 18% 20% 15% 16% 31% 22% 18%
Poor Quality 14% 18% 11% 15% 33% 9% 14%
Safety
22% 27% 13% 22% 47% 17% 24%
Concerns
Not Convenient 13% 8% 10% 14% 24% 18% 13%
No Time to
Search for 16% 16% 12% 15% 26% 22% 12%
Other Options
Concern What
Others Will 19% 18% 18% 23% 30% 13% 23%
Think or Say
No Other
26% 12% 26% 31% 29% 20% 36%
Options
COVID-19
31% 25% 27% 34% 44% 36% 30%
Restrictions
Note: Proportions don’t add up to 100% because respondents could select multiple options.

High economic status parents who are dissatisfied with their current caregiving arrangement
report safety and COVID-19 restrictions as barriers to considering alternative forms of care.
Almost half of these parents say that they have safety concerns with other forms of childcare.
Forty-four percent of them voice concerns over COVID-19 restrictions or facility closures.
Interestingly, compared to other groups, wealthier parents also have a stronger concern with the
cost of alternative arrangements. Nearly a third of these parents worry that alternative forms of
childcare will be more expensive than their current arrangement, which is 13-percentage points
higher than the national average of 18%.

Parents dissatisfied with their current arrangement who depend on friends or relatives for
childcare rank the following as their top key reasons for not switching to another form of care:
COVID-19 restrictions, cost, time constraints, and lack of alternative options. Over a third of these
dissatisfied parents say that COVID-19 restrictions are a barrier preventing them from switching
to another form of care. Twenty-two percent say that high costs of alternative forms of childcare
are a barrier, and 22% say that they do not have time to look for other options.

Finally, dissatisfied childcare center users identify barriers in similar proportions to all dissatisfied
parents. The exception is the identified barrier that there are no other options, 10 percentage
points higher than what all dissatisfied parents report. Furthermore, this is the most cited barrier
among this sub-group. The cost and quality of childcare centers are not a frequently cited barrier.

Barriers to Using Subsidized Care

We observe several key barriers among potentially eligible parents who currently do not use
subsidized care. These include COVID-19 restrictions, safety concerns and social norms. A little
under half of all eligible parents report COVID-19 restrictions and/or safety concerns as barriers
to using subsidized care. Forty percent also report that they consider subsidized care to be
inappropriate because childcare should be a family responsibility. Somewhat less frequently,
parents report general concerns over the cost and quality of subsidized care, as well. Some 29%
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 20
of eligible parents report not switching to subsidized care due to high costs, and 28% cite poor
quality.

For eligible primary caregivers who are not currently using subsidized care, barriers include
COVID-19 restrictions, safety concerns and social norms. Half of parental caregivers share that
COVID-19 restrictions prevent them from switching to subsidized care. Fifty-two percent voice
concerns over safety, and 43% believe childcare is the primary responsibility of the parents. Both
trust and convenience of location are the least cited barriers. As with the barriers reported for
primary caregivers, marginalized parents cite COVID-19 restrictions and safety as the most
important barriers, although both barriers are reported at lower rates. Finally, parents relying on
informal caregiving arrangements with friends and relatives highlight safety concerns (41%) and
COVID-19 restrictions (36%) as important barriers to using subsidized care.

Table 12 – Barriers to Subsidized Childcare Services, by Population Group22

Friends,
Primary Marginalized Family, or
All Groups Caregivers Parents Relatives
Still Too Expensive 29% 30% 26% 32%
Poor Quality 28% 29% 22% 26%
Not Convenient 19% 20% 13% 14%
Safety Concerns 49% 52% 34% 41%
Don’t Trust Them 19% 20% 16% 17%
Consider Childcare a Family Responsibility 40% 43% 29% 29%
COVID-19 Restrictions 48% 50% 41% 36%
Other Reason 3% 2% 2% 3%
Not Eligible or Doesn’t Need 8% - 17% 0%
Note: Proportions do not add up to 100% because respondents could select multiple access barriers.

