t\..lz
fun—«mu,

W01»

4!.

tfinzzln’. 3: A
”‘1‘

it}!
.3733?

r. v
.‘AVJHr-erl

.. is“. .2». .fim
4;" [O‘HU-Il‘shzch
. . 5. £21.): I}: 11..
o .lhluhhn (6‘. 11!.

1...?
‘tll‘ru . £19
.. 641...“.

:1 Jr .

 

 

2... .. x . . .. ”fiafikéfifig

. . . . ., .5...
-L.-1 . .

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
'niversity I

———~

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE ECOLOGY OF INFANT AND TODDLER CARE DURING
NONSTANDARD HOURS IN LICENSED CHILDCARE
CENTERS

presented by
DOROTHY ELIZABETH ALEXANDRA JORDAN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph. D. degree in Family and Child Ecology

 

 

MajoéProfessor’s Signature)
Chokgufi’ 02/ . 20728

Date

MSU is an afiinnalive-action, equal-opportunity employer

a.-.---‘—~—----.-'--—-.--.--o--.-—.--'--.-.-.-.--.-.—-.-—-.-—--o—-.--.c—----n-.-.-.-.-c-—.-n-.-.—-u-.-.-

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K'lProleccs.Pres/ClRC/DateDue,Indd

 

 

THE ECOLOGY OF INFANT AND TODDLER CARE DURING NONSTANDARD
HOURS IN LICENSED CHILDCARE CENTERS

By

Dorothy Elizabeth Alexandra Jordan

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Family and Child Ecology

2008

ABSTRACT

THE ECOLOGY OFINFANT AND TODDLER CARE DURING NON-STANDARD
HOURS IN LICENSED CHILDCARE CENTERS

By
Dorothy Elizabeth Alexandra Jordan

Despite the growth in the use of nonstandard hour childcare, virtually no research
exists on this type of childcare. The purposes of this descriptive study were to explore
and describe infant and toddler childcare during nonstandard hours from the perspectives
of childcare directors, parents and caregivers. Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model
of development as a guiding framework, four research questions were addressed: (1)
What are directors’ perceptions of the (a) features and (b) challenges of administering
nonstandard hour childcare for infants and toddlers attending childcare centers? (2) What
are parents’ perceptions of the (a) features and (b) challenges of using nonstandard hour
childcare for infants and toddlers attending childcare centers? (3) What are working
caregivers’ perceptions of the (a) features and (b) challenges of providing nonstandard
hour childcare for infants and toddlers attending childcare centers? (4) What are the (a)
features and challenges peculiar to the ecology of nonstandard hour childcare for infants
and toddlers attending childcare centers.

Given the exploratory nature of the research questions, a qualitative study design
and methodology were employed. Case studies of three Midwestern childcare centers
open during nonstandard hours were conducted. Data collection methods employed
included stafl‘ and parent completed demographic questionnaires, semi-structured, one-
on—one interviews with three directors, five parents, and four caregivers, representing

three childcare programs. Observations of the infant and toddler environments and of

caregivers’ interactions with the children were conducted, as a means to providing a
description of the child care environment. Qualitative data analyses revealed common
themes within each case study as well as across child care directors, caregivers, and
parents. Common themes within center were as follows: time, resources and quality
(Center A); time and environments (Center B); time and stress (Center C). Common
themes that emerged from directors’ responses included: financial viability and time.
Responses from parents across centers provided evidence for the following themes: time
and safety. Finally, data from caregivers across centers revealed the following themes:
relationships and time. These findings provide one of the few in depth descriptive

studies of nonstandard hour child care.

Copyright
Dorothy Elizabeth Alexandra Jordan

2008

For my family:

To my husband and children who provided love, encouragement and support for my
journey through higher education. Also in loving memory of my father Charles Cyril
Nicholson who instilled in me a passion for learning.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, mentor and committee chair Dr. Holly Brophy-
Herb for her patience, guidance and direction throughout my doctoral program. I would
also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Robert Griffore, Dr. Lilian Phenice and
Dr. Steve Weiland for their invaluable insight and support.

My gratitude to the staff and faculty of Family and Child Ecology past and
present, in particular Dr. Anne Soderrnan, Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik and Ms. Stephanie
Perentesis for encouraging me to pursue this degree. Special thanks to fellow graduate
students Chantel Lumpkin, Victoria Martinez, and Karen Croff, and to fiiends Kyle
Colivn and Sue Finley for help, encouragement, suggestions and most important of all,

for listening to me.

vi

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................ ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ x
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION ................... ' .............................................................. 1
Significance of the problem .............................................................. 2
Need for study .............................................................................. 4
Rationale for qualitative study ........................................................... 4
Theoretical framework .................................................................... 5
Research questions ........................................................................ 8
Limitations and assumptions ............................................................. 8
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................. 10
Nonstandard hours ..................................................................... 10
American Economy ..................... ' ................................................. ll
Childcare ................................................................................... l3
Nonstandard work schedules and the worker ......................................... 14
Nonstandard hour workers as parents .................................................. 15
Nonstandard hour work schedules and child well being ............................ 15
Parent perspectives ....................................................................... 17
Caregiver and director perspectives ................................................... 18
Nonstandard hour childcare issues ..................................................... 19
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS ........................................................................................ 21
Participants and recruitments ........................................................... 21
Procedures ................................................................................. 25
Measures .................................................................................. 26
Data analyses ............................................................................. 28
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS .......................................................................................... 3 1
Case studies ............................................................................... 31
Case study A .............................................................................. 31
Themes case study A ..................................................................... 34
Case study B .............................................................................. 52
Themes case study B ..................................................................... 56
Case study C .............................................................................. 65
Themes case study C ..................................................................... 67
Summary of themes across cases ....................................................... 76
Common themes across participants ................................................... 76

vii

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ......................................................... 85
Discussion ................................................................................ 85
Theoretical Framework ...... i ........................................................... 85
Aspects of time .......................................................................... 87
Schedules ................................................................................. 87
Routines .................................................................................. 89
Relationships ............................................................................. 89
Stigma .................................................................................... 9O
Contexts of care ......................................................................... 92
Financial viability ....................................................................... 93
Conclusions .............................................................................. 94
Implications for future research ...................................................... 95

APPENDICES
A. Introductory Letter ................................................................... 99
B. Informed consent director .......................................................... 101
C. Informed consent parent ............................................................ 104
D. Informed consent caregiver ........................................................ 108
E. Director questionnaire .............................................................. 111
F. Parent questionnaire ................................................................ 115
G. Caregiver questionnaire ............................................................ 117
H. Recruitment flyer .................................................................... 121

REFERENCES .................................................................................... 122

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table lzParticipating Licensed Centers ................................................. 22
Table 2 Participant characteristics for Centers A, B and C .......................... 23
Table 3 Parent demographics ............................................................. 24
Table 4 Caregiver Demographics ........................................................ 25

Table 5 Summary of within center themes and sub themes across case A. . . .35

Table 6 Summary of themes across case study B ..................................... 55
Table 7 Summary of themes and sub themes across case C ......................... 68
Table 8 Common themes across participant groups .................................. 77
Table 9 Summary of mean scores for Amett Caregiver Interaction Scale ........ 82
Table 10 Mean scores for ITERS-R .................................................... 84

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Reciprocal influences on nonstandard hour childcare ................................ 8

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction

Rapid and marked changes in economic, sociopolitical, and familial functioning
during the last half century have led to growing numbers of women in the workforce.
Consequently, families progressively rely on childcare outside the home for their
children. Early childcare, beginning full time as early as six weeks after birth, has
become a normative experience for many American children (Vandell & Wolfe, 2000;
NICHD, 2002). Some of these infants are in care during nonstandard hours, typically
considered to be childcare provided between 5 pm. and 9.a.m. We know little about
infants’, toddlers’, and families’ experiences with non-standard hour center based
childcare. Likewise, few studies have examined how caregivers and directors working in
nonstandard hour care perceive their roles and experiences on the job. The paucity of
available research is especially problematic given that 15% of the workforce in America
(approximately 15 million people) works nonstandard hours (US Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2005). At least 20% of families with mothers working nonstandard hours use
center-based childcare (US Department of Labor, 2000).

Competition in a global economy requires all business sectors to increasingly rely
on nonstandard work schedules that enable business to be transacted outside of the
traditional workday. Growth in the service industry and more women in the workplace
also contribute to the growth in nonstandard hour work schedules (Han, 2007). Some
studies have shown that parents working nonstandard hours schedules are more likely to
utilize family and fiiends for their childcare needs (Kimmel & Powell, 2006; Han

2005).However, increasing numbers of mothers of infants and toddlers working

I

nonstandard hours is generating the need for research on infants’, toddlers’, and adults’
experiences during nonstandard hour childcare. There is little research to date that
provides information on the specific benefits, challenges, and features of nonstandard
hour childcare. Virtually all research to date has provided information about aspects of
daytime childcare. Yet, infants and toddlers attending nonstandard hour care in
childcare centers experience very different routines than their day time counter-parts. For
example, infants and toddlers in nonstandard hour care have dinner and bedtime routines
unlike routines that occur during the day.

Likewise, parents, directors, and caregivers may have unique experiences relative
to nonstandard hour care. For example, patterns of communication between directors,
caregivers, and parents necessary for coordination and scheduling of routines for children
arriving at the center in the middle of the night are qualitatively different than routines
that occur during daytime hours. The primary objective of this study is to expand the
current understanding of childcare for infants and toddlers attending centers, in the
context of nonstandard hours. Using a human ecological model as a guiding framework,
this qualitative study explores directors’, caregivers’, and parents’ perceptions of
nonstandard hour care, and describe the environment provided by centers for infants and
toddlers before 9:00 am. and after 5:00 pm. The data collected in this study are a
necessary prerequisite for larger quantitative studies in the future.

Significance of the Problem
Prior studies have shown that working nonstandard hours is a potential hazard for
adults’ physical (quality of sleep, fatigue), psychological (depression), and social (marital
instability) health (Presser, 2003; Golden, 2001 Beers, 2000). If nonstandard hours of

2

work have a detrimental effect on adults, how do those hours of work impact the
directors, parents, and caregivers? Currently, about a dozen studies in the literature have
examined the associations of nonstandard hour work schedules and child outcomes.
Some of the studies reviewed found‘negative associations between mothers’ shift
schedules and children’s behavioral and cognitive outcomes (Dosa et. al, 2002; Joshi &
Bogen, 2002; Han, 2005; Heymann, 2000; Strazdins et al., 2006; Strazdins et al., 2004).
Heymann (2000) found poorer educational outcomes for children whose mothers worked
evenings and nights over a 6-year period. Han (2005) had preliminary data that indicated
that the timing and duration of maternal nonstandard hour work schedules were
associated negatively with children’s well being, particularly when the nonstandard work
hours began in the first year of the child’s life. Children’s cognitive development at 24
months and expressive language at 36 months were lower when compared to their
cohorts whose mothers worked regular daytime hours.

According to Han (2005, 2004) mothers who worked nonstandard hours tended to
use different childcare arrangements than mothers who worked standard hours. Mothers
working nonstandard hours tended to use spouses, the child’s father, grandparents,
relatives, neighbors, and friends to care for their children, only using centers as a last
resort. In comparison, mothers who worked normal daytime hours were more likely to
use family daycare or childcare centers (Han, 2004; Presser, 2003). Han hypothesizes
that one explanation for lower performance levels of children whose mothers worked
nonstandard hours was that that they tended to be enrolled in childcare centers less often
than their daytime counterparts. As a consequence, these children’s care may be lacking

in the forms of school preparation that children receive during standard hours of care.

3

There are no studies to date that describe the care children younger than 36 months
receive in the specific context of nonstandard hours, particularly in childcare centers.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was not to determine development outcomes or adult
work performance as a function of nonstandard hour care, but rather, to provide the first
descriptive study of participants’ experiences in nonstandard hour care (directors,
caregivers, parents, and infants).
Need for the Study

Researchers have just begun to study how nonstandard schedules affect children
at all ages. A small number of studies have found negative consequences of evening and
night shifts on children’s cognitive outcomes. Focusing on children birth to three, a
recent large-scale longitudinal study found significant negative associations between
maternal nonstandard work schedules and young children’s cognitive development, that
were partially mediated by childcare quality (Han, 2005). To date, no studies have
described childcare experiences during nonstandard hours for children aged birth to three
attending licensed childcare centers. This study sought to address this gap in the
literature by describing infant and toddler environments in licensed childcare centers
during nonstandard hours. Perspectives of key persons in infant and toddler childcare
center environments such as directors’, caregivers’, and parents’ were examined as well.

Rationale for Qualitative Study

There is very little current literature available on the experiences of directors,
caregivers, and parents involved with nonstandard hour childcare. The qualitative study
allowed for the examination of nonstandard hours in childcare centers in an in-depth way

that increases our understanding of this type of care setting, contributes to the sparse

4

research literature, and serves as a foundation for later, larger quantitative studies. This
study sought to develop a rich description of nonstandard hour childcare for infants and
toddlers in licensed childcare centers and understand the perspectives of directors,
caregivers, and parents in these childcare settings. Given the exploratory nature of the
research questions, a study design using qualitative methods of data collection was used.
Data were collected from directors, parents, caregivers, and about their experiences with
nonstandard hour care for infants and toddlers attending three urban childcare centers in a
Midwestern city.

Specifically, participants were asked about benefits and challenges in their
experiences with nonstandard hour care. A case study approach was used to describe
each childcare center, and the participants associated with that center. Next, common
themes across centers and across participants were noted. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory
of bio-ecological human development was used as a guide for identifying processes
peculiar to the context of nonstandard hours and the strengths and challenges of this
aspect of care for infants and toddlers.

Theoretical Framework

Bronfenbrenner’s Bio-ecological Model of Human Development (2005) was used
to frame this study of infants and toddlers and their parents’ use of childcare centers
during nonstandard hours. The key tenet of Bronfenbrenner’s model is that development
takes place across the life course through “proximal processes.” According to
Bronfenbrenner (2005) “proximal processes” are the process of interaction between the
developing organism and everything in the external environment. Such processes of

interaction in the current study reflected the bi-directional interactions between directors,

5

parents, caregivers, and the infants and toddlers for whom they cared. For example, the
interactions between directors and parents regarding scheduling would be expected to
impact interactions between directors and caregivers, whose schedules reflect the needs
of enrollment patterns. The focus of this study was to explore the perceptions of directors,
parents, and caregivers that might speak to the interrelated nature of their experiences,
and help to characterize the features and challenges of nonstandard hour childcare.

Figure 1, shows a model of this study. The focus of the study was infants’ and
toddlers’ experiences during nonstande hours in childcare centers. The physical
environment was explored through observations using the Infant Toddler Rating Scale —
Revised (Harms, 2006). Information was gathered from the key stake holders of the
childcare centers through interviews. Directors were interviewed about their experiences
with parents and staff. Directors’ interviews addressed administrative tasks, needs,
beliefs, and relationships with parents. Parents were interviewed about their experiences
with the center. Parents’ interviews addressed their work schedules, expectations for
childcare, and relationships with center staff. Caregivers were interviewed to obtain an
understanding of their experiences with the infants, toddlers and parents. Caregivers’
interviews addressed their own family needs as well as the relationships with the children
and their parents. Caregivers were also observed and their interactions with children
were recorded using the Amett Caregiver Interaction Scale.

See Figure 1 for model of reciprocal influences on the nonstandard hour childcare

system.

       
      

  

3058035 n2. .m
3:83 :05 28
3233 as £ng
a? 32233 .N
memo: fig.“ :30 .H

E

          
         

  

     
       

       
     
  

£050 28
3:38 53> -
qumaotm—om .m

33 mmocmtmaxm we... sea a?
can meow: m Ema—owflom .m
beam ESQ .N .6625 mgmutzrfiu a 0.80 how
369 g 3 O r— mcouflooaxm .N
o>wmbm§8u< “Cm—u C mamco 2 2.62.8 :83 .H

-

.5233?”

.832...

«cogegcm Eommmnm

33339 .53 3.532833 no 8.333%: BoEABmM

~ ocswE

Research Questions
The following research questions were addressed in the current study.
. What are directors’ perceptions of the (a) features and (b) challenges of
administering nonstandard hour childcare for infants and toddlers attending
childcare centers?
. What are parents’ perceptions of the (a) features and (b) challenges of using
nonstandard hour childcare for infants and toddlers attending childcare centers?
. What are working caregivers’ perceptions of the (a) features and (b) challenges of
providing nonstandard hour childcare for infants and toddlers attending childcare
centers?
. What are the (a) features and (b) challenges peculiar to the ecology of infants and
toddlers in childcare during nonstandard hours?

Limitations and Assumptions

Limits of this study included the lack of random selection of programs due to the

small numbers of centers open during nonstandard hours who service infants and

toddlers. All of the centers were also open for regular daycare shifts and no data was

collected from the daytime groups of caregivers, infant and toddler groups, or their

parents. Due to the specificity of the group needed for study, only three childcare centers

met the criteria for participation in the study. Participation of three centers limited the

number of directors interviewed to three. The total number of infants (5) and toddlers (7)

enrolled during nonstandard hours was small limiting the number of caregivers

interviewed to four. Only five parents, of a total of twelve eligible parents, agreed to be

interviewed for this study. Small numbers limited the significance and generalization of

8

conclusions being drawn from this study. However, the purpose of the study was to use
qualitative methods to identify key issues particular to nonstandard hour infant care that
may later be addressed in a larger quantitative study.

A challenge for the researcher in this study was identifying appropriate models for
this type of work. Another challenge experienced was that the interview protocols for
this study were not piloted. A pilot of the protocols would have allowed the researcher to
make changes so that more questions relative to the reasons for actions and beliefs were
included. This study focused primarily on nonstandard hours of care Monday through
Friday and did not include weekend care. Another limitation for this study was the lack
of prior data in the literature with which to compare this study.

Assumptions of the study included that participants would be honest in
responding to questions. In addition, it was assumed that respondents would provide
accurate information regarding their experiences, as well as providing their own
perspectives of childcare during nonstandard hours. Centers participating in the study
were assumed to be typical of centers open during nonstandard hours.

An in-depth review of issues surrounding nonstandard hours of work for parents
and a review of the most recent research involving children in relation to parents’ work
hours follows in the next chapter. Methods for the study are described in chapter three.
Study results are presented in chapter four, and the discussion and conclusions are

included in chapter five.

CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review

In the following literature review, the definition of what constitutes nonstandard
hour care is addressed, followed by a review of the economic factors that have brought
about the prevalence of working nonstandard hours. Next, recent research on childcare
and parents’ nonstandard schedules of work, as they relate to adults’, and then to
children’s well being, is addressed. Directors’, caregivers’, and parents’ perspectives
about childcare are also reviewed. This literature review concludes with issues
surrounding nonstandard hour work schedules and childcare.

Nonstandard hours

A review of the literature showed that a variety of terms were used to describe
work hours outside of the traditional daytime hours of 9:00 am. to 5:00 pm. These
hours were sometimes referred to as atypical, non-traditional, irregular, alternative, shifts,
off, or odd hours as well as nonstandard hours in the literature. Researchers used slightly
different definitions for nonstandard hour work. Han (2007) noted that working any time
during the weekends was considered as nonstandard work schedules. Harriet Presser
(2003) has done extensive research on the topic of working 24 hours per day 7 days per
week, for the last 30 years. Presser has consistently used the following definitions to
discuss nonstandard work schedules occurring Monday through Friday when at least half
of the hours worked most days during the prior week occurred within the given hours
noted. A fixed day was described as: hours between 8:00 am. and 4:00 pm. A fixed
evening was described as: hours between 4:00 pm. and midnight; and finally a fixed

night was described as: hours between midnight and 8:00 am. Rotating occurs when the

10

schedule changed periodically from days to evenings or nights. Hours vary, denotes an
irregular schedule that could not be classified in any of the above categories.

Since 1979 the United States Department of Labor Statistics (2005) has
categorized a regular daytime shift as anytime between 6:00 am. and 6:00 p.m., a regular
evening shifi as anytime between 2:00 pm. and midnight, a regular night shift as anytime
between 9:00 pm. and 8:00 am. Shift rotates, were shift changes that happened
periodically from days to evenings or nights, and anything else as irregular schedules or
hours. In 1995 the Women’s Bureau described nonstandard hours as any hours outside of
the traditional weekday 9:00 am. to 5:00 pm.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has collected national data on work schedules
since 1972. Presser’s (2003) examination of this data revealed that single mothers and
parents in families with young children under age 6, young people, African Americans,
males, low skilled, and the low educated people in society were more likely to work
nonstandard work schedules. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005) noted
that some workers work a combination of daytime hours combined with nonstandard
hours. Beers (2000) notes that a flexible work schedule could begin and end at any time
of the day once the worker and employer were in agreement.

American Economy
A review of the literature revealed increasing numbers of Americans working
hours that were not regular daytime hours (Han, 2007; US Department of Labor
Statistics, 2005; Presser, 2003). There were three major reasons behind this trend noted
in the literature. Presser (2003) noted the trend toward a more service-based economy

supported by the number of women, in particular those with children, entering the

I]

workforce over the past 30 years. This trend has led to families taking care of daily
responsibilities, like grocery shopping, during nonstandard hours, which drove the need
for the service sector to expand their hours of operation. Additionally, there was a high
prevalence of women working in the service sector. The second reason for the trend to
work nonstandard hours is the changing population demographic. The aging population’s
demand for around the clock medical services seven days per week, including jobs such
as nurse aides and home healthcare, jobs that are usually filled by women, continues to
grow. The third trend was that of a global economy (Han, 2007). Technology has
created ease of global communication encouraging corporations to increase their
availability by accommodating different time zones as they do business around the world.
Other minor trends contributing to the growing number of nonstandard jobs
include welfare reform and the economic need for women to work. More women in the
workplace have contributed to increasingly more families eating out and engaging in
recreational activities during nonstandard hours. These trends were pervasive across
family groups regardless of income, occupation, parental status, and dual or single parent
earning families (Presser & Cox, 1997; Presser, 2003). Certain occupations such as
nurses, janitors, waitresses and others in the service industry are more likely to require
nonstandard hours. Private sector workers, those in sales, retail, and personal services as
well as industrial workers also found themselves in the category of most likely to work
nonstandard hours (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005). These jobs were projected to

be the fastest growing in the United States for at least a decade (Presser, 2003).

12

Childcare

Recent studies by the National Institutes of Child Health and Human
Development (N ICHD) have focused on early childcare. NICHD along with other
researchers continued to study children in childcare, and to gather data about the quality,
language outcomes, social interactions, and children’s academic and social behaviors
while in childcare, and when they attend school (F abes et al 2003; Love et a1, 2003;
NICHD, 2006; NICHD, 2005; NICHD, 2003; NICHD 2000a). Children’s Defense Fund
(CDF) states that approximately 6 million infants and toddlers were placed in out of
home care in 1999. According to the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Birth Cohort,
50 percent of children born in 2001 were in regular, non-parental childcare arrangements
at 9 months of age. Among children younger than three years old, 24% have experienced
regular non-relative childcare (US Census Bureau, 2007). Children in the 2001 cohort
whose parents made higher incomes experienced non-parental care at a rate of 52%
(Capizzano & Adams, 2003). Children whose family incomes fell below the poverty
level were less likely to be in non-parental childcare at 9 months of age. For this group
only 43% experienced non-parental care.

Studies and reports in the United States and England have noted that when
mothers of children younger than the age of three years work nonstandard hours the
children are most likely to be cared for by fathers (particularly for married couples), or by
other kith and kin (Han, 2005; Joseph Rowntree report: Stratham & Mooney, 2003).
These studies reported that parents’ first choice is to rely on partners, followed by
relatives, and then friends for childcare. Grandparents who offered care desired to be

active in their grandchildren’s development and helpful with their care (Anderson, 2003).

13

Children of the same ages whose mothers worked normal day time hours were more
likely to be cared for in family day care homes or childcare centers (Presser, 2003; Han,
2004). Presser’s research revealed that nearly 50% of couples aged 19-26 with children
under the age of 5 had a spouse working late or rotating shift. These couples tended to be
less educated and earned lower incomes than their older counterparts (Presser, 2003).
There was nothing in the literature concerning infant and toddler childcare in centers
during nonstandard hours.
Nonstandard work schedules and the worker

A review of the literature shows that studies about nonstandard hour work
schedules began by exploring the effects of working alternate shifts on worker’s health
(Mott, et al., 1965, Gannon, Norland and Robeson, 1983). Since then more recent
research has documented negative health consequences related to working nonstandard
hours (Caruso et al., 2004; US. Congress 1991). Studies have demonstrated that
nonstandard work schedules have deleterious physical health outcomes and that workers
smoke more, are more overweight, suffer from psychological disturbances associated
with sleep deprivation, suffer fatigue, and chronic stress more often than day workers
(Tasto, et al., 1978; Kivimaki, et al., 2001). Studies also demonstrated that nonstandard
hour workers tend to have lower levels of social satisfaction with their quality of life and
show higher levels of family conflict and marital instability (Presser, 2000; Grosswald,
2004). Han (2007) noted that the adverse health effects from working nonstandard hours
raised the issue of the direct or indirect impact of nonstande work hours on children’s

well being.

Nonstandard hour workers as parents

When mothers worked nonstandard work schedules, fathers spent significantly
more time with children. Presser’s research (1986, 1988) shows that more than 40% of
children whose mothers worked nonstandard hours were cared for by fathers while their
mothers worked. This number rose to 66% when mothers worked part-time nonstandard
hour shifts. Han (2004) noted that reliance on paternal care as a first option occurs
particularly up to the age of three years. Han (2007) noted that working nonstandard
schedules has been linked to less time in family roles for dual earner married couples.
Parents working rotating shifts were more likely to miss the important events of their
school age children. Parents who worked odd hours were able to make school or after
school engagements mainly at the discretion of their immediate supervisor (Henly,
Shaefer, & Waxman, 2006). Single mothers used relatives to help care for their children.
Little is known about the parents’ nonstandard work schedules and child development.
Bronfenbrenner’s human ecological theory (2005) informed us that children’s positive
well being was fostered by close positive parent child relationships which occur when
parents and child spend time together. Nonstandard hour work schedules may have
reduced the time parents spend with their children. These hours of work may also be so
physically draining on parents that they impeded the ability to nurture children’s
development (Heymann, 2000).

Nonstandard work schedules and child well being
We know little about parents’ nonstandard hour work schedules and children’s

development. The few studies that have examined the timing and duration of maternal

15

nonstandard work schedules and children’s cognitive and behavioral outcomes have
found negative relationships. Han (2005) had preliminary data that showed that at 36
months of age, children of mothers who worked nonstandard hours scored lower on
cognitive tests than their counterparts whose mothers worked daytime hours. Previous
studies have found that center-based care was associated with better cognitive outcomes
and school readiness (N ICHD ECRN, 2000b, 2002). Since nonstandard hour workers
tend to use relatives to care for children particularly until the age of three years, Han
(2005) posits that this could be one reason why children tested differently to their
daytime counterparts whose mothers’ first choice for care is childcare centers. However,
a review of the literature reveals no studies done in childcare centers during nonstandard
hours in particular concerning children under the age of three years old. The care
children receive in center-based settings during nonstandard hours is undocumented.
Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development (2005) noted that the childcare
center was the child’s second microsystem, the home being the first microsystem the
child encounters. In this theory, the child’s development was heavily impacted by the
first microsystem, the home where the parent’s adverse health effects, fatigue, lack of
sleep, and depression from working nonstandard hours may have directly or indirectly
impacted the child. It was in the home that Bronfenbrenner noted the child grew and
flourished when there was a close positive parent child relationship engendered by
parents’ interaction with the child and the child’s interaction with the parent. These
interactions occurred when parents and children spend time together and nonstandard

work schedules may impede parents’ ability to spend time with their children, ultimately

impacting the child’s development (Heymann, 2000). There were so few studies in this
area that no conclusive outcomes can be deduced at this time (Han, 2007).
Parent Perspectives

A review of the literature found few studies that specifically examined parents’
perspectives on nonstandard hour childcare in centers. Some reports quoted parents’
perspectives in relation to childcare subsidies that helped to pay for childcare, giving rise
to the fact that parents were not clear about using subsidies for nonstandard hour care
(Adams, Holcomb et al. 2006). Ceglowski and Bacigalupa (2002) studied perspectives of
parents and staff on issues of childcare quality. They found that for parents important
issues were health, safety, personal characteristics of the caregiver, such as sensitivity
and warmth, along with how the caregivers communicated with parents. Emlen (1999)
suggests that flexibility is important to families, in particular, those who have limited
flexibility in work arrangements or availability of other family members. Ceglowski and
Bacigalupa (2002) cite evening work schedules as being less flexible for a single parent
with no family available to help with childcare. They noted that families with job
flexibility and relatives for support could choose childcare arrangements that are less
flexible. They conclude that we need to better understand parental visions for their
children, both at home and in childcare because parents’ perspectives broaden the
prevailing parameters for program quality.

The Women’s Bureau (US Department of Labor 1995, 2000) has issued at least
two major reports about nonstandard work and childcare. Reporting on challenges for
families, the Bureau noted that the reason they opted first for kith and kin care is trust,

comfort, and familiarity with their own home and the caregiver, along with less

17

disruption for children. It is important to families that children go to sleep in their own
home bed and not have to wake up to go home. Stratham and Mooney, (2003) in their
report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on atypical care, state that parents sometimes
regard children in care outside the home at night, in particular in centers, with hostility
because centers are viewed as more institutional. The Women’s Bureau (US Department
of Labor, 2000) also reported that parents were looking for safe, comfortable
environments and parents also believe that children want their own beds at night. Other
concerns were getting school age children from school while parent’s work and
transportation for parents who work late nights. Parents also reported stress due to
juggling everything, especially if they had children of different ages. Last, but certainly
not least, was the complaint that not enough organizations offered care during
nonstandard hours. In a report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation about childcare at
atypical times, Stratham and Mooney (2003) state that parents in England lamented the
fact that they were not having dinner with their children on weeknights and see this as
detrimental to the child. English parents perceive that children are better off at home

with their parents, or at least with family and fiiends, outside of standard working hours.

Caregiver and Director Perspectives
Cegloswki and Bacigalupa (2002) included in their study the perspectives of
childcare staff noting that staff perspectives of childcare quality have not been studied
systematically. The Women’s Bureau (US Department of Labor, 2000) report on
nonstandard hour work and childcare interviewed three directors of centers open during
nontraditional hours. Directors interviewed for this report noted that when centers were

open during nonstandard hours the challenges were to hire and keep staff, the costs of
18

staying open late, and the challenges in accommodating varying schedules of parents.
Rewards for directors were knowing that they were meeting the needs of the community
by providing safe, healthy environments for children. They also reported that children
received more individualized attention, enabling the identification of special needs more
quickly and efficiently, as staff spent more time with children on a consistent basis. The
centers seemed to shift gears after standard hours providing a more relaxed atmosphere.
It was hard to find time for maintenance because the buildings were always in use.

In England, caregivers were reluctant to provide care outside of their usual
working hours. Reasons cited were the impact on their own families, and the fact that
working outside of standard hours made for along day for them (Joseph Rowntree report;
Statham and Mooney, 2003). Caregivers also reported that meeting the needs of parents
with varying schedules would be difficult. Providing this type of care would require that
caregivers be flexible. Although many caregivers said that they were willing to be
flexible, the report found that they wished to restrict their hours of work to regular
daytime hours.

Nonstandard hour childcare issues

Han (2007) noted that low educated mothers, similar to welfare to work mothers,
are more likely to work nonstandard hour schedules than more educated childless
women. For these women childcare was a combination of multiple providers including
relatives, formal, and informal arrangements that contribute to complicating job stability.
Lower educated workers receiving low wages and single parent families work
disproportionately during nonstandard hours (Presser, 2003). Lack of flexibility or

choice of wOrking hours was also experienced by these parents.

19

The review of the literature showed well documented evidence that working
nonstandard hours may be detrimental to adults’ health and well being, affecting them
physically, socially, and psychologically. A few studies show some positive effects such
as mothers being able to work but behome during the day with their children, increased
paternal participation in childcare duties, and reduced costs for childcare when parents
worked different or alternating shifis. There were also negative associations of the
cognitive outcomes for children whose parents worked nonstandard hours but no
definitive answers as to the reasons for these associations. Applying Bronfenbrenner’s
theoretical framework, we can posit that the interactions between the children and the
adults in their environment at home and in childcare are pertinent to their developmental
outcomes and must be carefully studied in the context of nonstandard hours.

A few studies and reports on parent and center staff perspectives have been
documented in the literature. Parents were primarily concerned about safety and
spending time with their children. Directors’ major issues are costs, scheduling and
meeting the community needs. However, the literature does not specifically cover what
childcare experiences were for infants and toddlers during nonstandard hours in childcare

centers .

2O

CHAPTER THREE
Methods

Given the exploratory nature of the research questions, a qualitative study design
and methodology were employed. The primary objectives of this qualitative, exploratory
study were to examine the perceptions of (a) parents, (b) caregivers, and (c) directors of
nonstandard hour childcare for infants and toddlers in childcare centers. A secondary
objective was to explore the environment of the childcare centers. Specifically, this study
sought to identify the key features and challenges of care for infants and toddlers enrolled
in childcare centers during nonstandard hours, and provide descriptions of caregiving and
interaction patterns in infant and toddler classrooms in centers during second and third
shifts (2:00 pm. to 10:00 pm. and 10:00 pm. to 6:00 am).

Methods used included staff and parent completed demographic questionnaires,
open-ended, semi-structured, one-on—one interviews with four caregivers, three directors,
and five parents, representing three childcare programs. An ITERS-R and an Amett
Caregiver Scale rating were completed for each group of infants and toddlers and their
caregivers by the researcher and a graduate student.

Participants and Recruitment

Participant childcare centers were selected through purposefirl and criterion-based
sampling. The criterion was that the centers must service infants and toddlers and be
licensed to operate between 18 to 24 hours per day at the time of the interview. Eligible
childcare centers were identified from the State Department’s website where a list of
licensed centers was published. Using the list of licensed centers on the State Department

website and a local resource and referral agency centers were identified based on the

21

criteria of (a) serving infants and toddlers (b) open 24 hours or until midnight. Four
centers were identified. Three urban-licensed childcare centers serving infants and
toddlers, open during nonstandard hours participated in the study. The fourth center did
not have infants or toddlers currently} enrolled in their nonstandard hour program.
Participating childcare programs are identified as Centers A, B & C. General
characteristics of operation for each center are reported in Table 1.

Table 1

Participating Licensed Centers

 

 

Center Capacity Nonstandard Mon - Fri Sat Sun Hours
Hours Capacity

A 240 100 Yes Yes No 24 hours

B 100 45 Yes No No 24 hours

C 32 15 Yes Yes Yes 24 hours

 

A letter of introduction was sent to each program director informing them of the
research project and inviting their participation (see Appendix A). Letters were followed
with a telephone call from the researcher to the director. During this call an appointment
was made with the director to obtain signed informed consent for study to proceed (see
Appendix B). The researcher met with caregivers to describe the study and seek their
informed consent for participation. Parents were recruited for participation via
recruitment flyers. Interested parents contacted the researcher, and written consent was
obtained prior to the start of participant interviews. The final sample of centers,

directors, caregivers, and parents operating and using nonstandard hour childcare are

22

summarized in Table 2. Centers are identified as A, B and C in the study to protect their

privacy. Names of the participants and centers were not used in this study; participants

were identified as Director A, parent 1A, caregiver 1A and so forth.

Table 2

Participant Characteristics for Centers A, B, and C

 

 

 

Center Participant Race Age Education

Center A Director 1A White/Caucasian 56-65 Master of Arts Degree
Caregiver la White/Caucasian 18-25 Bachelor of Arts
Caregiver 2a Afi’ican American 56-65 Bachelor of Arts
Parent A01 African American 36-45 Some college
Parent A02 African American 36-45 Master of Arts

Center B Director 1B . White/Caucasian 36-45 Bachelor of Science
Caregiverlb White/Caucasian 36-45 Associates Degree
Parent B01 African American 26-35 Associates Degree
Parent B02 White/Caucasian 26-35 Bachelor of Arts

Center C Director 1C White/Caucasian 36-45 Associates Degree
Caregiver 1c African American 36-45 Associates Degree
Parent C01 White/Caucasian 46-55 High School

Directors

All program directors participating in the study were Caucasian females (see

Table 2 for demographic data). Two directors were married and one was divorced. The

average salary per year reported by directors was $45,000.00. One director reported

receiving health, dental, vision benefits from the center. One director received benefits

23

through her husband’s place of employment and one received health benefits through her
credit union. Two directors reported making contributions to an employer sponsored
401K plan.
Parents

Five mothers, female parents working nonstandard hours were recruited through

flyer (see Appendix H) from their respective centers. Demographic data are presented in

 

 

 

Table 3.

