COMMUNlTY ORGANIZATION AND CHILDCARE: ' - AN EXPERNENT ‘ Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MiCHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY MARY ANNE HERiNG 1 9 73 ...... LIBRARYII Michigan Stan: University V v — annalv;6'av HDAG & SflNS' 800K BINDERY INC. LIBRARY BINDERS ”RINGPORT. “MI *3— A; j a “ILA-W14. “‘39 €é~%& 'Mnnw ABSTRACT COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND CHILD CARE: AN EXPERIMENT BY Mary Anne Hering The purpose of this study was to document ways to get parents with preschool children to come to a com- munity child care group meeting, and to identify certain types of parents who would be more interested than others in these meetings. A nucleus, or core community child care group was in existence, and subjects for the study were identified by means of a child care survey of need. Two forms of communication manipulated in this study included personal and impersonal communications to persuade parents to attend the child care meetings. In addition, it was hypothesized that parents who returned the child care survey of need, and/or parents who indicated an interest in participating in their child's care, would be more likely to attend the child care meeting stipulated in the communications, than would parents who either did not respond to the child care survey, or who did not indi— cate wishing parent involvement in their child's care. Mary Anne Hering The empirical results failed to provide statistical support for any of the three hypothesized relationships. Results suggested that a personal effect was not achieved by the personal letter and phone call, and the outcome criterion, attendance at a community child care group meeting, should perhaps have been the last on a continuum of requests to parents to become involved. Possible reasons why the experimental manipu- lations failed to produce significant effects were dis- cussed. Suggestions for future intervention strategies were also made. Approved : Md 6% f THESIS CHAIRPERSON / Date: M M /§ /773 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND CHILD CARE: AN EXPERIMENT BY Mary Anne Hering A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1973 T0 Dorothy Pitman Hughes and Josina MacheZ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank: Bob Calsyn, Chairperson of my Thesis Committee, for his time, and contributions throughout the preparation of this Thesis; Gail Zellman, for the assistance and encouragement she gave me as a friend, and a member of my Committee; and Lou Tornatzky, for his suggestions and efforts as a Committee member. I am grateful for my "community" of support, from friends in my Women's Group, and from friends and co-workers in Crisis in America. Finally, I wish to extend a very personal thank- you to Lois and Mitch. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community Child Care Groups . . . . . Benefits to Parent . . . . . . . . Benefits to Child . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . Review of the Literature . . . . . . Personal Vs. Impersonal Communication Attempt . . . . . . Media Effects . . . . . . . . . . . Similar Interest and Need . . . . . Effects of Prior Commitment . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 0 METHOD 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need or Interest Variable . . . . . . Persuasion Method . . . . . . . Development of Persuasion Methods . Personal Communication Condition . Impersonal Communication Condition Foot-in-the-Door Comparison . . . . . III 0 RESULTS 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0 IV. DISCUSSION 0 O I I O O O O O O O O O 0 Personal Communication Attempt . . . Similar Interest and Need Effect . . Effects of Prior Commitment . . . . . iv Page vi commie i-‘ 10 ll 13 15 l6 l7 17 20 20 20 21 23 23 24 26 27 29 32 33 36 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A. POSTCARD TO LOCATE PARENTS WITH PRESCHOOL CHILDREN . . . . . B. CHILD CARE SURVEY OF NEED . . . C. PERSONAL LETTERS . . . . . . . D. PHONE CALL FORMAT AND CHECK LIST E. MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST . . . . F. COMMUNITY IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE Future Research . . . . . . Personal Communication . High Interest Population Effects of Prior Commitment In Conclusion . . . . . . . Page 38 38 38 40 41 43 45 50 51 58 60 64 65 Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Frequency Distribution of Original Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Frequency Count of the Outcome . . . . . . . 29 Attended-Did Not Attend Meeting . . . . . . . 31 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Community Child Care Groups During World War II, through the 0.3. Office of Civil Defense, thousands of block committees and neigh- borhood associations were organized to support the war effort. These groups required citizen participation in the preparation of various programs, and one of the major programs was providing day care1 for the children of working mothers (Office of War Information, 1943). With the end of the war, however, the community groups, along with the day care programs, were dismantled. Seeking a community's involvement to solve its problems and plan for change is a necessity that has become both compelling and impossibly complex in our time 1Day care refers to any public or privately sponsored pro- gram, which provides for the care of pre-school or schoolage children (when not in school) by someone other than adult members of the child's own family, in whatever setting it takes place, whether in an institution, Family Day Care arrangement, foster care, Day Care center, etc. The Day Care programs are expected to be sufficiently flexible and comprehensive to meet each participating child's unique physical, intellectual, emotional, and social needs, be appropriate to his developmental stage, and involve and support the child's parents or caretaker (Lazar and Rosenberg, 1971). (Kramer and Specht, 1969). Seeking community involvement is complex because there appear to be few strict formulas that go beyond theories when it comes down to actually organizing a community, i.e., persuading people to become involved. A strong trend towards community involvement is apparent in the community in which this present study was undertaken, and in this study we are concerned with community involvement in child care. Community involvement is compelling because each community is distinct from the next, and the members ofla particular community know their needs and priorities, and can best deal with them. Like the community child care groups of the 1940's, the present ones are composed of parents and interested community persons who work toward establishing day care. In the 1940's, government decree and the Lanham Act of 1941 (Womanpower, 1941), which pro- vided federal funding for day care, were some of the stimuli important in getting people together and forming community child care groups to provide care for the children of working mothers. Today's child care groups are expanding for a number of reasons. For one, the labor force participation of women has been on the increase since World War II (Handbook of Women Workers, 1969) and these women have five million children who are of preschool age (Lazar and Rosenberg, 1971). Secondly, 16% of these working mothers represent single parent families (Jencks and Heyns, 1972). Thirdly, people are applying direct political pressure for adequate quality day care, seeking it as a human right for parents and children, rather than a privilege (Ellis and Patchesky, 1972). Finally, parents and child care professionals are acknowledging the importance of quality group care for a child's and parents' develop- ment (Caldwell, 1972; Edmiston, 1971). Community and parent involvement is important when it comes to child care, because all too often: 1) a sort of "educational imperialism" has been imposed on families with children in this society; and 2) a class system has been set up where inequality in the schools now also refers to preschools. By educational imperialism, the author means that child care programs are set up where parents can too easily become an audience to their chil- dren's education, and not act as facilitators and partners. Parents have not been consulted about the content of the child's early education, nor have they been involved in decision-making roles. Most child care programs perpetu- ate this role for parents, so parents must be vitally involved in the inception of their child's program in order to determine their own roles. By class system I mean that certain families, namely black, other minority, and poor families in this society have had choices of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the Work Incentive Program (WIN) and the Family Assistance Plan (FAP) when it comes to selecting their child care arrangements, whereas other families, namely the middle class, choose to purchase child care services in the private market and deduct it from their income tax. Numerous community groups have spring up around the issue of their children's care and have demonstrated success in organizing parent groups, day care centers, play groups without federal guidelines or financial support. Parents demanding and organizing child care themselves is certainly one way to work towards breaking down the class system. It is this kind of group that is of interest to this study. For the purpose of this study, this grass- roots type of organization will be referred to as a com- munity child care group. A member of a community child care group in New York City stated: "Like the Seventh Avenue designers who copy what street people are wearing, the government must look at these underground centers (day care centers) to see what's happening, because nobody is sitting around waiting for them (government) anymore." (Meade, 1971). Present community child care groups, then, are working toward day care themselves because no one is doing it for them; or, what is being provided is neither satisfactory for the parents or the children (Breitbart, 1971; Hoffman, 1971; Gross and MacEwan, 1971). Benefits to Parent These groups, then, are composed of