'1“ u . 2 2‘ .,'. m 2'“"'.-g- in "I-I‘ [NW flag. ifisy‘d‘; . .. .-, 2'. ’21-...2- . 2 r2 . . ‘22.; 'I""1"'I""‘2‘11'1II'TIII‘M' I1: 1"" .21 "I ‘2 ”11",“qu 111.111. ‘ 11' I III fII III m I ’1 1'1I1l'1"""""'1I1' III ‘1“'1 1111;7' II‘ III" "13' IF :Ali'II.“ ' '2': ' I? I‘m“ 11;“ '1 I122 11.252111. ‘2' - 2 1’“ ‘1 '2 IiiIIII 111 III' 1'1112‘ ‘IIIIII 112: (THI'I'I‘I' . 'EfI“ 2.3:" . "‘1 "1'1" 212‘ ' ' J ' 2‘2 1111111111 1 1'11 2: 2 1"" III 1"'12"2.11“I""'1"1"I“1 ‘ ‘1 ""I1" -2 2 222 .2 ""1111 " 1211 .2 2. '.. “"'1"1'"11"'" '1'111 " 11“ "11"" :0 L‘. I. . ' ' .' I. 2 2’ I I 4 L, I . I' . Du {:a .1"... O z I. 1 2 :‘222 -. . :2 2. 2:. . 222.2222 2:- ' '1'“? MI 2 r331: .' ' ‘- 2 “" ' ' 1"" . I 0- .0 . 'II .. fl ' - .v “ 0:0 .‘1 I ' ' a: .1 I" : ' I ‘ '3. ' :1 t I, :7: 3:, c . 2;! | , . I ' I . J . a. ' ‘9 ‘ - .‘ ‘ 0 .1. O Ji’t. Q. ":. . u 2 I .‘: 21-. o ‘ ’ " I. ‘ .11. ' 3‘ II 3'0 11-?“ I; II '; '1 ‘ ’1'3 ' '_ '1‘ ’ a 2 2' 0 ' -_ . . ‘ I .8 Q ‘ . . ':‘ ' ‘ ' 22.2.22... 2 .2 .2... 2.2. 2-. 2.2.2.2.. "- .2 '2‘.» -":'211 '2".1‘-2" ‘ . "2'2 21 ' .:’2' ' "2 2 ' ' .. I 1 2 2 2 . ‘1'. I I' I 2 ,I 1' J! .210 u . 2 _r; u 0. 2 vi I w I , 38:21: , :1 u .2 2‘ . | . I I 11 ,2 II;."I '1 IIII' p,‘ 1.3: :3 . a "I." . ' _. i 1 . . I .. :2 c ‘I J: V of Z .: o ‘I - .2 . . I1. . I - - . . - . 1112 1. ..1 ~22.“ " 11 .2’ 2 3” - 2'2-.. 2- :3 '9" "1 I 11""1‘. '41 12' 2. 21 ‘21' '22 '2 ‘i. '. 2' . 2. .-‘“' 1 >3 .. .."’:‘2~"i" 12'. ' ' .2 . ' 2-. I O ‘ 'J I ' f ‘ ' . : I O I . " '. "2 2 .« ,2..- :2 :2. .12” ; ‘N‘ln‘. " . 2‘” - ' 13.2%"? , . I '0' I 2 -. p 1 1" 22, t: o_ .‘ 2.2 ".' . ‘ .0; :1. 2 o 2 . , I" . 2 2-, 0'. v .oq I . I t: ..' . ‘ 1W. 1‘ . ‘ii 1):. 0‘9 2...“: p g .I‘ a . I ' "I ' . "I "a 32"}. "V". 819712} 311'." " 3 E}. d ‘ II“: .2 II 11211211211“ 1'12'21' 2.1’ A -A‘ .00"- 0‘ O .Iff‘h ' 2 'II'_‘ I‘“ 2' “111111111?“’ 3'11“?": 11131111111121 2211‘ .2 .2221? 2 - 1 1 2‘ 12.22.22 .2;112212122.?‘i.2‘+1-23.1 ' ‘III'; I 11.1111 '11""""" 1' 1' "11‘2 '1'“ "2 2:1" .2111 I 1111;161:341“? III‘III'I" 'iII1‘I:II '1‘?“ 2 12. ... I lII” 1kg?" I 1"" I II 'IIII'I' 11:)!” I1 "I'II I‘IIIIIIII III .0. TI” “1!,1‘ '1' I2” .3 12,3. 2"1'.""11‘1 21 1111“. .“1122212‘12 21 . . ~1"2'-‘1'"""1."."1"1"'.". 1" J i I ,2 21"'II"' ,21I :‘ 11.111‘2‘1'2 “1'21”| “1‘1“ 1.21 21112“11"‘"‘ 25 ' ' “121'121"“‘ '11212121' """ ' 2' 1112 212 "r' '11‘ I21... 21 21 ‘2‘1‘ 'II 2211121121.11221222.221"11212221111 1.12121212111121111111121112111111111 1111222211 1 " .II ' 2 2 I ,1‘ 21 21232.1 ‘1‘ 22!... 11 2; 1111211 1.2 "1112 21 1“ .2 . 21 -.2 22.312221 .21 21‘. 12....1, 2.1312 .' .212 2- ., .1'1'11‘1""" “11"" " " '1. "‘11“ '11 I1 2'21" 1..'1‘111121‘1II 1‘ 1'1'112‘""“"" ""311 222252.221: 222.122. 111‘ 2222 ".11 .2211112‘f“222:3f;‘21221112.22"-. 1‘411"§11§?"‘,' 2.1 .1 1' ..1.2'2I“'1‘1. 1‘2 " "2‘ I11'211 ‘1' 21‘1 11 I ' I31 21 11 1111:- 1 ‘ :1'1111. 411' 21'1' 1‘ 1.' 1'1: 2'211 -. 4%,: II 'IIISH IAN“ :I2 2 1'2"", 11111 H t“ ' ~a . m. J C": Ill/Illllll/IIII llllllI/lIl/l/I/Il/Il/l/II/lI/lIl/l/l/fi/lllll L m p 4_ 3 1293 10437 8520 GAVE»; 59:57.1"; ; 5‘ Lil?! ¥ ’ 1‘; A3,.“ 7&7 "5"'_—v Efizmemiw This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Time Use Patterns and Satisfaction With Life of Single-Parent Families With Special Emphasis on The Female, Low-Income and/ or Minority Head presented by Chia-Yu Liu has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph- D. degree in Education " ‘ c; ’ a .I‘ 7 Major professor Date May 7, 1982 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to W and SEP go fiestas of) Wm LJBRARJES remove this checkout from “ your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. 331.) '0‘“: TIME USE PATTERNS AND SATISFACTION WITH LIFE OF SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE FEMALE, LON INCOME AND/OR MINORITY FAMILY-HEAD By Chia-Yu Liu A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1982 Q) Copyright by CHIA-YU LIU I982 ABSTRACT TIME USE PATTERNS AND SATISFACTION WITH LIFE OF SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE FEMALE. LON INCOME AND/OR MINORITY FAMILY-HEAD By Chia-Yu Liu This study was designed to develop base-line data concerning time use patterns and life satisfaction of single low-income female parents, and to analyze the relationships between time spent on household work activities and perceived quality of life, as measured by selected demographic variables. Data were generated via face-to-face interviews and question- naires. A first interview gathered family, demographic, work, and resource-use data. Subjects collected time use data for a period of two consecutive days using a modification of the Time Record Chart developed by Walker and Woods at Cornell University. A second interview occurring two days after the first interview gathered quality of life information using a modification of a questionnaire_ developed by Andrews and Nithey at the University of Michigan. The sample of this study consisted of Sl low—income, single- female parents residing in Berrien, Ingham, Kalamazoo, or Wayne County, Michigan and included rural, suburban and urban area home- makers. Data were analyzed mathematically and statistically. Chia-Yu Liu Descriptive analysis was used to interpret base-line data concerning time use and satisfaction with life of single-female parents. The Spearman Rank Order Correlation, Chi-square Statistic, and T-test were used to test the relationship between variables. Conclusions based on the research findings were: 1. Household work required a significant amount of time for the single-female-parent families studied; most of that time was spent on food related activities and family care. .2. In single-female-parent families little time was spent on maintenance tasks, outdoor chores, and care of car. 3. Single-female parents spent an average of 6.9 hours a day on leisure and social activities. The most common leisure activity was watching television; the most common social activity was visiting relatives or friends. i 4. Children are the central life concern for most single- female parents. Time spent with children is the domain that yields the greatest amount of satisfaction for single-female parents“ 5. Financial security is the dimension of family life con- cern that yields the least satisfaction and is a strong predictor of overall quality of life for single-female parents, 6. Single-female parents evaluated their satisfaction with life-as-a-whole in a negative manner. To my father and:my mother, Mr- & Mrs. Kuo-Yueh Liu whose support, understanding and assistance have helped bring me to this point in my life and To my husband, Feng-Ou Ko; and my son, William S. Ko for their love and encouragement throughout the years ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are so many people who gave encouragement, support, and assistance during the completion of this graduate degree. Although there is no way in which I can adequately express my true gratitude to each of the many individuals, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to those friends, colleagues, and family members who have contributed to the quality of my life. I am grateful for the assistance from my graduate committee. Dr. Maxine Ferris, my major professor and dissertation director, as well as a close and true friend, was always patient, encouraging and so willing to contribute her time and ideas. Her professionalism, enthusiasm and friendship will be treasured always. In addition, she and her husband, Dr. John Ferris, gave my mother an unforgettable memory during her stay in the U.S. A special “thank you" is also expressed to Dr. Margaret Bubolz, Professor, Department of Family and Child Ecology, for pro- viding the assistance, guidance, and support for the study. She gave generously of her time and understanding on numerous occasions, even during summer vacation. Her encouragement, support, and wisdom have enriched my learning experiences. A debt of gratitude is also acknowl- edged to Dr. Melvin Buschman, and Dr. James Page who served on my committee and provided encouragement and support. My deepest gratitude is extended to other individuals who aided in this research experience: Dr. Beatrice Paolucci for her critique iv on the research proposal; Mrs. Nancy Axinn for her advice on the the research methodology; Mrs. Linda Neirman, Mrs. Margaret Bucklin, Mrs. Sandra Steward, Mrs. Ann Nieuwenhuis and Mrs. Eleanor Rhine- smith for their assistance in identifying subjects for the study; Ms. Janet Vredevoogd for her expertise with computer; Dr. Carroll H. Wamhoff, Dr. & Mrs. Karl Wright, and Dr. Sally Ann Narhi for their encouragement. I also extend my appreciation to those single- female parents who participated in this study. “Thank you" also to the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station for providing financial support. Finally, my gratitude is expressed to my family who have been the most important contributors to this graduate study. My mother, Hwa-Fong Chiang Liu, was away from home for.five months to give me assistance with child care; my father, Kuo-Yueh Liu and my sister, Chia-Hen, having faith in my abilities, gave their encouragement and support; my brother and my sister-in-law, Char-Shine and Shu- Jen Liu, were constantly supportive with their love and concern. Thanks also to my husband, Feng-Ou Ko for his understanding and never- ending support; to my six months old son, William S. Ko, for the love and joy during the pregnancy and childbirth. I love you, William. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................ LIST OF FIGURES ............................................... CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... Rationale ........................................... Purpose of the Study ................................ : Conceptual Framework ................................ Operational Definitions ............................. Theoretical Definitions ............................. Research Objectives ................................. Reéearch Questions. ................................. Assunpti ons ......................................... Limitations ......................................... Plan of the Study ................................... II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................. . Single-female-headed Families ....................... Household composition in female-headed families... Children in single-female-headed families ......... Black single-parent families ...................... Resources in single-parent families ............... Time Use in Household Work .......................... The development of household work ................. The new economics of the household ................ Studies of time use in household work ............. , The Quality of Life ................................. Conditions of life quality ........................ Studies of Quality of Life ........................ III. METHODOLOGY ........................................... Research Design ..................................... Instrunent Development .............................. Pretest ............................................. Sample Selection and Description .................... Age, race, and marital status ..................... Family composition ................................ Employment status and education ................... Living situation and family income ................ vi viii xiii Data Collection ..................................... 78 Coding and Data Analysis ............................ 8O Descriptive statistical analysis .................. 81 Spearman Correlation statistic .................... 82 Crosstabulation and Chi-square statistic .......... 84 T-test ............................................ 86 IV. FINDINGS .............................................. 88 Section I: Descriptive Data ........................ 88 Single-female parent families' use of time ........ 88 Satisfaction with general life concerns ........... 100 Feelings about the importance of time spent on activities ...................................... 112 Feelings about their own life ..................... 112 Estimated frequencies of time spent on activities. 112 Section II: Research Questions and Statistical ‘ Tests ..................... . ........................ 115 Question 1 ........................................ 118 Question 2 ........................................ 135 Question 3 ........................................ 150 Question 4 ........................................ 164 Question 5 ........................................ 167 Question 6 ........................................ 172 Question 7 ........................................ 183 V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ..... 189 Summary ............................................. 189 Time use patterns ................................. 190 Quality of Life ................................... 192 Discussion .......................................... 194 Conclusion .......................................... 199 Implications for Future Research .................... 201. Implications for Future Training .................... 203 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................. 206 APPENDICES A. Correspondence ........................................ 215 B. Data Collection Instruments ........................... 222 C. Summary Report to Respondents ......................... 247 vii «:0on 10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. LIST OF TABLES Definitions of Household and Family Arrangements .......... Distribution of Total Households by Household Type, 1974.. Distribution of Primary Families by Sex of Head and Presence of Children, 1974 .............................. Proportion of Adult Women in Various Statuses, by Race, 1970 .................................................... Poverty Rate for Families with Children Under 18 Years, by Race and Hispanic Origin, 1977 ....................... Median Income by Family Type, 1977 ........................ Median Income by Sex of Head of Family, 1977 .............. Distribution of Families by Age of the Respondents ........ Distribution of Families by Race of the Respondents ....... Distribution of Respondents by Their Marital Status ....... Distribution of Families by Number of Children in the Family .................................................. Distribution of Families by Age of the Youngest Child Living in the Family .................................... Distribution of Families by Employment Status of the Respondents ............................................. Distribution of Families by Educational Level of the Respondents ............................................. Distribution of Families by Type of Living Situation of the Respondents ......................................... Distribution of Families by Total Family Income of the Respondents ............................................. Means and Standard Deviations of Time Spent onsWork Activities by 51 Single-Female Parents .................. viii 21 24 25 28 30 3O 31 72 72 73 74 75 76 76 77 78 89 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Distribution of Number of Time Logs by Recorded Date ..... Distribution of Average Time Spent Per Day on Household Work by 51 Single-female Parents ....................... Distribution of the Answers for "What Does Quality of Life Mean to You?" by 51 Single-female Parents ......... Distribution of the Answers for "Which Quality of Life Is Most Important to You?" by 51 Single-female Parents. Descriptive Frequencies on Satisfaction with General Life Concerns for All Sample Respondents .................... Means and Standard Deviations of Feelings About the Importance of Time Spent on Each Activity by the 51 Single-female Parents .................................. Means and Standard Deviations of Single-female Parents Estimated Frequency of Spending Time on Activities by Herself ............................................. Means and Standard Deviations of Single-female Parents Estimated Frequency of Shared Time and Activities with Their Children .................................... . ..... Means and Standard Deviations of Single-female Parents Estimated Frequency of Children's Expression of Their Positive Regard, Assistance and Help Given to Parent... Summary of Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficients for Time Spent on All Work Activities by 51 Single- female Parents with Demographic Variables: Age of the Respondent;. Level of Education, Family Income, Number of Children and Age of the Youngest Child Living in the Family ................................... Means and Standard Deviations of Time Spent Doing Family Care, Social Activities, Travel, Filing and Keeping Records by 51 Single-female Parents According to Age of the Respondents ..................................... Means and Standard Deviations of Time Spent Doing Food Preparation, Outdoor Chores, Employment, Volunteer Work, Personal Improvement, and Travel by 51 Single- female Parents According to Respondent's Level of Education .............................................. Descriptive Data on Time Spent Per Day in Employment Based on Family Income ................................. ix 91 92 101 102 103 113 116 117 118 120 123 126 127 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Means and Standard Deviations of Time Spent Doing Food Preparation and Cleaning, Special House Care, Social Activities, and Communication by 51 Single-female Parents According to Number of Children in the Family.. 129 Time Spent Doing Total Household Work by 51 Single- female Parents According to Age of the Youngest Child Living in the Family ................................... 132 Means and Standard Deviations of Time Spent Doing Food Preparation and Cleaning, Regular Household Chores, Family Care, Leisure, Employment, Personal Improve- ment, Filing and Keeping Records, and Rest by 51 Single-female Parents According to Age of the Youngest Child in the Family ........................... 133 Means and Standard Deviations of General Life Concerns of A11 Sample Respondents .............................. 136 Summary of Spearman Rank- Order Correlation Coefficients for Satisfaction of General Life Concerns and the Demographic Variables of Age, Level of Education, Family Income, Number of Children, and Age of the Youngest Child in the Family by 51 Single-female- parent Families ........................................ 137 Satisfaction with Life-as-a-whole and Family Life of 51 Single-female Parents by Number of Children in the Family ............................................. 140 Satisfaction with Standard of Living of 51 Single- female Parents by the Level of Education ............... 143 Satisfaction with How Much Fun Respondents Were Having and Financial Security of 51 Single-female Parents by Family Income ....................................... 145 Satisfaction with Children, Neighborhood, Changes Since Becoming a Single Parent, and Financial Security of 51 Single-female Parents by Age of the Respondent ...... 146 Satisfaction with Neighborhood and Children of 51 Single- female Parents by Age of the Youngest Child in the Family ................................................. 148 Summary of Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficients for Time Spent Per Day Doing Various Work Activities and Satisfaction with General Life Concerns by 51 Single-female Parents .................................. 151 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. Summary of Spearman Rank—Order Correlation Coefficients for Time Spent Per Day on Household Work and Satisfac- tion with General Life Concerns by 51 Single-female Parents ................................................ Summary of Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficients for the Five Demographic Variables (Age, Level of Edu- cation, Family Income, Number of Children, and Age of the Youngest Child in the Family) and Life-as-a-whole, and the Two Composite Variables of Family Domains and Resources, and Self Evaluation Criteria by 51 Single- female Parents ......................................... Means and Standard Deviations of Satisfaction with Life- as-a-whole for 51 Single-female Parents Based on Number of Children in the Family ....................... Means and Standard Deviations of Satisfaction with Family Domains and Resources for 51 Single-female Parents Based on Age of the Respondent ......................... Means and Standard Deviations of Satisfaction with Family Domains and Resources for 51 Single-female Parents Based on Level of Education of the Respondent .......... Descriptive Data on Chi-square, Degrees of Freedom, and Probability Between Race and Satisfaction with General Life Concerns .......................................... Crosstabulation of Race with Satisfaction with Life-as- a-whole by 51 Single-female Parents .................... Crosstabulation of Race with Satisfaction with Family Life by 51 Single-female Parents ....................... Crosstabulation of Race with Satisfaction with Children by 51 Single-female Parents ............................ Crosstabulation of Race with Satisfaction with Standard of Living by 51 Single-female Parents .................. Crosstabulation of Race with Satisfaction with Financial Security by 51 Single-female Parents ................... Crosstabulation of Race with Satisfaction with the Changes Since Becoming Single Parents by 51 Single- female Parents ......................................... Results of T-test for Race and Satisfaction with Life-as- a-whole, Family Domains and Resources, and Self Evalu- ation Criteria ......................................... xi 165 169 170 171 172 174 175 175 177 177 179 180 182 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Descriptive Data on Chi-square, Degrees of Freedom, and Probability Between Work Status and Satisfaction with General Life Concerns .................................. Crosstabulation of Work Status with Satisfaction with Accomplishment in Life by 51 Single-female Parents ..... Crosstabulation of Work Status with Satisfaction with Time Spent with Chilren by 51 Single-female Parents.... Results of T-test for Work Status and Satisfaction with Life-as-a-whole, Family Domains and Resources, and Self Evaluation Criteria ............................... Satisfaction with Life Domains Based on the Comparison of Wives in Two-Parent Families and Single-female ~ Parent Families ........................................ xii 184 185 186 188 198 LIST OF FIGURES Relationship Among Dependent and Independent Variables in Single-Female-Parent Families .......................... 8 Mean Scores of Importance of Time Spent on Activities by 51 Single-Female Parents ............................... 114 Mean Scores of Satisfaction Feelings with General Life Concerns by 51 Single-Female Parents ...................... 142 xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, the number of female-headed families with children has grown almost ten times as fast as the number of two-parent families (U. S. Bureau of Census, 1977). This dramatic increase in the number of single parent families in recent years represents a significant change in family composition. Recent statis- tics show that 24.4 percent of all households in the U. S. have female heads; in Michigan 23.9 percent have female heads. Today, 15.8 per- cent of all children in Michigan under the age of 18 live with their mother_only (Andrews and Boger, 1980). Nationally, the number of children living with only one parent increased from 11 percent in to 17 percent in 1978 (Jennings, 1979). In 1960 only 8 percent of the children lived with one parent (American's Children, 1976). Thus, in less than twenty years, the proportion of children living in one- parent families has more than doubled. Single parenthood has been defined by Ross and Sawhill (1975) as "a time between living in one nuclear family and another"; however, many children now born to single parents often remain in single parent families through their childhood. Single parenthood is not without difficulty. Nickols (1979a) conducted a project on resource management for one-parent families and found that parenting, financial security and personal needs were three major concerns in single parent families. She found that one of the major concerns of the single parent is the 1 well-being of his/her children. Single-parent families face many economic, psychological, and social difficulties by the uniqueness of their individual situations. A need identified by single parents is the development of self-confidence in their decision-making abilities (Nickols, 1979a). As family resources and opportunities change, it is expected that family members' use of time will change also. Household work must be done by family members to maintain a family. Families may not view their decisions about time use as being basic economic decisions, but they are. Economics has to do with the allocation of scarce resources among competing goals in an effort to achieve the most satisfactory outcome. Time is recognized as the basic scarce resource for people (Becker, 1975). The scarcity of time forces people to make choices about the use of time. Hence, time use is a measure not only of economic activity, but time use also serves as an indicator of role relationships and values (Nickols and Fox, 1980). Rationale A majority of single parent families are headed by mothers. Children in single-female-headed families have a greater likelihood of being poor. Johnson (1980) found that the proportion of families below the poverty level that were maintained by a mother was nearly three times that of families maintained by a father only. The per- centages were 42 and 15 respectively. Studies (Brandwein et al, 1974; Duncan, 1967, and Stencil, 1976) have shown that living in single- parent families often has enduring socioeconomic effects on children; tendencies toward future marital breakups, less formal education, and greater possibility of juvenile delinquency are several of the tenden- cies noted. The way people use time reflects a combination of preferences and constraints built into the way life is organized (Nickols and Fox, 1980). Many researchers have collected information about how various family members use their time. The results of these studies have been indicated in several conclusions concerning stability and change in family roles, measurement of household work, family economy, and the various family lifestyles. Studies by Szalai (1972), Walker and Woods (1976), and others determined that self-esteem and academic performance of children link positively with adequacy and quality of time spent with them by parents. The absence of a father may deprive the child of a third or a fifth of the time they would receive from both parents combined; in the female-headed family where the mother is in the labor force, parental access time is cut almost in half (Robinson, 1977). Satisfaction with one's perceived quality of family life has been shown by Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) and others to predict satisfaction with perceived over-all quality of life. Several quality of life studies (Andrews and Withey, 1976; Bubolz, Eicher, Evers and Sontag, 1980; Campbell, Converse and Rodgers, 1976) have consistently substantiated the finding that the majority of Americans are quite satisfied with their lives. However, both male- and female- headed single parent families experience the psychological and physical stress of rearing children without the aid of a spouse. From five national surveys conducted between 1957 and 1978, Campbell (1981) found that people who are single--never married, separated, divorced or widowed--were typically associated with strong feelings of ill- being, especially in the satisfaction with their family lives. A 1976 study conducted by the Foundation for Child Develop- ment in September and December, 1976 examined perceptions concerning quality of life. This study concluded that when parents perceive their quality of life as satisfactory, their children are likely to also perceive their quality of life to be satisfactory. Since time use patterns and quality of life have been studied primarily in two-parent families, a study of single-parent families' time use and their satisfaction with their lives is needed. Since most single-parent families are headed by females, an investigation of time use patterns and quality of life in those families is especially needed. Purpose of the Study .The major purpose of this research is to develop base-line data concerning time use patterns and satisfaction with life of low- income single parent females in Michigan. Base-line data currently do not exist for this group of families. The potential benefit of such a study can be translated into eventual economic and social consequences for the state and nation. The base-line data generated can provide a needed input for those providing information, counsel and/or training to low income, female-headed single parent families. Using the information, agencies and institutions can do a better job of supporting, helping, teaching, and otherwise working with low income, single parent females and their children. Churches, schools, social service agencies, health care providers, the YWCA and the Cooperative Extension Service are some of those who might appropriately use the information to better provide support, intervention strategies, and instructional opportunities. Base-line data would be of value to policy makers as well, as they seek to develop laws, orders, policies and procedures affecting families. The ripple effect is endless. One can hypothesize that if low income, single parent females were able to better manage their time, their self esteem might be enhanced; in combination, these condi- tions could enable a women to spend more and higher quality time with her children as well as become better able to seek, obtain and keep a job. The spinoff from these circumstances would be children with higher self esteem who perform better academically and who in turn could become a more productive component of the nation's human resource pool. Conceptual Framework Systematic study of the family did not begin until after the middle of the nineteenth century. Since 1950 research activity has continued to accelerate; in addition there have been renewed efforts to interpret and explain the family and its forms and changes--attempts to go beyond mere description. Currently, much comparative research, synthesizing, and reworking is being done in order to bring study of the family into the mainstream of the academic disciplines (Adams, 1980). A significant change in family structure in recent years is the dramatic increase in the number of single-parent families. It is important to understand the single-parent family setting which includes various types of family compositions, the functions performed within family, and other internal aspects of family life. Traditionally, a household is characterized as the consuming unit of the economic system. The productive function of the household was recognized and developed by Margaret Reid in 1934. Although pro- duction in the household has been further recognized and received increased attention in recent years, the definition of household pro- duction has not been as clear as when Margaret Reid defined it in 1934. Household production consists of those unpaid activi- ties which are carried on, by and for the members, which activities might be replaced by market goods, or paid services, if circumstances such as income, market conditions, and personal inclinations per- mit the service being delegated to someone outside the household group. (Reid, 1934:11) Walker and Woods (1976) developed an instrument with which to quantify the non-market production of the household. Household production, or household work, was defined in their study as the multiplicity of activities performed in individual households that result in goods and services that enable a family to function as a unit (Walker and Woods, 1976). In Walker and Woods‘ study (1976), time was the resource used to indicate household work loads, and the use of time has been expressed as the amount of time spent to perform certain household activities. The quantitative measurement develOped by Walker and Woods (1976) is utilized in this study as a framework for examining the amount of time spent on each individual housework activity to keep the single-female-parent family functioning. To study quality of life, Andrews and Withey (1976) developed a two-dimensional domain and criteria conceptual model which shows the evaluation of perceived satisfaction at different levels of do- mains and criteria.1 The domain and criteria conceptual model is used as part of the framework for this single-female-parent study. In this study, specific aspects of family life, such as children, house, neighborhood, standard of living, and financial security serve as family life domains. Independence, sense of belonging, fun, and accomplishment in life were used as values or criteria in this study. The conceptual model in this study integrates time use with domains and criteria from the Andrews and Withey model. Figure 1 presents a proposed model of relationships among demographic variables, time spent on individual work activities and satisfaction with life concerns and life-as-a-whole in single-female- parent families. In this study, attempts have been made to examine the relationships within the model. Campbell (1981) indicated that social scientists were seldom in a position to say that some specific aspect of an individual's experience was caused by certain attributes of his/her living 1The definitions of domains, criteria or values will appear later in the "Operational Definitions" section of this chapter. SINGLE-FEMALE-PARENT FAMIL Y \ <— DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ——> FIGURE 1 : RELATIONSHIP AMONG DEPENDENT & INDEPENDENT VARIABLES IN SINGLE-FEMALEPARENT FAMIL Y circunstances. However, Campbell believed that there is a relation- ship between an individual's feeling of well-being and the circum- stance in which he/she lives. In this study of the single-female parents demographic variables such as age of the respondent, level of education, family income, number of children, age of the youngest child in the family, race, and work status have been used as factors to test the perceived quality of life. Many research studies (Walker and Woods, 1976; Nickols, 1976; MuCullough, 1980) have examined various demographic variables such as age of the respondent, education, income, family composition, number of children, age of the youngest child, etc. These demographic vari- ables were found to affect the amount of time spent performing house- hold work. In this study, five demographic variables--age of the respondent, level of education, family income, number of children, and age of the youngest child in the family--were chosen to test the relationship with time spent on each individual work activity and time spent on total household work. Is time allocation a social indicator for measuring satis- faction with life concerns? Hobson and Mann (1975) developed a social indicator called Lambda that is based on the duration of time which individuals allocate to their various life activities. The Lambda indicator is a weighted-sun social indicator with both subjective and objective aspects. Hobson and Mann (1975) believe Lambda is a good social indicator. They state: ....a social indicator based on human time allocation has a great deal of intrinsic appeal regardless of its mathematical advantages. Such rates as amount of 10 SO in the air and GNP only affect abstract quan- tigies life 'quality of life' when they actually affect the way in which some human being spends time or else the 'satisfaction' he gets from spending that time. Thus, such rates are at best indirect measures of quality of life, whereas an indicator based on time allocation has the poten- tial of being immediately sensitive. (Hobson and Mann, 1975:445-446) In this study, respondents were asked to express their feel- ings about the importance of time spent on various activities accord- ing to the length of time they actually spent on each activity. An attempt has also been made in this study to determine whether a relationship exists between time spent per day doing individual work activities and satisfaction with general life concerns. Operational Definitions The following definitions are cited as operational definitions for the study. Single-female-headed Family : Single-femalegparent: Time-log,Chart: Work Activities: A household that is headed by a single- female parent. A female who has child/children of her own and is head of the household. A log or chart on which pe0ple record their activities over a specified period, usually a full 24 hour day. Activities listed on the time-log chart are divided into 16 categories: food preparation and cleaning, daily or regular household chores, personal Household Work: Family_Income: Level of Education: Demographic Variables: O 11 and family care, outdoor chores and care of car, leisure activities by respondent alone, social activities with other people, special house care, employment, volunteer work, personal improvement, travel, shopping, communi- cation, filing and keeping records, rest and other. The total time recorded in the cate-v gories of food preparation and cleaning, daily or regular household chores, personal and family care, outdoor chores and care of car, shopping, filing and keeping records, and special household care. The respondent's total family income, before taxes, in 1980. Family income includes wages, property, interest, welfare, Aid to Family with Dependent Children, child support from a previous marriage, and other money income received by the respondent. An indication of the highest grade or degree the respondent has completed. In this study, the demographic variables include age of the respondent, level of Satisfaction with Life-as-a-whOle: Satisfaction with Family Life: Satisfaction with Family Domains and Resources: Satisfaction with Self Evaluation Criteria: 12 education, family income, number of children in the family, age of the youngest child in the family, race, working status and marital status. This is a measurement of the degree of perceived satisfaction with life in general. In this study, satisfaction with life-as-a-whole is the average score of the responses to the question, "How do you feel about your life-as- a-whole?", measured on a 5-point scale. This is a measurement of the degree of perceived satisfaction with family. In this study, it is the average of the responses to the question, "How do you feel about your own family life-~yourself and your children?", measured on a 5-point scale. In this study, satisfaction with family domains and resourses is defined as the sum of feelings about family life, children, house, neighborhood, standard of living, and financial security. In this study, satisfaction with self evaluation criteria is defined as the sum of feelings of self, independence, 13 acceptance by others, how much fun one is having, sense of belonging, and changes since becoming a single parent. Theoretical Definitions Quality of Life: General Life Concerns: Domains: Values or Criteria: In this study, Quality of Life refers to the well-being of people. "Concerns" as defined by Cantril (1965) are aspects of life about which pe0ple have feelings, aspects that are of significant concern to them. Domains are aspects of life that can be evaluated in the light of one's values. Domains of life are places, things, activities, people, and roles (Andrews and Withey, 1976). Values or criteria are the "yardsticks" one uses to judge or evaluate how one feels about the various domains of life. Criteria are standards, aspira- tions and goals (Andrews and Withey, 1976). 14 Research Objectives The overall objectives of the dissertation are to study time use and feelings about quality of life in low-income single-parent female-headed families. The amount of time used in each daily house- hold activity reflects the preferences and stresses in each single- female-parent family's life. Feelings about quality of life reflect the sense of well-being and self-esteem. The specific objectives of the study are as follows: 1. To establish base-line data concerning the time use patterns of single-female parents based on the following variables: a) age of the respondent b) level of education c) family income d) number of children in the family e) age of the youngest child in the family 2. To establish base-line data concerning the level of life satisfac- tion of single-female parents based on the following variables: a) age of the respondent b) level of education c) family income d) number of children in the family e) age of the youngest child in the family Research Questions The following research questions form the basis for data analy- sis and description. 