V. Return on Investment Projections

There are a number of academic studies that examine the impact of childcare policies on labor
force participation rates in developing countries.23 For instance, several recent studies in South
Asia and East Asia have found that access to childcare services, as well as the lack of access,
has a significant effect on economic activity and paid work. A study from Vietnam finds a sizable
effect from childcare usage on women’s labor market outcomes, including their total annual
wages, household income, and poverty status.24 Another study of urban Bangladesh finds that
women without access to childcare have significantly lower rates of paid work.25 Moreover, in
Ecuador, the Fondo de Desarrollo Infantil (FODI) provides public preschool, including for low-
income children under the age of 6, and has contributed to a roughly 22 percentage point increase

22
Non-primary caregivers are given the response option of “My family does not qualify for or does not
need these services.”
23
See Fraym (2021), Addressing the Caregiving Crisis: Gender-Transformative Global COVID-19
Recovery Plan.
24
Dang, H.A.H., Masako Hiraga, and Cuong Viet Nguyen (2019). Childcare and Material Employment:
Evidence from Vietnam. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 8856.
25
Taş, Emcet and Tanima Ahmed (2021). Women’s Economic Participation, Time Use, and Access to
Childcare in Urban Bangladesh. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 9735.
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 21
in female employment rates.26 These studies did not, however, examine the potential return on
investment of expanding childcare access programs, including in comparison to potential
programmatic costs.

Our research builds upon these existing studies by applying a cost-benefit analysis framework in
five developing economies, including India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa. More
specifically, we investigate the potential impact of child caregiving policies and programs on labor
force participation rates as well as estimate the projected economic benefits for target households
in the form of increased earnings. Our return on investment (ROI) methodology follows traditional
Cost-Benefit Analysis principles and is outlined in greater detail below. This paper focuses solely
upon results from India.

Step #1 – Determine the target population subgroup

First, we determined the key population subgroup for further focus and study. In this case, we are
primarily focused on the subgroup of primary caregivers who:

• Are 18 years of age or older and have at least one young child under the age of six in the
household (meaning the child is not yet eligible for primary school enrollment);
• Were unemployed at the time of the survey; and
• Would plan to look for income generating work if safe and affordable childcare was
available and accessible.

Targeting this key population subgroup allows us to analyze the group of caregivers that would
most likely enter or reenter the labor force in the event of a childcare focused intervention. In order
to achieve a higher sample size, respondents are asked whether they themselves or their spouse
or partner would pursue employment if they were not currently working. For example, a male
respondent may indicate that his spouse is the primary caregiver. We then ask this respondent
whether his spouse would return to work. While it’s possible that both parents are currently not
working, but would return to work, we assume one adult per household. The potential impact
focuses on respondents’ preferences and stated perceptions about their ability or their spouses’
ability to find income generating work in the future. Importantly, this approach does not observe
nor study actual employment outcomes over a specified period of time. Instead, the survey
respondents report their stated employment preferences or the employment preferences of their
spouse and expected actions under an accessible childcare arrangement scenario, and then
these expectations are fed into a simulation model that also includes a series of conservative
assumptions and sensitivity checks.

Step #2 – Estimate Benefits Through Increased Income Generating Activities

Second, we estimated the incremental potential household earnings that these primary caregivers
would expect to generate if they entered or reentered the labor force. These projected earnings
are first categorized by occupation type, including agricultural, clerical, domestic,
professional/technical/managerial, sales and services, skilled manual, and unskilled manual. We
consider average earnings for each of these occupation types based upon survey observations
from non-primary caregivers that are currently in the labor force.

26
Rosero, J., & Oosterbeek, H. (2011). Trade-offs between different early childhood interventions:
Evidence from Ecuador.
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 22
Next, average earnings estimates (disaggregated by occupation type) are multiplied by the
proportion of primary caregivers in India (disaggregated by occupation type) who expect to enter
or reenter the labor force if affordable and accessible childcare was available. This process
creates a nationally representative estimate of what the average primary caregiver could expect
to earn annually if they were to enter or reenter the labor force.