parents who are exerting control over their own lives and the insti- tutions that are important to them. In particular, they wish to maintain control over their child care arrange- ments. They do not support the "Kentucky Fried Children" businesses (Featherstone, 1970), the child care franchises that are more interested in financial profit than in pro- viding quality child care; nor do they support programs that are not addressed to their particular community's needs (Hess, 1971; Harris, 1972). Hess (1971) delineates five different roles parents can play in the day care arrangement of their children: 1) as supporters and service givers where parents typically engage in fund-raising activities, and contribute clerical services; 2) as learners, where parents attend classes or meetings on child-rearing; 3) as teachers of their own children, where the teacher comes to the home with materials and toys and acts as a role model for the parent; 4) as teacher aides and volunteers in the classroom; 5) as policy makers and partners, where parents take part in planning and operation, and overall evaluation and direction of the child care program. Parents as policy makers and partners will be the parent control model characteristic of the community child care groups with which this study is concerned: The rationale for parent participation in decision making is based on the belief that people will not be committed to decisions in which they had no involvement. Furthermore, it is believed that the processes of considering information, decision making, and implementation are, in themselves, edu- cational and aid in developing leadership skills. It is also argued that parents know their own situation best, and hence must be involved in planning for their children's education. [Hess, 1971] Benefits to Child Besides parents being able to maintain control over their own lives and the lives of their children, and besides working toward child care facilities that meet the needs of the adults involved, parent influence and participation in their children's care can affect children in a number of beneficial ways. Freeberg and Payne (1967) reviewed studies that attempted to relate parental influ- ences directly to some aspect of the child's cognitive performance. One such study uncovered pertinent aspects of parental influence through the child's responses to questions about the home environment, an approach used by Milner (1951). Children in the study were classed as "high" and "low" scorers on the Haggerty Reading Examination and the Language Factors subtest of the California Test of Mental Maturity. The findings support the general pattern of subsequent studies with the "high" scorers more likely to respond to such parent behavior-related items as: expressed appreciation for the time a parent spent taking them places and reading to them, possession of several or a great many storybooks, and the fact that the parents regularly read to them. Gray and Klaus' Early Training Project (1970) and Weikart's Perry Preschool Project (1971) are two carefully designed nursery school programs, with the addition of structured language and cognitive development components as important elements in the programs. Since the study was concerned with the parents' attitude toward achievement, particularly in their aspirations for their children as they related to schooling, the Gray and Klaus Program incorporated weekly home visits. The Weikart program included home teaching once a week. Findings of both programs showed children in the experimental groups had significantly higher IQ scores and higher initial achievement results than the controls. In a comprehensive study of compensatory education programs, Hawkridge et a1. (1968) identified character- istics of the programs most likely to be associated with success and failure in producing measured benefits of cognitive achievement in children. After exhaustive literature searches, and site visits, eighteen well-designed, successful programs were compared with twenty-five matching, unsuccessful programs. Success was defined by significantly higher scores than matched controls on standardized tests, or where a control group was lacking, higher scores than national norms. The findings included recommendations for establishing sound preschool and elementary programs. One recommendation was that active parental involvement was important in influencing the child's cognitive devel- opment. Finally, Hess (1969) lists extensive studies of parental influences on cognitive deve10pment and school achievement of children, ranging from the positive rela- tionship between high need achievement and academic per- formance of their children, and the tendency of parents to value intellectual achievement, to a parent's acceptance of himself (herself), and his (her) high regard for the child's competence, being positively related to the child's performance. In summary, evidence strongly suggests that direct and indirect parental involvement in the teaching of their preschool children is beneficial for the children. Purpose of the Study Community organizers, community organization theo- rists, parents, child care workers, child development experts, and persons interested in the growth of alterna- tive quality child care arrangements should be interested in how community child care groups get started. With the realization of the need for additional quality child care, and the importance of the parents' role in their child's care, one should be focusing in on how parents organize, and explore various strategies for getting parents involved in their child's day care program. Difficulty is encountered in studying these groups (1940's and the present ones) concerned with alternative child care arrangements and how they attain these arrange- ments, because they have already reached the "group" stage. Fairweather (1972) states there are three major questions a researcher needs to answer if she or he wishes to implement the beneficial model: 1) how to approach the target population; 2) how to persuade persons to adOpt new modes of behavior; and 3) how to place the model into action. This author has approached the target population by means of a survey (see Appendix B). As far as per- suading our target population, in this case, how does one get parents to attend child care meetings, and to remain involved with the child care group? The problem of stimu- lating a group of parents toward a greater participation in their child care arrangements, or attending a meeting about some issue of concern to them and the care of their children outside their home has not received sufficient attention from students of child care and community 10 organization. Community child care group organizers might benefit from the past findings of the persuasion and behavior change literature. Review of the Literature Personal Vs. Impersonal Communication Attempt Community-Coordinated-Chi1d-Care, or 4-C, is an organization established under the Office of Child Develop- ment, and is constituted to coordinate child care resources in local communities (Children's Bureau, 1971). In a memo to local 4-C chapters in this state, the state coordinator offered some suggestions for organizing parent groups: There are a lot of ways to get to people. Use public media. Use gathering places to give out simple, clear information-- speakers or written material, particularly handouts and simple drawings, or clear, easily-read information. Go to churches, shops, any place where parents are likely to be and get the message to them. One community even used the local garbage collectors to deliver fliers. Lippitt (1958) speaks of the difficulty encountered in locating suitable analytical case materials pertaining to community intervention, indicating there is a conspicuous split among change agents working at the community level, between those who act and those who conceptualize. The 4-C coordinator's directives were conceptual, i.e., little was known concerning the comparative effectiveness of fliers vs. Speakers, etc. Therefore, though the tactic of using the local community workers, like the garbage 11 collectors, may have merit, the types of communications that prove to be effective organizing tools must be determined. Media Effects Eldersveld and Dodge (1954) used two different methods of urging citizens to vote favorably on a propo- sition regarding a general revision of a municipal charter. They divided 63 citizens who were either opposed to or undecided about a city charter revision into three groups. Each subject of the first group was personally visited, in an attempt to persuade him or her to vote for the revision; each subject in the second group received four propaganda mailings in favor of the revision; the third group was exposed to mass media (newspaper, radio) on the subject. Seventy-five percent of those who had been personally contacted voted for the revision; forty—five percent of the propaganda mailing subjects voted for the revision; and only nineteen percent of the control group (mass media) did so. Gosnell (1927) attempted to stimulate citizens to register and vote via varying types of get-out-the-vote propaganda, all of which was sent through the mail. Spe- cifically, the experiment was directed toward increasing the number of voters registered and toward securing a 12 high turnout at the polls. He found that citizens are more likely to register and vote if they have received a personal notification regarding the time and place of registration, and the candidate and issues to be voted upon. Moving out of the political arena to the world of business (Scott Paper Company), Roens (1961) attempted to determine the effectiveness of direct mail advertising. The direct mail phase was divided into the high level and low frequency direct mail phases (high frequency direct mail was in two phases: one mailing every two weeks for three months followed by one mailing each week for six consecutive weeks; low frequency coverage was one mailing monthly for six consecutive months). Roens found the high level direct mail to have generated a better rate of response than low frequency direct mail, and he also recorded the results