15 Is there a relationship between the demographic variables of age, level of education, family income, number of children, and age of the youngest child in the family and time spent per day on doing various work activities? Is there a relationship between the demographic variables of age, level of education, family income, number of children, and age of the youngest child in the family and satisfaction with general life concerns? Is there a relationship between time spent per day on doing various work activities by single-female parents and satisfaction with general life concerns? Is there a relationship between time spent per day on doing total household work by single-female parents and satisfaction of general life concerns? Is there a relationship between demographic variables of age, level of education, family income, number of children and age of the youngest child in the family and life-as-a-whole, family domains and resources, and self evaluation criteria? Is there a relationship between race and satisfaction with general life concerns? Is there a relationship between work status and satisfaction with general life concerns? Assumptions The assumptions underlying this research are: The research design is an appropriate method for data collection. 16 A recorded time-log chart approach is an accurate method for gathering time use data concerning household activities. The time-log charts recorded by single-female parents are an accurate reflection of their life styles. The interviewer has recorded all information the respondents pro- vided correctly. All respondents have reported accurately their feelings about their life concerns in term of satisfaction. Satisfaction is an appropriate indicator of quality of life. Quality of life can be assessed by asking single-female parents directly about their general life concerns. Limitations The limitations of the study are: The sample was drawn-from four Michigan Counties' Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program groups: Ingham County, Wayne County, Kalamazoo County, and Berrien County; these may not be representative of all single-female-parent families in Michigan or the U.S. Data were collected between October 1980 and February 1981 and did not extend over a calendar year. Seasonal variation could not be taken into account. Time recorded data were limited to Tuesday, Wednesday and Thurs- day; therefore, all days of the week were not represented in the 51 completed responses. The time-log chart was pre-categorized; the respondent was forced 17 to make their activities fit the categories listed; these categories may not have been all inclusive. 5. No primary, or secondary time was considered in this study. Time was recorded according to all activities involved. Hence, it may exceed 24 hours per day. 5. A five-point scale, very unhappy to very happy, instead of Andrews and Withey's Delighted-Terrible Scale (D-T Scale) was used in the study. Andrews and Withey (1976:20) stated that D-T is a measuring device that would yield more valid and discriminating information about people's evalua- tions of different aspects of life than had been produced by previously used scales. The five-point scale, very unhappy to very happy, was considered a less complicated scale for single-female parents to answer. Plan of the Study Chapter I has contained the rationale, purpose, conceptual frameworks, operational definitions, research objectives, research questions, assumptions, and limitation. Chapter II presents the review of literature divided into three sections: single-parent female-headed families, time use in household work, and quality of life. Chapter III describes the methodology used in this study. Chapter IV contains the findings of this study. The conclusion, discussion and implications are found in Chapter V. The Appendices contain correspondence, data collection instru- ments and the summary report sent to the respondents. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE There is a dearth of literature that focuses directly on a combination of the three primary elements of this research: 1) low income single parent females and their families; 2) time use patterns; and 3) quality of life assessment. A thorough review of existing literature located only one study that linked two of these elements. That study addressed the question of resource use and single parent families. Williams (1978) conducted a study to determine factors affect- ing family resource procurement, allocation, and use by low income single-parent families in six states. The data were a part of a North Central regional project. The results showed that single parent families were disadvantaged in money, time for household work, child care, education, participation in groups, insurance, and transporta- tion. In Williams' study, the coefficient of multiple determination (R 2) test showed that single-parent families had a negative outlook concerning their financial situations. Visiting neighbors and friends/relatives was the most important activity of time allocation and use in single parent families. Other factors which influenced the allocation and use of resources in single-parent families were: housing satisfaction, clothing satisfaction, number of children in the family, and transportation problems. 18 19 Single parents' educational level and job training were found to be negatively related to the perceived adequacy of income in Williams' study. The results implied that alleviation of transporta- tion problems should be considered along with job training, and work requirements to maximize opportunities to improve economic well-being in single-parent families. Williams (1978) concluded that the identifi- cation of problems in single-parent families concerning their resource allocation and use could provide directions for public policy decisions. Evaluation of economic well-being in single-parent families could improve their quality of life. Since only the Williams study examined more than one of the primary elements of this study, the remainder of this chapter will review literature separately in each of the three areas in terms of methodology and findings. This review of the literature will provide in most cases both a rationale for the methodology used in this study and a basis for comparing findings. Single-Female-Headed Families Household Composition in Female-Headed Families The number of women in the United States who are heads of their own families has increased from 4.2 million in 1955 to 6.6 million in 1973. This very rapid increase has fostered a growing concern among social scientists and government planners concerning changes in family structure and composition (Norton, 1974). It is difficult to present accurate research data on family structure. Part of this difficulty arises from the definition of 20 "family" which is used. In order to understand where female-headed families with children fit into the larger picture of all household and family types, it is useful to have some basic understanding of Census Bureau definitions in this area (Ross and Sawhill, 1975). According to standard definitions of the Census, a household includes all persons who occupy a housing unit and live and eat together; and a family consists of two or more persons related to each other by blood, marriage, or adoption who live together (U. S. Bureau of Cen- sus, 1972). However, these definitions havethus excluded those members of households who consider themselves part of a family, but who are not related by blood, marriage, or adoption. Ross and Sawhill (1975) compiled definitions of household and family arrangements which give a better description of these terms (seeTable l). Glick and Norton (1977) estimated that in March 1977 about two million persons "maintained living quarters which they shared at the time with an unrelated adult of the opposite sex." In one out of three of these "unmarried couple" households, the woman and an unrelated man lived together; in one out of five of them, one or more children were present. These types of households are on the increase. As measured in the 1960 Census, there were 900,000 adults in such households; by 1970, one million. But by 1977, an additional 900,000 adults were living in such households, a 90% increase since 1970. There appears to be evidence that these arrangements are rela- tively short-lived, but no data are available relative to the distri- bution of the length of such unions (Slesinger, 1978). 21 TABLE 1 DEFINITIONS OF HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY ARRANGEMENTS Household: Family: Primary Family: all the persons who occupy a housing unit. .A household includes the related family members and all unrelated persons, if any, who share the housing unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated persons sharing a unit, is also counted as a household. Each house- hold has a designated head. a group of two or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption and residing together. A household may contain more than one family. It should be noted here that a household head living alone or with unrelated persons is regarded as a household but not as a family. Thus, some house- holds do not contain a family. one that includes among its members the head of a household. Secondary a family that does not include the head of the Family: household. Members of secondary families are related to each other and have a designated family head. Examples include guests, lodgers, or resi- dent employees and their relatives living in a household. Head of the person designated as the "head". The number of Household: heads is equal to the number of households, families or subfamilies. The head is usually the person re- garded as such by the members of the group except that married women are not classified as heads if their husbands are living with them. Primary a household head living alone or with nonrelatives Individuals: only. Secondary a nonhousehold head who is not related to any other Individuals: person in the household. Source: Ross and Sawhill, Time of Transition: The Growth of Families Headed bngomen. 1975:14. Washington, 0.6.: The Urban Institute 22 Slesinger (1978) studied the dynamic relationship between family and household composition. The purpose of his study was to examine a sample of household units over a 17 month period, a sizable proportion of which contained members "living together," and to discuss possible sources of error in the concept and measure— ment of "family." The following questions were addressed in his study: a) What is the stability of such units over time? b) How stable are female-headed households over time? c) What are the relationships of members who live in these households to the female- head? The Slesinger sample, taken between 1974-1976, included 123 Wisconsin mothers from urban and rural areas (84 urban and 39 rural). Seventy percent of the urban group was black, and about two—thirds of the group were in poverty, as measured by the Social Security Index of Income (Povertnguidelines'in All States Except Alaska and Hawaii, 1975). As a result of this study, it was concluded that about one out of four families consisted of mother and child(ren) living alone; two out of four consisted of mother, child(ren) and male partner, and the other 25 percent involved extended family. However, the same families did not remain in the same grouping for the entire length of the study. In this sample, about two out of three remained with the same family composition over the 17 month period of investigation; the other third appeared to be somewhat fluid (Slesinger, 1978). Ross and Sawhill (1975) suggest that the female-headed house- hold is for the most part a temporary unit which frequently changes into a different household category; that is, if a woman divorces 23 and forms her own unit, she is not likely to remain in a female- headed household for the remainder of her life--she will remarry or move in with others, or her child or children will leave her home. It is a "time of transition." Those who use female-headed households as a special group for analysis should be appraised not only of the changeability of this group (Ross and Sawhill, 1975) but also that households headed by females may have adult males in them. One should not assume that these women live in households without adult males, nor that their children have no male role-models (Slesinger, 1978). Looking at longitudinal studies based on a national popula- tion, the household composition is considered an important factor. New lines of research have indicated that the changing household composition affects and is affected by other characteristiCs under study (Slesinger, 1978). Interaction between changing family composition and income was elaborated on by Hannan and colleagues (Hannan et a1, 1976) in the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment report. These researchers determined that cross-sectional analysis using current marital status obscures the causal effect of marital status on income. Rapid changes in marital status may have drastic effects on earned income. Children in Single-Female- Headed Families The dramatic rise in the number of single-parent families during the 1970's occurred mainly among families maintained by women. 24 When children live in a single-parent family they are much more likely to be living with their mother than their father. Tables 2 and 3 provide sunmary statistical information concerning this distribution. TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE. 1974 Household Heads (69,859,000) 100% l Headgof ‘ 1 Primary Families Primary Individuals (78.6%) (21.4%) I all I l l r Husband-Wife Other Male- Female- Male Female Families Headed Headed (37.9%) (62.1%) (85.3%) Families Families N222“ V r** r 1 Family Lives Family Lives Individual Individual Alone with Others Lives Alone Lives With Others | (Nonrelatives) I l ff! r22 1 . Secondary Secondary Subfamilies Secondary Secondary Individuals Families Individuals Families Source: "Households and Family Characteristics: 1974," Current Population Reports, No. 276, Washington, 0.C.: U. S. Bureau of-the Census, 1976a: 20. 25 TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF PRIMARY FAMILIES BY SEX OF HEAD AND PRESENCE OF CHILDREN 1974 Total Families (55,053,000) 100% l r T 1 Husband-Wife Other Male- Female-Headed Families Headed-Families Families 100% (85%) (2.6%) (12.4%) r 1 r fi | 7 fl With Without With Without With Without Children Children Children Children Children Children 100% (47.2%) (37.8%) (1%) (1.7%) (8.3%) (4%) Source: "Households and Family Characteristics: 1974," Current Pppulation Reports, No. 276, Washington, 0.C.: U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1976a: 20. There are about 64 million children in the United States, representing 29.6% of the population (Jennings, 1979). Of children in families almost 78% live with both a father and mother. A June 1975 survey revealed that only 67% of the children under 18 years of age lived with their own (biological or adoptive) parents who were still in their first marriage (U. S. Census Bureau, August 1977). In 1978, 11.7 million children lived in single-parent families and accounted for a little more than one of six children (Epstein, 1979). Percentage-wise,-the number of children living with only one parent has increased from 11 percent in 1970 to 17 percent in 1978 (Jennings, 1979). 26 Bane (1976) estimates the total number of children growing up in the 1970's who probably will experience living in a one-parent family sometime before they reach age 18 at between 34 and 46 percent. Approximately 40% of all children in single-parent families live with a divorced parent (Epstein, 1979). Fifteen percent of all children live in single-female-headed families, and only one percent of all children live in single-male-headed families (Ross and Sawhill, 1975). Since 1960 there has been a decline in the proportion of female family heads who were widows and an increase in the proportion of female heads who were divorced or separated (Bureau of the Census, 1974). In recent years there has been a fairly large increase in the proportion of female heads who were reported as having never been married. The increase in the percentage of unmarried women is particu- larly dramatic for the age group under 25; over 80% of all children born to unwed mothers are born to young women (Toward a National Policy for Children and Families, 1976). Black Single-Parent Families The percentage of black families headed by females is about three times as large as the percentage of white families headed by females (Snapper and Ohms, 1978). The percentage of families headed by non-married white males remained nearly constant between 1970 and 1976 (2.3 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively). The proportion of families headed by non-married black males increased slightly from 3.7 percent in 1970 to 4.1 percent in 1976 (Snapper and Ohms, 1978). In 1970, Ross and Sawhill estimated that the black divorce rate was slightly higher than the white rate while the total 27 separation rate was about one and a half times higher than the white rate. This study found that black women were twice as likely to be widowed and thirteen times as likely to be single-female-parents by having and keeping an illegitimate first child (Ross and Sawhill, 1975). The most pronounced changes in living arrangements were for black children, among whom those under 18 years old living with both parents declined from 69% in 1960 to 52% in 1973. About one-half of the black children under 6 years old lived with both parents in 1973 compared with 70 percent in 1960. Black children, both under 18 and under 6 years old, living in families with a mother, but no father present increased from 19 percent in 1960 to 38 percent in 1973 (Bureau of the Census, 1974). Table 4 shows a much higher proportion of both single and separated women with children in the nonwhite population. It also shows that a high proportion of all unmarried women with children head their own households rather than living with relatives; this choice of living arrangements does not vary much by race (Ross and Sawhill, 1975). Ross and Sawhill (1975) generalize that the trend toward greater female headship within the black community may be related to: l) improvements in health and a change in sexual attitudes, both of which have probably had a disproportionate impact on the fertility of young black women, especially teenagers; 2) the inability of young black men with little education to improve their economic position, combined with a significant increase in the alternative sources of 28 TABLE 4 PROPORTION OF ADULT WOMEN IN VARIOUS STATUSES. BY RACE 197D White Nonwhite Proportion of never-married women, over 14 years old with children under 18 years old. 1% 12% Proportion of ever-married women, over 14 years old in disrupted marital status (divorced, separated, or widowed). . Widowed, divorced, or separated but without children under 18 5% 4% .Widowed with children under 18 5% 8% .Divorced with children under 18 8% 8% .Separated with children under 18 4% 18% Proportion of unmarried women* with children under 18 heading their own household. 86% 84% Proportion of all women over 14, who were never married. 22% 29% *Includes single, divorced, separated, and widowed women. Source: Ross and Sawhill, Time of Transition: The Growth J of Families Headed by Women. Hashington, 0.C.: The Urban Institute, 1975: 71. 