# Accessing early childcare: A study of administrative barriers in France

Emanuele Ferragina

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Emanuele Ferragina. Accessing early childcare: A study of administrative barriers in France. Social Policy and Society, 2025, pp.1 - 14. 10.1017/s1474746425100857. hal-05234153

HAL Id: hal-05234153

https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-05234153v1

Submitted on 1 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
ARTICLE

# Accessing early childcare: A study of administrative barriers in France

Emanuele Ferragina*

CRIS-LIEPP, Sciences Po, Paris, France

Email: emanuele.ferragina@sciencespo.fr

(Received 25 March 2024; revised 30 May 2025; accepted 18 June 2025)

France has one of the most unequal levels of access to childcare in Europe, despite high public investment. Existing literature explains this inequality through factors such as the availability of childcare slots, social stratification, stigmatisation, attitudes, cultural biases, and parental logistical constraints. However, the role of administrative barriers in exacerbating access problems remains understudied. We provide fresh insight by examining these barriers in France's poorest county. *Seine-Saint-Denis* offers a revealing case study, as its inadequate childcare coverage persists despite heavy public investment – highlighting challenges within France's multi-layered administrative system. Drawing on interviews with families and childcare managers, as well as participant observation in the local early childcare system, we identify administrative barriers at three levels: 'organisational', 'procedural', and 'individual'. Our findings suggest that difficulties in accessing childcare stem from: (1) the failed logic of integration between different administrative layers and the financing modality of the Single Service Provision (PSU), (2) the opaque criteria employed by childcare admission committees (CAMAs), and (3) the lack of adaptation of the multi-layer administrative system to family needs. The article investigates administrative barriers to welfare state access, approaching for the first time the domain of childcare.

**Keywords:** childcare; administrative barriers; welfare state access; France

## Introduction

France's early collective childcare system is among Europe's oldest, most explicit, and extensive (Morgan, 2002; Martin, 2010). Despite investing almost as heavily as Denmark and Sweden in public childcare (OECD, 2019), France struggles with stark inequalities in access. Disparities persist along occupational, employment, and socioeconomic lines – more so than in countries like Italy, Germany, and the UK, where childcare systems are less developed. Recent reforms¹ have sought to improve inclusivity, yet unmet family needs continue to challenge the system (West et al., 2020). Existing research attributes inequalities in access to early collective childcare² to factors such as slot shortages, social stratification, stigmatisation, attitudes, cultural biases, and parental logistical constraints.³ While these explanations are insightful, they overlook the role of administrative barriers – a gap this paper addresses by drawing on recent literature⁴ to examine how such barriers might disproportionally hinder poor families' access.

An understanding of early childcare policy requires analyses based on different methodologies and scales of investigation. Macro-institutional analyses offer a general understanding of early childcare policy and its position relative to other policy domains and national systems (Ferragina, 2019a; Ferragina, 2022; Ferragina, 2025); micro-quantitative analyses examine
disparities in access to and use of childcare (Pavolini and Van Lancker 2018; Ferragina and Magalini 2023); and qualitative studies explore parents' logistical and mobility barriers (McLean et al., 2017). This paper offers a complementary analysis by conceptualising and observing administrative barriers at the 'organisational' (e.g. the failed logic of integration between administrative layers responsible for childcare services), 'procedural' (e.g. opaque admission criteria) and 'individual' (e.g. the mismatch between administrative processes and family needs) levels.

The analysis of early collective childcare access in the poorest mainland French département (hereafter referred to as a county) is relevant for comparative social policy research for two reasons. First, the complexity of French social policy architecture makes it an archetypical example of a corporatist welfare state (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser, 2011). Despite its detachment from the Bismarckian logic (e.g. with the recent unemployment and pension reforms), social services are still regulated through a multi-layered administrative logic (Martin, 2010). The superposition of multiple administrative layers and the lack of coordination between them can greatly contribute to access constraints. This administrative complexity characterises not only 'old' social transfers and services, but also policies that address 'new social risks'. While administrative barriers are more pronounced in France compared to other mature welfare states, prior research shows that 'local' barriers can hinder access to early collective childcare even in universal systems (e.g. Finland, see Fjällström et al., 2024). Similar challenges also persist in contexts where policies are theoretically universal, such as anti-poverty measures (Parolin et al., 2023). Therefore, the study of the French case enriches the literature by investigating administrative barriers in the domain of childcare for the first time.

Second, despite the significant investments in Seine-Saint-Denis,⁵ the gentrification of municipalities closer to Paris has exacerbated inequalities in access to social services.⁶ The county is an interesting case because while it receives higher public funding than the French average, disparities in access to collective childcare persist, reflecting systemic flaws in administrative procedures. These inequalities are not unique to Seine-Saint-Denis – national level data reveal similar gaps in access across France (Ferragina and Magalini, 2023) – but its combination of financial disadvantage and high investment makes it a critical case for our analysis. This paper’s qualitative approach, drawing on surveys of families and childcare managers alongside participant observation, unpacks these procedural and organisational hurdles.

The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows: it first focuses on the French early collective childcare system and the main explanations of access shortage in the literature. It then illustrates the methodology and results of the qualitative inquiry.

## Accessing early collective childcare: a review

Early childcare expansion is a common trend across OECD countries, though investment levels and policy designs vary significantly (Gauthier, 1998; Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser, 2015; Daly and Ferragina, 2018). This expansion serves multiple goals: e.g. facilitating women's labour market participation, improving children's wellbeing, alleviating the burden of unpaid household and care work, promoting gender equality, and addressing poverty and fertility decline (Brilli et al., 2016; Ferragina, 2019b; Ferragina, 2020; Zagel and Van Lancker, 2022).