of personal phone calls made as a follow-up to the returns from magazine advertising and direct mail. Survey data show sales had been at 25% of those businesses receiving a follow-up phone call, with another 50% indicating future purchasing. Williams (1971) noted in her study of "High Yield Persuasive Messages" that in the planning and production of message materials, the experimenter must make many decisions 13 which collectively determine the effectiveness of her or his efforts in constructing the message design. The choice of the persuasive communication to persuade lies with the experimenter, according to Rogers (1971), and who the audience is, i.e., who receives the communication, should be kept in mind. The effective results in using a personal communication are documented in Fairweather (1972), Eldersveld and Dodge (1954), Katz (1957), Bem (1970), Roens (1961), and Gosnell (1927). Havelock (1971) further supports the use of a personal letter when he refers to written communications as "one- way media transmissions," where the user, or the receiver, has little or no opportunity to change the nature of the message. He or she can accept the message or ignore it, but the receiver cannot alter the essentially one-way character of the medium. Similar Interest and Need Cassell (1971) has indicated some correlates pertinent to the persuasion function. He maintains that the state of social isolation, or, the isolation of an individual from group identification, makes that indi- vidual vulnerable to attitude change and persuasibility. But isolation is not the sole factor related to the success of persuasion. Persons need to have salient 14 areas in their lives tapped, and are more likely to join with others if they have similar interests (Brown, 1965). Concomitantly, persuading individuals to change tends to be much more effective where there is greater similarity between the communicator and the individuals (Cassell, 1971; Rokeach, 1971). Rogers (1971) further emphasizes the importance of similarity in his discussion concerning the diffusion of innovations. He indicates that the inno- vation is compatible with members of the social system in question, as long as it is perceived as being consistent with existing values, needs, and past experiences. As far as the content of the message is concerned, Lippitt (1958) maintains that comparing ourselves with others is an impetus toward innovation. Also, value homophily, or shared values (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955; Rokeach, 1971) are crucial to the subjects seeing them- selves to be similar to another group. Presentation of information relevant to the satis- faction of needs after these needs have been aroused brings about greater acceptance than an order which presents the information first and the need-arousal second (Cohen in Hovland, 1957). Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955) emphasize that this information should be very Specific. Through the need-arousal section, the area where change is needed can be identified. Lippitt (1958) states that once this occurs, 15 the receivers of the communication can be told what they can do to improve the situation. Effects of Prior Commitment Freedman and Fraser (1966) devised two experiments to test the principle popularly known as the "foot-in-the- door" technique, i.e., once a person has been induced to comply with a small request, he or she is more likely to comply with a larger demand. In the first experiment, the basic paradigm involved a performance condition, where subjects were asked to comply with a small request, and then perform a larger, related task three days later. The subjects in the one-contact condition were only asked to fulfill the large request. Over 50% of the subjects in the performance condition agreed to the larger request as opposed to the 25% outcome with the one-contact condition subjects. Once the subject has taken some action in con- nection with an area of concern, there is probably a tendency to become somewhat more concerned with the area. The question of why and how the initial request produced a significant compliance effect was explored in their second experiment. Freedman and Fraser reached essentially the same conclusions as the first experiment, ruling out the possibility that either task similarity, and/or experimenter familiarity, affected the compliance rate. 16 In a recent experiment using political campaign posters by Seligman et a1. (1972), the foot-in-the-door effect was not replicated, since no significant difference in response was found between the group that complied with a small request and the group that listened to a pitch, but was not asked to comply to a small request. They concluded that an interaction of pitch and request may not have been necessary to elicit the foot-in-the-door behavior, that perhaps pitch and request represented two steps in a continuum from small to large request. In other words, the pitch in the experiment may have been regarded as a small request of the kind "please listen to me and do not interrupt me," rather than as a piece of persuasion. Conclusion The studies reported here support the following: A personal communication is more effective than other communication methods in moving a population to act on a particular issue; persons indicating they wish to be involved will more readily become involved than will sub- jects who do not indicate an interest in involvement; finally, persons who have previously complied with a small request are more likely to fulfill a larger request than are persons who did not originally comply with a smaller request. l7 Hypotheses The concerns of this present study are with parents in a midwestern, urban-university community being organized into a community child care group. This research was possible because there was both an organized community child care group in the community, and additional parents with preschool children who were not presently members of this community child care group. Sample New World Community Child Care Group is composed of approximately ten persons: parents with preschool children and child care workers interested in parent par- ticipation and parent control of their child care arrange- ments. They are looking to expand their group and open up a parent controlled day care center. The second population of interest--the subjects for the experiment--are parents with preschool children who have been located by means of a child care survey of need (see Appendix B). This parent population is located in the same community as New World Community Child Care Group. Specifically, this study seeks to find out what method of communication gets parents to a child care meeting. To do this we looked at and measured the effects of using different methods of communication to urge parents 18 located by the survey to attend New World meetings and join the existing community child care group. It was also concerned with the kind of parents who might be more likely to become involved in this child care com- munity group. From the preceding general review of research concerning communication and persuasion, and foot-in-the- door tactics, several hypotheses were investigated in the present experiment. They were: 1) Personal Communication Effect: Parents who receive a personal communication are more likely to attend the community child care group meeting than those parents who receive an impersonal communication (flyer). The present study resembles that of Eldersveld and Dodge (1954) in that it examines the efficacy of interpersonal vs. impersonal communication (personal letter + flyer + phone call vs. a flyer). It resembles the Gosnell study (1927) in that the varying types of communication are sent out through the mail, i.e., no personal inter- view. Finally, follow-up personal phone calls, as utilized in Roens' research (1961), were an adjunct to the personal letter received by the experimental group. It is expected that the personal approach will be superior to the impersonal approach in persuading parents to attend a community child care group meeting. 19 2) Need or Interest Effect: Parents who, according to their responses on the child care survey of need, have indicated their desire to be involved with their child's care are more likely to attend the meeting than are parents who did not indicate a wish to become involved. 3) Foot-in-the-Door Effect: Parents who answered the child care survey of need are more likely to attend the meeting than are parents who did not return the survey. While it did not provide a true experimental replication of the foot-in-the-door effect, the present experiment does have a quasi-experimental test of the foot-in-the-door hypothesis. In the present experiment, a one-contact condition did not exist, since persons who did not answer the child care survey were initially located by their postcard return, indicating they had preschool children. Hence, they had already complied with a small request--the postcard. However, not everyone responded to the second request (the child care survey), so if the survey is considered the foot-in-the-door, the experiment does have two groups: one that complied; and one that did not. However, unlike the Freedman study, there is no group which was never approached for the survey. CHAPTER II METHOD Design The design was a 2 X 2 factorial manipulating two levels of interest for joining New World Community Child Care Group and two levels of persuasion method. Two additional groups were added to test the foot-in- the-door hypothesis. The basic dependent measure was the subjects' attendance at the New World Day Care meeting stipulated in the communications. Persons in attendance at the meeting were asked to indicate their name and address on a list that was passed out (see Appendix E). In this way, subjects from the experiment, and their conditions, were identified. Subjects Included in the experiment were 120 persons, mothers of preschool children within a midwestern, university-urban community of 40,000, and not members of New World Community Child Care Group. Subjects were located by a child care survey of need undertaken in 20 21 that community prior to the present study. Persons with preschool children were identified by means of an initial postcard (see Appendix A). Further information was obtained if the subjects responded to the subsequent survey (see Appendix B). Need or Interest Variable Parents who answered the survey were divided into two categories, designated by the labels "high interest" and "low interest." Interest was assessed by responses to the parent control, parent participation dimension measured by question 17 of the survey. Below, a portion of Sections III and IV of the survey are presented, in order to clarify the definition of "interest." III. BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF POSSIBLE KINDS OF CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS: 1. Babysitting . . . . 