29 income available to black women, and 3) the increased urbanization of the black population. Resources in Single ParentFFamilies A number of factors influence the economic status of single- parent families. The source of the family's income, the regularity with which income is received, the economic conditions such as the unemployment rate and type of job opportunities available in the community in which the single-parent family lives, the previous economic status of the single-parent family, and the demands of the family itself for a given level of living influence the economic status of the family (Nickols, 1979b). According to Johnson (1980) the average income in 1978 of single-parent families with working mothers ($8,900) was 54 percent that of single-parent families with fathers in the labor force ($16,500) and only 40 percent that of two-parent families with working mothers ($22,200). An exceedingly high proportion of families main- tained by a mother had incomes below the poverty level (U. S. Depart- ment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1979) as shown in Table 5. The median family income of single-parent families in 1977 varied by race as well as by sex. The income of white, male-headed families was roughly triple that of black, female-headed families, double that of white, female-headed families, and one-third higher than that of black husband-wife families. Black families with a male head had incomes nearly twice that of female—headed black families (see Tables 6 and 7). 30 TABLE 5 POVERTY RATE FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS, BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN. 1977 . Igtal_ Whitg_ Black Hispanic* Two—parent families 6.3% 5.5% 14.1% 14.8% Single-parent families Father only 14.8% 11.3% 21.4% NA Mother only 41.8% 33.8% 57.6% 60.3% *Hispanic origin may be either race. TABLE 6 MEDIAN INCOME BY FAMILY TYPE. 1977* Husband-wife families with children $18,504 Female-headed, one-parent families $ 6,260 Male-headed, one-parent families $13,698 *Median income means that half the families in the group are above the amount given, half the families are below. (Based on data in Epstein, 1979 and Jennings, 1979) 31 TABLE 7 MEDIAN INCOME BY SEX OF HEAD OF FAMILY 1977* White Black Male, married with wife present and non- married $14,684 $9,167 Female. non-married $ 6,981 $5,357 *Median income means that half the families in the group are above the amount given, and half the families in the group are below. (Table from Epstein, 1979: 22) Children who live in female-headed single-parent families have a greater chance of being poor. In 1976, 52 percent of children living in female-headed single-parent families were living below the poverty level, compared with 17 percent of children living in male- headed single-parent families (Epstein, 1979). Race influences the chances of a child growing up in a family below the poverty line. Children living in minority families headed by women are even more likely to be poor than white children living with a single mother. In 1974, 65.7% of black children whose mothers were not presently married were in poverty level families as compared with 42.6 percent of white children (America's Children, 1976). Being in the labor force obviously influences the income of a family receives. Children in single-parent families are more likely to have working mothers than those in two-parent families. 32 In March 1979, about 6 of 10 children living with their mother only had mothers in the labor force compared with 5 of 10 of those living with both parents. White children in single-parent families were far more likely to have working mothers than the black children-- 67 and 53 percent, respectively, in 1979. In contrast, only 49 per- cent of the white children in two-parent families had working mothers compared with 61 percent of the black children (Johnson, 1980). The major explanation for the difference in median family income between male- and female-headed families is the continuing earnings gap between men and women. Despite women's increasing involvement in the paid labor force, their earnings remain low--about 60 percent of men's on the average (U. S. Census Bureau, 1976b). Hence, if the single-female parent works full-time (40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year) at the minimum wage, the chances are the family will still be below the poverty level (Nickols, 1979c). Data from the 1972-73 Consuner Expenditure Survey sunmari zed by Epstein (1979) indicate that, in general, the expenditure pattern for single-parent families is similar to that of low-income families, who must use a greater share of their money on the necessities of housing and food than do families with higher incomes. The average dollar amount spent on housing by single-parent families was only three-fourths as much as that of two-parent families, yet that amount constituted 37 percent of their consumption expenditures compared with 29 percent for the two-parent family. Although housing repre- sented the largest portion of the single-parent family's total expendi- ture, two-thirds of these families are renters and not able to enjoy 33 the benefits of the asset accumulation available from home owner- ship (Nickols, 1979c). Since single-female-headed families face the most severe economic pressure, their attitudes toward quality of life are depen- dent upon the available community support. Communities can provide services which assist the single parent in overcoming some of the family's resource limitations. Communities can provide support services which foster the development of self-help networks among single parents, thus enhancing the ability of a family to create a viable home environment. In Oklahoma, Nickols (1979a) through a project "Resource Management for Single-Parent Families" attempted to identify the specific and most pressing concerns of one-parent families and to provide professional assistance to these families. An additional goal of the project was to establish appropriate programs in various Oklahoma communities to provide more services to single-parent families. There were three phases in the Single-Parent Families Project. Phase I involved community forums in five locations in the state of Oklahoma for single parents to express their concerns. Input from the Forums contributed to the content for Phase II of the pro- ject, a professional training seminar. This seminar, "Working with Single-Parent Families on Resource Management," was delivered via Oklahoma's talk back television system. Phase III included eight two-hour seminars covering financial and resource management skills, income security, legal concerns, parent-child relationships, and personal transitions of the single parent. This project stands as a 34 model for creating support networks to strengthen single-parent families in the community. Single-parent families sometimes face outright discrimina- tion in the market-place such as when landlords refuse to rent to one-parent families. Not only does the female-headed family have fewer economic resources, but because of lack of recognition and reduced bargaining power vis-a-vis the community, the family gets less with the resources it has (Brandwein, 1974). The single parent may feel burdened because in a one-parent family there is no substitute in the family for that parent. One problem that most single-parent families face is a sense of social isolation which may cut the single parents off from potential support systems in the community. Social readjustment is necessary to establish new friendships because many single parents find their old relationships severed due to their change in marital status. Their need for friendship and companionship is great. However, trust is a characteristic that many single parents find difficult to establish in a new relationship. Community support services are needed to help overcome feelings of isolation. Community support groups for single parents allow the individual to share his/her problems with others whose problems are similar. Educational programs designed to help the single-parent family gain more efficient use of resources are necessary for the integration of the single-parent family into society (Nickols, 1979a). A specific need identified by single parents is the development of self-confidence in their decision- making abilities. 35 The paucity of available support networks was confirmed by Nickols (1979a) whose survey in Oklahoma concluded that single-parent families had few support networks within the community. Nickols found that single parents had never thought of sharing their concerns as single parents with a public official in order to help policy makers better understand the needs of single-parent families. Most state laws require non-custodial parents to support their children following divorce; however, data on child support and alimony payments indicate that only about 40 percent of the absent parents are paying anything toward the support of their children; the average amount paid is about $30 per child per week (Sawhill, 1976). Among black mothers the proportion receiving financial support awards drops to 25 percent (National Coumission on the Observance of International Women's Year, 1976). A study in Wisconsin showed that four years after a support order, 67 percent of the fathers had ceased providing any money for their children's support (Brandwein, et a1, 1974). Public assistance payments, commonly called "welfare," pro- vide the only source of income for many single parent families. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) is one of the major sources of income for mothers without husbands. Of some 3.2 million mothers receiving AFDC assistance in 1977, over 80 percent of them were single- female family heads (Oberhu, 1975). Most AFDC mothers do not work. A 1980 report indicated that of every 100 AFDC mothers, 41 were full- time homemakers; 7 were incapacitated for employment; 3 were receiving schooling or training, and 24 were not actively seeking work. Of the remaining 25 who were in the labor force, 11 were unemployed and 36 14 were employed (Johnson, 1980). The predominant occupations of the AFDC mothers who reported their employment were service and clerical jobs. Only a small propor- tion were in professional and managerial jobs, a situation largely attributable to the fact that a high proportion of AFDC mothers were not high school graduates. In 1977, 60 percent of the AFDC mothers reporting their levels of education had not completed high school (Johnson, 1980). In 1976, 94 percent of AFDC mothers were living below the poverty level (Johnson, 1978). Many single parents find they are going through a transition of changing social values. Ross and Sawhill (1975) suggested that the support system for single-female-headed families should not only include economic assistance, but provide women with more adequate job training and better jobs. One of the most pervasive experiences of divorced women heading families is social ostracism. One expectation is that children will not be pr0perly disciplined and will be conqued about their sexual roles (Hungerford and Paolucci, 1977). However, child develop- ment specialists generally agree that a child's chances for happiness are better in a family with just one parent than in a home where there is continual turmoil and conflict between two parents (Nickols, 1979c). Wallerstein and Kelly (1976) report that the responses of children to divorce of their parents depends largely on the age of the child and the nature of the parent-child relationship before and following the divorce. Continuity of physical and loving care of the child by the parent or a competent substitute caretaker are instrumental 37 in helping children overcome any negative impact they may experience. Both male- and female-headed, single-parent families experi- ence the psychological and physical stress of raising children without the aid of a spouse. Both have to develop new strengths and exper- tise in their roles as solo-parents. However, the female-headed, single-parent family has the additional burden of coping with severe economic conditions that generally are not shared by its male counter- part (Epstein, 1979). Lack of job training, loss of job skills during childbearing years, discriminatory hiring and promotion patterns, and the continu- ing earnings gap between employed men and women place the single- female at a severe disadvantage in meeting the financial needs of her family. The loss of self-esteem and self-confidence can result in a great impact on these women's effectiveness in fulfilling economic, social, and domestic functions (Hungerford and Paolucci, 1977). Problems of female family heads' self-esteem are compounded by society's unwillingness to recognize and respect their authority (Brandwein, et a1, 1974). These women's lack of experience may con- tribute to society's belief that they have little competence in authority and protector roles. To help single mothers develop their self—esteem is of critical importance. It is clear that single-parent families are not merely an aberrant and variant family form, but represent a continuing way of life for a large number of our population. It is necessary for us to accept single-parent families, and develop new frameworks for 38 incorporating single-parent families into our efforts to strengthen all of our families (Verzaro and Hennon, 1980). Time Use in Household Work The Develgpment of HousehOld Work In tracing the history of household work development in the United States, Boulding (1977) indicated that the household is changing as a result of three large movements in the total world society. The _ first great movement was the technical change which occurred within the household as a result of electricity, new energy sources, and the application of non-human energy and even non-human know-how in the shape of machines to do household tasks. This made it possible to maintain households with less human time and energy than was true a hundred years ago, especially in regard to food preparation, clean- ing, maintenance of clothing, etc. The second great movement, according to Boulding (1977), involved the application of large quantities of non-human energy and information to the system of production. This has resulted in increased opportunities for women to work outside the household and earn income. The products of household work can be replaced by what the added income can purchase from outside. The third movement identified by Boulding was called the liberation movement; it had many dimensions and represented a dele- gitimation of the old structures of hierarchy and authority. There was a strong demand for equality among classes, races and sexes; further, there was a desacralization of human relations, a moving 39 away from such things as taboo, awe, holiness, majesty, and a moving towards a kind of commonplace rationality which sought to dispel all mystery. Boulding (1977) pointed out that in the household, libera- tionism might be seen as a decay in the sacredness of marriage, seeing the household only as association for mutual pleasure, not a cooperative enterprise in a sacred duty. Many researchers have developed models to explain household work responses to wages and income. One of the household production models was discussed by Berch (1978). Elements of this model were identified as inputs, outputs and housework process. Berch (1978) indicated that household work used labor and goods as inputs. Labor inputs could be a homemaker's own labor, the labor of her children or other relatives or hired labor. Labor inputs were com- bined with various good--inputs in household work. For example, electricity changed the working and laundry process. The outputs of the household work were more complex, since they involved goods and services. One major intangible output was described by Berch as "atmosphere" or "a good environment." The characteristic of the housework process was that it involved many tasks, most of which were complimentary to each other in the time and labor used and in the products produced. Since many types of household work were performed by the same person—-homemakers--these tasks have been per- formed cost efficiently. The underlying dynamics of housework are rooted in two modes--task oriented and time oriented (Thompson, 1967). Task- oriented labor focuses on the accomplishment of various activities. 40 This work is more "human comprehensive," in the sense that the worker "appears to attend upon what is an observed necessity". Task-oriented labor makes little distinction between "work" and "life" (Thompson, 1967). Time-oriented labor is the labor style commonly associated with urban, industrial life: typically work which is regulated by the clock, or performed with respect to a time efficient dimension (Thompson, 1967). Household work has been traditionally task-oriented labor. It is based on accomplishing a set of activities rather than on filling a certain period of time. It means providing the basic normal services necessary to the needs of the people in the home. Frequently, household work has involved a merging of work and leisure. The status problem of homemakers (their feeling that they are performing useless or unproductive work) has its roots in the denigration of household work by those accustomed to time-oriented labor (Berch, 1978). In the late nineteenth century, as a result of women's entry into the market place, some household work bifurcated into the time- oriented mode. Time-oriented household work was based on a cost- efficiency model. As in industry, the work should be performed to save time, effort and expense (Berch, 1978). In the twentieth century, household work continues in two modes--task-oriented and time-oriented. As a matter of fact, the existence of two models helps to explain some phenomena about household work.) Because household work is still task-oriented which is traditionally sociable, leisure activities are still categorized with work activities (Wilson 1929); 41 homemakers are shopping frequently (Oakley, 1974); housewives are complaining of their lack of status, and even with access to labor- saving technology, time spent in household work has not reduced (Berch, 1978). The New Economies 6f the Household The economic analysis of the value of time as a unit of cost in the production activities of the household has rapidly led to the development of the new economics of the household. It provides a comprehensive economic approach to the nonmarket household activities by introducing the “shadow price" of time that women devote to these activities (Schultz, 1971). Historically, household work has not been valued economically. Walker (1979) indicated that recognizing the economic value of house- hold work might increase society's appreciation of these contribu- tions. She suggested that there are several reasons for economic valuing of household work, such as establishing the appropriate compen- sation to dependents since courts need to know the monetary value of household work; providing adequate social security or insurance benefits for women since the policy makers need to know the monetary value of household work. Other policy makers need to know the costs of providing services to children in homes and the costs of providing day care for children in order to determine support payments for mothers who stay home with their children. Early research in Home Economics attempted to quantify house- hold work and identify variables as important factors in determining 42 the amount of time used for household works. Reid's (1934) well- known book, Economics of Household Production, revealed that each consumer good has two prices attached to it--a monetary price, as in traditional consumer choices, and a time cost of acquiring, processing and consuming the commodity (Schultz, 1971). In 1965, Gary S. Becker developed the theory of the alloca- tion of time. This theory is especially germane to this research because it provides a basic approach to allocative decisions with respect to cost of time in consumption. Becker assumes that the family's goal is to maximize income. Therefore, "members who are relatively more efficient at market activities would use less of their time at consumption activities (i.e. work in the home) than would other members" (Becker, 1965:512). By knowing the value of work in the household, homemakers are better able to make rational decisions about entering the labor market. Two approaches have been used to evaluate the value of household work. Using opportunity cost approach is more