Table 3

Parent Demographics

Parent Age Occupation Children
A01 36-45 Cook 2

A02 36-45 Business manager 2

B01 26-35 Factory worker 2

B02 26-35 Nurse 2

C01 46-55 Factory worker I grandchild
Caregivers

Four caregivers from the three centers were interviewed as part of this study. See

Table 4 for demographic data of caregivers.

24

Table 4

 

 

 

Caregiver Demographics
Caregiver Hours worked Race College Major Age
1a 4:00 pm. -1 l :00 pm. . Caucasian Child Development 18-25
2a 4:00 am. — noon African American Child Development 56-65
1b 1:00 p.m.- 9:00 pm. Caucasian Elementary Education 36-45
1c 2:00 p.m.- 10:00 pm. African American Child Development 36-45
Procedures

Interviews

The main source of data collection was via in depth, individual interviews
conducted with childcare providers, parents and directors. Interviews were conducted
using interview protocols for each group (see Appendices E, F, & G). Additional
questions were asked to clarify responses or gather additional information to the given
response. The parent interviews lasted from forty-five minutes to an hour in length and
were held at the childcare centers. The exception was one parent whose interview was
conducted at her home. The interviews were audio-taped, transcribed by the researcher
and then reviewed for accuracy by two graduate students.
Observations

After obtaining informed consent, the researcher met to set up dates for
observations of caregivers' interaction with the infants and toddlers for whom they
provided nonstandard hour care. The researcher and a graduate student carried out

observations, using both the ITERS-R and the Arnett Scale (ACIS), as will be described
25

shortly. Each observation session lasted approximately two hours in duration, for a total
of eight hours of observation per classroom. So, for example, Observation 1 for Center A
infants and a toddler group occurred from 5:30 pm. to 7:30 pm, and again from 5:30 am.
to 7:30 am. the next day. These four hours of observation comprised Observation 1.
Observation 2 was carried out one week later, on the same days, from 7:00 pm. to 9:00
pm. and 6:30 am. to 8:30 am. the next day. This observation pattern was carried out for
all three centers.

During the first observation an ITERS-R rating was obtained and during the
second observation, the caregiver was rated using the Amett Caregiver Interaction Scale
(ACIS). Observations were carried out by the researcher and another graduate student.
Parents’ job related layoffs, shift changes, industrial strikes, and the unexpected shutting
down of third and second shifts, contributed to infants’ and toddlers’ irregular schedules,
making observations difficult. Infants and toddlers quite often were picked up from
childcare unexpectedly early, and we were unable to observe for more than two hours at a
time. This was particularly problematic in the evening. For example, in one center, two
attempts at observation were made before there were infants and toddlers in attendance
during a nonstandard hour shift. Similar issues that occurred at Center A arose at Center
B and Center C during the data collection process.

Measures

Demographics. A basic demographics questionnaire was created by the

researcher. Questions regarding parental education level, age range, race, occupation,

and number of children were included on the brief questionnaire.

26

Qualitative Interview. As noted, a semi-structured interview was constructed for
directors, caregivers, and parents. Seventeen questions for caregivers, nine for directors,
and seven for parents inquired as to their experiences working or using nonstandard hour
childcare. Participants were asked about the challenges and rewards of nonstandard hour
childcare for infants and toddlers including the routines and schedules peculiar to night or
evening care. Probes such as how “What else can you tell me about that?” were used.

Infant Toddler Environmental Rating Scale — Revised (2006). Prior to observing
at the childcare centers, the researcher and another graduate student trained on the use of
the ITERS-R by completing training session with ITERS-R training video of
observations and the ITERS-R training guide. A 91% inter rater reliability was reached
in the training session. Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS-R). The Infant
Toddler Environment Rating Scale (Harms et al., 2006) was administered in all three
centers. ITERS-R is an early childhood instrument designed to assess structural
measures of quality such as child staff ratios, group size, and staff education levels. The
ITERS-R is comprised of 36 items rated on a Likert scale with response categories
ranging from (1) inadequate practices to (7) excellent practices. A rating of (3) is
considered to reflect adequate/custodial care, and a rating of (5) is regarded as indicative
of a good environment. The observation produced a global quality rating score as well as
mean subscale scores for the seven areas of the ITERS scale as follows, with alpha
coefficients as reported by Harms et al. (2006) noted: Space and Furnishings (a = .47),
Personal Care Routines (a = .56), Listening and Talking (a = .79), Interaction (a = .79),
Program Structure ((1 = .70), and Parents and Staff (or = .68). Reliability for the total
scale is high (a = .93).

27

Amett Caregiver Interaction Scale. Child caregivers’ behaviors in interaction
with infants and toddlers were assessed using the Amett Caregiver Interaction Scale
(Amett, 1989). This 26-item scale assesses three aspects of the caregiver and child
relationship: sensitivity, punitiveness, and detachment. A total scale score, as well as
subscale scores for sensitivity, punitiveness and detachment, were calculated. Amett
(1989) has reported alpha coefficients of .93 for the sensitivity subscale, .83 for the
punitiveness subscale, and .81 for the detachment subscale.

Data Analyses
Qualitative interviews

Qualitative data analyses were employed in the current study. The interview
protocols were developed to elicit information that would help to generate answers to the
research questions. Transcripts generated from these interviews were coded by
researcher.

Specifically, the data were analyzed in a three-step approach. The first step of
analysis utilized an inductive approach to derive concepts, their properties and
dimensions from the data. Using this approach the researcher looked at features and
challenges of nonstandard hour care that were reflected in the data and developed a
template for possible broad categories and themes. The next step was to review the data,
this time using an ecological framework to consider and describe relationships between
concepts (Patton, 2002). Finally, the researcher read the transcripts again for content
analysis (Weber, 1990). The process of content analysis defined categories and identified
common areas and clustered these areas into categories, creating corresponding patterns

and themes. 'After reading and rereading every interview manuscript, emerging themes

28

were identified. Two graduate students independently read the interviews for accuracy
and listened to the audio tapes while reading the transcripts. Likewise, the two graduate
students confirmed the themes identified. Consensus was reached during a group
discussion (the researcher and the two additional graduate students) for any
disagreements on theme identification.

More specifically, data were coded on two levels to reflect two types of themes.
First, themes common to directors, caregivers, and parents across the three centers were
noted. It was these themes that were verified by group consensus. At the time the data
collection began, an industrial strike began impacting families utilizing nonstandard hour
care, resulting in reduced enrollments in nonstandard hour care. This event resulted in
much smaller than anticipated sample size. Given this, the researcher elected to add a
case study approach to the research design. Each case consisted of the childcare center
and the staff, parents and infant toddlers associated with that center. Cases were assigned
alpha characters as follows: Case A, Case B, and Case C. For the next step in data
analyses, themes within each case study were documented. These themes were common
across the director, parent(s), and caregiver(s) within a center. These two coding levels
allowed for both an in-depth examination of each center as its own system, but also
allowed for the understanding of perspectives unique to individual's roles as directors,
caregivers or parents. Taken together, the two methods maximized the smaller sample
size and afforded a more in-depth consideration of the data than either approach alone

would have.

29

Observations
Given the exploratory nature of this undertaking, observation data were used for

descriptive purposes only, providing a descriptive context for the interview data reported.

30

CHAPTER FOUR
Results

As noted earlier, data were coded in two ways; identifying themes across
participants (directors, parents and caregivers) and themes within each case study center.
In this chapter, brief case studies, providing a description of each childcare center, and
then qualitative themes from the interview data for that center are presented. Next,
themes across participants, independent of Center affiliation are presented. Overall
themes within each center are summarized, and common themes across participants are
noted in Table 8. Finally at the conclusion of the results chapter the descriptive statistics
for the observational measures completed are reported.

Case Studies

Case Study A

Center A was a large employer sponsored center, with a licensed capacity for 240
children (ages 6 weeks to 13 years of age). The center was located on a major
thoroughfare of a Midwestern city on six acres of wooded land and had two buildings.
The center was open from Monday morning to Saturday morning 24 hours per day. The
center has operated for 16 years and served190 children on first shift (6:00 am. to 2:00
p.m.), 70 children on second shift (2:00 pm. to 10:00 pm.) and (10:00 pm. to 6:00 a.m.)
20 children on third shift. Center staff noted that shift times varied so that children began
arriving at 4:30 am. and arrived continuously until about 9:00 am. These children began
leaving around 1:30 pm. and continued to do so until about 6:30 pm. The second shift
children began arriving around 2:30 pm. and continued to do so until about 5:30 pm.

Drop-off and pick up was handled via a counter. Parents have the option to enter the

31

classroom or to speak to caregivers over a counter. They often give the child to the
caregiver over the counter so that they do not have to take their shoes off or bleach them
to enter the classroom. Most of the children went home by 11:00 pm. Eligibility to
attend the center rested with the corporation. Children need one parent to work for the
corporation to be eligible to attend the center. At the time of the observation the center
employed just over 70 employees, including directors, bus drivers, cooks, gardeners and
cleaning staff. With the exception of the administrators, all staff persons were members
of Union Z.

Description of infant/ toddler rooms. The center featured here was one large
infant/toddler room with a capacity for 26 children in total. This space included smaller
rooms for older toddlers, each with the capacity for 12 children. Infants and toddlers at
the center after 4:30 pm. were housed in the large infant toddler room. Children entered
this room at six weeks and remained there until they were 24 months old or
deve10pmentally ready for more complex activities in one of the older toddler
classrooms. This room was a combination of three smaller rooms with the walls partially
removed to form one large space in the shape of a three leaf clover. With the exception
of the kitchen, rooms were carpeted. Natural and recessed lighting controlled by dimmer
switches were provided. Walls were neutral, and toys and pillows were brightly colored.
Rooms feature low, open shelving on which toys and books were placed. Several glider
rockers were placed around the room. Hanging from the ceiling over the changing area
and near the windows were various mobiles and wind chimes. Pictures of the children
and their families were laminated and hung on the backs of shelves at the children’s level.

The caregivers played recorded tapes of nature sounds, such as the ocean lapping on a

32

beach or birds chirping in the woods. In the sleep area of the room, infants and toddlers
took naps to the sound of lullabies from around the world. Another room, with screened
windows, was adjacent to the "clover leaf" rooms and provided space for art, water and
messy play. Outdoor play space was available for each age group including the infants
and toddlers. The toddlers had a separately fenced area with a sandbox and tricycle path,
child-sized picnic table and chairs and an adult chair swing that caregivers used to rock
children as needed.

Other Program Features. The exterior doors to the building were kept locked and
parents had to be buzzed in. Once in the lobby they were required to sign their child in on
a computer and then be buzzed through another locked door to get to their child’s
classroom. All children had to be physically handed over to a caregiver prior to the
parents’ departures. The parking lot was well lit and there was a security guard from
8:00 pm. to 7:00 am. This center also featured a parent resource library where parents
were able to check out video tapes, books and flyers about parenting and child
development. In addition to being licensed by the state this center is also accredited by
the National Academy for Early Childhood Program Accreditation, a division of the
National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Program Director. The director of the center has been employed at the center
since its inception. She had a Master’s Degree in Child Development and had worked in
childcare for thirty five years, twenty-five of those years as a director of a center. She
also completed a course in Infant Training with Magda Gerber soon after the center
opened. The size of the center and the hours it was open required that the director shared

her administrative duties with an assistant director and age group coordinators. She

33

normally worked from 9:30 am. to 6:00 pm. but attended staff meetings and other events
on second shift as needed, particularly when changes in staff hours were imminent.

Parents. Parents of children attending this center were employed by the major
manufacturing corporation that owned the center. Parent Al was a divorced mother of
two children, a girl aged 18 months and a boy aged 9 years. She was a cook for a long
term care facility, and her children were eligible to attend the center because their father
was an employee of the corporation sponsoring the center. Parent A2 was married and a
business manager. She had just completed her Master of Arts Degree in business at a
local college. Her husband had an Associate’s Degree and was also an employee of the
corporation sponsoring the center. She was the mother of a 15 month old girl and a 7 year
old boy.

Caregiver profile. The two caregivers from this center were both single
Caucasian females with Bachelor’s Degrees in Elementary Education. They were both
attending college to obtain their Early Child Endorsements on their teaching certificates.
Both of these caregivers professed to like their jobs. On caregiver worked form 1:00 pm.
to 9:00 pm. and the other caregiver worked 4:00 to midnight.

Themes Case Study A

As noted earlier, the within-centers themes are presented first. In case study A,
three primary themes emerged from analysis of the data obtained from the director,
parents and caregivers. The three themes common to this childcare center were (a)
resources (b) quality (c) time. These three primary themes were summarized in Table 5.
In addition, secondary themes that supported the primary themes were also identified and
are described after the introduction of each primary theme.

34

 

 

$08 80803 360803 808
00:00:08 :02 0800.2 00:00:08 :02
use :88 08188 88058 82
00:00:08 :02 00:00:08 :02 0:08—8:02
8880a 8800M 0880M
8800:0m 8800:0m 0.080085 28,—.
0280020.. 80.3: 080080 8080020: 80.3: 83380 9280000: 0:08: 00,8080
00:00:08 :02 $85 003003 $80 00500:: .2033
0380020: 0.30 033.30 8080030: 0—20 $33.30 0280030: 0—20 50,8080
00:00:08 :02 :0080080< 8080202 5:80
$030.30: 8088882 00:00:08 002 00:00:08 82
00:00:08 :02 00:00:08 :02 03808.8: b88800
00:00:08 002 80:80:35. 808m 80:80:33 088m
300:3— 00:00:08 :02 «#085
00:00:08 :02 00:00:08 «02 :0ED 80.8081
0080.: 85 00%..00 882:. 00m 8:08.— 8805. cam 0300...: 880.: .8080:—

 

V 0.80 8.081 0.0582 03% 0:: .3535 0809.88.33 \0 388%.

m 03,:

35

Resources

The first theme concerns resources afforded to the center, which was the
product of a joint labor and management initiative. The bargaining agreement provided
for Center A to receive monetary, human, and other resources from a national corporation
and its employees’ union. Such support afforded a number of services that might not
otherwise have been available at a childcare center such as benefits, security resources
and enrichment activities. Resources also allowed for easier accommodation of staffing
and for engagement with the community. The center was able to offer benefits, including
a 401 K plan, to staff. This center was one of few that boasted a completely unionized
staff. The union negotiated for all staff to be full time so that they were not sent home
without pay if the children’s schedules changed and they were not needed to provide
care. Human resources that the employer support afforded were better trained and diverse
staff. The director had a Master’s Degree in Child Development and caregivers had
Bachelor’s Degrees in Child Deve10pment. The center also employed a full time bi-
lingual Spanish teacher.

Union. Director A discussed scheduling staff over twenty-four hours Monday
through Friday. She noted that this required some negotiation with the union so that
caregivers could be placed where and when they were needed but still work fiill time
every week.

“....and the other thing that would happen is that we, we made a pact to keep our

stafl full time. ”

“Y es that (scheduling staffi was an issue. Well we had to work with the union on

this one and with the stajf And everybody did work with us and we were very
36

fortunate in that regard because I kept telling them on second shifi you weren ’t
going to get assigned to a classroom. I mean you would be but don ’t think of
yourself as placed therefor very long. You know that it was going to flow in terms
of how the kids were moving and who was there at what time. ”

The director reported that the center was large enough and staffed so that when
parents made shift changes they were able to accommodate them in a way that caused the
least disruption to the child and peace of mind to the parent.

“ I can remember more than once a parent coming in to me just dissolved in

tears — ‘I just got moved to second shift. I don ’t know what to do. ’

Well you can bring your child here.

‘I can still bring my child here? ’

‘In the same room? ’ I mean the relief and reassurance. And I just felt so good

that I could say that to them. Um, That was, that was worth every bad call. ”

Although the director noted that she made every effort to be cost effective in
scheduling staff for nonstandard hours, the cost of running the center was subsidized by
the corporation and the union as part of a bargaining agreement between workers and the
union. Meals were cooked and served from the center kitchen and parents were invited to
join their children for lunch or dinner whenever possible. Some parents occasionally
joined their children at dinner time but the director reported that these were usually first
shift parents who were headed home.

Benefits. The director and caregivers reported on the demographic questionnaire

that they received benefits. When asked about the kind of benefits they received the

37

caregivers and the director listed the following: medical, dental, vision, paid vacation,
401 K plan. Staff may also enroll their children at the childcare center as well.

Secure Environment. The support of the corporation allowed for this center to
provide some extra measures such as a secure environment during nonstandard hours that
included monitors and cameras reflecting the outside of the building. A security guard
also patrolled the premises from 8:00 pm. to 6:00 am. daily.

The director noted,

“Now we have a security man and cameras ”

Comments from parents also reflected an appreciation for security measures.

“The doors are locked no one can just come in and then there is security. ”

Enrichment activities Caregivers reported that the children were exposed to a
second language since the center was able to employ a filll time Spanish teacher.
Caregivers reported that the children expect to have their Spanish lesson. As soon as the
toddlers learned to talk they often reminded the caregiver. The caregiver paraphrased the
toddlers as saying:

“Well, we’re supposed to be at Spanish now. ”

Partnership with local college. The partnership that Center A had with the local
college allowed them to work with as many interns as they could accommodate. Interns
benefited by completing their field work hours at the center without interrupting their
class schedules or in some cases part time jobs. Many interns chose to do their field work
hours during the evening and night hours. According to the director, the center benefited
by the presence of extra help in particular in the infant and toddler rooms, during the late

afiemoon and early evening.

38

“. . .and students were another resource for us especially on second. They liked to
go to school in the day and work or get their volunteer time in at night. We often
hired them as substitutes. ”
Quality
The support of the corporation allowed for the center to provide services that are
indicators of quality childcare, for example, lower staff child ratios. So in addition to
resources, responses during the interviews also spoke to aspects of quality care. The
director, caregiver and parents each mentioned quality characteristics associated with the
center.
“Your childcare provider has first aid and CPR training. They, I want someone
that is educated in child development. Someone that will actually do things
developmentally with him even if it ’s for an hour. Even if it ’s for a half an hour

you ’re doing art, you’re doing gross motor. ”@arent)

Accreditation. One such indicator is the accreditation status that the center had
achieved and maintained for fifteen years. The center was accredited by the National
Academy for Early Childhood Program Accreditation, a division of the National
Association for the Education of Young Children. Accreditation status is a hallmark of
quality in childcare centers. Parents in the study recommended that all centers go through
the accreditation process. They reported that it gave them a feeling of extra security that
the center would make the effort to go through the process.