2. Babysitting Cooperative (Play Group): A coopera- tive effort among a group of parents to share the care of their children during the day. Each family cares for the children in their home on a regular basis. Usually the parents are not specifically trained in child care. Minimum expense is for food. 3. Licensed Home Daycare . . . . 4a. Daycare for Infants . . . . 4b. Daycare for Infants and Toddlers . . . . 4c. Daycare for Preschoolers . . . . 22 5. Daycare Cooperative: Usually implies an effort made to have an educational play program 4 to 10 hours daily for preschool children. Because parents use their time and talent to provide the program, cost is lower . . . . 6. Nursery School Program . . . . 7. Cooperative Nursery School: Half-day educational program licensed as a group daycare facility. Pro- gram director required to have at least two years of college. The cost is generally reduced by parents assisting teacher within the classroom, donating snacks, doing housekeeping, and making equipment. 8. After-School Program . . . . 9. Drop-In Center . . . . 10. Parent-Child Center: A state licensed full-time child care facility. Program consists of educa- tional and social activities for parents alone, for children alone, and parents and children combined . . . . 11. Satellite Daycare Homes around Daycare Center. . . . Question 16. Would you consider one of the above child care arrangements if it were available in this community? (This question called for either a ”yes" or "no" response with some explanation.) Question 17. If yes, indicate which child care arrange- ments you would prefer in order of preference from 1-11, 1 being the most preferred arrangement. 1. Babysitting ; 2. Babysitting Cooperative 3. Licensed Home Daycare 4. Daycare for Infants, or for Infants and Toddlers, or for Preschoolers * 5. Daycare Cooperative 6. Nursery School Program * 7. Cooperative Nursery School 8. After-School Program 9. Drop-In Center * 10. Parent-Child Center 11. Satellite Daycare Homes around Daycare Center 23 Interest was defined on the basis of subjects' responses to: 2) Babysitting Cooperative; 5) Daycare Cooperative; 7) Cooperative Nursery School; and 10) Parent-Child Center. These categories were identified as the parent particip- tion dimension of the survey. Subjects who assigned a l, 2, or 3 rating to these categories were classified "high interest." Subjects who assigned a 4 or above to these categories were classified "low interest." Forty subjects fell under the "high interest" heading, and forty subjects fell under the "low interest" heading. Persuasion Method Subjects in both "interest" groups were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: 1) one-half (1/2) to the personal communication which consisted of a personal letter with an enclosed flyer, followed by a phone call which stressed the information included in the letter; 2) one-half (1/2) to the impersonal communication, which consisted of only a flyer. The flyer condition served as the comparison. There were 40 subjects in each of these two conditions, 20 from the "high interest" group and 20 from the "low interest" group. Development of Persuasion Methods This study was designed to permit the measurement of the differing impact of two kinds of communication, a 24 personal communication (personal letter, phone call) and an impersonal one (flyer). A personal letter and a phone call, rather than a personal interview, were used because the author was unable to obtain the necessary administrative agreements to make personal interviews. Personal Communication Condition The question of how to achieve a personal effect in the letter was posed. Consistent use of "you" and "your" prefixes to the subject's "family" and "child care needs" was employed: "You and your family, along with a number of other families, have expressed your child care needs." Subjects were told they would receive a phone call if they had any questions: "One of us will be calling you to see if you might have any questions." Finally, a sentence of welcome was included: "We hope to see you at the New World meeting. . . ." Subjects were told that other families like them- selves had also indicated their needs in the survey: "The responses to that survey by you and others. . . ." This sentence was included to inform subjects that there existed other families with similar needs in the community. In the letter, by talking about the child care survey of need and by stating that the individuals who constitute New World had failed individually to locate a 25 satisfactory child care center that fills the needs of the child and the parents, a need-arousal dimension was indi- cated prior to giving information: "All of us . . . have failed to find a center that addresses itself both to adult and child needs." The information section comes next, where the name of the group, New World, and the date, time, and location of the meeting are indicated (see Appendix C). Finally, the subjects are invited to New World Community Child Care Group meeting, and it is indicated that child care will be provided at the meeting. This permitted the receiver to see the legitimacy of the New World group, i.e., how they are with children (see full copy of letter in Appendix C). The content of the letter to be sent to the group who did not return a child care survey, but returned a postcard indicating they had preschoolers (see Appendix A), is essentially the same, except for the beginning. They are not thanked for returning the survey, but are reminded that such a survey exists, and that other families indi— cated they wished to be involved in their child's care: "As you know, a child care survey of need was sent out by Community Coordinated Childcare. . . ." (see Appendix C). A follow-up phone call accompanied each letter then, for the purpose of strengthening the personal 26 manipulation. Although a phone call message cannot be controlled, it is an additional manipulation distinct from the impersonal (flyer) condition. The content of the phone call message (as made by the author) paralleled the information contained in the personal letter (see phone call check list, Appendix D). The phone call con- versation began with a canned opening statement where the caller told the subject her name and organization affiliation, and then thanked the subject for filling out the child care survey. The subjects who did not return the survey were not thanked. The author then gave a brief description of the New World Community Child Care Group, and then asked if the subject had any questions (see Appendix D). Thereafter, a decision-tree was devised, i.e., the caller anticipated certain questions that sub- jects might ask, and responded with prepared statements (again, refer to phone call format, Appendix D). The phone conversation concluded with the caller reminding the subject about the meeting, indicating the time, date, location, and child care provisions, and thanking the subject for her cooperation. Impersonal Communication Condition The flyer in the comparison condition (impersonal) was the same communication employed by the New World 27 Community Child Care Group in its own publicity campaign, and thus not written by the author. As used in their own publicity campaign, persons with New World put up flyers in laudromats, grocery stores, and other public places in the community. In the experiment, the flyers were distributed to subjects in the mail. The format of the flyer was divided into three sections: 1) an attention-seeking heading with a picture and a caption-- "Looking for quality child care? . . ."; 2) a five-point listing of some of the advantages the new day care center might offer, these touching on parent control, low staff- to-children ratio, good location, and provisions for after school care for elementary age children; 3) specifics, such as time, date, location of the meeting are listed. In addition, if recipients of the flyer were to have questions, they could call certain phone numbers listed. Foot-in-the-Door Comparison In addition, 40 subjects who returned the postcard indicating that they had preschool children, but did not answer the child care survey of need, served as a foot- in-the-door control for part of the experiment. This group was a self-selected one, i.e., they chose not to return the child care survey, but returned the postcard (and therefore cannot be considered comparable to a one-contact 28 condition, as appears in a true foot-in-the—door situation. Randomly selected from a total group of 80 persons, 20 parents were assigned to the personal persuasion con- dition and 20 parents to the flyer condition. Table 1 Frequency Distribution of Original Sample RESPONDED T0 SURVEY Persuasion Method Personal Flyer N0 SURVEY High 20 20 Persuasion Method Interest Personal Flyer Variable Low 20 20 20 20 CHAPTER III RESULTS Table 2 is a frequency count of the number of persons who attended the meeting from the various con- ditions: Table 2 Frequency Count of the Outcome RESPONDED T0 SURVEY Persuasion Method Personal Flyer N0 SURVEY High 2 0 Persuasion Method Interest Personal Flyer Variable ‘ Low 1 0 1* 0 * Two subjects were not reached by a follow-up phone call, and were omitted from the sample. It was originally decided that chi squares would be per- formed to test the effect of the three independent variables: 1) Persuasion Method; 2) Interest; 3) Foot-in- 29 3O the-Door. Table 3 summarizes the frequency counts for these three effects. However, due to the small expected values, the use of x2 tests was ruled out, and exact probabilities were calculated by using the Fisher's exact test (Hayes, 1963) for a 2 X 2 contingency table. None of the hypotheses were supported. Given the marginals and N, the probability that the associations obtained in the following tables were determined by chance were: 1) p (obtained arrangement) for Personal-Impersonal condition = .285; 2) p (obtained arrangement) for High-Low Interest condition a .657; 3) p (obtained arrangement) for Foot-in-the-Door vs. No Foot = .677. 