👶 In 2021, 81% of poor families primarily care for their child, compared to 26% of wealthier families. Among those wishing for a nursery, 33% use one, compared to 65%. Inequalities accumulate: lesser access, later entry, shorter care and higher costs relative to income.
.
Source:
🎙️🎥
1️⃣ SUMMARY
The study by Drees analyses the social inequalities in the care of young children in metropolitan France in 2021. It concerns families whose youngest child is between 4 and 35 months old and is not in school. Parents provide the main care in 81% of poor families, compared to 26% of wealthier families. This arrangement does not always match their wishes, particularly among the more modest. Among families wishing for a nursery as the main form of care, 33% of poor families use it every week, compared to 65% of wealthier families. The lack of places is the primary obstacle to accessing nurseries, across all social categories. Among children in formal care, those from poor families enter at an average age of 11 months, compared to 6 months for the wealthier. They also spend less time there: 30 hours per week, compared to 36 hours. For families using paid formal care, expenses before aid represent on average 18% of the income of the poorest, compared to 11% of the wealthiest. The aids reduce these expenses, but poor families receive them less often, for reasons that the study does not allow to differentiate.
2️⃣ WHAT TO REMEMBER
An access to childcare that is socially unequal, even when families want it: Among families who stated they wish for a nursery as their main form of childcare, 33% of poor families use it at least once during a typical week, compared to 65% of the wealthier families. It does not necessarily mean that nursery care is the primary option. After standardisation, that is to say after taking into account several observed characteristics of families, the proportions remain different: 40% versus 61%. The lack of places is the main reason for non-use across all income categories. It is cited by two-thirds of all families who wish for a nursery but do not have access.
A more frequent and more imposed parental care: Main parental care concerns 81% of poor families, compared to 26% of the wealthier ones. It is exclusive in 61% of poor families: their child is never entrusted to a third party, whether professional or relative. The survey does not allow for a distinction, in the desire for parental care, between what is based on preferences or constraints. However, it does show that, among families who do not wish to provide the main care for their child themselves, 54% of poor families do so anyway, compared to 14% of the wealthier ones.
A later entry and shorter receptions: Among the children welcomed into a formal childcare setting at the time of the survey, the average entry age is 11 months in poor families, compared to 6 months in the wealthiest families. Among these children, 35% from poor families entered before six months, compared to 72% from the wealthiest families. The youngest child spends an average of 30 hours per week in formal childcare when they belong to a poor family, compared to 36 hours in the wealthiest families. These durations only concern families that use them and add, where applicable, several formal childcare modes.
Lower expenses in euros, but heavier relative to income: Among families using paid formal childcare for their youngest child, expenses before aid reach an average of €283 per month for poor families, compared to €645 for the wealthiest. However, they represent an average higher share of disposable income: 18%, compared to 11%. These figures do not describe the remaining costs after aid.
Less often received aid, without a single explanation: Among families that in 2021 used a childcare mode a priori eligible for the CMG, 73% of poor families received this benefit, compared to 97% of the wealthiest. For the tax credit for out-of-home childcare expenses, 48% of poor families with a a priori eligible claim declared expenses to the tax authorities, compared to 94% of the wealthiest. This can also reflect a final ineligibility, full coverage by other funders, or undeclared care. The data do not allow for separating the effects of these mechanisms.
3️⃣ TO ACT
The following proposals fall under the editorial analysis of Practices in Health. The study does not provide an intervention programme, but it highlights constraints and levers that may illuminate professional practices.
Explore the constraints behind the childcare mode used: Do not deduce from parental care that it necessarily corresponds to the parents' first choice. During support, distinguish the solution currently used, the desired solution, and the difficulties encountered in accessing it. This proposal relies on the documented gaps between wishes and actual recourse.
Integrate the childcare costs into the support towards rights: Examine with families the aids mobilised, the steps taken, and any difficulties in declaration. The CMG and the tax credit for childcare expenses outside the home are two central schemes mentioned by the study. The absence of payment should, however, lead to an examination of the situation, and not to automatically concluding a right not requested.
Take into account the needs for short-term care: Pay attention to the needs for occasional or a few hours of care, and not only to requests for full-time care. The study emphasises that the possibility of reducing durations depends on the sflexibility of the proposed care and the organisational constraints of establishments or childminders.
Use the results as national context, not as local measure: Mobilise the study and its supplementary tables to document social inequalities and provide perspective on a t territorial diagnosis. Complement them with local information on supply, demand and obstacles encountered: the research findings of this publication relate to metropolitan France in 2021 and do not directly describe the situation of a given territory.
4️⃣ 3 PRACTICAL QUESTIONS
Why do poor families less often wish for a childminder? The document puts forward a possible interpretation: some families may anticipate financial constraints and only wish for solutions they consider accessible. This hypothesis is not a cause demonstrated by the survey. Before aid, the cost of a childminder represents on average 27% of the disposable income of poor families who use it for their youngest child, compared to 12% of that of the more affluent.
Does the 2025 CMG reform reduce inequalities? The simulation presented suggests a strengthened redistribution. Applied to the observed uses in 2021, the rules of 2025 would further reduce the average burden of expenses than those of 2021 for all income level groups, except for the most affluent families. For poor families using formal paid childcare, the average cost would represent 18% of disposable income before aid, 11% after CMG according to the rules of 2021 and 10% according to those of 2025. These estimates assume the payment of the CMG to families identified as eligible based on available data. They do not constitute a measure of the effect actually observed from the reform and do not deduct the tax credit.
Why must we distinguish between data on costs and that on aids? The costs analysed relate to the youngest child and their care observed during a reference week. The administrative data from CMG and declared expenses concern the entire year and may involve several children under six years old. They cannot therefore be directly approached to calculate an individual charge remaining. That’s why the authors resort to a simulation of the CMG to study the expenses of the youngest child.
5️⃣ TO GO FURTHER
External resource : National Observatory for Early Childhood (Onape), led by the Cnaf, "The Care of Young Children – Edition 2025", published on 16 December 2025. National reference figures on supply, usage of care modes, funding and the 2025 CMG reform (external source). caf.fr – annual report 2025 from Onape (consulted on 14 November 2026).
6️⃣ #️⃣ HASHTAGS
#healthpractices #EarlyChildhood #CareModes #SocialInequalities #ChildPoverty #AccessToRights #CareSupplement #Drees
🔎 Need to delve deeper into a topic?
The articles from Pratiques en Santé provide an initial insight into publications and resources useful for professionals and field actors.
To go further, answer a specific question or explore a topic in depth, I also offer documentary research and personalised monitoring, tailored to your needs and projects. Feel free to contact me: pratiquesensante@pm.me - To find out more
To go further, order a search or a documentary watch
This article: An editorial production based on
experience enhanced by artificial intelligence - The English version of the site is an automatic translation: the French version prevails - Click on the image 