favored by economists. This approach assumes that the value of household work is at least equal to the income the person could earn in the market. The second approach, called the market cost approach, is widely used by home economists. This represents an attempt to measure the value of housework directly by using the cost of hired help (Ferber and Birnbaum, 1977). However, one criticism is that it requires knowledge of the amount of time house- wives spend performing each of a wide variety of services, as well as the market price of the services....Additionally, in many cases, the housewife might value her own performance 43 differently from the market price for the same service. (Weinrobe, 1974:91) The monetary value of time spent in household production is one of the interests to home economists, economists, sociologists and various other groups. By convention, economists value time on the basis of the wage paid to a hired replacement. Murphy (1976) found that the conventional method of valuing time spent on household production at replacement costs was only applicable under special circumstances requiring restrictive and frequently counter-factual assumptions. Gauger and Walker published their first edition of The Dollar Value of Household Work in 1973. This study applied 1971 wage rates to time data collected from a sample of 1,378 families between 1967-68 in the Syracuse area. A second edition, also based on the time-use data from the large 1967-68 survey, made adaptations using 1979 wage rates. Based on the analysis of the decade difference in time use for household work, Gauger and Walker (1980) assumed that the major influence on changes in the dollar value has been the rising wage rates. They found that the differences between total household work time used by female homemakers in 1967 and 1977 were not statistically significant. However, there were some differences in specific activities: time used for care of family members in- creased, while time used for washing dishes and laundry decreased. Researchers also found a statistically significant increase in time used by husbands in the area of nonphysical care of children, especially in households where the younger child was under two years old. Studies of Time Use in Household Work Research on time use in household production gained impetus at the beginning of this century with the passage of the Purnell Act in 1925. Through state agricultural experiment stations, the Purnell Act in 1925 provided support for economic and sociological research for the purpose of developing and improving rural homes and rural life (Olson, 1978). In the 1920's several time studies were undertaken by home economists. The best recognized study was Maud Wilson's, "Use of Time by Oregon Farm Homemakers" (1929). Her sample consisted of 513 farm housewives who recorded time diaries for one week's activities during 1926-27. Wilson's study was concerned only with the time spent by the homemaker. In the study, Wilson identified the homemaker's role as that of producer in the home. Kneeland (1929) wrote an article on “Woman's Economic Contri- bution in the Home" which discussed paying wages to wives, valuing services at replacement cost, measuring quality as well as quantity of work. Kneeland concluded In fact, it must reluctantly be admitted that the economic status of the housewife cannot be deter- mined by her economic contribution . . . The answer . . . is quite simple. For when all is said and done, the only satisfactory division of the family income is on a fifty-fifty basis . The property accumulated during marriage should also be divided, and on an equal basis, or at least jointly owned. (Kneeland, 1929). Morgan, Sirageldin, and Baerwaldt (1966) conducted a study to explain factors for determining the amount of time husbands and wives devoted together to regular housework. They found that number 45 of persons in the family, age of the youngest child under 18 living at home, sex and marital status of head of family, age of head of family, education of head of family were some major factors for determining time use on household works. The industrial revolution of the 19th century caused many changes in home production being transferred from home to factories. Because of the many changes that had occurred in households between the 1920's and the 1960's, it was assumed that time spent in house- hold work would decrease. Vanek (1973) compared the time budget studies by using data collected in 1965 by the University of Michigan Survey Research Center. Vanek found that time spent doing household work by full-time homemakers had increased from 52 to 55 hours a week, while time spent doing some other tasks decreased, so there was little overall change in using time in the household. In Vanek's study, 1 female respondents were asked to estimate about how much time their husbands had contributed to the household work during the past week. Data showed that husbands contributed approximately seven hours per week to household work. Almost all household work contributed by husbands, shopping received the largest block of time--about two and one-half hours per week. Vanek (1973) concluded that the data~reviewed appeared to indicate that in contemporary society, household work is primarily women's responsibility. Robinson (1977) analyzed time use data collected by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan. This study involved a sample of 1,244 American adults (18-65 years of age) who kept complete diaries of their activities for a single day in 1965-66. 46 In the study, Robinson (1977) found that women performed over 80 percent of both the household work and child care in the family. He found that age of the respondents and number of children in the family affected the time used on household work. In comparison with a 1975 Survey Research Center time use study, women reported less time spent in family care in 1975 than in 1965. Nickols (1976) analyzed longitudinal data on 1,156 families from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics conducted by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan. To be included in the study both husband and wife had to be less than 65 years old, both had to be living together during the six years of study, and neither spouse could suffer from disability that precluded working. ~ In the study, Nickols found changes that occurred between 1968 and 1973. The number of husbands who contributed time on household work rose from 330 in the first three years of the study to 399 by the last year of the study. The number of hours contributed to house— hold work by husbands increased slightly. Time used on household work by wives declined over the six years (Nickols and Metzen, 1978). Sanik (1979) analyzed a 1977 up-date of the 1967-68 Cornell study (Walker and Woods, 1976) to determine whether, over the decade, any significant changes had occurred in time devoted to household work. She found that in urban families, time spent on household work increased from 10.5 hours per day in 1967 to 10.8 hours per day in 1977. Time spent on household work by women decreased from 7.8 hours per day in 1967 to 7.5 hours per day in 1977; time spent on household work by men increased from 1.7 hours per day in 1967 to 2.2 hours ( 47 per day in 1977. To up-date Walker's 1967-68 time use study (Walker and Woods, 1976) and to establish a data bank of time use of rural and urban families, eleven states developed a joint research project, "An Investigation of Rural/Urban Families' Time Use." The same methods of data collection and instrumentation were used in all states. Data were coded in the same manner so they could be easily exchanged among the states for comparison purposes. As part of this research project, Nickols and Fox (1980) conducted a study of "Time Use in Oklahoma Families" to explore the use of time by a sample of 210 Oklahoma families having two parents and two children. Nickols and Fox (1980) found that Oklahoma families spent an average of 9.5 hours each day on household tasks. Food related activities was the most time consuming household task, about two hours per day on the average. The time husbands spent in household work was most likely to be spent in maintenance of home, car, yard and pets, or in shopping, and in giving non-physical care to family members. The researchers concluded that Time productive role of families in using items pur- chased from the marketplace or provided from their own resources is an important factor in contemporary family life. The eight-hour day has become a stan- dard measure for a 'working day' in our society. Families, as a unit, each day, spent more than a full work day in housework." (Nickols and Fox, 1980:12) McCullough (1980) studied Utah families' use of time as part of the same eleven states research project. She found that the time Utah families devoted to household work was similar to that reported by other researchers using similar methodology (Walker and Woods, 48 1976; Nickols, 1976; Sanik, 1979). McCullough concluded that house- hold tasks required a significant amount of time for the Utah families and most of that time was contributed by wives. Husbands contributed very little time to household tasks, their contributions were mainly maintenance tasks (McCullough, 1980). The Quality of Life The growing interest in the quality of life concept is an outgrowth of the "social indicators" movement. In the early years, only economic indicators, such as Gross National Product and the Con- sumer Price Index, were used to measure the nation's progress. The lack of social indicators to account for noneconomic factors has led to the quest for Quality of Life measurements. In general, social indicators are statistics or measurements used to describe social conditions and trends. In 1929, President Hoover asked the leading social scientists of the day to draw together a description of trends in American life. The Research Committee on Social Trends was one of the earliest attempts in this country to develop the social side of measurements. William F. Ogburn, the director of the study, was a pioneer in social indicators (The Quality of Life Concept: A Potential New Tool for Decision-Makers, 1973). The development of the quality of life concept grew remarkably during the 1960's. However, "Quality of Life" remains a very subjec- tive value concept. Liu (1975) indicated that the major problem in defining the Quality of Life was that everyone has his/her own set 49 of criteria. Liu said that people tend to alter their value concept depending upon what role they are playing where, when and how. There- fore, the Quality of Life (QOL) concept is multidimensional (Liu, 1975). Hornback and Shaw (1972) focused on the definition and measure- ment of QOL as "a function of the objective conditions appropriate to a selected population and the subjective attitude toward those conditions held by persons in that population." Schmalz (1972) also attempted to define QOL and concluded that ' Quality of life can be measured by determining the difference between an individual's state of being as he perceives it and the individual's aspirations, desires, and needs. (The Quality of Life Concept, 1973: l-4,8). In 1972, the Environmental Studies Division, Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency held a conference focusing on Quality of Life. The objectives of this conference were to explore the "Quality of Life" concept, to define QOL in terms of its components, and to develop suggested quantitative approaches to use in guiding public policy. As a result of this discussion, QOL definitions were generalized into three types: 1. Precise definition of what constitutes quality of life, e.g., happiness, satisfaction, life style, etc. 2. Direct definition through the use of social indicators, e.g., gross national product, health and welfare indicators, etc. 3. Indirect definition by specifying of components or factors which affect quality of life, e.g., a group of social, economic, political and environmental indicators represented by different types of indexes (Liu, 1975). 50 In many QOL studies, QOL indicators are used as indices of measurement. Hence, QOL indicators comprise a special category of social indicators. Bunge (1975) indicated that a social indicator is a QOL indicator if it aids in determining specific aspects of the QOL in a community. Aspects identified were the cultural, social, psychological, and physical aspects of well-being. Conditions of Life Quality Quality of life researchers usually do not generalize that certain specific aspects or circumstances in which people live influ- ence their perception of life quality. However, there are some rela- tionships between people's feelings of satisfaction with their life and the circumstances in which they live (Campbell, 1981). Following are some conditions researchers have studied which appear to have an important association with Quality of Life. 1. Income From five national surveys conducted between 1957 to 1978, Campbell (1981) concluded that high income was associated with greater satisfaction with life. Campbell (1981) noted that income does not always tell a great deal about a person's general satisfaction with life, but it does tell something about their satisfaction with certain domains of their life. Campbell determined that people's high income was positively related to satisfaction with standard of living, saving, and health; and less strongly related to satisfaction with level of education, work, neighborhood, and housing. He indicated that income level had nothing to do with level of satisfaction of an interpersonal 51 character, such as marriage, family life and friendship. 2. Education From five national surveys conducted between 1957 and 1978, data revealed that people with limited education were generally the least likely to call themselves very happy; those who have higher education were more likely to report themselves very happy (Campbell, 1981). Campbell found that satisfaction with life as a whole was not consistently correlated with the increase from low- to high- education people. However, Campbell found that years of education, like income, was positively related to satisfaction with one's physical health. Satisfaction with other domains of life, such as housing, work, community, and self was found high among the least educated people and low among people who have some college education. 3. Marital status Survey data from 1971 and 1978 showed that a large majority of all married couples expressed a high level of satisfaction with their family life. People who were separated or divorced expressed substantially less satisfaction with their family life. Widowed persons indicated that they were nearly as positive about their life as those still married. However, married people, like separated or divorced, were not satisfied with their family life (Campbell, 1981). 4. Age According to the five national surveys, data showed that in 1957 young people were morellikely to describe themselves as "very happy" than older people, and the least happy of all were the pe0ple 52 over 60. However, in 1978, a survey revealed that older people had moved up over the two decades in their estimates of their happiness, and young people had declined substantially. However, Campbell (1981) indicated that unmarried, separated and divorced people, even in their later life-cycle, were associated with strong feelings of ill-being, especially with satisfaction with family life.' 5. Health From the five national surveys between 1957 and 1978, the data showed that over 90 percent of those people who said they had no health problems were completely satisfied with their lives (Camp- bell, 1981). Physical health is an important factor of life. Poor physical health may make it difficult for a person to have a job. Data showed that people with poor health had incomes that were considerably below the average, and they were less-satisfied with their family life. 6. Community The 1971 IRS Study of Quality of Life found that people living in metropolitan areas were more often dissatisfied with the community than people who live in smaller communities. The study found that satisfaction with the community was related to satisfaction with the neighborhood. People who live in a neighborhood composed entirely of their own race tend to be more satisfied than residents living in racially—mixed neighborhoods. The study showed that blacks were substantially less satisfied with their neighborhoods than were whites (Campbell and Kahn, 1976). 53 Studies of Quality_of Life Quality of Life has been studied through various approaches and the use of a variety of theoretical models (Bubolz, Eicher, Evers and Sontag, 1980; Sontag, Bubolz and Slocum, 1979; Andrew and Withey, 1976; Campbell, Converse and Rodgers, 1976; Liu, 1974, 1975; Foa and Foa, 1973). Research by Rodgers and Converse (1975) based on data from the Institute for Social Research Study, "The Quality of American Life" (Campbell, Converse and Rodgers, 1976) focused on a set of measured of the perceived quality of life. One of their measures, the Index of Well-being, is a combination of global items that requires that respondents look across all parts of their lives and make a general evaluation. The other set of the measures, the Index of Domain Satisfaction, is composed of evaluations of more specific parts of respondents' lives. In the study, respondents were asked to assess their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each of a set of fifteen domains of their life concerns. The fifteen domains of life con- cepts were: marriage, family life, health, neighborhood, friend- ships, housework, job, life in the United States, city or county, nonwork, housing, usefulness of education, standard of living, amount of education and savings. Respondents were also asked to describe their lives as a whole by using both satisfaction and semantic-differential types of scales. Statistical tests were used to examine the Index of Well-being and the Index of Domain Satisfaction in relation to a variety of 54 demographic and situational variables, including age, indicators of socioeconomic status, employment status, and size of community. Rodgers and Converse (1975) indicated that the reliability of the measures (as measured cross-sectionally) and their stability over a period of some eight months were both acceptably high. It was concluded that both of these measures form acceptable indicators of the perceived overall quality of life. The domain-satisfaction model developed by Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) assumed that experience as well as behavior was a product of the interaction of pe0ple with their environment. In their study, both objective and subjective indicators of quality of life were conceived as necessary in the measurement of QOL, because each of them provided information important to the other in gaining a global view of satisfaction with life. Campbell et a1 (1976) measured the "satisfaction" level of respondents instead of "happiness" level. They determined that happi- ness carried an affective connotation. To avoid the implication, they used a satisfaction scale which implies a more cognitive process. Respondents in their study were asked to assess their level of satis- faction or dissatisfaction with each of a set of fifteen domains of their lives as well as their overall quality of life. With the use of their 7-point satisfaction scale, family life was found at the second rank, next to marriage, in domain satis- - faction. In their study, 72 percent of the women respondents reported they were mostly or completely satisfied with their family lives, while 74 percent of the male respondents reported they were mostly 55 or completely satisfied with their family lives. Campbell et a1 (1976) also found the relationship between marital satisfaction (one component of family life satisfaction) and life satisfaction was stronger than others in the family domains. Data showed that unmarried people, especially the divorced and separated, were considerably less satisfied with their lives than were married respondents on the average. Andrews and Withey (1974, 1976) embarked on an effort to develop an expanded set of social indicators to measure perceived life quality. They developed a conceptual two-dimensional matrix model which showed the evaluation of perceived satisfaction on different levels of specificity ranging from the general domains and criteria to the more specific domains by criteria. In their study, Andrews and Withey hypothesized that their theoretical model would illustrate proposed relationships between the evaluations of life concerns and the evaluation of life as a whole. A 7-point Delighted-Terrible scale (Delighted, Pleased, Mostly satisfied, Mixed about equally satisfied and dissatisfied, Mostly dissatisfied, Unhappy, and Terrible) which includes more affective elements along with the cognitive satisfaction elements was used in Andrews and Withey's study. The results showed that most people felt quite positive about their life as a whole; young people tended to feel slightly happier than old pe0ple; high socioeconomic status people were more optimistic about their future; whites rated their general well-being, and their satisfaction and happiness, higher than did blacks; married people scored higher than 56 unmarried, and unmarried people with children at home scored especially low on general well-being, and feelings of satisfaction and happiness (Andrews and Withey, 1976). Growing public interest in social, economic, political and environmental conditions has led to the search for indicators which adequately reflect the people's overall impression of well-being. Liu (1974) developed a systematic methodology for assessing social, economic, political and environmental indicators to reflect the quality of life in the United States. Based on 1970 statistical data, Liu compiled more than one hundred social indicator variables. Each individual variable was compiled from two or more data items obtained from various published sources. These variables were then combined into the nine quality of life indicators. The nine indicators were: individual status, individual equality, living conditions, agriculture, technology, economic status, education, health and welfare, and state and local government. The results showed that the overall quality of life among 50 states and the District of Columbia did not, on the whole, differ very significantly. 