31 Table 3 Attended-Did Not Attend Meeting Persuasion Mtthod Personal Flyer Yes 4 O 4 Attended Meeting p = .285 No 54 60 114 58 60 118 Interest High Low Yes 2 l 3 Attended Meeting p = .657 No 38 39 77 40 40 80 Foot-in- No Door Foot Yes 3 1 4 Attended Meeting p = .677 77 37 114 80 38 118 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION The purpose of this experiment was to persuade parents with preschool children, who were not presently members of the existing community child care group in question, to attend a parent meeting. New World is a group of parents and child care workers, dissatisfied with the type of day care offered in this community. They are interested in parent participation and parent control of their alternative child care arrangements, i.e., they with to take part in the planning, operation, and overall evaluation and direction of their child's care program (recall "parents as policy-makers and partners" model). New World people have been working on what they consider to be a suitable program for a period of two years, and have negotiated for a building. "Communication between staff people and parents is lacking in other day care centers. Lots of times parents feel they have to undo what was done during the day in the day care center." (quote from member of New World) The group wishes to encourage parent participation in policy-making and hiring 32 33 of staff; to disband the traditional hierarchy system (director and staff) by substituting a rotation of six full-time staff members in the position of head teacher; to hold weekly meetings with staff and parents concerning curriculum and problems that might arise. Hoffman (1971) seems to sum up the goals indicative of the New World child care group: . . . parents want decision~making roles in the programs which affect their children; they want to help establish the criteria to be met by the staff; they want to influence or control the hiring and firing of staff. Parents are particularly concerned that males, including teenagers and grandparents, be included on the staff. There is a strong concern to establish continuity between the home and the center through the parents' involve- ment in the child's educational activities in the home and at the center. . . ." The New World group members themselves have a history of involvement in community activities, not stopping with their commitment to a parent controlled day care center. Given this working group of people who wanted to actualize a certain kind of child care arrangement, this study attempted to persuade additional persons (parents with preschool children) to attend a New World parent meeting. Personal Communication Attempt Bem (1970) has employed the phrase "bubba psychology" to suggest that the major influence upon people is people. Katz (1957) supports the efficacy of personal influence 34 over mass media. Our data support these statements, though the findings were not significant. There does seem to be some evidence that personal communication is more influential in persuading persons to come to a parent meeting concerning child care. Of the 4 persons from the sample of 118 who attended the community child care group meeting stipulated in this study, all were from the personal persuasion condition. In addition, a perusal of the attendance list from that meeting identifies personal contact as the main source in persuading people to come. (See Appendix E: Twenty-five persons were actually in attendance, and indicated, e.g., "personal contact--I know Maggie," as the reason for knowing about the meeting.) The design of the communication used in this study does pose a number of problems and questions. Bowers (1970) maintains that designing and analyzing experiments in communication is not a precise endeavor, i.e., all variations in the dependent variables may or may not be ascribed to variations in the independent variables. "Many of the variables that we do not or cannot control may be functionally related to the variables we define as dependent." (Bowers, 1970) The time the actual study took place may have been one such variable we did not control, since the meeting in question in this study was actually 35 called by the New World Community Child Care Group. It occurred during finals week, and since the parent sample was drawn from a university community, the time of the meeting may have been inopportune for some. It was indicated earlier that the author could not obtain administrative agreements to make person-to-person contact with the parents in the sample. This is perhaps a key factor in explaining the failure of what was termed the personal persuasion method, for in fact, the letters probably did not achieve the desired personal effect. Recipients may have considered the letter comparable to "junk mail" and discarded it; they may not have discerned that the letter was addressing itself specifically to their family's needs, and therefore not considered it to be a "personal" letter; or in fact, the contents of the letter may have been irrelevant to their situation. Have- lock (1971) contends that though written messages are widely disseminable among a chosen audience, their success in arousing interest or in precipitating adoption behavior depends on the high relevance of their information for the intended receiver. These crucial content factors influence not only subsequent utilization of the communication by the receiver, but also his or her very decision to make the effort to read it in the first place. 36 Similar Interest and Need Effect Our sample of parents was identified by means of a child care need survey that had been conducted in the community prior to this study. It was previously dis- cussed that the way in which New World Community Child Care Group is not typical of the random parent population is because of their consistent involvement in community activities. This study did not successfully match sub- jects with New World members. The survey itself was not designed to tap a population similar to New World. Its original purpose was to determine community need. The author merely attempted to use some of the questions as indicators of interest in parent participation in child care, and hypothesized that subjects who responded posi- tively to these variables would be more likely to attend a New World meeting than would subjects who did not. Isolating a particular group of parents in this way did not prove to be a very good indicator of who would attend the parent meeting. Effects of Prior Commitment The third hypothesis, the foot-in-the-door hypothesis, was also not supported by the statistical results. Use of the term "foot-in-the-door" is a mis- nomer in the case of this experiment. It must be 37 remembered that the sample for this study was drawn from a population of parents with preschool children identified by a survey undertaken prior to this study. Initially, then, we did not have an untapped population. For example, persons who did not return the child care survey were con- sidered the "no-foot-in-the-door" group when, in fact, they had complied to a smaller, earlier request. This group, considered comparable to a one-contact condition in the present study, had actually been sent a double postcard, asking if they had preschool children, and they had returned one section of the postcard. In addition, further survey contact of this group and the group of parents who returned the child care survey left our sample far from a pure "foot-in-the-door" situation. Clearly the group of people who did not respond to the child care survey were not equivalent to the group who did comply. The postcard, no-survey group were probably less persuasible in general than the group who did respond to the survey. The selection difference between these groups probably created a bias which would enhance the foot-in-the-door effect. The fact that even under these biased conditions the effect did occur questions the generalizability of this phenomenon. 38 Future Research Personal Communication Although there is little empirical evidence concerning effective modes to persuade persons to act on a particular issue, in this case, to attend a parent meeting, it might be inferred from the findings of this study that a personal letter and follow-up phone call were too weak a manipulation to produce overwhelming results. This problem, then, and confirmation by earlier research points to a need for a study where personal, face-to-face contact with the parents is actually achieved. High Interest Pppulation The author looked to studies on parent participation and community involvement in order to suggest future research to identify "high interest" parents. The Penn- sylvania Day Care Study Project (1972) studied the rela- tionship between day care participation and community awareness and involvement in rural and urban Pennsylvania. Instruments were designed to evaluate whether involvement in day care will increase a person's community activity. (See Appendix F--Community Impact Questionnaire.) This study concluded that there is no direct relationship between day care and community participation. The socio- economic status of fathers best predicted their participation 39 in community activities: fathers with the highest annual income in the sample, $10,725, had participated in more community activities, and the participation rates followed the same order as the mean SES and mean annual incomes of the fathers in the sample. Education was the best pre- dictor for mothers and the urban setting was their most advantageous location for a high level of participation. In addition, the mean participation scores for mother in the labor force were slightly higher than the scores of women outside the labor force. This finding corroborates a conclusion of the Ruderman study (1968): ". . . working mothers are appreciably more likely to belong to organi- zations or clubs, and belong to two or more, than non- working mothers. . . ." From the Pennsylvania Day Care Study one might conclude that subjects drawn from a popu- lation of highly educated, urban, working women might be more likely to become involved in a community child care group or attend a parent meeting than would subjects who did not. Thus, future attempts at stimulating parent participation would include sampling from such groups. Finally, although the Pennsylvania Day Care Study found that day care involvement did not lead to community involve- ment, the question of whether community involvement is a predictor of day care involvement remains unanswered in this study. 