“It’s important to know that your daycare is accredited no matter if it ’s late

hours.”

39

“..as a person dropping a child of in a daycare center you have the back up of
knowing that the childcare center cares enough to make sure that they can be
watched by everything makes a big difikrence. ” (parent ’5 comment made in
reference to accreditation). .

Caregiver child relationships. Both the director and parents mentioned aspects of
the caregiver-child relationship as being important. The director specifically mentioned
lowered ratios for infants and preschool children as quality indicators. Primary infant
caregivers were assigned three infants instead of the state licensing regulation ratio of one
adult to four infants. Toddler primary caregivers were assigned four children which is the
same ratio as that required by state licensing regulations. The director noted.

“So like if we had 16 in a preschool class with 2 teachers, on second shifi we

might have 6 with one teacher. So we were short 2 kid to really make up the ratio.

And that happened more fiequently on second (shift). ”

“ We had 3 infants and 4 toddlers to each primary caregiver. ”

Parents also commented on the low staff child ratios afforded during nonstandard
hour care.

“it could be quite a few less children, but I think they get more one on one time
with a caregiver or a center you know because of the uh hours. ”
Parents reported that the center provided a home like atmosphere for their
children in an aesthetically pleasing environment. Parents’ expectations were that the
center would keep their child safe and secure and follow their specific routines of care.

“So you know that the safety was first and then the caring. I really wanted to see

how they interacted This center interacted very well. ”

4O

A parent reported on daily communication with caregiver about the child.

“So at the end of the day you do get a full sheet of paper where it tells everything
that they did fiom the time they were there in their care. So fi'om art projects, to
outside time, to playtime to sleep, to how long she took a nap she took or
whatever. ”
Caregivers responded to those expectations by providing care for children in a relaxed
atmosphere. The director depended on the staff to form positive relationships with the
parents that engendered a partnership in care for the children. The relationship between
caregiver and child, often characterized by a parent as affectionate routines, was noted as
important.

“She gets him ready for bed Sits down in the rocking chair, reads him a book,
puts the lights down, makes sure he has his blanket when he goes to bed ”(parent).
Highly qualified stafif Staff trained in early childhood development is also a mark

of quality that is required to attain accreditation status. The program director had a
Master’s Degree and many years of experience working in child development.
Caregivers were required to have Bachelors’ degrees in Child Development or a related
field such as nursing or social work. Both caregivers interviewed as part of this study
held Bachelor’s Degrees in Elementary Education with Early Childhood Endorsements
on their teaching certificates. Parents commented on caregiver education level as a
perceived benefit of the center.

“I want someone that is educated in child development. ”

The director noted continuing education as a key strategy for supporting high

quality staff. The center provided staff in-service and parent training workshops in

41

conjunction with a local college. The in-service training was age group specific, so that
infant and toddler teachers received specific training for the age group they taught. Staff
also received tuition reimbursement if they pursued formal training in early childhood
education or a related field.

“ Well we did, we did send them to Infant Mental Health in the community. We

had a couple of people, like Professor W fiom college coming in who had worked

with infants, specifically infants and toddlers, a lot in her career. She ah, she did

specific training for that group in mostly primary care kinds of things and what

kinds of games and things to do on the blankets with the babies. How to help
babies, give babies cues as to what you ’re going to do. The Magda Gerber tapes

— we did those um. ”

Caregiver parent relationship. Caregiver’s daily interactions with parents led
them to be key to obtaining and sharing pertinent information about the child. The staff
person in the lobby at the front desk was in a strategic position to facilitate
communication between parents and other staff. It was through this person that parents
informed the center of shift changes. The director explained the following:

“ When the parents bring and pick up. You know that they would see the some

teachers and um, get to know them and communicate well with them. Also the

person at the fiont desk was very key on second shift. ”

“We finally learned that it was important to communicate with parents very

specifically about what their child’s day was like. Before they arrived; what time

did they get up? We knew what time they went to bed. It was the opposite

7

question. ’

42

A caregiver shared one of the ways she worked with parents.
“I take the cues fi'om the parents -— if they approach me, I ’11 do what they feel is
right. I climb on board with all that. And um most often they are right of course.

It ’s their children but sometimes, it has happened before where sometimes where

they say they want their child potty trained. I ’m thinking in the back of my mind —

I don ’t -I can 't believe that they think that that child is ready, and they are!

Time

The third and final theme identified in this case study is time. This theme
concerns the perception of time by director, caregivers and parents as it relates to their
lives and the center. Participants reported about schedules, routines, assumptions, family
time, fatigue, and the stigma attached to nonstandard hour care.

Schedules-stafi The director reported that staff would sometimes request to be
put on the late shift but usually it was third shift they desired although that is not what
they would request.

“But usually if they wanted second what they really wanted was third. People

generally didn ’t ask for second shift or dinner hour shifi.

Director A discovered that some people could not tolerate having a different shift
every day.
“Well one stafi’ person in particular uh we had on a two days coming in at 10

o ’clock, two days coming in at noon, and her doctor said that wasn ’t doing her

well so she got a health note saying that she had to have a regular shift. So we did

put her on the late shift. And she wasn ’t happy at first but then she really decided

she really liked it”

43

Staff schedules changes happened to accommodate children’s schedules. Variability in
scheduling created some anxiety for staff. Director A noted that having some input into
the changes that had to be made, helped staff to deal with changes in a less stressful way.

“You know that it was going to flow in terms of how the kids were moving and
who was there at what time. And those shifted a great deal more than they did on
first. So what I promised them, what I agreed to, and what I wanted to do was that
I would meet with the whole second shift group periodically whenever we felt like
there needed to be a shift. I would meet with them and talk to them about the fact
that we’re seeing this change again; we’re going to have to make some changes
and get their ideas and then make decisions. ”
Schedules-children. Director A noted that caregiving during the second shift
schedule needed to be at a slower pace. Children needed more time to execute routines.
This was not the time that they needed time structured time limits to get routines like

putting their pajamas on finished. Staff needed to be patient with the children.

“(caregiver) She was particularly good at night with the children because she was
so tolerant of them taking time to settle down. That didn’t get to her. It was fine
with her if it took them quite a while to calm down. And she would sit with them
and talk quietly, and read quietly, and until they did ”

“I think again that it, because the children generally are on a..., are more tired
they’ve had a busy day, that they need time to be. It needs to be very relaxed It

can’t be a let’s hurry up let’s do this and hurry up let’s do that kind of thing. ”

44

Children seem to be able to handle some change. One change in their schedule
did not appear to bother children. However, if the change involved more than one
dimension, then children demonstrated some acting out behaviors.
“If we had kids that urn in addition to changing shifts changed um maybe a week
oflf a week back and that kind of thing, then that really, we could see that
impacting on the kid ’s sense of security and they probably were acting out a little
bit more. Um, but if we could keep them in the same classroom and the only
change was the shifl, that seemed to be pretty manageable for kids. But you know
their whole family was being disrupted if it was more than that, you know the
whole; everything around them was getting chaotic. ”
Parent’s recognized that second shift childcare schedules are different.
“A second shift child is a little bit more diflerent in ..... Their schedule is totally,
it ’s not a 9 to 5. So they are used to, I would say more of a (sic) easy type of
atmosphere. It’s not; they still need to have their structure. But it’s more of a, I
wouldn ’t say laid back cause that would make them think that they’re lazy but
they ’re not. It’s their schedule is just, I can ’t, I don ’t know how to describe it. It’s
just diflerent.
A parent’s attempt to keep the baby on their second shift schedule was futile.
“Well she, she gets up at 6:3 0 in the morning. So she, I try to but not, not
necessarily so, and she takes a nap during the day. So she is well rested and at
night time she goes to bed at like 8 o’clock so she, you know we try to a certain

extent but it don’t work. ”

45

Schedules-parents. Parents reported that scheduling appointments when working
second shifi was difficult because you either had to take the baby with you or find a
babysitter. Finding a sitter was difficult during the day because everyone else was at
work or school during the day. Consequently parents had to take time off of work to keep
scheduled appointments.

“You know, I try to do those appointments in the morning so it wouldn’t have to

interfere with my work, but then you know finding a babysitter in the morning and

stufir like that it’s hard

“Now for J who is in first grade; you know I have to take time off Because like
you know his appointments is probably like 2 or 3. So any how you take it I have
to take time off or he will have to miss school so it is an inconvenience a little bit.

I have to use up my vacation time. ”

Routines. Director A noted that when the center opened its doors neither she nor
her staff had any prior knowledge about operating a program past 6:00 pm. in the
evening and so they decided to observe the interactions and patterns of behavior
exhibited by the children:

“Mostly we experimented and watched the kids. Because I don ’t remember
talking to anybody else that was doing it (nonstandard hours care). And so it was

a matter of just trial and error. Watching what the children were doing and

finding out that routine was very important. Um, where their bed was, with who

was very important. ”

Director A noted that routines were important for all children and the children

demonstrated by their actions that time of day did not change their basic developmental

46

needs. However in the context of the end of the day, children demonstrated the need to
slow down as their energy levels were depleted.
“Those same things that are important for kids in the day are important for kids
at night. I think that tired factor was something that we needed to figure out. That
we didn ’t realize at first that they were going to come to us, some of those kids
were going to come to us tired and that we needed to plan for that. I think we just
assumed they were starting their day when they came to us and that wasn ’t true.
So that was one of the things that we figured out fairly early. ”
Caregivers shared that routines moved at a slower pace and that schedules were
more relaxed at night.
“I believe that on second shift it is not as rigid And in the building itself it is not
as rigid Because of the time of day! And I think children that young don ’t need
such a rigid teaching schedule, you know. They still need schedules. That’s
important for anybody. ”
“There ’s just not as many children. It’s more intimate. ”
Parents reported that routines were very important for the child and they wanted
caregivers to respect the routines they did at home and execute them at the center
“ my thing is that if she put her pajamas on and I know they always laugh at me
at this. T hat if she put her pajamas on that means, because when we take a bath

and we put our pajamas on that means the next step is bed So if you ’re going to

put her pajamas on I don ’t want her to play past putting on her pajamas. ”

Caregivers shared the routines of care that they followed with the children before they

went to sleep.
47

“I get them ready for nap time. And, and I have these all kind of planned out a
little bit longer than they would be so I don ’t rush the kids. So they’ll each, so
they, they ’11 each get the time that they deserve and that they need I don’t rush
anything with them. ”

Assumptions. Director A reported that assumptions the staff made about second
shift were inaccurate. Staff assumed that the children’s day started when they arrived at
the center. Director A similarly assumed that the staff began their day when they arrived
at work.

“What we had to come to realize was the kids that came to us at night hadn ’t just

woken up. You know they had woken up probably later than the other kids but

they ’d still had a considerable amount of their day before they came to us. So they
still needed a nap at sometime some of them, but not all of them. ”

The director reported that the assumption that the shifts would not overlap was a
false one. The overlap between the first and second shift was a crucial point in the day for
the infant toddler room and for the whole center. Caregivers were attending to dismissal
procedures and welcome procedures at the same time, as well as handing over groups of
children to the caregivers arriving for the next shift. This phenomenon seldom occurs in a
childcare program that functions during daytime hours only. When the program was
designed, the assumption was that first shift would go home and then second shift would
come in. As the director explained:

“Shifts don ’t happen in neat little packages. You don ’t have 8 to 4 on first and

then 4:3 0 to midnight on second What happens is that first shifts would arrive

anywhere fiom 4 o’clock in the morning until 9 o’clock in the morning. And they

48

would leave anywhere from noon till 4 or 5 o’clock. And then second shift would
arrive anywhere from noon to 3 or 4 and stay anywhere from 8 o’clock at night
till 2 in the morning. So we did have a definite overlap from... uh! The biggest
overlap was from 2:30 to 5 :3 0. That ’s when we had the most people in the center,
parents and children. And what we tried to do was get the early, early, early
arrivals in one room so that we could have second shift start in those rooms. ”
The group most impacted by overlap was the infant toddler group. Transitions are
a crucial time with any group of children and for infants it can be a stressful time.
Director A noted that she worked very hard to make sure that an extra person was
available and in the infant room at this time.
“So that they could be with children, so that the regular staff could be with
parents. And saying either greeting or saying good night...., you know for the day.
And very frequently that person had to be the admin stafif You know um the infant
coordinator, or myself or the assistant director or somebody like that”
Family time. Parents reported having very little family time during the week
especially for meals together. Some families work out alternatives.
“I know having that dinner you know at night time with the family and all that.
Only on weekends! We do, we really work dinner. But I think for us seeing that
we don’t have dinner during the week; breakfast is a big thing for us. So breakfast
come like dinner. You know that is when we sit down together

Caregivers reported missing their own families when they worked nonstandard

hours.

49

“Most challenging for me is my family and I are really big about sitting down and

having meal time together. ”

Fatigue. Parents on second shift face the problem of having to pick their children
up in the middle of the night. They are tired themselves and often worry whether having
to move their children in the middle of the night will interrupt their rest.

“I am tired you know some days are more tiring than the others. ”

“ Well because to me their sleep is interrupted when I pick them up at 11 or

whatever time. And I have to pick them up transport them to the car. Sometimes

he will wake up and you know it ’s hard for him to you know go back to sleep. So
when we get home you ’ve got to carry him inside. And you know and then
sometimes he will wake up and sometimes he won ’t, so I have to make sure he
goes back to sleep. ”

Stigma. Director A stated that the center was not utilized as much as it could have
been. The center had never been completely full on the second or third shifts although
the first shift has had periods with waiting lists, particularly for the infant room.

“I think that there is still a stigma kind of—of having your children out of the home

at night; in an institution kind of a place at night. I think there still is that

thinking. That somehow you’re not a good parent if you don’t have your kids at
home. ”

Caregivers also perceived that nonstandard hour childcare is regarded negatively
by the community.

“I find probably the most challenging with second shift or third shift is the second

shift that I work at. I think this is first of all uh childcare having a stigma that is

50

being away from the parents to begin with, and that parents who work and have

to have childcare there there’s a lot out there you know people that fiown upon

that. ”

Parent perceived that she was judged negatively because her child was in care at
night. She perceived that she was judged by the caregivers as well as society.

“So just be you know ..... have a little empathy towards that child and mom. You

know that moms have to work you know at that time because that is the way

mom ’5 job is. So you know just don ’t judge mom because she leaves her baby

here. ”

5]

Case Study B

Center B was a privately owned center licensed for 100 children ages 6 weeks to
13 years of age. The center was located in a medium sized urban Midwestern city, and
had been open for the last 15 years 24 hours per day six days per week. The program
director owned the center which had one infant toddler room with a licensed capacity for
16 children. At the time of the observation five infants and seven toddlers were enrolled
from 7:00 am. to 6:00 pm. Two toddlers and two infants were enrolled from 3:00 pm.
to 11:00 p.m., however the two infants were on vacation during the time of the study.
Director B also noted that the overall enrollment at the center was the lowest level it had
been in the last five years. She attributed low enrollment to several of her former clients
leaving the state following the closing of several businesses in the community. At the
time of the observation a national strike that affected several industrial factories and their
subsidiaries had resulted in the temporary withdrawal of at least twenty students. Three
infants and five toddlers who had withdrawn were previously enrolled on second shift
from 2:00 to 10:00 pm. At the time of the observation there were no children enrolled for
the third shift 10:00 pm. to 6:00 am.

Description of Infant/T oddler Room. Center B had one infant toddler classroom.
The room was large with no windows and 12 ft ceilings. No natural lighting was
provided. The room was painted bright yellow with a mural of a garden painted on the
lower part of one wall. The rhombus shaped room had two walls angled so that the front
of the room was wider than the back of the room, and the longer walls formed the sides
of the room. The wall at the back of the room had upper and lower level cupboards, a

sink, counter, and large refrigerator. A semicircular table with four built in seats for

52

infants was near the sinks on the tiled part of the floor in the room. There were two adult
chairs at this table. The remainder of the room was carpeted with navy blue carpet. The
side and back walls of the classroom were concrete brick with the fourth wall at the front
of room made from glass. This wall faced the hallway, and during the observations
toddlers would press their faces against the glass watching everyone who passed by.
There was nothing hanging from the ceilings or on the walls of this room.

Cribs lined one side of the room with a portable changing table just in front of
them. A large alphabet rug was under a small climber and slide in the middle of the
room. Next to that was an area with vinyl covered mats and large cushions. Next to the
wall with the mural were three small shelves with an assortment of infant and toddler
toys including baby dolls. Infant’s diaper bags were kept on shelves just below the upper
level cupboards on the wall by the sink. Across the hall from the room were two
bathrooms that included half sized gym lockers. A rectangle shaped room with moveable
climber, tricycles, and other large motor equipment was next to the infant toddler room.
It was to this room that the children moved at 8:00 pm. to join older students to sleep
until their parents picked them up. Admittance to the center was through locked doors
that had an intercom attached to the buzzer. There was also a peephole in the main front
door. The center had a small playground that included a climber surrounded by wood
chips in a fenced area behind the building.

Program director. Director B had a Bachelor’s Degree in Child Development
and was married. Director B was also the owner of the center. She reported starting out
as a family childcare at her home. When the business became an intrusion on her home

life she bought the present facility which was a former racquetball center. Her parents,

53

husband and son all worked part-time at the center, often filling in during the early
morning and late night hours.

Parent Profiles. Parents attending this center were employed mainly by canning
factories outside the city. About 80% of the parents were receiving childcare subsidies
through the Welfare to Work program. Parent B1 was a married nurse who worked third
shift and the mother of a 10 month old infant. Parent B2 was a married factory worker
who worked second shift who had custody of her 20 month old granddaughter. Both
women reported that they did not choose to work nonstandard hours.

Caregiver Profile. Caregiver B was Caucasian and had an Associate’s Degree.
She worked second shift from 1:00 pm. to 9:00 pm. She was single and pursuing a
Bachelor’s Degree in Child Development. She noted that she chose second shift because
it worked best with her college schedule. She liked working with children and would like

to work in the public school system one day.

54

 

 

0.68868 madam 38282: 82 .5892
38808 82 mason 3:382: 82
8282808 82 «Eamogqm 330m 23 38m anaogqm 0.8m
382808 82 3882: 82 95.8.5.2
fiacufloz 823.80 “gm 9333232 82380 I 88.5 $5.8m I manage—um .5150
gm 32m 3882: 82
8:35.52 8&8 3:885 52
389.08 82 moo—m moo—m
85832 38808 82 «8832
. 38806 82 38808 82 888E
38:58 82 Ewan—Sou £55880
3.322% 8335 Biwosum
38:58 82 3882: 82 couwomgfiaoo 25,—.
8823. cam 829.30 832:. sum 3:98.— 882; new 880...: 862E. Eat.—

 

m 35% ommo $98 882:. ‘8 gm

e 03$.

