The Stability of the Family Day Care Arrangement

371 Pages·2016·5.76 MB·English

PPoorrttllaanndd SSttaattee UUnniivveerrssiittyy
PPDDXXSScchhoollaarr
Regional Research Institute Regional Research Institute
1974
TThhee SSttaabbiilliittyy ooff tthhee FFaammiillyy DDaayy CCaarree AArrrraannggeemmeenntt:: AA
LLoonnggiittuuddiinnaall SSttuuddyy
Arthur C. Emlen
Portland State University, [email protected]
Betty A. Donaghue
Quentin D. Clarkson
Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/rri_facpubs
Part of the Social Welfare Commons, and the Social Work Commons
Let us know how access to this document benefits you.
CCiittaattiioonn DDeettaaiillss
Emlen, Arthur C.; Donaghue, Betty A.; and Clarkson, Quentin D., "The Stability of the Family Day Care
Arrangement: A Longitudinal Study" (1974). Regional Research Institute. 41.
https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/rri_facpubs/41
This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Regional
Research Institute by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document
more accessible: [email protected].
THE STlllLITY
OF THE
FIMIL I 011 CllE IBlll&EMEIT:
I LON&ITUDllAL STUDY
Em I en· Do no ghue -CI a rkso n
Field Study of the Neighborhood Family Day Care System

THE STABILITY OF THE FAMILY
DAY CARE ARRANGEMENT:
A LONGITUDINAL STUDY
Corvallis, Oregon: DCE Books, 1972
Reprinted by:
Portland State University
Regional Research Institute
for Human Services
P.O. Box 751
Portland, Oregon 97207
1980