Step #3 – Factor in Existing Childcare Costs

After estimating benefits on a per capita basis for primary caregivers, we next calculate the costs
of a hypothetical child caregiving intervention. In this scenario, we apply a simplifying and
conservative assumption that programmatic costs would be equal to what households are
currently paying for childcare services, such as for a voucher or direct cash subsidy. This
approach does not account for administrative costs or other costs beyond service fees that may
be associated with programmatic implementation, monitoring, and oversight.

Costs are estimated through a process that mirrors step #2 above (estimating benefits) and draws
upon two primary inputs – the average childcare payment costs (disaggregated by occupation
type) and the proportion of Indians who are primary caregivers and would actively look for income
generating activities. Multiplying these two components together creates a nationally
representative cost estimate for covering child caregiving expenses for participating primary
caregivers.

Step #4 – Consider Lower-Bound Scenarios Based on Current Labor Market Conditions

Fourth, we consider and report an additional scenario that incorporates more conservative
assumptions about primary caregivers’ ability to find income generating activities. In this scenario,
we discount the projected employment benefits using the most recent national unemployment
rate. This acknowledges that not all primary caregivers may be able to find income generating
activities.

Our discount on labor force participation projections is based on the most current unemployment
rate of 9.8%.27 This highly conservative alternative scenario has the net effect of reducing the
expected ROI benefits by a corresponding 10% while maintaining the expected costs at full value.

27
National Statistical Office Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Press Note on Periodic
Labour Force Survey Quarterly Bulletin [July-September 2021]
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 23
 Figure 4 – Key ROI Methodology Criteria and Assumptions

Key Respondent Criteria Key Assumptions

for ROI Calculation for ROI Calculation
• For income estimates - we apply
Respondent is age 18 or older with at average reported earnings by
least one young child under the age of occupation type.
six in the household
• For childcare cost estimates - we
+ apply the average reported current
childcare costs by occupation type.
Respondent or respondent’s spouse or
partner is a primary caregiver within the • We also consider a more conservative
household scenario that incorporates a discount
for the national unemployment rate
+ (9.8%). This more conservative
scenario is also reported as a lower
Respondent or respondent’s spouse or bound estimate.
partner is currently out of the labor force
but would look for work if safe and
affordable childcare was available and
accessible.

Step #5 – Calculate Final Return on Investment Metrics

Last, we estimate the overall economic benefits by subtracting the estimated costs per person
from the estimated benefits per person. The resulting figure projects the average economic benefit
that primary caregivers would receive/generate if affordable and accessible child caregiving
services were available in the country.

Caregiving Benefits
We find 15% of households have a primary caregiver that fit the criteria of the target population
subgroup, meaning a primary caregiver that would intend to enter or reenter the labor force if they
had access to affordable childcare arrangements Currently unemployed primary caregivers in
India, who comprise a significant portion of the total population, would expect to earn INR 417,000
($5,500) annually on average if they were to join to the labor force. However, incomes would vary
significantly based on the primary caregiver’s expected occupation. The average expected annual
income by occupation ranges from INR 338,000 ($4,400) for domestic workers to INR 487,000
($6,400) for professional / technical / managerial positions. Many respondents (7%) expect to
work in professional / technical / managerial roles, followed by sales and services roles and skilled
manual labor (2%) with an expected average income of INR 371,000 ($4,900) and INR 380,000
($5,000) annually.

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 24

 Table 13 – Projected Incremental Earnings by Occupation Type, National Results

Unemployed Primary Caregivers

Expected Average Expected Average
who would look for work if
Occupation Annual Per Capita Annual Per Capita
affordable and accessible
Type Earnings Earnings
childcare was available
(INR) (USD)*
(% of households)
Total 15% INR 420,000 $5,500
Agriculture 1% INR 362,000 $4,700
Clerical 1% INR 359,000 $4,700
Domestic 1% INR 338,000 $4,400
Other 0.5% INR 408,000 $5,300
Professional /
technical / 7% INR 487,000 $6,400
managerial
Sales and
2% INR 371,000 $4,900
services
Skilled manual 2% INR 380,000 $5,000
Unskilled
0.5% INR 356,000 $4,700
manual
Note – Applies the average 2022 exchange rate of 76.35 INR/USD. Figures are rounded to the nearest
hundred for reporting purposes.