55

Themes Case Study B

In case study B, two primary themes were reflected in the data from the director,
parents and caregivers. The first theme concerned participants’ perception of time as it
related to the center and their lives. The second theme concerned participants’
perceptions of the environment of the nonstandard hour childcare program. Sub themes
and their description were presented for both overarching themes. See Table 6.
Time

Participants in case study B had varied perceptions of time as it related to the
childcare center and their interaction with it. A description of the sub themes for the
director, parents and caregiver follows. In general, the director discussed time relative to
communication to parents about managing scheduling needs and the timeliness of parents
submitting their scheduling needs and payments. The director, parents and caregiver
mentioned time schedules as being issues. Other issues involving time in some capacity
included such things as routines and sleep schedules.

Communication. Director B reported for the efficient running of the center
she had a communication system with parents. The system addressed how the parents
paid tuition, signed in and out and kept track of children’s and their own work schedules.
She expected them to communicate with her by turning in a written schedule for the next
week by the Thursday of the current week. Parents signed in and out daily by punching a
time card. Director B attached all correspondence to the time cards.

“They have a time card So they punch in and out; just like you would at any job.

And every family has their own time card So when we have an incident that

happens, like an incident report where the child gets hurt, or they get sent home

56

early, or they have a bill that they haven ’t paid or they need diapers, we hook it,
a little note onto their time card ”

“You know and when they’re walking in the door and you ’re saying you ’re late
and they are like “no I ’m not. ” And you ’re like your schedule said 10. “Oh no
well I put last week that it may be later. ” But you also put on the note that you
would let us know. You didn 't tell us so we had no clue, and we’re panicking,
fi'eaking out, thinking you were in an accident. ”

Schedules. Director B used a computer program and whiteboard to assist her in

keeping track of children’s schedules so that she could staff the center efficiently.

“A ll of our staff none of them are assigned to an actual age group every single
day. We have seven full time employees. All of them rotate and deal with all of the
children in the building so that they all feel like they we are just a community a
family. You know they can rely on anybody to do anything to meet any needs. "

Parents reported that the children were on a regular daytime schedule.

“My child goes to bed about 8 o’clock at night in the daycare center. Between 8
and 9 the childcare provider puts him to bed Whoever gets ofl work first picks
him up between midnight and 3 o’clock I come home at 3 in the morning. He gets
up about 6 am. ”

“I keep her on a daytime schedule — it ’s just easier for her. ”

Caregiver B reported that children’s schedules frequently changed.
“Last week I had afive month old Friday was his last day because his parents

transferred to another shift. He was five months old ”

57

Community. Director B reported one of her ways of helping in the community
was to advocate on behalf of families especially those who work nonstandard hours. She
reported trying to get community resource and referral centers to help families who were
working nonstandard hours to access mini grants for registration fees that would help
with the cost of care. Grants of this nature did exist but not exclusively for nonstandard
hour workers.

“We are trying to be family advocates here. I try to be as much of a community
player as I possibly can. Anything I can help the community with, I try to help
them with you know. ”

Parent perceived that the community needed to encourage more centers to provide
nonstandard hour care.

“ And it’s I think you know for the second shift worker they desperately need

these places that are safe and that their children feel comfortable to go to sleep
and relax. Because there are so many that don ’t stay open past 7 o’clock. ”

Finances. The recent reduced enrollment was causing the cost of nonstandard
hours to become less than affordable for the center.

“We couldn ’t aflord that. You know that’s what we were running into was just one

family needing us overnight. A lot of families needing us till like 11 o ’clock at
night. Usually our cut of is like 10, 10:30 is where we have a substantial amount
of children and then they like drop of to hardly anything. ”

Sleep. Parents’ sleep schedules and children’s sleep schedules are regularly
interrupted.

“I sleep fiom about 3 :3 0 till about 6:30. And I’ll sleep when he does. "

58

“Unfortunately I did have to interrupt her sleep to bring her home. 1 think about

like 11:30 going on 12. I woke her up. Well she would be woke up somewhat

because my husband carried her. (Parent on vacation during interview). ”
Director described the sleep procedures at the center including what staff persons did
when the children were asleep.

“So what they do is they sleep them in the gym, which is the last room down here.

And they all lay down, they put them to sleep. They make sure that they are all

sleeping and then they go and vacuum the floors and do things. All of our doors

are alarmed So if a child got out of bed and went to the back door and opened

the door it would send an alarm through the building so that the adult would

know that the child was up moving around and had walked out. And they

obviously every 10 to 15 minutes or periodically check on them — It’s not diflerent

than a parent putting a child to bed in their bedroom. ”

Stigma. Parents reported that in their perception society negatively judges parents
who place their children in nonstandard hour care.

“Putting children in care at that time of the night is not really acceptable in the

community. I believe, I think that more centers should be open at that time of

night to help parents like myself How many daycares do you think have night

care?) ”

“ the way people look at you when they know is very challenging. When they

know that you ’re taking your child somewhere to put them to bed When they

know that they are staying there all night, and you ’re waking them up in the

59

middle of the night. It ’s very challenging out there in the world the way people
react to you. ”
Routines. Caregiver B reported that there are several developmentally appropriate
routines of care that the children experience during nonstandard hours of care at the
center.
“When I come in at 1. I came into 2 kids yesterday um changed their diapers as
soon as they came in. One was sleeping, one went down for a nap. Um then they
had snack when they got up, from there we went outside. We either go for a walk
or they go on the playground ”
Director B described routines the center follows in the evening.
“We’re doing dinner. We ’re doing night time snack, we’re doing brushing the
teeth, we ’re putting them to bed at night. ”
Shifts. Parents reported that their jobs did not give them a choice of work shifts.
“I worked from 5pm to 3 am. These hours were given to me. They weren’t chosen

but I did have childcare during this time. ”

“No I didn’t (choose third shift). I chose to work first but they put me on third ”

“I do not like being on second shift. Yes I had to work that because of my
seniority. I had to work that. I do not like leaving her therefor that long of a time
(10 hours). That’s the challenge - very, very tough for me. And I mean I can
remember being at work for the first few days crying. ”

Parents ’ shifts. Caregiver B states that parents shared their dissatisfaction about

the shifts they worked.

60

“I know some second shift parents would like to be on first shift with their kids.
But because of um — they would like to have one on first and one on second And
then um, but because of their work schedules they can’t so they need to put them
on second But, and I know they like to be home to put them to bed that’s why
some of them would rather have their child stay up. ”
Quality
The director, parents, and the caregiver shared their perceptions of aspects of
quality care. Following are the sub themes for the overarching primary theme of quality.
Staff relationships. A caregiver noted the unique opportunities nonstandard hour
care gave to foster relations among staff members.
“What I like is um there ’s less kids on second so it ’s a more close knit, kind a
more family type atmosphere with the kids. I feel that the stajf is closer. Um To
each other, we work really good on second as far as the teachers. If somebody
needs help and somebody isn ’t doing anything they are willing to come in and
help with the kids. ”
Relationships with parents. Meeting the needs of the families who used the center
during nonstandard hours was a balancing act for Director B. She really felt a
responsibility to parents to help them by making the center a second home for the
children.
“You know we ’re filling the morning gaps because you know they’re not eating
breakfast with mom and dad We ’re filling in the night time gaps because they’re

not eating dinner with you know. So this is their home away fiom home. ”

bl

Parents have clear expectations of what they want for their children when they are
in nonstandard hour care.
“The times that he is in daycare alls (sic) I want is that person to pay attention to
him. Make sure that he is comfortable and happy. Because I have the whole day
with him to potty train him, to feed him, we play, we do our things together. ”
“Just nurturing, loving making sure he is in bed and tucked in nicely. ”
Director B reported that families using the childcare during nonstandard hours form close
personal relationships with that childcare center.
“I truly think that parents of untraditional childcare expect more from their
childcare because they expect you to be that grandma, that aunt, that uncle, that
family member that’s now taking care of their child They look at you more as a
family person, a family member. ”
Caregiver discussed parents’ wishes of the program and the caregiver.
“As far as like if they bring in stuff for potty training they know, if that ’s what
they want us to do, they know we’ll take them in and we will work with that. As far
as brushing teeth, I just had a parent bring in, the 16 month old, she just brought
in a tooth brush and tooth paste. ”
Storage of night equipment. The director also mentioned the challenges of
providing a high quality physical environment, in terms of material storage and costs
uniquely associated with nonstandard hour care.

“T hen also bedding is an issue, overnight bedding. Because they want you to

literally have cots for every child Yes you can ’t use the foam mats that we ’re

62

using during the day. They want them to have fill] beds. Well where are you putting
them? Where are you going to stack beds? Those really cost a lot. ”

Safe and secure environment. Parents reported that they placed a high priority on
the safety of the environment in which they placed their children.

“I was looking for safety. You know the development — Are they just going to

shove her over in the corner, and maybe play with kids and watch TV or

whatever. So you know that the safety was first and then the caring. I really

wanted to see how they interacted ”

Parents reported feeling safe entering childcare during nonstandard hours. They also
reported feeling comfortable with the staff and the activities that were provided for the
children.

“I don ’t know what I would do if this center wasn’t here. I didn’t, walking into
the center that I am using now I felt very comfortable with the staff I felt very
comfortable with the environment. There’s only, I’ve only found one more out
there that is open all night long and I didn ’tfizel comfortable there. So I don ’t
know what I would do. ”

Director described the childcare center environment features that promote safety during
nonstandard hours.

“The whole parking lot is brightly lit yah!-Our door is locked... but we.... -we ’re

in a pretty safe neighborhood ”

Parent Fears. Parents had several fears about leaving their children in care at
night. The media had played a part in providing information to parents about child abuse
and neglect and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). One parent said that her fears

63

led her to check with the Department of Human Services to see if all the caregivers had
been screened for criminal activity in the areas of sexual misconduct and child abuse and
neglect She was relieved to find out that the corporation also finger printed the staff and
did a police check on them. Parents were concerned about supervision of sleeping
children. They did not want complete darkness in the sleep rooms so that staff could
watch the children properly. Infant parents reported that the presence of more than one
staff person relieved their fears about SIDS. They felt that one person might fall asleep
while watching the children but that two people would keep each other awake and alert.
“At first I was forced into it. I was very upset with my family because this is my
grandchild and so family members had watched her first and then it had gotten to
where she was always around adults. She was only interacting with adults. They
were looking at it. Do you need to open the field for her and I was so afraid of the
nightmares that happen at daycares. There are so many things that are shown on
TV about children being abused So I was so fearful of that. ”
Director B also said that parents had fears about the leaving their children at a
center during the night.
“The insecurity I guess that’s it. The insecurity of stronger harms — that kind of
thing - you know night time things — what might happen- you know. Bad people

might come in or something — you know it ’s just that thing. ”

64

Case Study C

Center C was a privately owned childcare open 24 hours 7 days per week with a
licensed capacity for 32 children aged 6 weeks through 13 years. Center C was located in
a small Midwestern suburban city. The infant toddler room was licensed for eight
children and was fully enrolled on first shift. One infant was enrolled for second shift
(2:00 pm. to 10:00 p.m.), one toddler was enrolled during the early moming hours (4:30
am. to noon) and one toddler was enrolled to attend care on third shift (10:00 pm. to
7:00 pm.) during the study period. The other ten children enrolled during third shift
hours were between the ages of five and nine years of age. However, the presence of one
toddler in a mixed group of children lowered the ratio required for care from one adult for
ten children to one adult for four children in at least one mixed age group. Director C
noted that enrollment numbers had drastically fallen during the last six months due to a
national industrial strike resulting in parents being laid off both permanently and
temporarily from their regular jobs. However, the impact of the strike was worse during
nonstandard hours than during the day. Prior to the strike, three infants and five toddlers
were enrolled for care during the third shift. She reported that the infant and toddler
population withdrew immediately when the strike began.

Description of Infant/T oddler Room. There was one infant toddler room with a
licensed capacity of eight children. The room was large and spacious, painted pale grey
with four large windows on two walls. The room had a sink and two levels of cupboards
on one wall with white mini shades covering the windows. The fourth wall had children’s
cubbies that included a lower shelf, a place for coats and an upper shelf. Navy blue
carpet and tiles covered the floor. There was an adult sized toilet with sink enclosed

65

within the room. The children’s cribs were in a line across the room in front of the
cubbies. The walls were without pictures, posters, or children’s art. Approximately six
‘Big Books’ were propped against the wall and a variety of toys were stacked on top of
the cubbies. There was a full sized refrigerator against one wall between the windows. A
mobile changing station was in front of the cribs next to a toddler sized table. Four
toddler chairs were around the table. There were also four high chairs, a couple of adult
chairs, and a small adult table. There was one shelf with a few simple puzzles and
stacking toys. On the adult table was a basket with about a dozen sturdy toddler books
and a lamp. Exterior doors to the center were locked and parents and visitors were
buzzed in. There was a fenced playground adjacent to the center and a separate area for
toddlers with a sandbox and a toddler sized slide and playhouse. Infants were taken
outside in strollers.

Program director. Although open for the last seven years the center had changed
ownership over the last 15 months. The director had worked with the center for one year
although she had worked in childcare for fifteen years. She worked 8:30 am. to 6:00 pm.
and occasionally stayed until 10:00 pm. The owner was usually at the center from 9:00
pm. until 6:00 am. There were ten full time employees at this center. Director C had an
Associate’s Degree in Child Development and was currently attending college to
complete a four year degree with the same major. She was married, but her husband
worked in another city and was not home during the week.

Parent profile Center C. Parents utilizing this center were employed in a variety
of jobs. Some parents were employed at manufacturing factories, while others worked in

retail, restaurants, and as bartenders. The parent in this study was separated from her

66

husband and had a 24 month old daughter who was enrolled in care during the second
shift but was transferred to third shift about two weeks before the interview when her
mother switched shifts. She also had an older daughter who was in elementary school.
Parent C worked closely with her mother and the children’s fathers to coordinate
childcare for both children. Parent C had an Associate of Arts Degree. She worked in a
factory and at the time of the interview worked the third shift from 10:00 pm. to 6:00
am. unless she stayed to work overtime hours. Although she received a 75 cent premium
for every hour worked, she reported feeling sleep deprived and tired.

Caregiver Profile. This caregiver was single and worked the early morning shift.
She had to be at work by 4:00 am. and reported that she loved working those hours
because it gave her the rest of the day to do whatever she wanted. She had an Associate’s
Degree in Child Development.

Themes Case Study C

In case study C two primary themes were reflected in the data from the director,
caregiver and parent. The first theme concerned time in the context of the lives of
participants while the second theme concerned the perceived stress participants
experience (See Table 7). A description of sub themes comprising the primary themes

across case study C follows.

67

 

93828—8 “88¢: 83880

“23828—2 808m I 83880

288m 523 mflmcouflom

 

38:88 82 mumwowmbm 8280 momwowmbm 8280

38:88 82 838.2 oswuam

8338880 88:88 82 82838880

8m 8m 8m

3882: 82 >382 388m 895m

3838.: 82 88:88 82 b88800

38808 82 £888 086230 808388 82

38:88 82 w82 aco8oh>=m 85.. 28: 8088380
2:3an 0—825 283%
888% 8:832 8882: 82 25H.

28.; asm 85980 28.; cam .88.— oEonh saw 889:: 2:2; baa—Em

 

D 85% 3.30 808V .828: gm. 38 .852: \o 853%

N. 038.2.

68

Time

Perceptions of the director parent and caregiver at Center C cover a variety of
topics in the context of time. How the participants chose to spend time, where and with
whom, made up the sub themes for this case study.

Routines. For parent C excellence in care was demonstrated by special attention

to the individual routines of care each child received.

“I expect them to get them ready for bed, as far as brushing teeth, um you know
nighttime stories. Make them more, make them feel most comfortable like if they
were at home. You know I don’t want no, I want her to feel Ok to sleep there. You
know where she is comfortable when she wakes up in the morning if I ’m not there
yet. They have a warm brealg’ast or brealdast prepared right before pick up
Caregiver C reported that children’s sleep was interrupted when parents dropped

their children off between the hours of 4:00 am. and 7:00 am. For the early morning
child, establishing a routine of going back to sleep was important

“Is there something special they have? A stuffed animal, some kids have a special
blanket. Bring that with them. And then of course they have to bring a change of
clothes. ”

“Well the children are kept on a routine you know when they come in. It’s the
same daily schedule or routine. ”

Schedule. Director reported that scheduling for staff became an issue when they
called in sick or absent for any reason on second shift.

“We don ’t have extra people that are working 3:30 to 11:30 so when somebody

calls in 3:30 to I I :30 you know then that becomes an issue. You just can ’t say

69

well E so and so, called in you are going to work tonight. Doesn ’t work that way
because then they say no. Well then 0 . ”
“I cover when I can when someone is of or when um like right now someone is
going to school. So in that event I end up staying late. ”
Parent C reported that she was on nonstandard hours schedule but tried to avoid that
schedule for her children.
“I try to keep them on a normal schedule. ”
Caregiver C planned the schedule around the children’s needs.
“Depending on where each child is, you try to work your daily schedule or that
your centers so that there is a staggered level of difficulty. ”
Director C described the time of day when first shift and second shift cross paths
as ‘zoo time.”
“But what happens is, what ’s happening is when the first shift is leaving second
shift is picking up (starting). Like 3 to 6 o’clock around here is alzoo! ”
Environment. Director C noted that the center had made every effort to make the
children feel comfortable, safe and at home.
“ What we ’ve done is um we ’ve created more of a home environment for them.
“We want to make them as comfortable and safe as we can. They can ’t help it if
their parents are working. ”
Parent C described the environment she expected the center to provide and how it should
function during nonstandard hours.
“My biggest thing is calmness. I want calm and organized, 1 know it sounds. I, I

don’t want chaos. I want to be able to come in like Ok here is her cot, or here’s

7O

her stuff right here. It don ’t (sic) have to be put up to the door. But I want dim

lights. I want it to be calm if she going, it is time to go to bed she is able to get

ready in that mode. I don ’t want to come into bright lights or where she wakes
completely back up.

Childcare choices. This parent wanted to see more centers in the community
available to parents during nonstandard hours.