Early childcare policy in France has evolved through complex interactions between multiple tiers of public authorities. The expansion of childcare provision relies on a combination of regulatory and incentive measures, such as the creation of new places within collective childcare facilities, the introduction of the PAJE (Prestation d'Accueil du Jeune Enfant, a childcare benefit for young children), and by tax exemption for home-based jobs. Governmental efforts are matched by
a growing involvement of local authorities (i.e. municipalities/counties), which develop their own childcare facilities often in partnership with private actors.

The system is organised through several administrative layers. The *Caisse Nationale des Allocations Familiales* (CNAF) is the leading public body and is involved in setting up the network of local partners. Early childcare is coordinated at the local level by the Maternal and Child Protection (PMI) service, which involves a wide range of professions from the social and medical sectors. The PMI and French counties are responsible for approving early collective childcare arrangements. They play a technical and financial role in developing local childcare provision and assess whether the objectives set out in the county plans are being achieved. The purpose of adapting the PMI service to the needs of families is to strengthen conciliation policies (ONED, 2015). This approach also brought about changes in the relationship between supply and demand, and to the recognition of considerable organisational gaps.

Despite these advances, the demand for childcare remains higher than its availability (Boyer, 2005; Collombet, 2018; Van Lancker, 2018). Moreover, the socio-economic gradient plays an important role when it comes to families’ access to childcare (Vincent et al., 2008; Collombet, 2018; Pavolini and Van Lancker, 2018; Ferragina and Magalini, 2023). Disadvantaged families have found it difficult to benefit from these services, and territorial tensions between early collective childcare supply and demand continue to grow. Families that face higher barriers to childcare access are those on low income and those who work in atypical jobs (Le Bihan and Martin, 2004; Ferragina and Magalini, 2023).

The capacity of childcare facilities is further limited by shortages of qualified staff. In counties where the number of places is limited, families must adapt to structural difficulties, which reinforces inequalities in access for the most disadvantaged children (Herman 2017). Research has analysed the differences in the take-up of available places as a function of territorial access (Nollenberg and Rodriguez-Planas, 2015; Langford et al., 2019; Pora, 2020). These studies show that changes in access practices, such as the move from a one-stop shop to the digitalisation of admission files, had a negative effect on the take-up rate of disadvantaged families. Although France’s early childhood social benefits are universally available to all households with at least one dependent child under age three, not everyone entitled to the benefits receives them (e.g. immigrants are largely excluded, Spire, 2008). For this reason, researchers examined accessibility, considering the issues and constraints faced by those who are entitled to the benefits (Vandenbroeck et al., 2013). These studies show that access to services is limited by processes of stigmatisation that affect the most disadvantaged families and accrue monetary costs (Warin, 2016, Revillard, 2017).

Also, parental logistical constraints impact access to early collective childcare (even where childcare is comprehensive and affordable). In a qualitative comparative study, Mclean and colleagues (2017: 1368) show that ‘matching opening hours of services and hours of employment’, and ‘navigating distance and transport between childcare services and other locations’ are key to explaining inequality in access. Studies in geography provide further evidence about the influence of travel and transport costs (Skinner, 2005; Van Ham and Mulder, 2005; Schwanen, 2007; Jain et al., 2011; Compton and Pollak, 2014).

Quantitative and qualitative studies document multiple constraints limiting access to early collective childcare, including inadequate supply in comparison to demand, social stratification, stigmatisation, attitudes, cultural biases, and logistical challenges for parents. This paper contends that examining the administrative barriers can provide additional insights. While such barriers have been analysed in the US federal system (Herd et al., 2023), they also appear in France (and other fragmented welfare state systems), where national priorities are sometimes implemented inconsistently at the local level. By analysing the different institutional layers involved in childcare provision, this study reveals systemic complexities that may create significant administrative burdens for families.
These burdens might reinforce inequality, as access to early collective childcare requires navigating an opaque system. Disadvantaged families often lack relational capital at the local level, limiting their ability to overcome administrative barriers. Constraints in access can generate learning, compliance, and psychological costs, such as: the time and effort needed to understand the functioning of the early collective childcare system and its access requirements; the challenge to accurately presenting household socioeconomic status during applications; and the stress of engaging in a process that demands high literacy, familiarity with bureaucratic procedures, and adherence to specific codes of conduct (Herd and Moynihan, 2018).

This emerging literature on administrative barriers complements research on street-level bureaucracy (Lipsky, 2010). Lipsky paved the way to consider the specific role of administrators in the delivery of services – a category that includes the childcare managers interviewed for this study. However, the two literatures differ in focus: while the first investigates how administrative barriers can affect users, the second reflects upon the subjectivity of street-level bureaucrats and their shared characteristics across social services. Therefore, our article employs this new and underused strand of literature to conceptualise administrative barriers in accessing childcare. We suggest that in a complex administrative multi-layered system, disadvantaged groups will have more difficulties in claiming services in accordance with their rights and needs. We consider administrative barriers at the organisational, procedural, and individual levels, and detail how they unfold in the lived experience of families and childcare managers.

## Methodology

This study employs qualitative methods combining interviews and participant observation. It examines access barriers analysing supply-side constraints through observations of administrative practices and surveys of childcare managers, and demand-side characteristics by gathering data from families. The participant observation took place between September 2019 and February 2020 in the Child and Family Department of *Seine-Saint-Denis*. We conducted twenty-eight interviews with families and eight interviews with childcare managers between September and December 2021.