Caregiving Costs
On average, primary caregivers and their partners are projected to spend $720 each year on
childcare services. These figures reflect average daily childcare costs reported by survey
respondents who are not currently their child’s primary caregiver and are relying on paid
caregiving services. The projected average childcare costs by occupation type ranges from $430
annually for agricultural employment to $910 annually for professional / technical / managerial
positions, which report the highest average annual childcare costs amongst all occupation types.

Table 14 – Projected Child Caregiving Costs by Occupation Type, National Results

Unemployed Primary
Caregivers who would look
Average Reported Average Reported
Occupation for work if affordable and
Annual Childcare Annual Childcare
Type accessible childcare was
Costs (INR) Costs (USD)*
available
(% of households)

Total 15% INR 55,900 $720

Agriculture 1% INR 32,900 $430
Clerical 1% INR 39,200 $520
Domestic 1% INR 50,100 $660
Other 0.5% INR 53,300 $700
Professional /
technical / 7% INR 69,600 $910
managerial

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 25

 Sales and
2% INR 38,200 $500
services
Skilled manual 2% INR 47,200 $620
Unskilled
0.5% INR 66,900 $880
manual28
Note – Applies the average 2022 exchange rate of 76.35 INR/USD. Figures are rounded to the nearest
hundred for reporting purposes

ROI Summary Results

We estimate that for every $1 invested in accessible childcare services, currently
unemployed primary caregivers would generate $8 in increased economic activity on
average. This translates to a net economic benefit of approximately $4,770 for each primary
caregiver who would join or rejoin the workforce.29 The expansion and improvement of childcare
provision has also been proven to allow women who are currently underemployed to access full-
time, better-quality jobs, so we would assume an additional return on investment for these
individuals and families.

Table 15 – Return on Investment Summary, India

Return On Investment Average Per Capita ROI

Projected Earnings (Benefit) $5,500
Childcare Services (Cost) $730
Project ROI (Benefit – Cost) $4,770
Margin (Expected ROI / Benefit) 87%
ROI Impact Per $1 Invested $8

Labor Force Participation Rate Implications

According to WorldPop, there are nearly one billion people that are of economically active age
(15 - 64) in India. Of these people, 46.9 percent currently are participating in the Indian labor
force, or approximately 435 million people.30 This includes formal non-agricultural employment,

28
Unskilled manual labor childcare costs are reported as unweighted values when displayed as a
separate line item for India. This is because unskilled manual labor is highly correlated with several
factors that are associated with being assigned a higher weight value, namely, age (elderly), and state
(Bihar). In combination with an extremely small sample size (only 26 observations of unskilled manual
laborers reporting their childcare costs), the weighted value when reported alone introduces a positive
bias to the results that leads to an overestimation of costs when calculated separately that did not
correspond to the general distribution of costs observed across other occupation categories. Weights are
conserved in national estimates to serve in their original intended purpose for correcting for discrepancies
in representation at the national level.
29
Under the lower-bound approach, which incorporates a discount of 9.8% to reflect the most recent
national unemployment rate, we estimate that for every $1 invested in accessible childcare services,
unemployed primary caregivers would still generate $7 in increased economic activity on average.
Importantly, this more conservative approach is likely an underestimate because the analysis assumes a
complete switch for caregivers from unemployment to full-employment and does not account for
underemployed caregivers finding additional work.
30
National Statistical Office Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Press Note on Periodic
Labour Force Survey Quarterly Bulletin [July-September 2021]
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 26
informal non-agricultural employment, agricultural employment, and employment in private
households.

As noted previously, roughly 15 percent of households have a primary caregiver that would
intend to enter or reenter the labor force if they had access to affordable childcare
arrangements. Applying this to the total number of Indian households (300 million), we find that
a child caregiving focused program potentially could contribute up to 45.8 million people joining
or rejoining the labor force. This equates to a 4.5 percentage point increase in the Indian
labor force participation rate (from 46.9 percent to 51.4 percent) even under conservative
assumptions.