“I feel that the community should have at least one center that’s open or two

centers open 24 hours. That’s available for parents to work like 3rd shift like me

or 2"d shift that don ’t get ofl work till 2 o’clock in the morning. ”

Community partnerships. Director C noted that it was very helpful to have interns
from three colleges in the community at the center. She felt that when the colleges,
students and centers worked together children received the greatest benefit and it made a
positive impact on the community.

“Yes, because we are finding too that they work during the day. blot only go to

school during the day but they 're also working during the day and the evening

hours are more um ready for them. ”
Stress

Stress was a factor that all the participants perceived affected them and their
families. They all recognized that the stress they felt must have impacted the children and
people with whom they came into contact.

Family. Director C was worried about her children when she worked at night.

Although they were older and could stay at home without a babysitter they often had

activities that necessitated a ride. She relied on her in laws to help with this dilemma in

7]

her husband’s absence. The parent perceived that working nonstandard hours was
difficult.

That it’s (nonstandard hours) hard for the child as well as the parent. ”

“ With my kids at night, my oldest does not have a driver ’s license yet. But

typically I just got to play around with rides and that. ”

Parent worried about time spent with her children and activities for her older
child that she could not attend.

“ I feel that it ’s just they haven’t spent enough time with their parents probably

throughout the day because sometimes you can be cranky. ”

“She (older child) play (sic) a lot of Saturday games and a lot of the Saturday

games start at 8 o ’clock. And a lot of times on Friday nights if I ’m working, which

it would be my 6“ day, I work overtime. So I miss her games on Saturday. ”

Job. Director C was worried that more people were leaving their children at
home instead of using the center at night.

“So I wish there was more of a push for a second shift. I wish people would use us

more but they’re using grandparents or they’re using, they’re leaving their kids

by themselves. Right now, I think the economy has a lot to do with it. They are

looking at ways to cut! ”

Director C noted that although it could be very quiet and you could get a lot of
work done, some staff found it stressful working nonstande hours with children.

“There is not a lot of traflic you can get a lot of stufl done. I must stay. It ’s very

quiet. ”

72

“Because there is going to be a time where they you know the stress factor is
going to get above what you want it, you know. Maybe they do need to maybe the
childcare wasn ’t what they need to do. ”(Caregiver stress

Parent described the stress that occurred when job shifts changed.

“And like for instance if you are on a whole difi’erent shift and you got to learn a

whole new job. You ’re just crazy that first month because you’re, the time that

you’re sleeping you ’re up. ”

Communication. The director reported that communicating with parents took
effort since they were either in a hurry or tired when they were at the center. She found
writing to be the most effective means of communication.

“Typically they are in and out so fast. They’re in here, they get their kid. They’re

tired. They’re sweating or whatever. They come in! Yeah it ’5 like hi! Bye!”

“ When I do, when I do a letter that I need to communicate something strongly I, it

goes out to everybody. ”

Caregiver C found it a challenge to communicate with parents who were always
hurrying out the door.

“Well the parents don’t have a lot of time this early in the morning. They are kind
of in and out. You know they don ’t stop and chat or whatever. They bring their

child in and they are gone. There you go and gone (laughs) 0k and that’s a

challenge because you don’t get to communicate. There is not a whole lot of

interaction you know with the parent. ”

Caregiver reported that parents shared their dissatisfaction with the shift they worked.

73

“ We ’ve had a couple (parents) that said you know the early morning hours didn ’t
work for them. And they wanted to change shifts. Some of them thought second
shift because then that gave them more time with the child. ”

Fatigue. This parent reported being tired most of the time because she often
worked 10 hour days for six days per week. Daily tasks to care for her family claimed
her attention after work, leaving her to sleep less than six hours per day.

“Then well doctor ’s visits, um sometimes they have to be in the morning
whenever ’s available, and if that happens I don ’t sleep that day, until Saturday. I
just get a nap. ”

“Um, 24 hour period I probably sleep at the most um 6 hours, if 6 hours that’s
most. The very minimum that I try, I have to at least have 2 hours, 2 or 3 hours if I
want to fitnction at all. ”

Director reported that her job is one that is always with her even when she is not
at the center.

“It ’s tiring and sort of a stress thing... . just being aware all the time that there

are children that I am responsible for somewhere. "

Coping strategies for nonstandard hours. Parent C reported that working
nonstandard hours was manageable once you learned to prioritize what needed to be
done.

“I think it ’s just challenging once you get into the rule of it it ’s not as bad cause
you eliminate. You try to do it all when you first start. You try not to eliminate
anything. I can do it all. But then you have to realize you have to eliminate some

things and (pause) pick out what’s more important. ”

74

Director reported that working with people who had to take care of the children
but really need to do something else was a challenge for her. She was conflicted over the
fact that they needed a job did not have the time to counsel them about finding something
else to do.

“maybe the childcare wasn ’t what they need to do. ”

Caregiver-parents relationship. Caregiver reported that parents’ expectations for
children tended to be academic.

“A lot of them wanted, as young as they were, they wanted them to do things, to
like learn to read or ABCS and 123s. -And those were things they weren ’t ready for
really ”

Parent described what she wants from the caregiver in the context of the
relationship with her child.

“Someone the child is attached to. Grown to love. Or the person that cares about

my child. “

“So when I’m on that expressway I’m not stressing to find out is she still crying?

Is he OK? Or how they’re doing, because I know my child flaughs). So you know

they 're ok. They’re not stressed out. ”

Parent relationships. The director reported that parents occasionally joined their
friends to socialize while their children were in care during the evening and night.

“We ’ve had issues before where you know they have stopped at you know a local

tavern or whatever, and then come here um, and basically um just letting them

know or encourage the coffee and then um letting them know too that once they

leave the premises you can call the cops.”
75

“The two that I had to deal with one was alcohol and one was not
Summary of Themes Across Cases

There were several commonalities across the case studies. Specifically issues of
time, relative to scheduling and routines, were evident in each of the three cases studies.
Likewise relationships were a common element across the case studies. In each of the
three case studies, comments about caregiver-parent and/or caregiver-child relationships
were made. Often, these comments came up for directors, parents, and caregivers.

Common Themes Across Participants

When the data was analyzed across participants the primary theme of time was
evident across all participant groups. Two sub themes were also common across
participants. The two sub themes were relationships and schedules. Directors also had
secure environments and community in common, while parents additionally had secure
environments and stigma in common. The final group of caregivers had routines as their
additional group. See Table 8. A description of these themes as they relate to directors,

parents and caregivers follows.

76

Table 8

Common themes across participant groups

 

 

Participant groups Directors Parents Caregivers

Primary Theme Time Time Time

Sub Themes Relationships Relationships Relationships
Schedules Schedules Schedules

Secure Environment Secure Environment N/A

Community N/A N/A
N/A Stigma N/A
N/A N/A Routines

 

Directors

A common primary theme for directors was time. The primary theme of time was
of paramount interest to directors who managed twenty-four hour childcare. One of
directors’ responsibilities was to maintain a viable childcare business. The down turn in
the local economy, and subsequent job loss in particular during the second and third
shifts had caused all of the centers in this case study to reevaluate the financial viability
of staying open around the clock. During the study the period that the data was collected
enrollment numbers continued to drop. By the end of the study all three centers in the
study had applied to change their licensing status from twenty four hours to closing at
11:00 pm. and reopening at 5:00 am. This change in licensing meant that they were no
longer required to have beds with mattresses since children would not spend the night.

This change in hours had resulted in the layoff of staff at all of the centers. This macro

77

system issue of a downturn in the economy had affected all of the centers regardless of
size or resources.

Financial viability. Maintaining financial viability of their programs was a
challenge to directors in all of the case studies. In general, infant and toddler child care
tended to be more expensive than care for preschoolers and older children. Low
infant/toddler to caregiver ratios tend to contribute to high costs. Characteristics
contributing to high costs could be especially evident with nonstandard hour care. For
example, enrollment during nonstandard hours was low during the time that the study
was carried out. Directors reported that enrollment numbers had previously been much
higher. Infants and toddlers enrollment during nonstandard hours had dropped
dramatically to only one or two children in those age groups. The drop in enrollment for
infants and toddlers occurred when a national industrial strike led to the temporary and in
some cases permanent lay off of workers for that company and subsidiary companies.
Many of the subsidiary companies cut back to operating during first shift only and closed
down their second and third shift operations. Directors reported that preschool and school
age enrollment during nonstandard hours had decreased between 10 to 15 % while infant
toddler enrollment had decreased on average about 90%. Directors noted that in an
economic down turn the infant toddler population enrolled during nonstandard hours was
the first to disenroll. Directors reported that their enrollment was at about 80% of their
capacity during the day. Enrollment numbers directly correlated to financial viability for
centers as higher enrollment meant the receipt of more tuition dollars.

As noted, lower ratios required by regulatory licensing entities for infants and

toddlers contributed to the high costs of infant and toddler care. The presence of one

78

infant or toddler required that centers lower their staff child ratio to one adult for four
children. All of the directors noted that meant it was not cost effective to enroll one infant
or one toddler, especially during nonstandard hours. By the end of the study all of the
centers had decided to close the centers from 11:30 pm. to 4: 30 am. and change their
licenses fi'om 24 hour care to extended care. An added factor in the decision to close for
part of the night was the requirement that once children were no longer sleeping in a crib,
a bed was required for that child. Beds with mattresses were an added cost and storage
nightmare for centers that were not required if they closed between the hours of 1 1 :30
pm. and 4:30 am.

Relationships. Directors agreed that relationships were essential to any program
involving children. Promoting good relationships between themselves and parents as well
as between parents and caregivers was important to all of them. The essentials of trust
and good communication were part of daily efforts to cooperatively support and nurture
the children.

Schedules. Schedules were necessary for the efficient management of time for the
director, caregivers and children. Knowing parents’ schedules ahead of time so that
planning for children could be done in advance was the goal of all of the directors.
Knowing what to expect and when to expect it gave some sense of security to all
involved. The overlap time between first and second shift was a problem that scheduling
did not always solve. This ‘zoo time’ as staff referred to it was a bigger problem for
infant and toddler rooms than for anywhere else in the center.

Secure environment. Providing a safe and secure environment for children

attending the center in particular during nonstandard hours helped parents to feel less

79

fearful of the centers and childcare in general. Routines and some sense of stability while
their shifts change regularly helped children and parents to feel safe. Providing locked
doors and well lit parking lots at the entire group of centers helped parents feel that their
children were safe.

The community. The directors shared the perception that the colleges were a
positive part of the community that helped them by providing interns especially during
nonstandard hours. They all wished that the community would encourage the use of
nonstandard hour childcare in the hopes that their enrollment would increase.

Parents

The analysis of the data revealed that the primary theme for parents was time.
Common to the group were sub themes of relationships, schedules, secure environment,
and stigma.

Time. The primary theme of time affected parents more than any other group in
this study. Parents’ work during nonstandard hours left them sleep deprived, chronically
tired and guilty about not meeting their family’s needs or spending time with them. Their
hours affected the times and time that their children spent in childcare. Additionally the
variability of their schedules often left them stressed.

Relationship. All parents shared expectations for the care they wanted for their
child with the caregiver. They had to trust people who at first were strangers but often
joined the ranks of good friend or acquired a status akin to family. Short on time parents
were pressed to find the time to establish the relationship they wanted not only with

caregivers but with family and the children themselves.

80

Schedules. For parents, their work schedules, over which they all reported having
no control, created the biggest stress in their lives. The lack of consistency in scheduling
did not allow for forming any patterns of sleep or other behaviors.

Secure Environment. Secure environment was important for parents. They wanted
to be sure that they were leaving their children in a safe place while they worked.

Stigma. Parents perceived placing their children in care during nonstandard hours
as negative. They reported feeling judged by caregivers and society in a negative way for
waking their children up in the middle of the night, or for not having them sleep in their
own beds. This somehow made them feel like bad parents although they justified what
they were doing as a necessity.

Caregivers

The analysis of the data revealed that time was the primary theme for caregivers
with relationships, schedules, and routines as sub themes. Time is described as are the
sub themes in the context of caregivers in this study.

Time. Similar to the other groups, time was the primary theme for caregivers.
Caregivers perceived time to affect the parents and children. They reported parents’
dissatisfaction with their work hours but reported satisfaction with their work hours. Only
one of these caregivers had school aged children at home, and she reported missing out
on family time. The other caregivers were single and had no children at home.

Relationships. Caregivers reported that relationships with the children were good.
They reported having to work at the parent relationships. Finding ways to relate to
parents and explain what they were doing with the children. Sometimes the parents’

expectation might be developmentally inappropriate, for example, when they requested

8l

academic training for their toddlers. Explaining what children needed now and how they
would be accomplishing that sometimes made them nervous about talking with parents.

Schedules and Routines. Working with the director and parents to establish
schedules and routines for the children that would be consistent was part of their job.
Once those schedules and routines were agreed upon it was their responsibility to carry
them out in a way that was comfortable for the child. Carrying out these routines for
infants and toddlers during nonstandard hours often meant having lots of patience to
follow the child at their pace instead of hurrying them along.

Observations of Childcare Environments

As described earlier, observations of infant/toddler childcare rooms and
interactions between caregivers and infants and toddlers were observed. Scores for the
observations completed at centers A, B and C are included in Tables 9 and 10. Only mean
scores are reported due to the small number of centers.
Table 9

Summary of mean scores for Amett Caregiver Interaction Scale across the two

 

 

observations
Arnett Caregiver Case A Case B Case C Possible
Range
Sensitivity 3.88 4.00 3.88 0-4
Detachment 3.40 3.00 2.60 0-4
Harshness 3 .67 3.17 3.33 0-4
Permissiveness 3.69 3.55 3.64 0-4
Total Mean Item 3.66 3.43 3.36 0-4
Score

 

82

Ratings for the Amett Caregiver Interaction Scale for caregivers in the
participating centers were similar (between 3 and 4 on a 4 point scale). The sub scores
were reversed to be scored so that for detachment, harshness and sensitivity a 4 meant
that for that caregiver it was very much true that she was not detached, harsh or
permissive. Sensitivity scores were not reversed. The score of 4 for sensitivity meant that
the caregiver was sensitive. The average mean scale for Center A was 0.23 higher than
Center B and 0.30 higher than Center C. Center B had the highest sub score for
sensitivity of all the caregivers. All caregivers and directors had college degrees in child
development. Center A staff was more highly educated. The director had a Master’s
Degree in Child Development and both she and the staff had specialized training in infant
and toddler care. The better scores are probably reflective of the better educational level
and training of the staff. Center B had a director with a Bachelor’s degree and staff with
Associate’s Degrees. Center C had the lowest scores and the director and caregiver had
Associate’s Degrees and no specialized infant /toddler training.

For the ITERS-R average mean scores of 3 for the subscales were considered to
reflect adequate custodial care. Average mean scores of 5 were regarded as indicative of
a good environment. Center C environment was rated as ranging from adequate to good
with subscale scores ranging from 3.8 to 5.2 on a 7 point scale. Scores for center B
ranged from 4.9 to 6.75 and were indicative of a good environment. Center A had scores

ranging from 6.33 to 7.00 which reflected a good to excellent environment.

83

Table 10

IT ERS —R Mean scores for Centers A, B and C across the two observations

 

Subscale Scores Scores Scores Possible Range

Center A Center B Center C

 

Space & Furnishings 7.00 5.20 3.80 0-7
Personal Care Routines 7.00 5.50 4.00 0-7
Listening and Talking 6.86 7.00 4.00 0-7
Activities 6.33 4.90 4.44 0-7
Interaction 6.91 6.75 5.20 0-7
Program Structure 7.00 6.33 4.66 0-7
Parents and Staff 6.76 5.14 3.85 0-7
Full scale (Items 1-39) 47.86 40.82 29.95 0-49
All Child Items (1-32) 41.1 35.63 26.10 0-42

 

84

CHAPTER FIVE

Discussion and Conclusion

In summary, the purpose of this study was to examine and identify directors’,
parents’ and caregivers’ experiences in nonstandard hour care. Specifically, themes
common within each of the three participating centers, and themes common across
participants (directors, parents and caregivers) independent of center affiliation, were
identified. Interestingly, across centers and across participants, common themes
occurred. Specifically, themes concerning aspects of time particularly scheduling and
routines, occurred. Likewise, relationships were a common theme. Each of these themes
is discussed in the following sections.

Discussion

Theoretical Framework

At the onset of the study, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model was identified as a
key framework from which to consider the multiple influences on children’s experiences
in childcare. This study sought specifically to lay the groundwork for future studies on
the effects of nonstandard hour childcare on children by exploring perceptions of
directors’ parents’, and caregivers’ experiences. To some extent, the ecological
framework remained helpful in interpreting data. For example, data in this study spoke to
a number of potential mesosystemic influences on childcare experiences. Directors’
experiences around scheduling were influenced by parents’ changing work schedules,
necessitating a change in their children’s enrollment patterns. In turn, directors had to
alter caregivers’ schedules, which was frustrating to all parties. Such frustrations could
impact caregiver-child relationships and constant scheduling changes might impede the

85

development of a secure relationship between the child and the caregiver. Macrosystemic
influences such as the current economy and society’s negative perceptions about the use
of nonstandard hour care were clearly felt by directors, parents, and caregivers. Again,
frustrations brought on by these larger influences could impact children’s interactions
with these key adults. In fact, caregiver-child interactions and the general environment
were assessed to be of the lowest quality in Center C, in which stress and fatigue were
consistent themes across the director, parent and caregiver.

In retrospect, however, the use of the ecological model was perhaps premature.
Specifically, the ecological model features and individual’s development at its core, with
microsystemic, mesosystemic, macrosystemic, and exosystemic influences on
development mapped. A future study focusing on child development within the context
of nonstandard hour care, for example, would feature the child as the unit of analyses.
The individual as the unit of analysis is an appropriate match for Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological model. The data in this qualitative study, however led the researcher to
aggregate data in a case study approach and to aggregate data across participants. The
center, for instance, largely became the unit of analysis. As the study progressed with
small numbers of participating children, the unit of analysis shifted. This study sets the
stage for larger studies with the child as a unit of study. In this regard theories of
cognitive development or social learning theory might be helpful. These studies would
focus on the child and how he or she responded cognitively or socially to being cared for

out of the home while his or her parents’ work nonstandard hours.