40 Allen (1968) studied the differences in family activities and the degree of participation in social organizations between 119 Head Start families and 114 private preschool parents: In general, it appears that the Head Start mothers are highly active in parent-teacher associations, community action programs, parent groups, mothers' groups, and church groups. The private preschool mothers seem to be active in the parent-teachers associations, recreation groups, and church groups. . . . The private preschool mothers added many more activities to the structured list, indicating greater diversification and emphasizing interest in different types of activity. From this study, it appears that highly active parents might be identified on the basis of their present com- munity involvement. Therefore, in future studies a ques- tionnaire that asks subjects to identify their associa- tion with community groups might be helpful in identifying a possible high interest group for organizing into a com- munity child care group (see Appendix F). Effects of Prior Commitment It has been suggested that to persuade persons who have complied with a survey to then attend a parent meeting is an exorbitant expectation for their compliance. Freedman and Fraser (1966) started out with a request that subjects place small ecology-related signs in their window or sign a petition, and then designated that the larger request be placing a safe driving sign on their 41 front lawn. It is apparent that the larger request in this study may have been too large. Seligman et a1. (1972) have indicated that perhaps moving slowly up a continuum of increasingly costly requests might be the most effective way to achieve compliance. A subsequent study, then, might first request subjects to display "Give kids a chance" posters in their windows, or as bumper stickers, and then gradually move up to requesting they attend a community meeting around the issue of child care. In Conclusion Had the results of this study been stronger, it would have helped to expand the literature on community organization and child care: if one was able to identify a high-activity group, such as New World, in a community, then was able to identify a larger, less active but highly interested population in the same community, and then activate them by getting them to attend parent meetings-- New WOrld, or form their own--then it might be said that by a couple of steps (personal letter, follow-up phone call) on the part of the "change agent" or community organizer, people within a given community might succeed in getting together to organize around their child care needs. "Programs must be developed by the communities 42 themselves if they are to be responsive to the communities' needs." (Hess, 1971) The results of the present study clearly indicate that a one- or two-contact persuasion effort is not suf- ficient in organizing parents, nor can potentially active parents be identified on the basis of interest alone. Suggestions for future research have been presented. Per- haps persons involved in this research must also see child care as a right, and not a privilege, in order to continue to explore ways to facilitate a community's organizing around its child care needs. CHAPTER V SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to document ways to get parents with preschool children to come to a com- munity child care group meeting, and to identify certain types of parents who would be more interested than others in these meetings. A nucleus, or core community child care group was in existence, and subjects for the study were identified by means of a child care survey of need. Two forms of communication manipulated in this study included personal and impersonal communications to persuade parents to attend the child care meetings. In addition, it was hypothesized that parents who returned the child care survey of need, and/or parents who indi- cated an interest in participating in their child's care, would be more likely to attend the child care meeting stipulated in the communications, than would parents who either did not respond to the child care survey, or who did not indicate wishing parent involvement in their child's care. 43 44 The empirical results failed to provide statistical support for any of the three hypothesized relationships. Results suggested that a personal effect was not achieved by the personal letter and phone call, and the outcome criterion, attendance at a community child care group meeting, should perhaps have been the last on a continuum of requests to parents to become involved. Possible reasons why the experimental manipulations failed to produce significant effects were discussed. Suggestions for future intervention strategies were also made. REFERENCES REFERENCES Allen, J. C. Impact of the Family as a Primary Group upon the Child in a Head Start Preschool. In Willerman, E., Newton, U., Bussis, D. (eds.), A Digest of Research Activities of Regional Evaluation and Research Centers for Project Head Start (September 1, 1966, to November 30, 1967). New York: The Institute for Educational Develop- ment, 1968. Arkin, Herbert; Colton, Raymond. Tables for Statistics. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1963. Bem, Daryl J. Beliefs, Attitudes and Human Affairs. Stanford University: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1970. Bowers, John. Designing the Communication Experiment. New York: Random House, 1970. Brietbart, Vicki. Day Care, Who Cares? Corporate and Government Child Care Plans. Boston: New England Free Press, 1971. Brown, Roger. Social Psychology. New York: The Free Press, 1965. Caldwell, B. "Can Children Have a Quality Life in Day Care?" Paper delivered at the Quality Child Care Conference at Michigan State University, April 6, 1972. Cassell, Russell. "Effective Correlates of Persuasion as Depicted by Recent Research." Psychology, 8 (3), August, 1971, 43-50. Day-Care--Everybodg’s Problem. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Child Develop- ment, Children's Bureau, 1971. 45 46 "Does Our Community Need to Provide Day Care for the Children of Working?" Office of War Information. Discussion Guide #3, 1943. Edmiston, Susan. The Psychology of Day Care. Pittsburgh: KNOW, Inc., 1971. Ellis, Katherine; Petchesky, Rosalind. "Children of the Corporate Dream: An Analysis of Day Care as a Political Issue under Capitalism." Socialist Revolution, 1973, 12 (2, #6), 9-28. Eldersveld, S. J.; Dodge, R. W. "Personal Contact or Mail Propaganda? An Experiment in Voting Turnout and Attitude Change." In D. Katz, D. Cartwright, S. Eldersveld, and A. McClung Lee (eds.), Public Opinion and Propaganda. New York: Dryden Press, 1954, pp. 532-542. Fairweather, George W. Social Change: The Challenge to Survival. Morristown, New Jersey: General Learn- ing Press, 1971. Featherstone, Joseph. "The Day Care Problem: Kentucky- Fried Children." New Republic, September 5, 1970, 163:12-16. Freeberg, N. E.; Payne, D. T. "Parental Influence on Cognitive Development in Early Childhood: A Review." Child Development, 1967, 111, 245-261. Freedman, Jonathan L.; Fraser, Scott. "Compliance with- out Pressure: The Foot in the Door Technique." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 195-202. Gordon, Ira. "Developing Parent Power." In Critical Issues in Research Related to Disadvantaged Children, Edith Grotberg, ed. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1969. Gordon, Ira. Parent Involvement in Compensatory Education. University of Illinois Press: ERIC Clearinghouse on Early Childhood Education, 1968. Gosnell, Harold F. Getting Out the Vote: An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1927. 47 Gray, Susan; Klaus, Rupert. "The Early Training Project: A Seventh Year Report." Child Development, 1970, 41, 909-924. Handbook on Women Workers-~1969. Women's Bureau, United States Department of Labor, Bulletin 294. Wash- ington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Harris, Carol Maryland. If Your Community Wants to Pro- vide Day Care Services. Michigan State Housing Development Authority, 1972. Havelock, Ronald S. Planning for Innovation through Dis- semination and Utilization of Knowledge. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 1971. Hawkridge, David G.; Tallmadge, G. K.; Larsen, J. K. Foundations for Success in Educating Disadvantaged Children-~Final Report. Institute for Research in Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, December, 1968. Hayes, William. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Hess, Robert. "Parental Behavior and Children's School Achievement Implications for Head Start." In Critical Issues in Research Related to Disadvantaged Children, Edith Grotberg, ed. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1969. Hess, Robert; Beckum, Leonard; Knowles, Ruby; Miller, Ruth. "Parent-Training Programs and Community Involve- ment in Day Care." In Day Care: Resources for Decisions, Edith H. Grotberg, ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, June, 1971, pp. 299-312. Hess, Robert; Bloch, Marianne; Costello, Joan; Knowles, Ruby; Largay, Dorothy. "Parent Involvement in Early Education." In Day Care: Resources for Decisions, Edith H. Grotberg, ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, June, 1971, pp. 265-298. Hoffman, David; Gordon, Janet; McCormick, Florence. Parent Participation in Pre-School Daycare. Atlanta: Southeastern Education Laboratory, 1971. 