We selected three different towns in *Seine-Saint-Denis* to constitute our sample. La Courneuve has a large foreign population (38.1 per cent of the total) and a very high poverty rate (41 per cent; the national average of 14.6 per cent). Pantin is on the Parisian border and has undergone significant gentrification for several years, yet it has maintained high levels of poverty (28 per cent) despite an increase in employment rates (76.8 per cent). Epinay-sur-Seine has not experienced the same gentrification trends as Pantin because of its geographical location in a more remote part of the county and its size. The poverty rate there stands at 31 per cent (INSEE, 2021, 2022).

The sample of families and childcare managers was randomly sorted in conjunction with the early collective childcare service of the Child and Family Department of *Seine-Saint-Denis*. Families have a variety of social backgrounds and in our analysis, we consider disadvantaged families those with earnings below 60 per cent of median income. This categorisation allows us to single out poor families' access issues in comparison to the rest of the sample.

All families submitted a digital pre-registration file on the department's platform, the *Portal familles*.⁷ The files provided by the county record the parental, professional, and personal circumstances of families. After receiving consent, we reached out to parents over the phone, and almost all families showed interest in discussing their situation. When we contacted families by phone, mothers – rather than fathers – typically took charge of communicating with us, even though we did not request to speak to one parent in particular. This seems to indicate that mothers are more involved in the process than fathers.

Of the thirty-five files obtained from the county, twenty-eight families agreed to take part in the interview process. The interview guide was divided into several parts: the family and marital
situation, the childcare admission procedure since the pre-registration phase, the family's use of the collective childcare facility, and additional comments. The interviews were conducted on a semi-directive basis, which allowed for more in-depth discussions on the specific situations and the administrative hurdles encountered.

We inquired about several characteristics: number of dependent (including unborn) children, marital status, age, family support system (such as the presence of parents or grandparents in position to undertake informal childcare). Additionally, we considered whether the respondent was active or inactive, the employment contract, work schedule, and location. Approximately 35 per cent of the families in the sample (ten) either had an income below the national French poverty line and/or a situation where parent(s) had insecure job situations (i.e. part-time, temporary employment). In the interview excerpts presented in the findings, we specify whether the family falls into this category. Furthermore, the process for accessing early collective childcare invited families to describe their care journey, providing an additional source of information for analysis.

We uncovered evidence of administrative barriers by comparing the access experiences of families who were successful in obtaining a childcare spot with those who were not. The number of children offered a place between 2021 and 2022 in our sample is ten points higher than the rate of children admitted at the county level (INSEE, 2021). Of the twenty-eight families surveyed, seven received one or more offers of admission for one or more children; the other families received one or more refusals (up to four). Poorer families were less successful in obtaining these spots and experienced more difficulties in dealing with the intricate and non-transparent procedures we detail in the next section.

We complemented the survey of families with interviews with childcare managers and a participant observation of the early collective childcare system. This allowed us to gather other insight on the administrative barriers that families face. Our methodology, scrutinising the critical case of France (Gerring, 2007; Yin, 2017), provides insights into how the harsh administrative hurdles seem to more strongly affect poorer families.

## Administrative constraints to collective childcare access

The discussion of the findings is organised in three subsections. The first concerns the administrative complexity (defined as ‘organisational’ barriers) considered from the local point of view (municipality/department), the second focuses on the role of childcare admission committees (defined as ‘procedural’ barriers), and the third considers family (unfulfilled) needs (defined as ‘individual’ barriers).

### The administrative complexity: the ‘organisational’ barriers

In collaboration with the PMI and the CNAF, the county steers early collective childcare by coordinating and managing facilities. Some municipalities provide their own childcare services. Municipal and county childcare facilities are unevenly distributed in our town sample: Pantin has nine municipal early collective childcare facilities and only two county facilities, Epinay-sur-Seine eight vs. two, and La Courneuve has the opposite situation (one vs. four). The special case of La Courneuve is due to poor municipal resources, with the county attempting to make up for it. Inequalities seem exacerbated by the new financing modality and the lack of integration across different levels of administrative management.

### Financing and Single Service Provision (PSU)

The *Caisse des Allocations Familiales* (CAF) finances childcare facilities considering the number of hours billed to families via the single service provision (*Prestation de Service Unique*, PSU). The
PSU⁸ introduced a new way to manage childcare facilities, offering flexible care arrangements (such as regular, occasional, or emergency care) (Lamotte, 2006; Hurtig, 2019). It regulates the contracts signed with childcare facilities providing monthly payments for each beneficiary family. The residual cost is determined by considering family resources and the number of children in the household. Families can book the service by the hour or by specific timeslot. These different mechanisms are designed to optimise the use of the service and provide an implementation close to family needs (Vanovermeir, 2012; Hurtig, 2019).

The PSU stimulated the opening of new childcare facilities with almost 70,000 places created between 2007 and 2015. However, the increase in childcare capacity did not foster better access for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. It did not improve the employment situation of disadvantaged mothers, either (Pora, 2020). The application of PSU is linked to service optimisation: childcare facilities obtain better financing if they have a higher percentage of slots filled for each hour of opening. Filling vacant timeslots can create tensions between family needs and administrative imperatives; this generates financial and organisational constraints for families and childcare facilities (Lamotte, 2006; Caillet, 2013; ONED, 2015).

**INTERVIEWER:** Can you tell me about the Single Service Provision (PSU)? Does this financing modality influence how childcare facilities operate?