86

Aspects of Time

The research questions for this study were unique to evening and night time care.
Themes identified in the data are similar to those found in standard hour childcare.
However, although themes may be experienced during standard hours in childcare
centers, they may be experienced more intensely at night. For example, directors
reported concerns about enrollment during nonstandard hours. Directors are also
concerned about enrollment during standard hours as well. The concern was reported as
more important at night due to lower enrollment than during standard hours. Directors,
parents, and caregivers perceived the context of time as it relates to children enrolled in
nonstandard hour care as important, but had some similar and different concerns.
Nonstandard hours were hours outside of 9: 00 am. and 5:00 pm. Directors reported
being on call twenty four hours per day and found that stressful. Directors were also
concerned about raising the enrollment during nonstandard hours. Parents reported the
challenge of lack of childcare choices during nonstandard hours. Managing time was also
challenge for parents as they reported not having enough time to spend with family.
Caregiver concerns were around their own schedules which kept changing to
accommodate the children’s schedules.
Schedules

Schedules were perceived by all participants to influence nonstandard hour
childcare. For parents, their work schedules determined the hours of interaction with the
childcare center. Work schedules were often perceived by parents as a challenge because
they had no control over them. Lack of control over jobs was noted in the literature as a

contributor to workers’ stress (J oshi and Bogen, 2007). Knowing the parents’ schedules

87

ahead of time was important to the directors who needed this information to plan the
children’s and staff schedules. Directors perceived schedules as a positive way to
maintain order within the childcare environment. Caregivers used schedules as a structure
to organize children’s time at the center. Research in child development has
demonstrated that schedules make settings predictable for children and for adults.
Predictable and consistent schedules influence children’s emotional, cognitive and social
development in a positive way (Wien, 1996).

Although it was not expressed in this study, parents did not have any control over
their children’s schedules at the centers since directors were adamant that children needed
to be on regular daytime schedules. Directors felt that keeping the children on a day time
schedule was the consistency that children, whose parents worked nonstandard hours,
needed. This left parents having to manage their sleep schedules around their children’s
nap time during the day. Another challenge with schedules was the cross over time
between shifts that left directors agonizing over how to get one set of children and
parents out of the door, while another set entered, without having a chaotic situation at
the center. This problem that occurred between first and second shifts never seemed fully
resolved by any of the centers, although they all had some coping strategies in place. One
coping strategy was to have extra bodies to help, especially in the infant room, during the
crossover period. Another strategy was to use space in the center creatively. Staff would
take a group of children outside or to the multi-purpose or large muscle room. Other
spaces such as a library area, director’s office, or dining area were used for children to

watch a video or do an art activity until they went home.

88

The variance in shift schedules appeared to create much stress for parents with
young children. The lack of consistency in the schedule upset sleep patterns and left
parents sleep deprived and chronically tired, and often disgruntled with their work shifts.
These findings are similar to those reported in the literature that states job quality impacts
the quality of life for families (Han, 2008).

Routines

In keeping with reports found in the literature the time of day appears to be
conducive to a more relaxed way of carrying out routines necessary for the care and
safety of the group (US Department of Labor, 2000). Early morning, later evening, and
night are times when the children need time to wake up and time to settle down for sleep.
Parents, together with caregivers and directors, created specific early morning and night
time routines for the children. These routines were mainly personal care routines such as
changing into pajamas and tooth brushing before bed. For the early morning, routines
involved getting dressed and having breakfast. Creating a home away from home was
the goal for all groups interviewed. Parents felt that if they could not have the children at
home the next best thing was to have the center be as homelike as possible. Caregivers
desired to provide a home atmosphere for the children, and directors noted that providing
family style care was filling a need in society. Routines help children understand the
expectations of the environment, feel secure, and reduce the frequency of behavior
problems.
Relationships

The features of nonstandard hour care were found in the identified sub themes

across case studies. A key feature was relationships. The relationships are the interactions

89

and patterns of behavior that occur between the people in the exosystem. Warm,
nurturing, individualized interactions between the child and parent are noted by
Bronfenbrenner (2005) as necessary to development. Reciprocal interactions between a
consistent caregiver who meets the child’s needs and creates a warm and nurturing
environment are a necessary part of good quality childcare. In this study parents and
caregivers reported that this was a very important relationship. They noted the need to
establish trust and respect between each other. Parents reported that if they were not
comfortable with the caregiver they would disenroll their child from the program.
Directors noted that the caregiver parent relationship was the most important one in their
programs. Most of the communication especially for infant parents, were through the
caregiver. In this study the directors’ relationships with parents were varied. Directors
were the ones who had to get parents to pay when they were behind, or tell them they
needed a designated driver. Two case studies reported that parents treated the director and
staff as though they were family.
Stigma

In this study, all of the groups interviewed expressed strong feelings about
nonstandard hour childcare outside of the home. The study of stigma as it relates to self
has been detailed by Irving Goffrnan (1963). All categories of participants expressed
strong emotional sentiments about nonstandard hour care outside the home. Although
stigma was categorized in this study as a sub theme of time, it, perhaps, could have been
a primary theme by itself. The researcher categorized stigma under time because, for this
study, the time of day (nonstandard hour care) was what evoked the strongest feelings.

The idea that children were not sleeping in their own beds for most nights of the week, or

90

for part of the night was especially troubling for participants. Participants also expressed
negative emotions about not having a family dinner time in the evening. This sentiment
was reflected in the literature as part of parents’ belief system that children are better off
in the home, especially in the late evenings and at night (US Department of Labor
Department, 2000). All participant groups expressed the sentiment that nonstandard hour
care was not an accepted societal norm, and, in spite of using it, or providing it, they
perceived that people in society disapproved of what they were doing. The review of the
literature showed societal discomfort with nonstandard hour care outside of the home is
prevalent not only in the United States but in England as well (Joseph Rowntree
Foundation report; Stratham and Mooney 2003). Contrary to the discomfort that society
had with nonstandard hour care directors, parents, and caregivers all said more centers
needed to offer this type of care to give parents more choices for care at atypical times of
the day. All participants agreed that childcare for children younger than three years of age
that was not provided in the home or by a relative was a last resort. Some parents even
noted that the care children received in the home was not necessarily the best, in part due
to lack of consistency, but it was what parents perceive society expects of them.

The definition of stigma given in Webster’s dictionary is social disgrace. It would
seem that stigma is a very harsh word to describe the prevailing attitude toward
nonstandard hour care. This study did not pursue in depth questioning of the reason for
the use of this term in association with nonstandard hour care, leaving an exploration of
this topic for future study. The literature stated that care outside the home during
nonstandard hours is regarded with ambivalence and sometimes outright hostility by

caregivers in the United States and England (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Stratham &

91

Mooney, 2003; US Department of Labor, 2000). The same reports also noted that late
evening or overnight out of home care was viewed as problematic by parents. The reason
for the societal discomfort with evening and night care outside the home as reported in
the literature is that missing key family experiences might be detrimental to the child. To
date there is still too little evidence available to refute this assumption. Future qualitative
studies with families who have used childcare centers to provide nonstandard hour care
over a period of time such as 10 or 15 years would be helpful in contributing to the
debate on nonstandard hour childcare and best practices.

Part of the negative feelings for care of young children at night was the fear that
parents face when they left a child who could not speak for himself/herself with anyone
who was not a family member. All parents raised issues about safety within the childcare
environment. Most of them expressed feeling secure when doors were locked and the
parking lot was well lit. Some even wanted a calm environment for their child. Routines
and schedules appeared to be comforting to parents. Parents carried with them the
knowledge of what was happening at the childcare while they were at work and some of
them expressed the need to call the center regularly.

Contexts of C are

Three centers participated in this study. Of these three programs only Center A
was an employer and union supported center, allowing for many resources. This context
of care seemed to allow the center to feature many aspects of high quality care. First,
infant and toddler care is expensive, in part due to providing the intensive care and
supervision that infants and toddlers need requires lower child-caregiver ratios than for

older children. Secondly caregivers need training in infant-toddler care and development,

92

to ensure that their practices and expectations are age-appropriate and promote healthy
development. Center A was able to fund continuing education efforts for their staff.
Many infant and toddler programs cannot afford such efforts. In other centers, supports
were not always available for age specific training, and if they were available, the center
could not afford the release time for caregivers. The center with support was able to hire
permanent substitutes who were part of the staff and familiar with the children allowing
for the caregivers to attend specific, trainings among other things.

Moreover, Center A was the only program to provide fairly extensive benefits to
their staff. Although rare among childcare programs in the United States, the provision
of benefits and opportunities for continuing education may contribute to lower turnover
rates of staff. In the United States, the turnover rate is approximately 50% (Ackerman,
2006). High turnover rates disrupt the continuity of care and are typically associated with
lower quality childcare. This is especially problematic for infants and toddlers who need
to form close bonds of attachment with a primary caregiver during this stage of their
development. Ackerman notes that lack of benefits and low salaries contribute to the
constant turnover of childcare staff.

Interestingly, Center A had by far the highest ITERS classroom ratings and high
Amett scores. It was also the only accredited program in the study. These indicators
suggest that this center provided very high quality infant/toddler care.

Financial Viability

As noted, infant/toddler care is expensive for several reasons. Licensing

requirements for lower adult to child ratios are one contributor to expense. Also,

infant/toddler care requires adequate space for crawlers and walkers as well as special

93

equipment such cribs, high chairs, strollers and age appropriate outdoor play equipment.
Added to the standard expense for infants and toddlers, nonstandard hour care is more
expensive since a caregiver seldom has a full quota of children to maintain group size of
three or four children. In all of the centers in this study the caregivers were caring for one
or two children during most of their shift. Also as one director noted, hiring custodial
staff is an added expense. The US Department of Labor (2000) reported that directors of
nonstandard hour childcare cited financial viability as one of the challenges of
nonstandard hour childcare. Despite evidence indicating the need for nonstandard hour
care, directors in this study worried about the viability of their underutilized programs.
Unpredictable usage patterns and the lack of a “critical mass” at any particular time were
obstacles to financial feasibility. Since this study concluded all of the participating
centers have cut back the hours that the center is open. They have given up their licenses
to be twenty four hour centers, now closing at 11:00 or 11:30 pm. and reopening at 5:00
am. in an effort to remain financially solvent.
Conclusions

This study provided data on the perspectives of directors, parents and caregivers
currently working or using nonstandard hour care in childcare centers. Although very
few studies have been carried out in this area, centers have offered care during
nonstandard hours for at least the last two decades. Data from the current study suggest
the need for wider community education about nonstandard hour care. As noted
respondents, no matter their role, commented on the negative perceptions associated with
enrolling infants in nonstandard hour care. Yet many families have no choice but to

engage in nonstandard work schedules. Indeed many lower income parents may be

94

working multiple jobs to financially sustain themselves. The added stress of contending
with negative perceptions of childcare was clear. The study findings also point towards
the benefit of supports for childcare programs. Employer-sponsored programs may offer
much needed financial and resource supports to childcare programs. Privately owned
programs may be more vulnerable to financial stresses and may lack the resources needed
to provide the highest quality care.
Implications for Research, Practice and Policy

There are few studies on the long term effects of nonstandard hour care on
children. A study of families who have used this type of care for a period of time and
whose children are older would give insight into how children fare when they do not
sleep in their beds, or have dinner in their homes every night over a period of time. Katz
(1993) noted that the perspective of children is one that should be included when
studying childcare. The perspectives of children who were enrolled in nonstandard hour
care in childcare centers that included how they regarded their experiences are a future
theme for exploration. Also this study concerned infants and toddlers in care during
nonstandard hours. Future studies to describe the environment for preschool children, and
for school age children who are also enrolled in licensed centers during nonstandard
hours are needed. School age children who spend all day at school and then spend
another seven or eight hours in licensed childcare because their parents work second shift
are a group that should be identified for an exploration of their experiences.

While themes such as childcare choices might also be identified as part of the
experiences in standard hour care, data in the current study suggest that experiences are

magnified in the context of nonstandard hour care. For example, women who work

95

standard hours have the choice of several centers in which to place their infants and
toddlers. When women work second or third shift choices of centers providing
nonstandard hour care were severely limited (Henly and Lambert, 2005). As part of time
management, stress related to schedules might also be identified as part of the
experiences in standard hour care. Data in the current study suggest that experiences are
magnified in the context of nonstandard hour care. For example, Joshi and Bogen (2007)
noted that employment in nonstandard hour schedules is associated with more parenting
stress compared to standard daytime predictable schedules. There are also implications
for licensing to give the same attention to night and evening care that is given to daycare
so that standards of care are maintained. One center reported that licensing visits were
more frequent during the day than they were during nonstandard hours. Fewer visits led
to the perception that night care was not evaluated or valued the same as daycare.

Nonstandard hour work continues to be part of life for increasing numbers of
American families with children. The increase in this type of work is an underlying
theme to today’s society. Jane Jacobs noted that issues common to people in the
community, such as urban blight, need to be closely studied. The goal or purpose of the
study would be to ensure that the health and vitality of the community is preserved
(Jacobs, 2004). Jane Jacobs noted that issues central to the community and that concern a
number of people are urban themes. Nonstandard hours of work are a theme that is
central to the community that needs to be closely studied similarly to Jane Jacobs urban
themes.

Presser (2003) has studied nonstandard work schedules for a number of years. She

advocates for researchers, unions and policymakers to address the complexity of issues

96

surrounding this topic. In order to help society begin to understand the challenges faced
by people, in particular those with families working nonstandard hours, research is
needed to address this topic. Also in the public discourse, it is necessary to give attention

to how nonstandard hour employment times affect families with children.

97

APPENDICES

98

APPENDIX A
Director/Owner Date:

Center

Address

Re: STUDY ABOUT NON-STANDARD HOURS IN LICENSED CHILDCARE

Dear

My name is Dorothy Elizabeth Jordan, and I am a doctoral student, under the supervision
of Dr. Holly Brophy-Herb, from Michigan State University. I am gathering information
about infant and toddler programs that operate in licensed centers during non-standard
hours (programs open from 5pm to 9am). Your center is one of few that open outside of
regular hours and that also cares for infants and toddlers. We know little about non-
standard hour infant/toddler childcare. The use of non standard hour childcare is
increasing in the United States. Because of this increase, it's important that we
understand more about nonstandard hour childcare from the point of view of childcare
directors, caregivers, and families. Our hope in this study is to understand more about the
experiences of infants and toddlers, their parents and caregivers, and program directors
during non-standard hours in licensed childcare centers.

I am writing to invite you to consider participating in this study.

WHAT IS EXPECTED OF PARTICIPANTS

We are seeking your permission to have your center be a part of the study to about non-
standard hour childcare. Specifically, we would like to: a) interview you as the program
director; b) interview child caregivers providing non standard hour care; c) observe in
infant/toddler classrooms during non standard hour care; and d) invite parents to
participate in a focus to understand their perspectives on nonstandard hour care.

We are hoping several programs in the area will participate in this study. At the end of
the study, we would be happy to provide you with the overall findings of the study. This
information might be very useful for your program.

INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL

99

Your center, staff, parents and children participating in this study will do so
confidentially. No one except the primary and secondary investigators will have access
to your responses. Findings will be reported as a group. For example, “directors in
licensed centers during non-standard hours ....... ” We never report an individual's
response or the like.

PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY IS VOLUNTARY

Your participation, although voluntary, would be greatly appreciated. You may withdraw
your participation at any time without penalty. You may refuse to answer specific
questions on the questionnaire or during the interview.

NEXT STEPS

I will call you to make an appointment to explain the program in detail or answer any
questions you may have. Also, feel free to contact me at (810) 577-0183 or
iordandoggmsuedu with any thoughts or questions. If you are agreeable to participating
you will be asked to sign an informed consent form indicating your willingness to
participate in this study. After that, I will begin contacting parents and caregivers with
invitations to participate as well.

 

Thank you for being willing to make a contribution to the body of knowledge in child
development!

Sincerely,
D. Elizabeth Jordan

Doctoral Candidate

Holly E. Brophy-Herb, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Family and Child Ecology
College of Social Sciences

Michigan State University

100

APPENDIX B
A Study of the Ecology of Infant/Toddler Childcare During Nontraditional Hours in
Childcare Centers

Informed Consent Form
Director

WHAT THE RESEARCH STUDY IS ABOUT

You are invited to participate in a research study being conducted by Dorothy Elizabeth
Jordan, a doctoral student, under the supervision of Dr. Holly Brophy-Herb from
Michigan State University. The purpose of the research study is to gather information
about infant/toddler childcare that operates during non-standard hours in licensed
childcare centers. Studies have focused on infant toddler care during regular daytime
hours, but we know very little about non-standard hour childcare (programs open from
5pm to 9am).

WHAT IS EXPECTED OF YOU IF YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE

As part of this research study, you will be asked to complete a brief questionnaire
(approximately 10 minutes) and to be interviewed (approximately 45 minutes). The
questions will be specific to your experiences as the director of a licensed center open
during non-standard hours. The interview will be audio taped and transcribed. In
addition, you may be contacted after the interview to clarify your responses to questions.

We are also seeking your permission to contact infant and toddler childcare providers
from your center. The providers will be involved by participating in an interview relative
to their experiences as childcare providers during non-standard hours (approximately one
hour). I also wish to observe the general environment and caregiver-child interactions in
their classrooms (approximately 3-4 hours of observation).

THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL

Your responses to the questionnaire and interview will remain confidential; no one except
the primary investigators will have access to these responses. Only a participant
identification number will label interview transcripts and questionnaires. Your name will
not be recorded on the questionnaire or appear in the interview transcripts, nor will the
name of your childcare program.

Results will be based on the answers given by all participants as a group insuring
confidentiality of individual responses. Group—based findings will be made available to
those who are interested. An example of such group based findings would/might be
something like, “Most childcare directors reported...” Your privacy will be protected to
the maximum extent allowable by the law.

101

YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE RESEARCH STUDY IS VOLUNTARY

Your participation in this research study would be greatly appreciated, however, your
participation is voluntary. You may withdraw from participation at any time without
penalty. Furthermore, you may refuse to answer specific questions on the questionnaire
and/or interview that you feel uncomfortable answering and can still be a part of the
research study. Audiotapes from the interview will be erased at the completion of the
research study.

RISKS AND BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATING IN THE RESEARCH STUDY

Your participation in this research study will help to increase the body of knowledge
about the care of infants and toddlers, particular non standard hour care. As the use of
nonstandard hour childcare increases, it is very important to better understand the
experiences and perspectives of childcare directors. There are few risks associated with
participation in this research study. You may choose not to answer any questions that
make you feel uncomfortable.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RESEARCH STUDY

If you have concerns or questions about this research study, such as scientific issues, or
how to do any part of it, please contact the please contact the principal investigator, Dr.
Holly Brophy-Herb at (517)—355-6537, Room 3 Human Ecology Building, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, MI 48895, hbrophy@msu.edu, or Elizabeth Jordan at
(810) 577-0183 or iprdando@msu.edu. 'If you have any questions or concerns about your
role and rights as a research participant, or would like to register a complaint about this
study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Director of MSU’s Human
Research Protection Program, Dr. Peter Vasilenko, at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503,
or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Thank you for your time and cooperation,

Dr. Holly Brophy-Herb, Principal Investigator Date

D. Elizabeth Jordan, Graduate Student Date

102

 

I voluntarily agree to participate in the study.