0n the basis of these measures, six states proved to have an excellent QOL. They were California, Colorado, Connecticut, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming. States with low quality of life ratings appear to be primarily those in which there were depressed economic conditions (Liu, 1974). Bubolz, Eicher, Evers and Sontag (1980) considered quality of life in a very general sense to refer to the well-being or 57 ill-being of people and/or the environment in which they live. From the standpoint of people, quality of life consists in the degree of fulfillment or satisfaction of their basic physical, biological, psychological, economic and social needs. Bubolz et a1 (1976) developed a general ecological model in which organisms were regarded as interacting with their environment, i.e. as an ecosystem. A human ecosystem involves production, circulation, transformation and storage of energy, matter, and information through biological, physical social processes (Evans, 1956). The human ecological frame- work provides a basis for delineating various kinds of quality of life indicators which measure various aspects of human life and environmental conditions. QOL indicators can tell us about the degree of well-being or ill-being of humans and their environments; QOL indicators can attempt to assess the degree at which basic human needs are met; QOL indicators can also attempt to determine the level of resources or conditions of the environment. Quality of life indicators are defined as indices or measurements of the social conditions of human existence (Land and Spilerman, 1975). Bubolz et al (1980), using the human ecological framework, examined the quality of life of a rural population in 1975. The 1975 sample consisted of 65 persons who were originally studied in 1956 and were alive and still residing in the three communities of Ewen, Greenland and Mass in Ontonogan County in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Data were gathered by personal interviews in March and April, 1975. Questions were asked regarding their feelings about community satis- faction, community adequacy, identification of needed improvements, 58 evaluations of alternative life situations, and of various life concerns, and their overall quality of life. In their study, Bubolz et a1 (1980) found a majority of respondents were quite satisfied with their life as a whole as well with their community. Family life ranked highest in both satisfac- tion and importance. Married respondents with children living in the home were most satisfied with their lives. Respondents who were living alone reported being less satisfied. Sontag, Bubolz and Slocum (1979) conducted a study to determine which aspects of life were important to the perceived quality of life. Questionnaires were used to collect data from 237 wife-husband pairs and seven single female headed families in November 1977 and March 1978. Respondents were randomly selected from rural, suburban and urban areas of Oakland County, Michigan. A market research firm was contracted to draw the sample, explain the study to the respondents, obtain the consent from the respondents and distribute and collect the questionnaires. The findings were based on 237 wife-husband families and excluded the 7 single female families. The results of this research showed that a majority (80 percent) of the respondents felt satisfied with their life. Approxi- mately 20 percent of the total group reported mixed and negative feelings about their life. These findings are similar to the results of other studies (Andrew and Withey, 1976; Campbell, Converse and Rodgers, 1976; Bubolz, Eicher, Evers and Sontag, 1980). Sontag et a1 (1979) found that family life, children and having 59 love and affection were considered by respondents as being the most important aspects in their life. A person's feeling about his/ her life concerns affected perceived overall quality of life. The data showed that women who felt very satisfied with their family life were reported most satisfied with their life-as-a-whole. Satisfaction with people's fulfillment of their values was found to influence quality of life. Rescher (1969) discussed the relationship between well—being and values. Values are intangibles. They are, in the final analysis, things of the mind that have to do with the vision people have of 'the good life' for themselves and their fellows. A person's values represent factors that play a role in his personal welfare function, the yardstick by which he assesses the extent of his satis- factions in and with life. Sontag et a1 (1979) found people usually placed high value on famly life, health, safety, homes, income, work, religion, accom~ plishment and independence. The psychological importance of self-evaluative variables such as self-esteem has been recognized by personality theorists and tend to influence an individual's perceptions and evaluations. Low self esteem has been found to hamper interpersonal relationships, interactions and communication. It has also been found to distort perceptions of social reality. High self-esteem appears to have just the opposite consequences (Rosenberg, 1965). Thus, self-esteem can be expected to have an impact on family life and life concerns. Scanzoni (1970) discussed the relationship between self- esteem and satisfaction with family life, particularly marital 6O satisfaction: The significance of global self esteem for conju- gal cohesion lies in its impact on processes of reciprocity and exchange. We would expect that high self-esteem would increase evaluations of husband and wife primary interaction and that low self-esteem would decrease it. This expec- taton is based on Rosenberg's conclusion that one with low self-esteem is 'more vulnerable to interpersonal relations (deeply hurt by criticism, blame, or scolding). He is relatively awkward with others; he assumes others think poorly of him or do not particularly like him. (Scanzoni, 1970:99) Ziller (1974) developed a new approach, a phenomenological approach, to study quality of life. In his study, self-esteem was assumed to be the key quality of life indicator. Self- esteem was defined by Ziller as: "Self-esteem is the individual's perception of his worth. In evaluating the self, the individual has resource to comparisons of the self and significant others in the social environment" (307). He found that people with high self-esteem seemed to be more satisfied with their lives, and they usually had high social interests and high interaction with their environment. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter describes and explains the procedures used in the study. Included are a discussion of the research design, an explanation of the instrument development, the pretest interviews, data collection, population sampling and selection, and statistical treatment. Research Design This research was designed to develop base-line data concern- ing low-income, single-female-parent families. Of particular in- terest are the time spent on household activities and satisfaction with quality of life. Data were gathered via face-to-face interviews and questionnaires. Two personal interviews and self-administered recorded time-log charts were used to obtain data. The first interview collected data on the independent vari- ables. The researcher gathered background information, explained the charts that were used for gathering time use data, and answered questions respondents might have about participating in the study. During the first interview, the interviewer explained the purpose of this study and the procedure for collecting time data on a time- log chart. Single-female parents were asked to collect 2-fu11 days of time data on two separate time-log charts immediately following the interview day. This sequence was used because previous research 61 62 by Walker and Woods (1976) indicated that the percentage of incom- plete responses was minimized if data collection immediately followed the day when instructions were given. During the second interview, two-full days of recorded time-log charts were collected by the interviewer. At that time, the interviewer reviewed both recorded time—log charts with the single-female parent to make sure they were complete. If the single- female parent did not complete two time-log charts, this family was excluded from the sample. In the second interview, information about the personal feelings and attitudes toward the respondents' general life concerns were collected. Single-female parents were asked to express their feelings about life concerns by using a 5-point scale adapted from Andrews and Withey (1976). The 5—point scale (1 = very unhappy, 2 unhappy, 3 = mixed; equally unhappy and happy, 4 = happy, 5 very happy) was used to assess the respondent's feelings about various parts of her life. In addition, respondents were asked to use a 5-point importance scale measurement to identify their feelings about the importance of time spent on 14 activities. The 14 activities were: children, self, personal improvement, doing volunteer work, preparing meals, watching T.V., doing household chores, helping other people, working on hobbies, visiting relatives or friends, social activities, chatting on the phone, yard work, and fixing or repairing things. Since this was the second time the interviewer met the respondent, and the respondent already under- stood the purpose of this study, it was expected that the respondent 63 would cooperate and share personal feelings about her life. Instrument Development Previous time studies have collected data through direct observation, a good method for gathering time-use data. However, systematic observation on a hour-by-hour schedule is costly and often not practical if many subjects are to be studied and/or more than an eight-hour period is studied. The most common and popular way to collect time data has been to rely on records kept by subjects themselves. In this method respondents record how much time they spend on each activity over some specified period of time. The instrument can either have pre-categorized activities or the respondents can supply the activities. As with the other method, this method also has some short- comings. Asking respondents to record a day long time log requires high cooperation and intelligence. Previous researchers using this method have discovered that respondents sometimes do not represent their time use adequately because of educational or family constraints. Szalai (1972) indicated that by using this method the researcher has no absolute standard against which the accuracy of the data can be compared. However, the major advantage which Robinson (1977) pointed out for the time log approach is that people are asked to report activities for a single day when that period is still fresh in their minds. Robinson (1977) studied the reliability and validity of using a recorded time-log chart approach and concluded that it is a good method to reflect the aggregate behavior of groups of people. 64 To make recorded time data more accurate, Walker and Woods (1976) in their 1967-68 study developed a method for recording time use more effectively. They measured time in terms of the production of goods and services in family households and made use of a 24- hour time-record chart on which respondents simply drew a line and an arrow from the time of starting and completing an activity. To increase the validity of the time use data, Walker and Woods (1976) designed a record of time use for 2-full days which provided increased data for making comparisons and checking for reporting errors. Walker and Woods also developed a time record chart that listed each type of work activity on the vertical axis and time periods in 10 minute intervals on the horizontal axis. Since that instrument has been validated and used extensively in studying two- parent families, but only minimally with single-parent families, this method of data collection was adapted and used as one data gathering instrument in this study. In this study, time use data were gathered by using a recorded time-log chart (see Appendix 8.). Each time log chart covered the 24 hours of an entire day. Time, broken down into ten minute seg- ments, was listed horizontally across the chart. Sixteen activities which included "other" categorized work activities were listed verti- cally. Respondents were provided with written instructions and definitions of each work activity to help them in placing their activities in the proper categories. The methodology used in this study was to record how much time per day each single female parent spent doing a particular activity. There was no attempt made to 65 assess the "quality" of the time spent on each activity. Many surveys have been done in which respondents were asked to estimate how much time they spend on this or that activity over some specified period, such as: estimate of the yearly time spent on housework (Morgan et a1, 1966), daily television viewing (Roper, 1971), yearly participation in outdoor recreation (U. 5. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1972) and voluntary organization (ACTION, 1975). In each of these instances, Robinson (1977) has reported that the estimates generated appear to exceed significantly the time reported on such activities on a daily basis. Since many activities may not have happened during the two recorded days, an "Activities Estimating Chart" was used in this study during the second interview. Respondents were asked to provide estimates of their participation in each activity over the period of a year. The estimating approach was included to aid the investiga- tor in exploring the validity of the time-log which the respondent recorded. The estimate data also provided useful background infor- mation on the general life style of the respondent. Combining the estimated data and recorded time-log data permitted making generaliza- tions about time use patterns in single-female-headed families. People live in a variety of situations and do not feel the same way about the circunstances and events that they encounter in their day to day life. If people are going to change the quality of their lives or make improvements, they have to be aware of the current conditions of their lives and know how they feel about what is happening to them. Therefore, it is important and useful to 66 measure people's perceptions of how they feel about their lives. Andrews and Withey (1976) studied five thousand Americans' perceptions of well-being. They developed a 7-point Delighted- Terrible (D-T) scale to assess people's feelings about various parts of their lives. The D-T scale includes seven on-scaleIcate- gories and three off-scale categories. The seven on-scale categories are: delighted, pleased, mostly satisfied, mixed--about equally satisfied and dissatisfied, mostly dissatisfied, unhappy, and terrible. The three off-scale categories are: neutral--neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, does not apply to me, and I never thought about it. Andrews and Withey (1976:175) indicate ". . . . the validity of a measure--i.e., the degree to which it reflects what it is supposed to--is an important criteria for evaluating the goodness of a measure . . .". The seven-point D-T scale was compared with other measurements by Andrews and Withey to have the highest validity measurement which would allow meaningful descriptions by respondents. Bubolz et al in their 1977-78 Quality of Life study used the D-T scale and part of Andrews and Withey's questionnaire and tested it with 237 two-parent families and seven single-female-headed families in Oakland County, Michigan. Since this questionnaire has been used extensively and successfully in studying two-parent families, a modified questionnaire was developed to collect single-female- headed parents' feelings about their lives. In this study, a five-point Very Unhappy to Very Happy scale adapted from Andrews and Withey (1976) was used to assess single- 67 female parents' feelings about various part 05 their lives. A five- point Very Unimportant to Very Important scale measurement to identify respondents feelings about the importance of time spent on work activities was adapted from Bubolz et al (1980). Instruments in this study included: (see Appendix B ) 1. Cover letter The cover letter provided a written explanation of the purpose of the study, and gave the respondents a brief idea about what questions the interviewer planned to ask and the kind of things they would be expected to do if they participated in the study. The first interview form: Family Information Questionnaire The Family Information Questionnaire gathered family demographic information, working activities, and family resource use data. Instructions for keeping time-log chart The instruction sheet provided guidelines for recording time- 109 information. Definition of work activities The Definition of Work Activities sheets provided examples of each categorized work activity. These examples were identified to help respondents properly record working activities. Recorded time-log chart A 24-hour full day time-log chart was developed to record time use data. On the vertial axis of the recorded time-log chart were listed 17 types of work activities, and on the horizontal axis was listed time, divided into lO-minute intervals. To 68 record the work activity on the chart, the respondent had to draw arrows and a line from the time she started an activity to the time she completed that activity. Two recorded time- log charts were provided to collect 2-full days time use data. The second interview form: Quality of Life Questionnaire A five point scale for the measurement of overall quality of life and a five point scale for the measurement of importance were included in the second interview form to gather data on feelings in general and importance of time use. Activities Estimating Chart The Activities Estimating Chart was develOped to estimate time used on working activities, social activities, and general family life activities over the period of a year. Since many activities may not have happened during the two recorded days, the activi- ties estimating chart provided additional information for measuring respondent's overall quality of life and use of time. Form for interviewer use This form was the interviewee's file form which consisted of the respondent's record number, name, address, date of birth, date of first interview, first interview record time, date of second interview, the second interview record time, and comments. Consent form A consent form was used to get permission to conduct the inter- view at the respondent's place of residence. Participation by the respondents was voluntary; they had the option of discon- tinuing at any point in the study. 