**MANAGER:** There is a lot of talk about PSU. This is the new system that is to be rolled out throughout the county. It's a financial benefit designed to help parents pay for childcare of their young children, and it is directly paid to childcare facilities. Childcare facilities are totally dependent on PSU, as it enables them to operate. But I'm not going to lie to you, since we've had PSU, our staffing problems have increased tenfold.

(Interview with a PMI county manager, October 2021)

## Contrasting levels of administrative management

The implementation of the objectives set out in the COG is difficult due to the administrative complexity. Although the CNAF disposed of a sufficient budget to create new nurseries in 2020, it was confronted with difficulties in setting up partnerships with local actors and a lack of feasible projects in areas with stark inequality of access. These problems are reflected in the fragmented, multi-level territorial management of the care system.

**COUNTY MANAGER:** The county snuck in to prevent the switch to the *Prestation de Service Unique* (PSU). The CAF was rapped on the knuckles by the CNAF... Today, there are a lot of conflicts between the county and municipalities...

(Interview with a PMO county manager, October 2021)

Even if childcare services dispose of a fine-grained knowledge of local realities and could play a role in the identification of families with difficulties in accessing childcare, the coordination between different levels of management remains complex. The municipality of Pantin divides responsibilities for early childhood between the town, which oversees early collective childcare, and the county, that along with the PMI, is responsible for keeping track of all collective and individual forms of childcare.

The multiplication of the administrative levels contributes to the presence of numerous contact points, and this can disorient families that seek information about the admission procedures or those trying to understand the reasons for a refusal. Families are often unable to reach someone who can answer their questions. When they contact the childcare facility directly, they are often
transferred to the local or county childcare service, but people in charge are not always able to
answer families' queries. Only one family in our sample could maintain close contact with the
managers; here the mother worked as childminder in the centre her child was cared for.

INTERVIEWER: In your opinion, what enabled you to get a place?

MOTHER: I'm lucky enough to work as childminder in my son's childcare facility, but I'm a special case, so that's a big advantage over other families, and I think it has played a big part. [...]

INTERVIEWER: So didn't you have problems in getting information about access procedures?

MOTHER: When I needed information, I went through internal channels. I called colleagues or my manager directly to get the information. That made it easier for me to get things done.

(Interview with a mother from Epinay-sur-Seine, November 2021)

## The influence of the childcare admissions committees: the ‘procedural’ barriers

Childcare admission committees (CAMA) operate with different eligibility and weighting criteria for each early collective childcare facility. Each town has its own targets: some towns give priority to social criteria, for example, while others consider primarily the age of applicants. Territorial differences are marked in disadvantaged areas, such as *Seine-Saint-Denis*. CAMAs must deal with families who are far from childcare facilities, not integrated into the labour market, and socially isolated. Although the county has created new places and reduced the additional costs not covered by the PSU, these measures have not facilitated the integration of the most disadvantaged families. The lack of information about the care facilities available, the poorly publicised selection criteria and the way in which families are treated by the services seem to reinforce the mechanisms of exclusion.

### Identifying specific situations: territorial differences and institutional dysfunctions

*Seine-Saint-Denis* and its municipalities strive to adapt the early childcare system to family needs. Neighbourhood representatives can take part in admissions committees and provide information about family situations. However, electronic files often fail to adequately capture the financial situations or provide sufficient context for the indicators analysed during the CAMAs. During an interview, a single mother from La Courneuve with two young children, described her difficult situation. She mentioned the health problems of her mother (who helps her to look after the children) and the complicated conciliation between care and her work as debt collector manager.

MOTHER: When I was on a professional training contract, it was hard to concentrate. There were days when I had to manage everything at the same time: my son, work, transport. [...]

INTERVIEWER: To get a better understanding of how you managed all these tasks simultaneously, can you tell me about your daily routine? Your working hours?

MOTHER: I get up at 5:30 every morning to be at work by 7:30. My mother has to keep up with my rhythm, and she helps me a lot with that, but it's getting hard for her. She's getting tired with her age.
(Interview with a mother from La Courneuve, November 2021)

Family situations are varied and cannot always be explained in the application file. At the county level, the pre-selection files do not have specific sections to explain and justify professional and family changes. For this reason, some families have given up trying after a refusal. A mother from Epinay-sur-Seine, who was in training at the time of the interview for a childcare spot, postponed the start of her school year at the time of the CAMA meeting, and therefore opted for informal care for financial reasons. Her situation was not acknowledged by the CAMA because she was unable to communicate her level of education or the training she had obtained during the last months of pregnancy.

INTERVIEWER: Can you please tell me about the other times you applied and didn't get a place?

MOTHER: I made an initial application in September 2020 after maternity leave and a second one after Covid during my training, but I didn't get a place again. [...]

INTERVIEWER: Finally, do you have time for yourself and for your child?

MOTHER: Yes, I'm lucky to be in training because I have days off to look after the little one, but if we both worked, it wouldn't be possible.

(Interview with a low-income mother from Epinay-sur-Seine, November 2021)

The childcare admission process is often characterised by administrative uncertainty. In our sample, most families received no follow-up from county services after pre-registration. While the majority reported no major difficulties in completing the digital pre-registration forms, many became discouraged by the county's lack of clear information and the inability to communicate their circumstances. These challenges were exacerbated by how administrative staff interacted with families. For example, one Pantin family's application was delayed when the county lost the child's birth certificate. This bureaucratic issue pushed them down the waiting list, left them unable to reach caseworkers, and ultimately dashed their hopes of securing a childcare spot.