48 Hovland, Carl. The Order of Presentation in Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957. Implementation of Planned Variation in Head Start: Pre- liminary Evaluations of Planned Variation in Head Start According to Follow Through Approaches (1969-1970). Stanford Research Institute: Menlo Park, California, May, 1971. Jencks, Christopher; Heyns, Barbara. Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and School- ing in America. New York: Basic Books, 1972. Katz, Elihu; Lazarsfeld, Paul. Personal Influence. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1955. Katz, Elihu. "The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-to-Date Report on a Hypothesis." Public Opinion Quarterly, 1957, 21, 61-78. Kramer, Ralph M.; Specht, Harry (eds.). Readings in Com- munity Practice. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. Lazar, Irving; Rosenberg, Mae E. "Day Care in America." In Day Care: Resources for Decisions, Edith H. Grotberg, ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, June, 1971, pp. 59-87. Lippitt, Ronald. The Dynamics of Planned Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1958. Meade, Marion. "The Politics of Day Care." Commonweal, Myers, L.; Elliot, V.; Harrell, J.; Hostetter, M. J. The Family and Community Day Care Interview, Technical Report No. 6. University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University, The Pennsyl- vania Day Care Study Project, 1972. Myers, Leta, ed. The Family and Community Impact of Day Care: Preliminary Findings, Report No. 17. University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University, The Pennsylvania Day Care Study Project, December, 1972. 49 Roens, Burt. "Using Research in Advertising Decisions." In Proceedings, 7th Annual Conference, Advertising Research Foundation, 1961, pp. 65-70. Rogers, Everett M., and Shoemaker, F. Floyd. Communica- tion of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: The Free Press, 1971. Rokeach, Milton, quote in Bem, Allen. "Impressions of Persuasive Communicators: A Test of a Belief Congruence Hypothesis." Journal of Social Psychology, October, 1971, 85 (1), 145-146. Ruderman, F. Child Care and Working Mothers. New York: Child Welfare League of America, 1968. Seligman, Clive; Miller, Rick; Goldberg, Gwen; Gelberd, Linda; Clark, Nathan; Bush, Malcolm. Compliance in the Foot-in-the-Door Technique as a Function of Issue Similarity and Persuasion. Unpublished paper, Northwestern University, 1972. Williams, Tess. "A Procedure for Utilizing Rhetorical Theory and the Findings of Behavioral Science and Communication Research in the Design of 'High Yield' Persuasive Messages." Unpublished disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1971. Womanpower: A Statement by the National Manpower Council with Chapters by the Council Staff. New York: Columbia University Press, 1941. APPENDIX A POSTCARD TO LOCATE PARENTS WITH PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 50 Friends, If you have a child (or children) under the age of six, we are asking for your cooperation in returning this attached post card. In return, we will send you a brief questionnaire since we are interested in knowing your child care needs. This survey is sponsored by your neighborhood council. Thank you. Sincerely, Community Coordinated Childcare Yes, we have a child or children under the age(s) of six years of age and would like to receive the questionnaire. Please mail it to: Address (no name necessary) Just detach this portion of the card and drop in the mail. No postage necessary. APPENDIX B CHILD CARE SURVEY OF NEED 51 Dear Parents: This questionnaire has been composed by Community Coordinated ChildCare, a public group of persons con- cerned with children and their families. The following questionnaire has been sent out to locate families with preschool children, to find out about their existing child care arrangements, and to evaluate possible changes and/or improvements which might be made in these child care arrangements. With your cooperation, in filling out this questionnaire, we will be able to assess this community's need, in relationship to additional quality child care facilities. Of course, all survey responses are confidential. We would appreciate your returning the completed question- naire as quickly as possible. This survey is being financed by your neighborhood council. DIRECTIONS: Record your answer in the space provided after each ques- tion. Check one response for each question, unless you are instructed to indicate more than one choice. Both parents should fill out the questionnaire. If the ques- tionnaire is not filled out jointly, then one person should fill it out and the other person check it for accuracy. This questionnaire takes approximately ten minutes to complete. I. FAMILY COMPOSITION 1. How many parents (legal guardians) are living in the home? 1. One 2. Two 2. How many children under the age of six are living in the home? 1. One 3. Three 5. Other 2. Two 4. Four (specify) II. PRESENT CHILDCARE CONDITIONS 3. Do you make any regular daily arrangements for the care of your child(ren)? 1. Yes (Skip to question 5.) 2. No If no, 1. 2. 3. 4. 52 why are childcare arrangements not used? One parent is home when the other is not. Cannot locate satisfactory arrangements. No need. Other (specify) If yes, why are childcare arrangements made (check all that apply)? 2. Both parents work or single parent works. One adult works and other adult wishes to spend time away from home. Parents choose to spend time away from child(ren). Parents wish child(ren) to be with other children. Parents choose educational benefits for their child(ren). Other (specify) Is (are) your child(ren) cared for (check all that aPP1Y)= l. 2. 3. 4. In own home by relative or non-relative? In relative's or non-relative's home? In school or child care center? (specify) Other (specify) How many hours per week are your children cared for? (This means total number of hours for all children. For example: 2 children X 5 hours each = 10 hours.) 1. 2. 4. Less than 10 hours (specify) 10 to 20 hours. 21-30 hours. 31-40 hours 5. More than 40 hours (specify) How many days of the week do you use child care? 1. 2. 3. l to 2. 3 to 5. 6 to 7. How much do you presently pay, on the average, for child care per child, per day? (Give your best estimate.) 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. Service is free, or in exchange for room and board. $1-$4. $5-$6. $7-$10. More than $10. Other (specify) 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. III. 53 Are you satisfied with your present child care arrangements? 1. Yes. (Skip to question 12.) 2. No. If no, why? (Check all that apply.) 1. Distance too great. 2. Fees too high. 3. Type of care child receives is poor. 4. Dissatisfaction with quality of instruction. 5. Inconvenience of child care facility hours. 6. Other (specify) Have you had difficulties in arranging child care? 1. Yes. 2. No. (Skip to question 14.) If yes, why? (Check all that apply.) 1. Distance from home too great. . Fees too high at most childcare facilities. . Inconvenience of child care facility hours. No immediate openings in child care facilities. Child care facilities not provided for children under 2%. 6. Other (specify) How long did you look and/or wait for your present child care arrangements? 1. One week or less. 2. Eight days to four weeks. 3. Five weeks to three months. 4. Three to six months. 5. More than six months. Was it necessary to make temporary arrangements during the above period of time? 1. Yes. 2. No. BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF POSSIBLE KINDS OF CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS: Babysitting: Adult in home to oversee the play and daily routine of one or more infants or young chil- dren. Generally the adult has neither a license nor specific formal training. Fees are decided between the family and sitter according to child's age, number of children and neighborhood rate. 4a. 4b. 4c. 54 Babysitting Cooperative (Play Group): A cooperative effort among a group of parents to share the care of their children during the day. Each family cares for the children in their home on a regular basis. Usually the parents are not specifically trained in child care. Minimum expense is for food. Licensed Home Daycare: State licensed home where 4 to 8 children are cared for daily for 4 to 10 hours per day. Fees are paid directly to operator who may or may not be specifically trained. Daycare for Infants (0-12 months): A facility which is equipped and staffed to handle the daily care of approximately 4 to 8 infants. The staff may or may not have specific formal training. Licensing is required and the fee is paid directly to a public or private operator. Daycare for Infants and Toddlers: As above, with the age range of the children being birth to 30 months. Daycare for Preschoolers: State licensed facility for large group of preschool children (ages 2% to 6). Program coordinator must have at least two years of college. Care is available 4 to 10 hours, 5 days per week. Daycare Cooperative: Usually implies an effort made to have an educational play program 4 to 10 hours daily for preschool children. Because parents use their time and talent to provide this program, cost is lower. This program is usually licensed as a licensed home if number of children is less than 8. Will be licensed as a group daycare facility if more than 8 children are involved. Nursery School Program: State licensed half-day educational program for a group of preschool-aged children. Program coordinator must be a college graduate in educationally related area. Tuition is paid to the operator of the facility. Cooperative Nursery School: Half-day educational program licensed as a group daycare facility. Program director required to have at least two years of college. The cost is generally reduced by parents assisting teacher within the classroom, donating snacks, doing housekeeping, and making equipment. 