VI. Public Attitudes about Subsidized Caregiving Support

Support for Subsidized Care
Finally, we examine public attitudes in India on a range of child caregiving related issues, including
support for or opposition to government support programs and whether childcare services should
be prioritized more than, less than, or about the same as primary schooling or secondary
schooling.

There is overwhelming public support for subsidized child caregiving assistance in India. Overall,
93 percent of Indians believe that the government should support access to childcare services for
children under seven, either for free or at a discounted and affordable price for those families in
need. Most strikingly, there is a super majority of support across every demographic group in the
country spanning gender, age and socioeconomic status.

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 27

 Figure 5 – Public Support for Subsidized Child Caregiving Services

Government Program Prioritization

Support for prioritizing childcare services over education programs is smaller, but still indicative
of a healthy majority. Over half (62%) of Indians believe that the government should prioritize
improving access to safe and affordable childcare services more than primary schooling. One in
four people believe that the government should prioritize them “about the same”. By contrast, one
in ten people believe that early childcare service access should be prioritized less.

Public backing for prioritizing childcare services holds across demographic groups including
gender, age and socioeconomic status, with some variation in the degree of support. Interestingly,
wealthier individuals show the highest approval for prioritizing childcare services, followed by
women. Two out of three high socioeconomic status individuals express support for prioritizing
childcare services over primary education programs, and 64% of women express similar support.
By contrast, marginalized groups and primary caregivers show slightly weaker support, with 55%
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 28
of marginalized individuals and 54% of primary caregivers sharing a preference for prioritizing
childcare services over primary education.

Figure 6 – Public Attitudes about Government Prioritization, Early Childcare Access

versus Primary Schooling

Survey Question: “In your view, should the government prioritize improving access to safe and affordable childcare services more or
less than the following…providing primary schooling?”

Similar trends can be observed when comparing attitudes towards prioritizing childcare services
over secondary schooling. 61% of Indians believe that the government should prioritize improving
access to safe and affordable childcare services more than secondary schooling. One in four
people believe that the government should prioritize them “about the same”. By contrast, 12% of
Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 29
people believe that early childcare service access should be prioritized less than secondary
schooling.

Replicating the results from comparing the prioritization of childcare services over secondary
schooling, wealthier individuals once again show the highest approval for prioritizing childcare
services, followed by women. Two in three high socioeconomic status individuals express support
for prioritizing childcare services over primary education programs, and 63% of women express
similar support. By contrast, 55% of marginalized individuals and 53% of primary caregivers think
that childcare services should be prioritized over secondary schooling.

Figure 7 – Public Attitudes about Government Prioritization, Early Childcare Access

versus Secondary Schooling

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 30

VII. Conclusion
Unpaid caregiving responsibilities represent a key barrier to women’s labor force participation in
many developed and developing countries, particularly while children are too young to attend
formal schooling. In this paper, we consider the child caregiving environment in India and
quantifies the potential economic returns of investing in early childcare programs. These potential
benefits focus on two key dimensions – increased labor force participation rates and increased
household income for currently unemployed primary caregivers.

We estimate that addressing primary caregivers’ childcare needs could lead to a 5-percentage
point increase in the labor force participation rate in India, which translates into roughly 46 million
people joining or rejoining the labor force. Furthermore, on average, for every $1 invested in
accessible childcare services, currently unemployed primary caregivers would expect to generate
$8 in increased economic activity. Moreover, public support for these types of subsidized child
caregiving programs is extremely high in India, with 93% of the population expressing support for
needy families. Super majorities of every demographic group (age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic
status, and urban/rural groups) support such programs. In fact, roughly 60% of Indians believe
that early childcare programs should be prioritized more than primary schooling provision.
Therefore, the Indian government could view early child caregiving investments not only as good
economic policy, but also good politics.

Fraym Mapping Humanity • fraym.io 31

Fraym.io

[email protected]

3101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22201