THE STABILITY OF THE FAMILY DAY CARE ARRANGEMENT:
A LONGITUDINAL STUDY
by
Arthur C. Emlen, Project Director
Professor, School of Social Work
Portland State University
Betty A. Donoghue
Research Associate
Quentin D. Clarkson
Consulting Statistician
Associate Professor
Portland State University
A report to the Research and Evaluation Division,
Children's Bureau, Office of Child Development
Department of H.E.W.
1972
FIELD STUDY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FAMILY DAY CARE SYSTEM
A RESEARCH PROJECT OF THE TRI-COUNTY COMMUNITY COUNCIL IN COOPERATION WITH
PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
SUPPORTED BY UNITED STATES CHILDREN'S BUREAU GRANT R·287
A CONTINUING EDUCATION BOOK
CORVALLIS, OREGON
Copyright© 1974
Continuing Education Publications
Ext. Hall Annex, Corvallis, OR 97331
Printed by Oregon State University
Department of Printing
PREFACE
This monograph reports the last of a series of studies conducted from March, 1967, to September, 1972, as
part of the Field Study of the Neighborhood Family Day Care System, a.research project of the Tri-County
Community Council in cooperation with Portland State University and supported by Child Welfare Research
Grant No. R 287 from the United States Children's Bureau and Office of Child Development, Department of
Health, Education and Welfare.
The Field Study included a service component known as the Day Care Neighbor Service which provided the
Field Study's initial entree to the private world of neighborhood day care and was a continuing source of
stimulation for the research program. The Day Care Neighbor Service demonstrated a feasible way of. reaching
and strengthening informal child care. Especially see the Handbook (Collins and Watson, 1969) and
Matchmaking (Emlen and Watson, 1970).
The Field Study also included two investigations of informal day care behavior as it is found unassisted in
the neighborhood. The aim here was to undergird intervention efforts with an understanding of the content,
context, and dynamics of the social and economic exchange between working mothers and caregivers of family
day care. The first of these, reported in Child Care by Kith: A Study of the Family Day Care Relationships of
Working Mothers and Neighborhood Caregivers (Emlen, Donoghue, and LaForge, 1972) developed and
pretested the measures, accounted for sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and explored differences in
the dynamics of arrangements between friends as contrasted to arrangements between strangers. The present
study is a sequel investigation though based on an independent sample and having additional research
objectives made possible by a longitudinal panel study. As the title of the present work implies, Stability
measures stabilities and changes in attitudes of mothers and sitters toward the arrangement and toward one
another and attempts to account for variation in the duration of the arrangements as well as in the reasons
why they terminate.
How well have we succeeded? Does the present study contribute knowledge of family day care that is
theoretically important and useful to know? A critical appraisal probably must await the test of application
and further study by others. But it may be helpful to suggest our own assessment of its contributions and
limitations.
The study has many limitations:
(!)Though a major original contribution to the subject, the study provides a perspective on the problem of
stability that is by no means complete. The unit of analysis is the arrangement and is studied only for one
arrangement per pair of mothers and sitters. Though the predictive effort for this sample of arrangements was
fairly successful, not-insignificant amount of variance of the stability variables was left accounted for. Also,
more attention needs to be given to comparing the kinds of persons who continually make unstable
arrangements in contrast to those who experience no such difficulty. Likewise further study is needed of
continuity in the caregiver role, studying caregivers' careers longitudinally over many arrangements.
(2) The study looks at the child care arrangement largely through the eyes of mothers and sitters. The
benefits to the child are as evaluated by them. Though interviewer typology judgments take quality of care
iii
into account in son1c fushion, the study docs not feature systc111atic, dirccl observation of the child. It is a
social systc1ns study of the arrangen1ent that does not address effects on the child; rather it attc111pts to sec to
what extent the perceived benefits to the child beconte i1nportant to 1nothers and sitters in the context of
other considerations in the formation, maintenance, and termination of the arrangement.
(3) Even given the limitations of focus and scope there are defects. We were insufficiently prepared to
measure extrinsic factors that proved to be of overriding importance in disrupting the arrangement.
(4) The study has methodological limitations: sample loss, the representativeness of a Portland sample of
family day care arrangements, and measurement assumptions for statistical procedures that assume linearity.
Still, we think that appropriately cautious interpretation and some of the methodological strengths of the
study such as multi-method approaches, make for a valid study of process in family day care that has some
generality.
It is our hope that the study reported here will make contributions on a number of theoretical fronts with
practical significance as well. In general the study does point up specific weaknesses in family day care that
need to be addressed; a variety of strengths that can be relied upon; and a number of attitudes, behaviors, and
life circumstances that practitioners, program planners, and policy makers should be cautious about ignoring.
On the theoretical front:
I. Sociology of the Family. The study shows how family day care fits into family life for two different
families, that of the working mother and of the caregiver. It documents how child care functions are shared
with non-relatives substituting for the extended family in a pattern of child care by kith that now outnumbers
the use of kin for supplemental child care in the United States.
2. Family Day Care as Social Exchange. The study contributes a micro-level analysis of the transaction
between working mother and neighborhood caregiver. It examines the benefits to each and how successfully
they combine. It shows the conditions under which they will make arrangements with which they will be
satisfied and remain satisfied.
3. A Typology of Family Day Care Arrangements. In addition to describing types of arrangements, the
study contributes to a theory of stability of family day care.
4. Informal Child Care and Supporting Mechanisms within the Neighborhood: Prosocial Behavior as a
Theoretical Basis for Natural Systems of Service Delivery. In documenting the existence of informal systems of
child care by kith, the study uncovers extensive evidence of prosocial behavior in the exchange of benefits.
Elements of altruism emerge, of sharing and caring, and con1mitn1ent to values that are of critical importance
in explaining why family day care exists as a social phenomenon. Couple this with discoveries of the Day Care
Neighbor Service in which we identified extensive matchmaking behavior by selected women, of information
and referral as well as recruitment, and even protective responses. These systems of prosocial behavior that
initiate and support informal child care are an integral part of the neighborhood ecology of family day care.
Together with informal child care itself these supportive mechanisms form a basis for a natural system of
service delivery as advocated in project publications (Collins, 1973; Emlen, 1973). The advocacy of such an
approach rests in part on the assumption of the existence of prosocial behaviors to be found in natural
settings. The present study locates some of these strengths (as well as weaknesses) in family day care and
points to which ones might be reinforced or otherwise modified by intervention programs.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We especially wish to express appreciation for the support from the Children's Bureau and Office of Child
Development, Department of Health, Education and Welfare and for the encouragement of Charles
Gershenson, Chief of the Division of Research and Evaluation. We are also indebted to Carl V. Sandoz,
Executive Director of the Tri.County Community Council and Gordon Hearn, Dean of the School of Social
Work at Portland State University for their administrative support of the project.
Alice H. Collins, Director of the Day Care Neighbor Service, and Eunice L. Watson, Social Work Consultant
for the Day Care Neighbor Service, provided invaluable stimulation and practical experience in opening up the
private world of neighborhood day care for systematic study.
A number of consultants deserve credit but no blame: Christoph M. Heinicke of the Reiss·Davis Child
Study Center provided us with wise counsel fron1 the earliest stages of the project and contributed to our
understanding of the implications of family day care relationships for the child. Rolfe Laforge, Professor of
Psychology at San Francisco State College, worked intensively on the early stages of the project in developing
measures and investigating a number of the issues, both substantive and methodological. Other friends whose
interest and ideas lia.ve been a help are Clyde R. Pope. Merwyn Greenlick, Henry S. Maas, Olive M. Stone, and
F. Ivan Nye.
How can one adequately thank research assistants and project staff who do everything from typing to
coding: Joe LeBaron, Paul Bamford, Linda Champ, Sue O'Keefe, Nancy Whitelaw Mancini, Gail Laforge, and
Katie Liedtke. Paul Bamford managed procedures from sample flow to data collection. Nancy Mancini
developed the coding layout, did endless meticulous coding, and work on the typology data. Likewise, the
panel interviewers, who sustained a high level of interest and competence throughout the study, were: Edith
Dzubay, Lyndine McAfee, Dolly Clarizio, Jan Wetzel, Joe LeBaron, Carol Boos, Pat Altermatt, and Betty
Glaudin. Special credit goes to Betty Glaudin and Jan Wetzel for. the Donovan case study in Chapter XII.
Martha Ann Adelsheim and Laura Rogers set up procedures for obtaining sample, as did Eunice Watson
with the continued help of all the day care neighbors. Barbara Burgess reviewed literature on social relations of
friends and neighbors. Audrey McCoy helped train the interviewers.
Computer work was done al the University of Washington Computer Center; programmer Charlene Haug
was most helpful and the CDC 6400 was no slouch.
Arnold Labby, and earlier Martha Ann Adelsheim, chaired the Tri-County Community Council Board's
Advisory Committee for the project.
Most important were our respondents, the many working mothers and caregivers who gave of their time,
experience, and understanding of the world of family day care. We hope we have reciprocated by pointing out
ways of strengthening their lives and their efforts to provide care for children.
Arthur C. Emlen
Betty A. Donoghue
Quentin D. Clarkson
v