INTERVIEWER: How was your relationship with people in charge of the childcare service? Did you manage to contact them? Did you manage to get feedback about your requests?

MOTHER: We got a reply for our first daughter. We'd applied before she was born and we'd given them all documents, but at the last minute they played a trick on us. They told us that we did not give them the birth certificate and therefore we were sent to the end of the line-up. We tried to call to get more explanations and solve the issue, but we always ended up on an answering machine. No reply to the emails either. What do you have to do to talk to someone?

(Interview with a mother from Pantin, November 2021)

In some cases, CAMAs adopt arbitrary and opaque decision-making processes, which leave families powerless to put forward their point of view. Errors made during the examination of applications are often passed on to parents, who have no possibility to appeal or respond.

*Admission indicators: institutional vagueness, perverse file compilation*

Children from disadvantaged backgrounds face systemic barriers in securing childcare placements. Even before pre-registering on the *Portail Familles*, low-income parents encounter
administrative requirements that disproportionately disadvantage them, despite their strong
motivation to secure a spot for their child.

In *Seine-Saint-Denis*, selection for admission is based on social diversity criteria (*mixité sociale*). The county prioritises disabled children, children of teenagers, children with many siblings, children of single mothers, and children with a complex prenatal history. However, these priorities fluctuate annually based on availability. Families have frequently to deal with lack of clarity about evaluation criteria due to limited administrative communication, systemic inefficiencies in the mechanisms designed to support them, and no follow-up after rejections (neither county nor municipal contact). For example, after three refusals, a mother in Pantin had still not been contacted to clear her case.

INTERVIEWER: Did you manage to get a place in a childcare facility?

MOTHER: Rejection after rejection from the municipal and county childcare facilities I gave up. I'm sad I couldn't get a place for my child.

INTERVIEWER: And why do you think your application was rejected?

MOTHER: We tried to ask for an explanation but got no answer. I filled in the application form and provided the documents they asked for. Why am I not entitled to childcare? [...]

INTERVIEWER: Have you managed to make contact with managers or the county, for example?

MOTHER: It's not that we didn't try. We tried calling the municipal service, but nobody answered. We've never managed to speak to anyone in charge of our case. I get the impression that they're ignoring us on purpose. In the end, we don't have anyone to contact, which makes it very difficult for us as parents...

(Interview with a mother from Pantin, November 2021)

Faced with this situation, families who apply one or more times during the year make little or no change to their file. Applications are not reviewed on the basis of recommendations from the managers in charge of the service. Over time, some people will find a job or training, others will get divorced or find a new partner.

INTERVIEWER: Do you consider that obtaining a spot in a collective childcare facility was a priority for you in your search for childcare?

MOTHER: Before when I was in training, obtaining a spot in a collective childcare facility was a priority. I had six months of troubles finding some form of childcare. I didn't know what to do, but now things are better, and I've found a private childminder (*assistante maternelle*).

INTERVIEWER: Did collective childcare remain a priority for you afterwards?

MOTHER: Now that I'm more stable, I don't need it as much because the private childminder has helped me a lot. It works well for me and my child, but I know that for many people, early collective childcare is still the best option.

(Interview with a mother from Epinay-sur-Seine, November 2021)
Childcare facilities should prioritise finding solutions to cater to family needs, but the logic seems reversed. From the pre-registration phase to enrolment, families are expected to adapt to the system's demands, which can exclude disadvantaged families. These challenges are frequently overlooked in the pursuit of meeting PSU targets 'pragmatically'. For instance, families who do not secure their preferred hours are often offered off-peak slots instead, which may not align with their needs.

*The reception of early collective childhood in Seine-Saint-Denis: the ‘individual’ barriers*

Families often submit their applications several months in advance to ensure that they have a fall-back option in case of refusal. To do this, they must make a request to the municipal or county services, describing the type of childcare they need. However, all families in the selected sample who made a request before giving birth were refused. Families who made several applications for their child during the first three years were partially successful.

*The first two years: class privilege and distance from the most disadvantaged families*

Completing the pre-registration form before the child is born gives families the opportunity to organise their timetable around the registration dates and enables managers to consider parents' geographical and time preferences. However, disadvantaged families are often faced with unstable situations, such as receiving social assistance or being between jobs, which force them to continually adapt to the childcare system.

Mothers who are unable to obtain an early collective childcare spot in the first two years often extend their maternity leave (if they are working) or postpone their job application (if they are unemployed). Confirming the results of quantitative studies, we find that access to childcare is much lower if one of the parents is not working (Ferragina and Magalini 2023). Yet access to childcare itself is fundamental to enter the labour market. In this context, families who benefit the most from the admission procedure are those with a stable professional and family situation, as they do not pose additional constraints to childcare managers. A mother from Epinay-sur-Seine was refused her first two applications; she was not told the reasons for the refusal, but she believes that her student status was an obstacle to admission.

INTERVIEWER: Regarding your request, what do you think played against you?

MOTHER: I look after my daughter one hundred per cent, but it's complicated to find a part-time job (she refers to the French institute of *alternance* between study and work that we translated as part-time) and continue to study. I've been turned down three times, and I intend to apply again, even if my situation isn't what they want. I mean, I don't think it's what they want, they prefer stable people with a normal situation, but I'm still fighting.

(Interview with a low-income mother from Epinay-sur-Seine, November 2021)

Reconciling work, geographical location and transport is an additional difficulty for families (Mclean et al., 2017). Most families in the sample ask for a place in a childcare facility that is close to their residence. In theory, geographical proximity is a selection criterion, and CAMA should prioritise families living nearby. However, this rule is not always respected.