55 8. After-School Program: Supervised crafts, play, and/or academic program for school-age children to go to after they are released from public schools. Fees are paid to the operator. 9. Drop-In Center: Probably located near neighborhood schools, caring for children ranging from 2% to 12, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Program director would probably have experience and train- ing in complete childcare services. 10. Parent-Child Center: A state licensed full-time child care facility whose program consists of edu- cational and social activities for parents alone, for children alone, and for parents and children combined. Program director probably would have completed some advanced degree work in a related field. 11. Satellite Daycare Homes Around Daycare Center: State licensed homes whose personnel and program are supervised by a program director of a local daycare center. Homes would care for no more than 8 children. IV. POSSIBLE CHILDCARE ARRANGEMENTS: 16. Would you consider one of the above childcare arrangements if it were available in Hyde Park? (Check all that apply.) 1. No, would not consider alternate arrangements. . No, satisfied with present arrangement. . Yes, would consider alternate arrangement depending on cost. . Yes, would consider alternate arrangement depending on location. . Yes, would consider alternate arrangement depending on programs and facilities. . Other (specify) (JON _ _ w _ O‘U’lh If you answered "no" to question 16, go on to question 19. 17. If go 18. 19. 20. 21. 56 If yes, indicate which childcare arrangements you would prefer, in order of preference from 1-11, 1 being the most preferred arrangement. 1. Babysitting 2. Babysitting Cooperative 3. Licensed Home Daycare 4. Daycare for Infants or for Infants and Toddlers or for Preschoolers 5. Daycare Cooperative 6. Nursery School Program 7. Cooperative Nursery School 8. After-School Program 9. Drop-In Center 10. Parent-Child Center 11. Satellite Daycare Homes Around Daycare Center you did not indicate a cooperative (i.e., 2, 5, or 7), E on to question 19. If you answered "yes" to a cooperative arrangement a (2, 5, or 7), how many hours per week would you be willing to contribute? 1. Less than five. 2. Six to ten. 3. Eleven to fifteen. 4. Sixteen to twenty. 5. More than twenty. to your present arrangement, what is the most you feel you could pay for childcare for each child per day? 1. $l-$4. . $5-$6. . $7-$10. . Over $10. . Other (specify) Do you think the price per family for childcare arrangements should be determined according to Do you think the child's family should pay the total cost for its childcare arrangements? 1. Yes. (Skip to question 23.) 2. No. 22. V. 23. 24. 25. 26. Please return this questionnaire promptly. 57 Who should pay or help pay to support childcare costs? 1. Federal Government. . State Government. . County Government. City Government. Scholarship. . Other. ANSWER ACCORDING TO YOUR SEX: Female of education you have had. 1. Grade school 2. Some high school 3. Completed high school 4. Technical or business school . Some college 6. Completed college . Graduate work (specify) 8. Other (spec1fy) What is your occupation (specify)? 1. Blue collar worker 2. White collar worker 3. Student 4. Homemaker 5. Unemployed 6. Retired What is your Family Income? 1. Under $5,000. 2. $5,000 to $10,000. 3. $10,000 to $15,000. 4. Over $15,000. required. (Check all that apply.) Male What is your age? Check the highest level of education you have had. 1. Grade school 2. Some high school 3. Completed high school 4. Technical or business school 5. Some college 6. Completed college 7. Graduate work (specify) 8. Other (spec1fy) What is your occupation (specify)? 1. Blue collar worker 2. White collar worker 3. Student 4. Homemaker 5. Unemployed 6. Retired No postage is If you would like a copy of the results of this study, please check this box [:land write your home address below. APPENDIX C PERSONAL LETTERS 59 Date Dear Resident of Hyde Park, As you know, a child care survey of need was sent out by Community Coordinated ChildCare. In the survey, many families indicated that they wished to be involved in some way in their child's care outside the home. By starting New World Day Care Center, we are attempting to make - parent participation in, and parent control of our children's day care activity a reality. We have decided it is time to develop a child care center that effectively involves parents and staff, and utilizes their ideas and skills. All of us, either as parents or as workers in day care centers, or both, have failed to find a center that addresses itself both to adult and child needs. If you are interested in having more of a voice in determining your child's day care program, New WOrld Day Care Center may be the place for you. As you can tell from the enclosed flyer, we are planning a meeting for Thursday, May 30, 7:30 p.m., to be held at Shanley School, 276 Dorchester (near the theatre). There is room for you at New World. The meeting on Thursday, May 30, will give you a chance to meet us and compare your ideas on child care and parent involvement with our thinking so far. (For example, we have talked about the center being open from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.; a l—to-5 staff-to-children ratio; with an after-school program for early elementary age children). One of us will be calling you to see if you might have any questions. We hope to see you at the New World meeting on Thursday, May 30, 7:30 p.m., at Shanley School. Sincerely, P.S. Child Care will be provided at the meeting. APPENDIX D PHONE CALL FORMAT AND CHECK LIST 60 PHONE CALL FORMAT "Hello. My name is , and I am a member of Community Coordinated ChildCare, a local group of people interested in the child care needs of families in this community. Thank you for filling out the child care survey we sent you." (This sentence deleted for the control group.) "I am calling to see if you have any questions about the letter we sent out informing you about New World Day Care Center, and the parent meetings? I will be happy. to answer them." Yes No If "no," then: Remind subject about the meeting. Indicate: Time, date, place Child care provided at the meeting Thank subject for her cooperation If "yes," possible questions that might be asked include: "Who are these people?" (referring to persons involved with New World) "New World is a group of parents with preschool children, and child care workers interested in parent participation and parent control of their 61 alternative child care arrangements, i.e., they wish to take part in the planning, operation, and overall direction of their child's care program. Up to the present, they have been dissatisfied with the child care centers they have utilized, and they wish to open a center that will meet their needs." (Response subject to change and less formality.) "Are they a business trying to find customers?" Response will include discussion of New World as a non- profit group, wishing to locate potential families that might participate in starting a center. Group at New World is interested in your ideas about child care, and your needs for child care, not in your money. "What do I have to do?" Attend meeting: See if this group and center are for you and your family. If you find that you wish to participate, you may parti- cipate in the readying of the building, in an equipment- raising drive, or other tasks that might arise before the center opens. (More specific questions can be dealt with at the meeting.) "What is the cost?" Discussion of sliding pay scale, cooperating in actual work in the center before and after hours of the program; working with the children; social services stipends. 62 "When will the center open?" As soon as possible. The opening date is dependent on the success of the parent meetings, and the amount of work accomplished. "Where is the center located?" Near Hyde Park High School, in the old community action agency building. In anticipation of further questions, attempt to stay within the framework of the phone call checklist as much as possible. If subject is very curious, urge her to attend the New World meeting. Finally, remind subject about the meeting, indi- cating: Time, date, location Child care provided at the meeting Thank subject for cooperation 63 PHONE CALL FOLLOW-UP TO PERSONAL LETTER CHECKLIST Identification of speaker Brief description of Community Coordinated Childcare Thanks for answering child care survey (Not to be a included in control group.) Brief description of New World Do you have any questions? Meeting: Time, place, date i Child care provided at the meeting Thank you APPENDIX E MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST Mme 64 NEW WORLD DAY CARE MEETING Date: How did you hear Address about New World and this meeting? APPENDIX F COMMUNITY IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE 65 COMMUNITY IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE We are interested in how people participate in community activities. We realize that you are probably quite busy and it would be impossible to be involved in all the activities we will mention. So as not to miss something you might have done, I will mention a whole list of activities and ask whether you were able to participate in any of them before or since your involvement in day care. (Record on chart below) 'U 'U m m U m m . . . 2: H 8. 8 8 Act1v1ties o m c: H H tH u med c) o m H4 0L: 2 m m a >40 re a Serve on a day care advisory board or a day care parent committee work actively with any community or civic group Hold an office or serve on a com- mittee in a community or civic group Speak to community leaders about community problems Speak to more than one other per- son in the community about com- munity problems Visit community or civic organi- zations or their meetings to find out about community problems Try to inform yourself in other ways about community problems, for example, newspaper articles and TV or radio programs Belong to one or more organi- zations that take stands on community issues and problems M'TlTli‘flfllTJLflflflflfilfiiflififlflflflffliflflfllflfimflfl