69 10. Evaluation of interviewee's behavior form This evaluation form was developed to record the interviewer's observations and provide a systematic way to provide additional information for interpretation. Pretest A pilot study was designed to test the data collection procedures and instruments. Prior to doing this study, the pro- posal was reviewed and approved by Human Subjects Committee of Michigan State University. During September, 1980, a pilot-study was conducted in Ingham County, Michigan. Five of six initially contacted families completed the two interview questionnaires, and two days time-log charts. Each of the five families received a five dollar check for their participation as did those in the actual study. The five pre- tested families were included in the actual study sample. As a result of the pilot-study, no changes were made in the questionnaires. An evaluation of Interviewee's Behavior Form was developed after the pilot study to record the interviewer's observations and to provide additional information for interpretations. Sample Selection and Description The population for this study was identified by the Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program offers knowledge and skills to low-income families 70 to help them improve the adequacy of their daily diets while using available resources. Nearly half of all EFNEP families are minori- ties, and many of EFNEP families have been identified by EFNEP aides as being single-female-headed families. The procedure for sample selection was as follows: 1) Four Michigan counties that have the EFNEP program--Berrien, Ingham, Kalamazoo, and Wayne--were selected as the locations from which subjects would be drawn; 2) The researcher contacted the EFNEP Exten- sion Home Economist in charge of the four nutrition programs and obtained full cooperation; 3) The Home Economist in each of the four counties developed a list of single-female-headed families; 4) The researcher randomly selected the names of 20-25 famlies from each county list; 5) The researcher contacted the single-female parents via phone to get cooperation and set up the time for the initial inter- view. The sample for this study consisted initially of 83 single- female parents who resided in one of the four selected Michigan counties--Berrien, Ingham, Kalamazoo, and Wayne. Included were rural, suburban and urban area homemakers. Fifty-one of these females completed the study and served as the basis for analysis. The 51 respondents completed both interview questionnaires and recorded two time-log charts. If the single-female-parent was interviewed at the first time but was not at home during the scheduled second interview time, the family was excluded from the sample. If the single-female parent was interviewed but did not complete two time-log charts, the family was excluded from the sample. If the 71 respondent reported that she had re-married, the family was excluded from the sample. If the respondent reported that she was a single- mother, however, and lived with her boyfriend, the family was retained in the sample. Of the 32 women who were initially contacted but were excluded in the study, 15 women were excluded because they were not interested in participating; 9 women were not at home for the scheduled second interview; 5 women did not complete the requested time-log charts, and 3 women had remarried and were thus ineligible. 0f the 5 women who did not complete the charts, 4 women were minorities, 4 women had not completed high school, and all of them had pre-school child/children. Age, Race and Marital Status The age of the 51 single-female parents ranged from 19 to 49 years. The median age of the respondents fell in the 26-30 year category. The respondents were relatively young. This would be expected since the youngest child in 65 percent of the families studied was age six or younger. Table 8 presents the distribution of respondents in each of the age categories. Forty-five percent of the respondents were white; 47 percent were black. The remaining 8 percent of the sample included the following other non-whites: native American, Asian and Mexican American. Table 9 presents the distribution of respondents in each of the race categories. All sample respondents were single-female parents. Approxi- mately 37 percent of the respondents were unmarried single mothers; 72 TABLE 8 DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES BY AGE OF THE RESPONDENTS No. of Families Percentage 20 or under 20 l 2.0 21 - 25 13 25.5 26 - 30 11 21.6 31 - 35 11 21.6 36 - 4O 9 17.6 41 - 45 3 5.9 46 - 50 __§__ _§;g Total 51 100.0 TABLE 9 DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES BY RACE OF THE RESPONDENTS No. of Families Percentage White 23 45.1 Black/Negro/Afro 24 47.1 Asian 1 2.0 Native American 2 3.9 Mexican-American l 2.0 Total 51 100.0 73 22 percent were separated, and 41 percent were divorced. Table 10 shows the distribution of respondents according to their marital status. TABLE 10 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR MARITAL STATUS No. of Respondents Percentage Unmarried 19 37.3 Separated 11 21.6 Divorced 21 41.2 Total 51 100.0 Family Composition The majority of families studied were comprised of mother and children (86.3%); the remainder (13.7%) were extended families, which included the mother's siblings and/or mother's boyfriend. The number of children living in the family ranged from one to thirteen. Twenty-five percent of the respondents had only one child in the family. Sixteen families (31%) had two children; thir- teen families (25%) had three children. Eighteen percent of the families had four or more children in the family. Table 11 presents the distribution of families by number of children living in the family. The majority of single female parents (65%) had pre-school age children. Fourteen percent of these females had children under 74 TABLE 11 DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY] No. of Families Percentage 1 l3 , 25.5 2 16 31.4 3 13 25.5 4 2 3.9 5 4 7.8 8 l 2.0 11 l 2.0 13 _1_ as Total 51 100.0 one years old. Only two families (4%) in the sample had as their youngest child an individual age 18 and over. Due to the structure of the sample by age of the youngest child in the family, this is a sample of younger families in the child-rearing stages of the family life cycle. Table 12 presents the distribution of the families by age of the youngest child who lives in the household. Employment Status and Education A majority of the families in the sample were unemployed families. Among 43 unemployed families (84.3%), ten families reported 75 TABLE 12 DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES BY AGE OF THE YOUNGEST CHILD LIVING IN THE FAMILIY No. of Families Percentage Under 1 7 13.7 1-3 years old 14 27.5 3-6 years old 12 23.5 6-12 years old 11 21.6 12-18 years old 5 9.8 18 and over . __j;__ 3.9 Total 51 100.0 being permanently unable to work due to poor health. Most of the employed female single-parents worked outside the home. The employed female single parents were employed in low paying service and clerical positions. Table 13 indicates the employment status of the respon- dents. The educational level was fairly high for this sample. Over half of the sample respondents had completed high school; over one fourth had some college education. Table 14 summarizes the educa- tional level of the respondents. Because of the high rate of unemployment in Michigan at the time of the study, the educational level of respondents may have been affected. Many who could be classified as "low income" at that time 76 TABLE 13 DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF THE RESPONDENTS No. of Families Percentage Working (full and part time) 7 13.7 Temporarily laid off 1 2.0 Unemployed _J£§ 84.3 Total 51 100.0 TABLE 14 DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS No. of Families Percentage Under 6th grade 2 3.9 Jr. High ; 4 7.8 1-3 High school 15 29.4 H. S. graduate 16 31.4 1-3 College 13 25.5 Post B.A. .__l 249 Total 51 100.0 may not be among the traditional low income group. In addition, some of those with less education may have perceived the required tasks, 77 filling out time-log charts, would be too difficult for them and there- fore excluded themselves from the study. _Ljving Situation and Family Income_ The majority of families (70.6%) in the sample were renting their home; other families (29.4%) owned their home or lived in a home owned by their relatives. Most homes had two or three bedrooms. An average of 2.47 bedrooms were found in this sample. Table 15 describes the living situations of the respondents. TABLE 15 DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES BY TYPE OF LIVING SITUATION OF THE RESPONDENTS Type of Home No. of Families Percentage Apartment 19 37.3 Duplex 8 15.7 Single House 22 43.1 Townhouse __2 __§;g Total 51 100.0 The annual family income of these families was very low. Twelve percent had incomes above $7,000. The majority of families were dependent upon social welfare. Table 16 summarizes the family income of the respondents. 78 TABLE 16 DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES BY TOTAL FAMILY INCOME OF THE RESPONDENTS Total Family Income No. of Families Percentage Under $3,000 2 3.9 $3.000-$3,999 5 9.8 $4,000-$4,999 11 21.6 $5,000-$5.999 13 25.5 $6,000-$6,999 14 27.5 $7,000-$7,999 2 3.9 $8,000-$8,999 2 3.9 $9,000 and over _J;_ ‘ .gpg Total 51 100.0 Data Collection Data collection occurred between October 1980 and February 1981. Time use data were collected for Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Time use data were collected for the two consecutive days following the first visit of the interviewer. The second inter- view day during which the interviewer reviewed time 1095 with respondents immediately followed the second recording day. For example, if Monday was the first interview day, Tuesday and Wednesday were the time use recording days, and Thursday was the second inter- view day. To avoid having the interview occurring during the weekend, 79 respondents collected time use data only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. The first interview was designed to collect data on the inde- pendent variables, family background information. After determining eligibility of the household, the interviewer shared the cover letter with the respondent, explained the purpose of the study and obtained written informed consent from the respondent. After getting the consent from the respondent (see Appendix 13). the interviewer began the first interview by collecting the family background data on the first interview form. The interviewer then explained the procedures for recording the two-full days time data on the two separate time- log charts. The interviewer read the instructions for recording time- 109 chart to the respondent and gave examples to help the respondent understand the procedure correctly. The interviewer also read the definitions of each work activity to be certain the respondent understood and could record her daily household work activities in the correct column. The interviewer answered questions related to completing the time-log chart and repeated the procedure to be followed. The interviewer left two separate time-log charts with the respondent for recording time use on the next two days. Finally, the time for the second interview was set. Approximately one hour was spent on each first interview. The second interview, held two days after the first interview, was designed to collect data on the respondent's feelings about her life. The interviewer arrived at the scheduled time and collected the time-log charts prepared by the respondent. If the respondent 80 did not complete the two time-logs properly, the family was excluded from the sample. The interviewer thanked the respondent for her cooperation and left. If the respondent completed two days time-log charts, the interviewer reviewed the recorded time-log charts with the respondent and checked for completion. The interviewer then conducted the second interview to collect data on satisfaction with general life concerns. The Activities Estimating Chart was used during the second interview. The respondent was asked to make time estimates of her participation in each activity over a year's time. Approximately 50 minutes were spent on each of the second interviews. Single-female parents who completed the two interview questionnaires and two recorded time-log charts received a "thank you" letter and a $5.00 check within a month. A summary of the find- ings was also sent to the respondents. All sample families were assured by the interviewer that their responses would be anonymous and their privacy would be protected. (see Appendix A) Coding and Data Analysis Once the information on the questionnaires was collected, it was prepared for coding. A code book was developed so that all data could be coded onto IBM scanning sheets. The completed sheets were sent to the scanning office for scanning and read directly onto a computer tape. The data on the computer tape were then processed and punched onto computer cards. Accuracy of coding was double- checked by the researcher. 81 The compiled program for the study was developed by the researcher in consultation with a research consultant from the Office for Research Consultation._ The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for data analysis. The analysis of data was made in two stages. The first stage consisted of descriptive analysis, identification of factors for further study, and choice of statistical tools for the major analysis. In the second stage, each individual work activity was analyzed to determine the relationship--if any--between time use and selected variables. The level of satisfaction of general life con- cerns was analyzed to determine factors influencing attitudes toward quality of life. The Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient, Chi-square statistic, and T-test were used for the second stage. Descriptive Statistical Afialysis Descriptive analysis was made by using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (Nie et a1, 1975) to compute and present one-way frequency distributional characteristics of each of the variables and was used in statistical tests analysis. The frequency distributions were presented and the mean and standard-deviation were computed for each variable. Analytical procedures were used to present frequency data on time use in all work activities, satisfaction level with general life concerns, feelings about the importance of time spent on work activities, and estimated frequency of time spent on activities. 82 Spearman Correlation Statistic To determine the degree of statistical relationship between demographic independent variables and dependent variables such as time use by single female parent in household activities, and satis- faction with general life concerns, the nonparametric measure, Spearman Rank-Order Correlation, was used. The Spearman Rank-Order Correlation coefficient is designed to measure the degree of correlation between the ordinal rankings of two variables and to determine probability of the occurance. According to Siegel (1956) the Spearman Correlation shows whether an association exists between variables and the degree of relation- ship, but it does not necessarily imply causation. Spearman's r is defined as the sum of the squared differ- s ences in the paired ranks for two variables over all cases, divided by a quantity which can perhaps best be described as follows: it is what the sum of the squared differences in ranks would have been had the two sets of rankings been totally independent. This formula is identical to that used to compute tau b in the CROSSTABS procedure. This quotient is then subtracted from 1 to produce the standardized coefficient. Spearman rS is then formally defined as: n 621 d].2 rs = 1 _ ___ffl____ N3 - N where di is the difference between the ranks of the two variables for case i. In using Spearman correlational analysis, variables must be ranked. The following rankings were used for the variables in this 83 study. Age Ranking: from the lowest to the highest —l . under 20 N . 21-25 years old (A) . 26-30 years old' A . 31-35 years old 5. 36-40 years old 6. 41-45 years old 7. 46-50 years old Level of Education: from the lowest to the highest 1. less than 6 grades of elementary school 6-8 grades of junior high school 1-3 years of high school completed high school and received diploma . 1-3 years of college 001wa . bachelor's degree and higher Family Income Ranking: from the lowest to the highest —-J . less than $3,000 $3,000 - $3.999 . $4,000 - $4,999 $5,000 - $5,999 $6,000 - $6,999 $7,000 - $7,999 $8,000 - $8,999 $9,000 - $9,999 tooowmm-bwm . $10,000 and over 84 Number of Children in the Family Ranking: from one child to more than one child 1. one . two three four five 0101th . six 7. seven 8. eight or more Age of the Youngest Child in the Family Ranking: from the youngest to the oldest 1. under one year old 1-3 years old 3-6 years old #wN . 6-12 years old 5. 12-15 years old 6. 15-18 years old 7. l8 and older Crosstabulation and Chi-sguare Statistic A crosstabulation is a joint frequency distribution of cases according to two variables. The display of the distribution of cases is the major component of contingency table analysis and is apparently the most commonly used analytic method in the Social Science (Hie, et a1, 1975). The joint frequency distributions can be statistically 85 analyzed by the Chi-square statistic to determine whether or not the variables are statistically independent or to indicate how strongly two variables are related to each other. This kind of analysis facilitates the study of relations by analyzing data into tabular frequencies that give clarity to trends and patterns in the rela— tionship (Nie et al, 1975). The Chi-square statistic is a test of statistical signifi- cance. It is used to determine whether a systematic relationship exists between two variables. This is done by computing the cell frequencies which would be expected if no relationship is present between the variables given the existing row and column totals (marginals). The expected cell frequencies are then compared to the actual values found in the table according to the following formula: 2 (f3 ’ f;)2 2 = x 1 1.1 e where f; equals the observed frequency in each cell, and f; equals the expected frequency calculated as f1: ~13) e N where C1 is the frequency in a respective column marginal, r, is the frequency in a respective row marginal, and N stands for total number of valid cases. As can be seen, the greater the discrepancies between the expected and actual frequencies, the larger Chi-square becomes (Nie et al, 1975). A large Chi-square implies that a systema- tic relationship of some sort exists between the variables. The Chi-square statistic helps to decide whether variables 86 are independent or related. It does not tell how strongly they are related. Part of the reason is that the sample size and number of variables have considerable influence upon the Chi-square statistic (Nie, et al, 1975). Lit-15$ In many investigations the research is primarily interested in discovering and evaluating differences between effects such as the difference in race for people at various levels of life satisfaction. The most common type of analysis is the comparison of two samples' means. SPSS procedure T-test computes students' t and probability levels to test whether or not the difference between two sample means is significant (Nie, et al, 1975). The use of this test was limited because cases had to be classified into two groups; the dependent variable must be interval, and a test of mean difference was perfromed for specified variables. Students' t is the statistic used in calculating the proba- bility associated with the null hypothesis. The t is a statistic generally applicable to a normally distributed random variable where the mean is known and the population variance is estimated from a sample (Nie, et al, 1975). Given two populations with means 111 and “2’ respectively, and unequal variances of and 0%, all unknown, the problem is to use the T-test of significance to determine if u] = “2‘ = (71-721-(111-112) S$/n1+Sg/n2 t 87 This statistic is not distributed as Student's t. However, the probability for t can be approximated by treating it as t, but with degrees of freedom [(sfi/n.) + (sg/n2112 df= [(Sf/n112/(n1-lll + [m4 m.hzuozoammm ow wzmozouu< mhzmmm 4m><¢p oz< .hzu2u>ommz_ 4 .Hzm2>04azu .mmaozu mooohzo .zo_huc omwau< —o.uom menu omaoz Fopomaw. :o_umgomwca coo; mo gossaz mo conga: m4m zomh_hu< 4mo o¢4~zoLqE~ ucmsxOHQEm mesmvmg memo wwwsum mocozu cowuocaamgm z vagu pucomeoa uponmmzoz zoom ummmczo> mo mm< >4~z mzh mo mo< ch uz~910uu< mhzw¢m hmmm oz< .mamoumm ozmmwux oz< uzgaum .hzm2u>oamz~ 404mZm .mmanmg .mm4Hzmo omm mhzmmhHm=omm 4.uowe :6» Human»; ac_a=o_on we omega «not, 30: cu vmmoaxo an mucosa «as «vow: pacoepoeo _~,OOm age «too: pouwnmnq co.u_vcou zu_aos os_— a-o1ou1aau oceanocoucv aupczuon —~_u=oc.u «cocoa 0.0:.