INTERVIEWER: But didn't you tell me you lived near a childcare facility?

MOTHER: Some parents come from other towns to the childcare close to my house and are given priority. I live 100 metres away and I've always been refused.
(Interview with a low-income mother from La Courneuve, November 2021)

From admission procedures to child placement, the system favours families who can adapt to the conditions defined by childcare services. This constitutes an element that exacerbates the exclusion of the most disadvantaged families.

*Unfilled places and hours: occupancy rate, PSU, and pressure on families*

The introduction of the PSU in the *Seine-Saint-Denis* had perverse effects. By setting an occupancy rate that childcare facilities must commit to, the PSU led to a reduction of opening hours. This method of financing requires careful management of the number of places filled to optimise the operation of each facility. This can lead to the closure of certain childcare facilities. The introduction of the PSU has brought additional constraints to the multi-level management of childcare facilities. Procedural disputes between municipalities and the county have weakened the system and penalised the most disadvantaged families.

INTERVIEWER: Do you think that the PSU has helped or hindered care provision?

HEAD OF THE PMI DEPARTMENT AND AP-HP RESPONSIBLE: The PSU system is a space-occupation system that requires some serious gymnastics....

INTERVIEWER: I've heard that childcare facilities have been affected by the PSU....

HEAD OF THE PMI DEPARTMENT AND AP-HP RESPONSIBLE: It's a different kind of management, with childcare facilities that are incentivised to efficiently occupy every time slot. Those facilities that do not have a high occupancy rate for each time slot of the day because perhaps they try to keep up with different family needs are in trouble.

(Interview with a head of the PMI department and AP-HP responsible, December 2021)

Making full-time use of these facilities is a challenge for childcare managers. This management method generates vacancies in some facilities, which are then offered to families who have been refused full care. The filling of facilities is thus seen as a means of reducing inequalities in access, but also as a tool for economic profitability. Although this process encourages facilities to maintain stable occupancy rates over the course of a day, it puts considerable pressure on families, who are offered care times that are unsuited to their needs.

## Conclusion

To gain a better understanding of how administrative barriers influence access to early collective childcare, we adopted a qualitative approach, conducting interviews with families and managers, and a participant observation in *Seine-Saint-Denis* county. From a conceptual perspective, we define administrative barriers in accessing early collective childcare at the ‘organisational’, ‘procedural’, and ‘individual’ levels (see Herd et al., 2023): (1) the failed logic of integration between different layers of administration and the financing modality of the Single Service Provision (PSU), (2) the opaque criteria employed by the childcare admission committees (CAMAs), and (3) the lack of adaptation of the multi-layer administrative system to family needs.

First, at the ‘organisational’ level the multiplication of management levels in early collective childcare leads to administrative clashes. The introduction of the PSU, through new occupancy rate calculations and operating subsidies, does not seem to reduce inequalities of access. Second, at the ‘procedural’ level access to childcare is often dependent on admission procedures that are
subject to the discretionary power of the CAMAs. Within CAMAs, the decision-making is often biased, because families cannot provide all necessary details and there is no feedback to correct these details. The communication is unidirectional, and the managers rarely come back to families for issues of clarification. In addition, the pre-registration files examined by CAMAs often do not reflect the reality of families under exam, and this often leads to further inequalities of access. Third, at the ‘individual’ level, families have limited (almost non-existent from the experiences we gathered) possibility to appeal against decisions. Referring to research about administrative barriers (Herd et al., 2023), the cost of contacting the administration seems significantly higher for disadvantaged families.

Despite financial efforts promoted by the state, the French early collective childcare system remains unequal and largely inaccessible to the poorest families. Childcare is a striking example of what can be observed in other domains such as social insurance coverage (health, for example) and social housing. The issue has been studied in France in connection to the phenomenon of non-take up (non-r-e-c-o-u-r-s, see Warin, 2016). The existence of complex and disarticulated organisational levels in the administrative structure, the presence of opaque procedures, and the lack of adequacy in meeting family demands curtail access to childcare, and affect poor families more strongly because they have fewer economic, social, and human resources to deal with administrative obstacles. Therefore, ‘organisational’, ‘procedural’, and ‘individual’ administrative barriers are further mechanisms of exclusion from welfare state access.

In conclusion, the article provides the first insights on how administrative hurdles of various kinds might impact poorer families more decisively. However, further systematic research is required to establish a direct relation of causation (Carbuccia et al., 2024).

**Acknowledgements.** The author expresses his gratitude to Teva Marescaux for his work as research assistant in the project Family Policy, Female Participation and Inequalities, in particular for the collection of the interview material.

**Funding.** This article benefits from the support provided by the ANR and the French government under the ‘Investissements d’Avenir’ programme LABEX LIEPP (ANR-11-LABX-0091, ANR-11-IDEX-0005-02) and the IdEx Universite Paris Cité (ANR-18-IDEX-0001). With reference to the projects ‘Family Policy, Female Participation and Inequalities’ and ‘Welfare State Change as a Polanyian Double Movement. How Social Policy Change Affects Women across Different Social Classes’.

## Notes

## References

Boyer, D. (2005). ‘Modes d’accueil de la petite enfance et précarité’, *Empan*, **60**, 4, 91–100.

Breunig, R., Weiss, A., Yamauchi, C., Gong, X. and Mercante, J. (2011). ‘Childcare availability, quality and affordability’, *Economic Record*, **87**, 276, 109–124.

Brilli, Y., D. Del Boca, and C. D. Pronzato (2016). ‘Does childcare availability play a role in maternal employment and children’s development?’ *Review of Economics of the Household*, **14**, 1, 27–51.

Caillet, F. (2013). *La fabrique des besoins sociaux*. Doctoral thesis in sociology. University of Pau.

<footnote n="1">1 As evidenced by the objectives the *Caisse Nationale des Allocations Familiales* (CNAF) stipulated in the *Conventions d'objectifs et de gestion* (COG).</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 Children aged between 0 and 3.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 See the following literature: Breunig et al. (2011), Collombet (2018), Carbuccia et al. (2020), Davis and Connelly (2005), Ferragina and Magalini (2023), Langford et al. (2019), Mclean et al. (2017), Meyers and Gornick (2003), Neimanns and Busemeyer (2020), Pavolini and Van Lancker (2018), Van Ham and Mulder (2005).</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 See: Herd et al. (2023), Herd and Moynihan (2018).</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 Located in the northeastern suburb of Paris.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 See: Demoulin and Lafaye (2022), Oberti (2007).</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 Except for Pantin’s families where childcare enrolment does not happen through the *Portail Familles* but in an enrolment point.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 For more detail about the PSU see: https://www.caf.fr/sites/default/files/medias/493/Partenaires/Petite%20enfance/Les%20EAJE/Guide_PSU_MAJ_2023.pdf</footnote>
Carbuccia, L., Barone, C., Borst, G., Greulich, A., Panico, L. and Tò, M. (2020). Revue de littérature sur les politiques d'accompagnement au développement des capacités des jeunes enfants. Collection des documents de travail de la CNAF, 215.

Carbuccia, L., Heim, A., Barone, C., and Chevallier, C. (2024). Investigating how administrative burden and search costs affect social inequalities in early childcare access, a randomised controlled trial (No. w2ey7_v1). Center for Open Science.

Collombet, C. (2018). 'Les inégalités sociales d'accès aux modes d'accueil des jeunes enfants', *Revue des politiques sociales et Familiales*, **127**, 71-82.

Compton, J. and Pollak, R. A. (2014). 'Family proximity, childcare, and women's labor force attachment', *Journal of Urban Economics*, **79**, 72-90.

Daly, M., and Ferragina, E. (2018). 'Family policy in high-income countries, *Journal of European Social Policy*, **28**, 3, 255-270.

Davis, E.E. and Connelly, R. (2005). 'The influence of local price and availability on parents' choice of child care', *Population Research and Policy Review*, **24**, 4, 301-334.

Demoulin, J. and Lafaye, C. (2022). 'Des jeunes de milieu populaires face à la gentrification à Pantin', *Métropoles*, **31**. DOI: 10.4000/metropoles.9119; https://journals.openedition.org/metropoles/9119

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). *The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism*, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Ferragina, E. (2019a). 'The political economy of family policy expansion, *Review of International Political Economy*, **26**, 6, 1238-1265.

Ferragina, E. (2019b). 'Does family policy influence women's employment? Reviewing the evidence in the field, *Political Studies Review*, **17**, 1, 65-80.

Ferragina, E. (2020). 'Family policy and women's employment outcomes in 45 high-income countries: a systematic qualitative review of 238 comparative and national studies, *Social Policy & Administration*, **54**, 7, 1016-1066.

Ferragina, E. (2022). 'Welfare state change as a double movement: four decades of retrenchment and expansion in compensatory and employment-oriented policies across 21 high-income countries, *Social Policy & Administration*, **56**, 5, 705-725.

Ferragina, E. (2025). 'The 'two lives' of Esping-Andersen and the revival of a research programme: gender equality, employment and redistribution in contemporary social policy, *Social Policy & Administration*, **59**, 1, 1-19.

Ferragina, E., and Magalini, E. (2023). Maternal employment and childcare use from an intersectional perspective: stratification along class, contractual and gender lines in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the UK, *Social Politics*, **30**, 3, 871-902.

Ferragina, E., and Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2011). 'Welfare regime debate: past, present, futures?, *Policy & Politics*, **39**, 4, 583-611.

Ferragina, E., and Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2015). 'Determinants of a silent (r)evolution: understanding the expansion of family policy in rich OECD countries, *Social Politics*, **22**, 1, 1-37.

Fjällström, S. Paananen, M. and Karila, K. (2024). 'Neighbourhood-based Factors predicting attendance of early childhood education and care in a universal system, *Scandinavian Journal of Education Research*, **68**, 7, 1473-1487.

Gauthier, A. H. (1998). *The State and the Family*, Oxford, OUP.

Gerring, J. (2007). 'Is there a (viable) crucial-case method?' *Comparative political studies*, **40**, 3, 231-253.

Herd, P., Hoynes, H., Michener, J., and Moynihan, D. (2023). 'Administrative burden as a mechanism of inequality in policy implementation', *The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences*, **9**, 4, 1-30.

Herd, P. and Moynihan, D. P. (2018). *Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means*. New York, Russell Sage Foundation.

Herman, E. (2017). 'Politiques locales de la petite enfance: les enjeux de qualification de la demande de place en établissement d'accueil du jeune enfant', *Revue française des affaires sociales*, **2**, 41-61.

Hurtig, M. (2019). 'La PSU 2014, des effets paradoxaux et un risque de perte de sens?' In: Moisset, P. (ed.), *Accueillir la petite enfance: le vécu des professionnels*, Toulouse: Érès 75-100.