“ . acmeouoa coca—ego e_om oe_u ocean ucogsongo.~: ogyp e. acue=u__neouoa acasuuoa. so «use: oc.>o= sea as. gay gone so: o=*>.~ Co chateau“ econ «Logan an wouqouu- oucoucuaoecv a... s._eee o—og31o1m~1a».p mucouaz eo—uou oceaoox 1.:32509 oceanosm —u>aeh uuou .>ogae~ .neua Lona acne ._>.uu< -es.o> -he.esu .._oou «Lau.04 nocogu csau gooeuao sfipeau .gau mosoeu .z .oam e_oeoaso= .auus nook c 8502 camaoz megaueou ou_4 pacoeuo A 4m>u4 mo. h< hzm mzmuuzou mmHA 4<¢mzmo :h—3 zouhu~hu< xmo: mao~m<> wzfico >m1h .o.m new: Lunezz momm mopnmwcm> mep1m mo mmsmma . m ugmm oz< .mmumaommm cz< mzH4Hz1h .o.m cum: swnssz magnum xeo: mmpnmwcm> pwma1m mo mmgmmo m uAmm oz< .mmumsommm cz< mzH4Hz new Agnew, new we umx_s xnacsc:.mce manage: acm> mundane mPoEme1m_mc_m mcvceoa umwmm_uem can m>_uvmqmlxum> cppmm» umxpe m>wummmc xmu> mm_~w554 acmeomrozu mew; mu~4Hz~3 dc zOmHm) For instance, from 8:10 - 8:20 you prepare the break- fast, then from 8:20 - 8:40 you set ddwn and eat your breakfast. Check the " Definition of work activity " to make sure cooking breakfast and eatting go to the category of FOOD PREPARATION & CLEANING. Then you draw a line from 8:10 - 8:40 in the space which provided for FOOD PREPARATION & CLEANING. If from 8:20 - 8:40 you eat your breakfast and watch T.V., you have to mark those two activities under the same time column in two separate WORK ACTIVITY categories. One line marked under FOOD PREPARATION & CLEANING , and the other line marked under LEISURE ACTIVITY BY YOURSELF at the same time period. Arrows and lines are the only things you have to do to mark your work activities on the record time-log chart. Please record each work activity right after you finish it. Thank you. l. 234 DEFINITION OF WORK ACTIVITIES FOOD PREPARATION AND CLEANING Meal Preparation: Preparing of food for breakfast, lunch, snack, dinner Packing lunch, snack Setting the table Serving food Feeding baby Special Food Preparation: Baking food or preparing food for another day Canning and freezing Preparing party refreshments or making birthday cake Preparing special holiday meals. Preparing food for donations, open house, or gifts Meal Cleanup: Washing and drying dishes for storage Putting away cleaned dishes Cleaning table, leftovers, and kitchen equipment Straightening up kitchen 2. DAILY, REGULAR OR SEASONAL HOUSEHOLD CMOR_E_S Washing and felding clothes Mapping, dusting, sweeping, waxing, and vacuuming Making beds Putting room in order Caring for house plants or flowers Mending and ironing Doing dry cleaning Polishing shoes Putting away out-of—season clothes 1235 3. SPECIAL HOUSE CARE Washing windows or walls Cleaning closets Defrosting and cleaning freezer or refrigerator Cleaning of oven Repairing furniture Repairing broken equipment or plumbing Rearranging room Painting and papering Putting up storm windows or screens 4. PERSONAL AND FAMILY CARE Taking care of child or children Bathing and dressing Reading to Children Teaching or helping children with homework Playing with children Taking child or children to dentist, physician, or barber Providing health care (giving medicine, bandaging) Taking care of animals and pets 5. OUTDOOR CHORES AND CARE OF Egg Outdoorgghores: - Doing yard and garden work Mow grass or water flowers Cleaning garage Cleaning trash Care of Car: Cleaning car or repairing car Changing oil Taking car or cycle to service station or garage 6. LEISURE ACTIVITIES BY YOURSELF ' Reading magazine, newspaper or catalog Watching T.V. Listening to radio Working with hobbies, such as: sewing, knitting, crocheting, painting, etc. 236 7. SOCIAL ACTIVITIES WITH OTHER PEOPLE TO. 11. Visiting relatives, friends, or museum Having a party Attending party Playing games or cards Attending sports activities Seeing a movie Going on a picnic Visiting a bar or eating at a restaurant . EMPLOYMENT Paid job outside home Self-employed in own business Work without pay in family business or farm VOLUNTEER WORK Church activities Youth volunteer activities Club activities Organization meetings PERSONAL IMPROVEMENT Attending classes Doing school activities or reading Doing homework or research Going to the library Attending seminar, workshop or conference TRAVEL Traveling to work and back home Traveling to shopping and back Taking children to school Traveling to attend activity and back, such as: church, volunteer, etc. Riding bus Waiting Walking 12. SHOPPING Shopping for food, supplies, equipment, furnishings or clothings Shopping in person, by telephone, or my mail Putting purchases away, getting or sending mail and packages Window shopping I3. 14. 15. 16. 237 COMMUNICATION Talking on the phone Chatting with friends, relatives, or neighbors Chatting with children FILING AND KEEPING RECORDS Writing letters Making bank deposits Balancing checkbook Sending bills Keeping records Planning: Meal or Activities 3§§I_ Night sleep Nap Resting OTHER 238 V — 5.3133 .- 59 s...: .n L_e4o_u Qeo ¢o_.-.¢.o.s 169. .— nu_h—>—huc xuoa 239) -l- Record Number .w THE SECOND INTERVIEW FORM THE PURPOSE OF SECOND INTERVIEW IS TO FIND OUT YOUR ATTITUDES ABOUT VARIOUS PARTS OF YOUR LIFE. PLEASE TELL ME YOUR FEELINGS, AS I READ THE QUESTIONS TO YOU. l 2 3 4 5 Coding: 1 l / A4] I very pretty mixed 7 pretty very unhappy unhappy (about equally happy happy happy & unhappy) A - Neutral - neither happy nor unhappy B 8 Never thought about it C - Does not apply to me I. YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT LIFE CONCERNS:* l. How do you feel about your life as a whole? 2. How do you feel about your own family life - yourself and your children? 3. How do you feel about your independence - the change you have to do what you want? . How do you feel about how much you are accepted by others? 5. How do you feel about your job? 6. How do you feel about your standard of living - the things you have like housing, car, furniture, recreation and others? 7. How do you feel about how much fun you are having? 8. How do you feel about your house or apartment? 9. How do you feel about what you are accomplishing in your life? 0. How do you feel about your particular neighborhood as a place to live? _____j IN I |I|I|| 2. -h w o o 0" o “‘49 3° 53 N .a 0.. .0. 240 -2- Record Number How do you feel about the way you spend your spare time - your non-working activity time? How do you feel about yourself? How do you feel about your children? How do you feel about changes in your life that you have made since becoming a single parent. How do you feel about your financial security? How do you feel about how interesting your day to day life is? How do you feel about your own health condition? How do you feel about the extent to which your physical needs (for instance, food, sleep, and clothing) are met? How do you feel about the extent to which your social and emotional needs (for instance, friends, acceptance by others, belonging and self-esteem) are met? How do you feel about the chance you have to learn new things or be exposed to new ideas? How do you feel about the closeness and sense of belonging in your life? How do you feel about the amount of respect you receive? How do you feel about the way you use your time? How do you feel about the way your money is used? How do you feel about the time you spend on household work? How do you feel about the way household work is accomplished? How do you feel about the way you express your feelings? How do you feel about the amount of time the family spends together? How do you feel about the time you spend with your children? 241 -3- Record Number __— II. TELL ME HOW IMPORTANT EACH OF THE FOLLOWING IS TO YOU. di /l /2 /3 . 4 5 co ng. / N5tiImportant Mostly Mixed Mostly Very At All Unimportant (About Important Important Equally Important And Unimportant) The time you spend with your children. The time you spend for yourself such as leisure and personal care. time you spend on personal improvement. The time you spend on volunteer work. time you spend on meal preparation. time you spend on watching TV. The time you spend on household chores. time you spend on helping other people. The time you spend on working your hobbies. time you spend with your friends, relatives. time you spend on social activities (party, game). time you spend on chatting or talking on the telephone. The time you spend on yard work. The time you spend on fixing or repairing things around the house. 15. Time !§_money, that is how important is time compared to money. 0 _g 3' CD _a 3' G EP‘P'PPr‘mwaPr‘ E? E? E? 5’ 5’ 000 O G «5 III. IMPORTANT IS: Your independence and freedom. Your standard of living (things you have like car, furniture, etc.) Your safety. A sense of belonging. § lllll 01th O... Feelings of self-esteem. 242 ‘4“ Record Humber________ IV. FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR QUESTIONS, CHECK ONE OF THE TWO RESPONSES THAT BEST DESCRIBES HOW YOU FEEL? 1. Have you usually felt pretty sure your life would work out the way you want it to, or have there been times when you haven't been sure about it? I have felt pretty sure life would work out the way I want it to. There have been times when I haven't been sure about it. 2. Do you think it's better to plan your life a good way ahead, or would you say life is too much a matter of luck to plan ahead very far? _ ' I think it's better to plan my life a good way ahead. I think life is too much a matter of luck to plan ahead very far. 3. When you do make plans ahead, do you usually get to carry things out the way you expected, or do things usually come up to make you change your plans? I usually get to carry things out the way I expected. Things usually come up to make me change my plans. 4. Some people feel they can run their lives pretty much the way they want to; other feel the problems of life are sometimes too big for them. Which one are you mg§t_like? I feel I can run my life pretty much the way I want to. I feel the problems of life are sometimes too big for me. 243 -l- Record Number ACTIVITY ESTIMATION CHART PLEASE CIRCLE A CODE NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO THE CATEGORY WHICH HOST ACCURATELY ESTIMATES HOW OFTEN THE ACTIVITIES HAPPEN. Coding Number: 0 a Omflflmfide I never about once a year about 2-5 times each year about 6-ll times each year about once each month about 2-3 times each month about once each week about 2-5 times each week about once each day two or more times each day I. How often do you do the following activities 1. Special house cleaning 0 1 2 3 4 5 2. Lawn/garden care 0 l 2 3 4 5 3. Wash car, or car care 0 l 2 3 4 5 4. Care of walk/drive O l 2 3 4 5 5. Care of garbage & trash 0 l 2 3 4 5 6. Maintenance of home/equipment, fixing O l 2 3 4 5 7. Ironing clothes 0 l 2 3 4 5 8. Mending clothes .0 l 2 3 4 5 9. Work on your hobbies O l 2 3 4 5 l0. Go out to bar, restaurant or nightclub by yourself 0 l 2 3 4 5 ' ll. Attend church services or activities 0 l 2 3 4 5 12. Do volunteer work 0 l 2 3 4 5 l3. Attend class, workshop, or conference 0 l 2 3 4 5 14. Shopping (not for groceries) O l 2 3 4 5 l5. Filing and keeping records '0 l 2 3 4 5 244 -2- Record‘Number How often do you and your children: l . Spend time together-discuss personal feelings 2. Work together on a project 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 B 3. Take a ride or walk I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4. Go out to eat (restaurant) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5. Entertain friend at home I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 6._ Visit friends, relatives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7. Go to a movie or other entertainment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8. Attend a sports event (football, base« ball, basketball, tennis, etc.) 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9. Attend a party' 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Go on a trip or on a vacation 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 ll. Have outdoor activities (picnic, boating, camping, swimming, etc.) 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12. Go to museum, exhibit, or fair 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l3. Attend church service or activites O l 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 14. Play games together 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15. Sit together for a meal 0 l 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 245 Record Number II. How often do your children who live with you: 1. Make you feel good because you have them “Ill Tell you or show you that they respect you Tell or show you that they love you Give you a hug or kiss Do some household work for you Do some yard work for you Do some repair work for you 1 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 I 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 I 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 u mpzuxzcu 4coue. .u.:u.>aou=. a. a» on a» go.u.ueou .A....u .au=..cb go.a.=._m ovuuapuaeueu .ouao: .ueo.uaaseoue— a: u—aaou-c.| mace.» .eocv—_gu .uco.u .3..>eou=. co co ago: - coo—o ago: .oaaos scope n—uaa: inaueoue. opau.4 inaceoue— ac.- oop veg: mouaog mama: paaeoezoc.>em .u If .nsozuea non—>eoc .acusuco nguuoxu no» .ueo—anoae uncoamux paeusaaocu - gu—z acozueo .acoxue- .05-sue. ppa Lorne. .ouo—auau —:~ugo:osa m—umax ayauiogaiuso «Loan .ousop «a: span: yo canp .a .neo.umoac on .a==o_uuo:a ice-u.vuo aaogu.x .neovanosc —.Lo>oa co co.« i “was an ¢o_a eo—a~o_w.c-—u xo.>sou:_ we nooeoguLa-ou .una- soouncouga -ao.c_a._u venue: -au...c._u cacao: .oeauacasca “a: v.9 co.n=ogocauou .u 246 . .uuo .u_—~u . .3u.>cou=. «cos; .muco.c» .o as. u. “no .nouuoacog an.» ac .uoauoacog ease.» .s_.=u v .uco.ua=e .comaoc acuaa_eaou issue' vo:e.»eou mouse.e ation igouee an.» aunt. icouc. be ouaauoa «engages 0: so» we. u.aa~.u=gueu e.gu_: o—a_xu_u inocaa- upco «sue so.>couc. uo.ceaz xu_>souc. 90,553: «I_p .. .ou~4_u_aeon on u.uu-*magu¢u .uco u. .xov>goue. 50 new uuonoga “sang go.» .u>_a.eoaoou uuocuuc. cassava: an soanwco.=_ "avenues “zoos .uuonoea «son. .o=.=e.aoa :. an gozo.scoae— neo.unu:o so.»< neo.anoac souu< co_uu~os _ocuaoz .o «ao_u_amam .o>.¢~eoaoooe: e. unocooe_ .< .m .v .n .~ .— a .:-:_oo mpzuzzao.sueea vuoooc we. uo.:~gua oo:~.>coae— «on.uuaoe any: so.g: n-~ eon-a: ouoogu " Lozo_>soae_ V rue; ac~>¢mhz_ me zo_p<=4<>u « ma¢>coue_ vacuum no “gazed u zu.>cou:_ vacuum so can: u gun-a: second a no.>coae_ unc.m.uo gauged " :u_>eoae_ one.“ .0 can: “ oozo.>guae_ .9 use: APPENDIX C SUMMARY REPORT TO RESPONDENTS 247 L \r*. . J 1 s , - l/ , (€91, ’i August 18, 1981 .3; viii). ' «eu- Dear friend : & ‘Ag Remember me, Karen Liu, the graduate student from Michigan State University who visited your home last winter ? Time has passed quickly; it has been more than six monthes since we visited. I'm sure that you have been wondering what I learned.. Now is the time to keep my promise and share results of the study with you. From November 1980 to February 1981, I interviewed 78 single-parent females. Fifty-one women completed the two interviews and filled out two time logs. You are one of those 51 females. Your c00peration and assistance made my study possible. I am so grateful for your help I Following is the summary of my findings. The results of the recorded time logs showed that single-female-parent families allocated their time along rather traditional lines. You, 51 single-female parents, spent an average of 7.7 hours per day on household work. That included food preparation and cleaning, regular household chores, special house care, family and personal care, shopping, filing and keeping records. You spent an average of 8.0 hours per day on non-household activities; this included watching T.V., visiting relatives or friends, chatting with friends or relatives, talking on the phone, traveling, working for pay, doing voluntary work; you averaged 8.3 hours per day on rest and/or getting your night's sleep. The purpose of my study was to develop base-line data on time use by single- female-headed families. As you know, many factors can influence the way we spend time. From your time recorded logs, I learned that time spent on food preparation and cleaning had high positive relationship with the number of chil- dren in the family; the time spent on family care had high positive relationship with the age of the youngest child in the family. In other words, if you had more children, you spent more time on food preparation and clean up, and if you had very young children more time was spent on family and child care. 24£3 Employment status did not show a significant influence on time use by single- female-parent families. Most employed single mothers are still responsible for all household activities; however, employed single mothers had less time to spend on leisure and social activities. In general, the data showed that single-female parents had adequate sleep, and averaged three more hours leisure and social time than wives in two-parent families. The data you provided also showed that most single-female parents do not spend much time on special house care, outdoor chores, car care, volunteer work, personal improvement, filing or keeping records, and maintaining or fixing things around the house. Many single parents told me during the interview that there is never enough time ‘ liiiRIZIEf'w for them to do things that they want to do. As a matter of fact, time is our most limited resources. There is never enough time for everthing, however, there is always enough time for important things. Managing time means managing yourself. Managing - 'time does not mean to working faster, working harder, or working longer; it means working smarter. Following are some time management tips that we've been sharing with other homemakers. I hope they will help you make more effective use of your time and feel more in control of your life. I) Make a daily " to do “ list : make a list of things that you really want to accomplish. 2) Set priorities by ranking the items on your list : "A” for the really important thing, "B” for those of medium importance, and "C" for those that really could be ignored. 3) Delegate tasks : delegate more responsibilities to younger members of the household; children really can do a lot, but they need to be taught and given clear instructions. 4) Control interruptions, learn to keep interruptions short. Manage your time: be in control. Get organized. For every minute sent in organizing, at least an hour is earned. You need to feel good about how well you make time work for you and delight in your ability to work smarter ... not harder. Sincerely , 7p - (“My Karen Liu Good luck. Again, many thanks. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRQRIES ”II III lllll lllllll ll 7 5 312931043 8 20