INSEE. (2021). *L'essentiel sur . . . la pauvreté*. Statistiques et études [accessed 11.05.2023]. URL: https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/5759045

INSEE. (2022). *Dossier Complet. Département de la Seine-Saint-Denis* (93) [accessed 11.05.2023]. URL: https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2011101?geo=DEP-93

Jain, J., Line, T. and Lyons, G. (2011). 'A troublesome transport challenge? Working round the school run', *Journal of Transport Geography*, **19**, 6, 1608-1615.

Lamotte, C. (2006). "La PSU : application difficile de la réforme", *Métiers de la petite enfance*, 19-21.

Langford, M., Higgs, G. and Dallimore, D.J. (2019). Investigating spatial variations in access to childcare provision using network-based geographic information system models, *Social Policy & Administration*, **53**, 5, 661-677.

Le Bihan, B. and Martin, C. (2004). A typical working hours: consequences for childcare arrangements, *Social Policy & Administration*, **38**, 6, 565-590.

Lipsky, M. (2010). *Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual In Public Service*. New York, Russell Sage Foundation.

Martin, C. (2010). 'The reframing of family policies in France', *Journal of European Social Policy*, **20**, 5, 410-421.

McLean, C., Naumann, I., and Koslowski, A. (2017). 'Access to childcare in Europe: Parents' logistical challenges in cross-national perspective', *Social Policy & Administration*, **51**, 7, 1367-1385.
Meyers, M. K., and Gornick, J. C. (2003). 'Public or private responsibility? Early childhood education and care, inequality, and the welfare state, *Journal of Comparative Family Studies*, **34**, 3, 379–411.

Morgan, K.J. (2002) ‘Forging the frontiers between state, church, and family: religious cleavages and the origins of early childhood, education and care policies in France, Sweden, and Germany, *Politics & Society*, **30**, 1, 113–148.

Neimanns, E. and Busemeyer, M. R. (2020) ‘Class politics in the sandbox? An analysis of the socio-economic determinants of preferences towards public spending and parental fees for childcare, *Social Policy & Administration*, **55**, 1, 226–241.

Nollenberg, N. and Rodriguez-Planas, N. (2015) ‘Full-time universal childcare in a context of low maternal employment: Quasi-experimental evidence from Spain, *Labour Economics*, **36**, 124–136.

Oberti, M. (2007) *L'école dans la ville: ségrégation-mixité-carte scolaire*, Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

OECD. (2019) Public spending on early childhood education and care (chart PF3.1.A. OECD Family Database).

ONED. (2015) Dixième rapport au Gouvernement et au Parlement[accessed 11.05.2023]. URL: https://www.onpe.gouv.fr/system/files/publication/rapport_annuel_oned_20150526_web.pdf

Parolin, Z., Cross, C.J. and O'Brien, R. (2023) ‘Administrative burdens and economic insecurity among Black, Latino, and White Families’ *The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences*, **9**, 5, 56–75.

Pavolini, E. and Van Lancker, W. (2018) ‘The Matthew effect in childcare use’, *Journal of European Public Policy*, **25**, 6, 878–893.

Pora, P. (2020). 'Keep working and spend less? Collective childcare and parental earnings in France', *Economix Working Papers*, University of Paris Nanterre.

Revillard, A. (2017) ‘La réception des politiques du handicap’ *Revue française de sociologie*, **58**, 1, 71–95.

Schwanen, T. (2007) ‘Gender differences in chauffering children among dual-earner families, *Professional Geographer*, **59**, 4, 447–462.

Skinner, C. (2005) ‘Coordination points: a hidden factor in reconciling work and family life, *Journal of Social Policy*, **34**, 1, 99–119.

Spire, A. (2008) *Accueillir ou reconduire. Enquête sur les guichets de l'immigration*, Paris: Raisons d'agir.

Van Ham, M. and Mulder, C. H. (2005) ‘Geographical access to childcare and mothers’ labor force Participation” *Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie*, **96**, 1, 63–74.

Van Lancker, W. (2018) ‘Reducing inequality in childcare service use across European Countries: what (if any) is the role of social spending?, *Social Policy & Administration*, **52**, 1, 271–292.

Vandenbroeck, M., Geens, N. and Berten, H. (2013) ‘The impact of policy measures and coaching on the availability and accessibility of early childcare: a longitudinal study’, *International Journal of Social Welfare*, **23**, 1, 69–79.

Vanovermeir, S. (2012) ‘L’accueil des jeunes enfants: axe majeur de la politique familiale depuis les années 1970’, *Dossiers Solidarité et Santé DREES*, **31**, 1–24.

Vincent, C., Braun, A. and Ball, S.J. (2008) ‘Childcare, choice and social class: caring for young children in the UK, *Critical Social Policy*, **28**, 1, 5–26.

Warin, P. (2016) *Le Non-Recours Aux Politiques Sociales*, Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.

West, A., Blome, A. and Lewis, J. (2020) ‘What characteristics of funding, provision and regulation are associated with effective social investment in ECEC in England, France and Germany?, *Journal of Social Policy*, **49**, 4, 681–704.

Yin, R. K. (2017). *Case Study Research And Applications: Design And Methods*, London: Sage.

Zagel, H. and Van Lancker, W. (2022) ‘Family policies’ long-term effects on poverty’, *Journal of European Social Policy*, **32**, 2, 166–181.

<footnote>Cite this article: Ferragina E (2025). Accessing early childcare: A study of administrative barriers in France. *Social Policy and Society*. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746425100857</footnote>