 

Name of Participant (Printed)

 

 

 

 

 

Signature of Participant Date
Name of Child Care Program Phone Number
Email Address

 

Name of Person Administering this Form
(Printed)

 

 

Signature of Person Administering this Form Date

103

APPENDIX C
A Study of the Ecology of Infant/Toddler Childcare During Nontraditional Hours in
Childcare Centers

Informed Consent Form
Parent

WHAT THE RESEARCH STUDY IS ABOUT

You are being invited to participate in a research study being conducted by Dorothy
Elizabeth Jordan, a doctoral student, under the supervision of Dr. Holly Brophy-Herb
from Michigan State University. The purpose of the research study is to gather
information about infant toddler childcare that operates during non-standard hours in
licensed childcare centers. Studies have focused on infant toddler care during regular
daytime hours, but we know very little non-standard hour childcare (programs open from
5pm to 9am).

WHAT IS EXPECTED OF YOU IF YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE

As part of this research study, you will be asked to complete a brief questionnaire and to
participate in an interview with one of the study investigators (approximately 60 minutes
total). The interview questions will be specific to your experiences as a parent of an
infant or toddler enrolled in a licensed center, open during non-standard hours. The
group discussion will be audio taped and transcribed. In addition, you may be contacted
afterwards to clarify things you shared or your responses to questions.

We are also asking your permission to observe in your child's childcare classroom for
about two hours on up to 3 different occasions (about 4-6 hours total). We want to carry
out these classroom observations to better understand the common practices and routines
during non standard hour care. We do not intend to observe your child specifically.
Instead, we are interested in learning about the overall environment in which your child is
enrolled. We will not approach or play with your child while we are observing in the
classroom. We try to observe quietly and not disrupt classroom activities.

THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL

Your responses to the questionnaire and in the discussion group will remain confidential;
no one except the primary investigators will have access to these responses. Only a
participant identification number will label focus group transcripts and questionnaires.

104

Your name will not be recorded on the questionnaire or appear in the focus group
transcripts, nor will the name of your child or the childcare program. Likewise, we will
not record your child's name during any classroom observations. All observation notes
will be kept confidential, with no names appearing on the observation notes.

Results of this research study will be based on the answers given by all participants as a
group insuring confidentiality Of individual responses. Group—based findings will be
made available to those who are interested. An example of such group-based findings
would be something like, “ Most parents of infants and toddlers receiving care during
non-standard hours at licensed childcare centers reported ...” Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by the law.

YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE RESEARCH STUDY IS VOLUNTARY

Your participation in this research study would be greatly appreciated. However, your
participation is voluntary. You may withdraw from participation at any time without
penalty. Furthermore, you may refuse to answer specific questions on the questionnaire
and/or during the focus group session that you feel uncomfortable answering, and can
still be a part of the research study. Audiotapes from the focus group session will be
erased at the completion of the research study.

RISKS AND BENF ITS OF PARTICIPATING IN THE RESEARCH STUDY

Your participation in this research study will help to increase the body of knowledge
about the care of infants and toddlers, particular non standard hour care. As the use of
nonstandard hour childcare increases, it is very important to better understand the
experiences and perspectives of parents using nonstandard hour care. There are few risks
related to your participation in this research study. You may choose not to answer any
questions that make you feel uncomfortable.

IF YOU HAVE QJESTIONS ABOUT THE RESEARCH STUDY

If you have concerns or questions about this research study, such as scientific issues, or
how to do any part of it, please contact the please contact the principal investigator, Dr.
Holly Brophy-Herb at (517)—355-6537, Room 3 Human Ecology Building, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, MI 48895, hbrophy@msu.edu, or Elizabeth Jordan at
(810) 577-0183 or jordando@msu.edu. 'If you have any questions or concerns about your

105

role and rights as a research participant, or would like to register a complaint about this
study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Director of MSU’s Hmnan
Research Protection Program, Dr. Peter Vasilenko, at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503,
or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Thank you for your time and cooperation,

Dr. Holly Brophy-Herb, Principal Investigator Date

D. Elizabeth Jordan, Graduate Student Date

 

106

I voluntarily agree to participate in the study.

 

Name of Participant (Printed)

 

 

 

 

 

Signature of Participant Date
Home phone number Cell number

 

Email Address

 

Name of childcare center in which your child is enrolled

___Boy

 

Age of your child

 

Name of Person Administering this Form (Printed)

_Girl

 

 

Signature of Person Administering this Form Date
107

APPENDIX D
A Study of the Ecology of Infant/Toddler Childcare During Nontraditional Hours in
Childcare Centers

Informed Consent Form
Caregiver

WHAT THE RESEARCH STUDY IS ABOUT

You are being invited to participate in a research study being conducted by Dorothy
Elizabeth Jordan, a doctoral student, under the supervision of Dr. Holly Brophy-Herb
from Michigan State University. The purpose of the research study is to gather
information about infant toddler childcare that operates during non-standard hours in
licensed childcare centers. Studies have focused on infant toddler care during regular
daytime hours, but we know very little about non-standard hour childcare (programs open
from 5pm to 9am).

WHAT IS EXPECTED OF YOU IF YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE

As part of this research study, you will be asked to complete a brief questionnaire
(approximately 10 minutes) and to be interviewed (approximately 45 minutes). The
questions will be specific to your experiences as a caregiver of infants and toddlers
enrolled in a licensed center, open during non-standard hours. The interview will be
audio taped and transcribed. In addition, you may be contacted after the interview to
clarify your responses to questions.

We also seek your permission to observe the general environment and interactions in
your room. We are interested in better understanding the environment, common routines
and practices during non standard hour childcare.

THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL

Your responses to the questionnaire and interview will remain confidential; no one except
the primary investigators will have access to these responses. Only a participant
identification number will label interview transcripts and questionnaires. Your name will
not be recorded on the questionnaire or appear in the interview transcripts, nor will the
name of your childcare program. Likewise, the observation notes we make will not
include your name or any of the children's names.

108

Results will be based on the answers given by all participants as a group insuring
confidentiality of individual responses. Group—based findings will be made available to
those who are interested. An example of such group-based findings would be something
like, “Most infant toddler caregivers reported. . .”Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by the law.

YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE RESEARCH STUDY IS VOLUNTARY

Your participation in this research study would be greatly appreciated. However, your
participation is voluntary. You may withdraw from participation at any time without
penalty. Furthermore, you may refuse to answer specific questions on the questionnaire
and/or interview that you feel uncomfortable answering and can still be a part of the
research study. Audiotapes from the interview will be erased at the completion of the
research study.

RISKS AND BENEFITS OF PARICIPATING IN THE RESEARCH STUDY

Your participation in this research study will help to increase the body of knowledge
about the care of infants and toddlers, particular non standard hour care. As the use of
nonstandard hour childcare increases, it is very important to better understand the
experiences and perspectives of child caregivers. There are few risks associated with
participation in this research study. You may choose not to answer any questions that
make you feel uncomfortable.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTION ABOUT THE RESEARCH STUDY

If you have concerns or questions about this research study, such as scientific issues, or
how to do any part of it, please contact the please contact the principal investigator, Dr.
Holly Brophy-Herb at (517)—355-653 7, Room 3 Human Ecology Building, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, MI 48895, hbrophy@msu.edu, or Elizabeth Jordan at
(810) 577-0183 or mrdando@msu.edu. 'If you have any questions or concerns about your
role and rights as a research participant, or would like to register a complaint about this
study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Director of MSU’s Human
Research Protection Program, Dr. Peter Vasilenko, at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503,
or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

 

Thank you for your time and cooperation,

Dr. Holly Brophy-Herb, Principal Investigator Date

D. EliZabeth Jordan, Graduate Student Date
109

 

I voluntarily agree to participate in the study.

 

Name of Participant (Printed)

 

 

S_ignature of Participant Date

 

 

Name of Child Care Program Phone Number

 

Email Address

 

Name of Person Administering this Form (Printed)

 

 

Signature of Person Administering this Form Date

110

APPENDIX E
Director Questionnaire
Nonstandard hour Childcare

Date Center

 

Part 1. (Director will fill out) .

 

Age/Sex Level of education Race/Ethnicity
(Please check) (Please check all (please check)
that apply)
Age High school African/American
Male CDA credential
Some college Mexican/Hispanic
Female Assoc degree White/Caucasian
BA/BS Asian/American
MA/MS Native American
__ Other
Other (Please specify)
(please specify)
(Please fill in)

Number of children this center is licensed for

 

Number of infants this center is licensed for

Number of toddlers this center is licensed for

Number of infants enrolled for non-standard hours

Number of toddlers enrolled for non-standard hours

 

Adult/child ratios at center for infants: for toddlers:

For mixed age group (infants and toddlers):

111

How is your infant/toddler program arranged? Check any that apply and provide child
ages ranges.

_Infant room (ages mos to mos)

_Mobile infant room (ages mos to mos)

_Toddler room (ages _ mos to mos)

mixed age room (ages mos to mos)
What is the average group size for: _infant classroom _toddler classroom
mixed age infant and toddler classroom

How many years has this center been in operation?
How many years have you been employed at this center?
How many years have you been employed as director at this center?

How many years have you been working in the childcare field?

 

Salary per year per month per week (specify only one)

Do you receive benefits? yes no

 

If yes, please check which types of benefits you receive:
medical dental vision

Paid vacation 401k childcare other

 

If you checked other, please describe

 

112

 

1.If you have a college degree what was your major?

 

2.If you have a college degree what was your minor?

 

3. Do you have specific training in infant and toddler care?

4. If yes to question 3, please describe these training
experiences?

 

113

Part 2: Interview Questions (Will be audio-taped)

6. Tell me about your experiences working non-standard hour childcare?

 

(How does it affect you personally — any specifics —things that are done because of the
time of day)

7. Tell me about your experiences creating non-standard hour childcare?

 

(Did you have to develop the non-standard hour program or parts of it? What were the
steps involved in establishing the non standard hour program?)

8. Tell me about your experiences administering non-standard hour childcare?
(Any administrative duties or experiences peculiar to the time of day)

9. Tell me about your experiences with scheduling caregivers for non-standard hours?
(How is scheduling done to cover non-standard hours —possibly in shorter or longer
increments of time)

10. Tell me about your experiences with visitors to the center during non-standard hours?

(Are there any visitors, such as parents, students to observe etc. during non-standard
hours?)

11. How do you see the community, parents and centers working together to support
infant and toddler care during non-standard hours?
(Anything that might help you in your job)
12. Tell me about communication with parents during non-standard hours?
(How do you communicate with parents at this time of day?)
13. What is most challenging about administering a non standard hour program?
14. What is most rewarding about administering a non standard hour program?

Thank you for your time!

Participants in this process are volunteers who may choose not to participate or answer
any of the questions in either part 1 or 2.

114

APPENDIX F
Parent Questionnaire
Nonstandard hour Childcare

Date Center Group

 

Part 1. (Parent will fill out)

 

 

 

Age category Level of education Race/Ethnicity
(Please check) (Please check all (please check)
that apply)
18-25 _High school African/American
26-35 _CDA credencial
_ some college Mexican (Chicano/A)
36-45 _Assoc degree Hispanic (Latino/A)
46-55 _BA/BS Asian/American
56-65 _MA/MS White/Caucasian
65 + _Ph.D.lEd. D Native American/
_Some college Alaskan Native
_Other Other
(Please specify) (Please specify)
Sex of parent (please check)
Male _Female
How many children attending center?
Ages of child(ren)
Gender of child(ren) F emale(s) Male(s)

What is your relationship to the child enrolled in non standard hour care?
_mother _father _ grandparent with legal guardianship
_other relative with legal guardianship

What is your occupation Hours/shift worked

 

 

Are you: _married _ single _divorced or separated

If you are married, what is your spouses' occupation?

 

If you have a college degree what was your major?

 

If you have a college degree what was your minor?

 

115

Part 2: Focus group or parent questions

1.

We know little about parents’ experiences with non-standard hour care. We would
like to know what using non-standard hour care is like for you. Please tell me
about working non-standard hours.

2. Are your children on the same schedule as you are?

For example, infants and toddlers are awake at night and asleep during the day if
their parents work the night shift and rest during the day.

3. Parents who work during the day sometimes have to take time off to take their
children to the doctor. When you take your children to the doctor or run errands
during the day, does that interrupt your time to sleep? Tell me about a typical day
for you and your child/family?

4. How can the community, parents and centers work together to support infants &
toddlers in care during non-standard hours?

5. Parents attending centers during the day often expect caregivers to assist them
with potty training, learning to feed, and teaching their children some basic skills.
What do you want/expect from non-standard hour care?

6. Please tell me or add anything else about the non-standard hour childcare that you
have noticed or would like to share.

7. What is it important for people to know about infant/toddler childcare and
especially about nonstandard hour care?

8. What is most challenging about using nonstandard hour child care?

8. What is most helpful or most rewarding about using non standard hour childcare.

Thank you for your time!

Participants in this process are volunteers. They may choose not to participate or not to
answer any of the questions in either part 1 or part 2.

116

APPENDIX G

Caregiver Questionnaire

 

Nonstandard hour Childcare

Date Center Group

 

Part 1. (Caregiver will fill out)

 

 

 

Age category Level of education Race/Ethnicity
(Please check) (Please check all that apply) (Please check)
__18-25 _High school __Afiican/American
_26-35 __CDA credential __Mexican (Chicano/A)
_36-45 _Some college
_Assoc degree __Hispanic (Latino/A)
____46-55 ______BA/BS “Asian/American
__56-65 __MA/MS in __White/Caucasian
__65 + _Ph.D./Ed. D in _Native American
_Other _Other
(Please specify) (Please specify)
Gender (please check)
__Male __ Female
Number of years employed in childcare__ Number of years at employed at this
center
Salary per year per month per week (specify only
one)
Benefits_ yes___ no

If yes,hplease check which types of benefits you receive:

117

medical dental vision

Paid vacation 401k

 

childcare other

If you checked other, please describe

 

9. If you have a college degree what was your major?
10. If you have a college degree what was your minor?
11. Do you have specific training in infant toddler care

12. If you answered yes to #3, please describe the training experiences:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13. Do you have primary care giving responsibility for one or more children?
_Yes Number

No

118

Part 2:

14.
15.
16.

17.
18.

19.

20.
21.

22.

23.
24.
25.

26.

27.

Interview Questions

Is it your choice to work non-standard hours?
Is it your choice to work in childcare?

Would you prefer to be doing something else besides childcare?

If yes to # 8, then what would you prefer to do?
Is this the only job you have?

If no, where else do you work? How many hours each week?

 

What hours do you work at this center?

Is working non-standard hours convenient for you?

Please explain why/how working non-standard hours is convenient or is not
inconvenient?

What is most challenging about providing non standard hour care?

What is most rewarding about providing non standard hour care?

Tell me about a typical schedule for the children in your care?

Parents and caregivers of young children often work together on training children
in basic skills such as tooth brushing, potty training etc. What expectations do
parents have for their children?

What expectations do you feel parents have for you?
1 19

28. What expectations do you have for the children during non-standard hour shifts?

29. Are the children on the same schedule as their parents work? For example, infants
and toddlers are awake at night and sleep during the day if their parents work the
night shift and rest during the day.

30. How do you support parents of infants & toddlers in care during non-standard
hours? What does supporting parents mean to you?

31. Please tell me or add anything else about the non-standard hour childcare that you
have noticed or would like to share.

Thank you for your time!

Participants in this process are volunteers. They may choose not to participate or not to
answer any of the questions in either part 1 or part 2.

120

APPENDIX H

Pizza, Pop and Parents
Discussion group

for

Parents & Guardians of Infants and Toddlers
When: April 1, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Where: The gym of Childcare

 

Please come and share your experiences with evening and night childcare
As part of my dissertation study I would like to learn about your experiences with

evening and nigh childcare for infants and toddlers. There is little information available

about this type of care and your perspectives would be most valuable.
Please note that your name will not be used in any information gathered.

Please contact Elizabeth Jordan 810-577-0183 for further information

 

Please RSVP by returning the bottom of this flyer to your child’s teacher so that we will

have enough refreshments

Yes, I will be able to attend

 

No, I will not be able to attend

 

Number of people attending

121

REFERENCES

122

REFERENCES

Ackerman, D. J. (2006). The Costs of Being a Childcare Teacher: Revisiting the Problem
of low wages. The National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers
Univeristy. Educational Policy, vol 20, no 1., 85-112.

Adams, G., Holcomb, P., Snyder, K., Koralek, R., and Capizzano, J. (2006). Child Care
Subsidies for TANF Families: The Nexus of Systems and Policies. Washington,

DC: The Urban Institute.

Ahnert, L. Lamb, M. E. (2003). Shared Care: Establishing a Balance Between Home and
Child Care Settings. Child Development, 74(4), 1044-1049.

Albanese, P. (2006). Small Town, Big Benefits: The Ripple Effect of $7/day Child Care.
The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, Toronto, 43(2), 125-140.

Anderson, S. G., Ramburg, D. M., & Rothbaum, B. (2003). Illinois study of license-
exempt child care: Interim report. Springfield: Illinois Department of Human
Services.

Anonymous. (2005). Early Child Care and Children's Development in the Primary
Grades: Follow-Up Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care.
American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 537-541.

Amett, J. (1989). Caregivers in child care centers: Does training matter? . Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 541-552.

Baum II, C. L. (2002). A dynamic analysis of the effect of child care costs on the work
decisions of low-income mothers with infants Demography. Washington: , 39(1),
139-164.

Beers, T. M. (2000). Flexible schedules and shift work: Replacing the "9-to-5" workday?
Monthly Labor Review, 33-40.

Blackman, J. A. (2002). Early Intervention: A global perspective. Infants and Young
Children, 15(2), 11-20.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives
on Human Development. Sage Publications, Inc.

123

Bronfenbrenner, U. M., P.A. (Ed.). (1998). The ecology of developmental processes (Vol.
1). New York: Wiley.

Brooks-Gunn, J ., Han, W.-J., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Maternal employment and child
cognitive outcomes in the first three years of life: The NICHD Study of Early
Child Care Child Development, 73, 1052-1072.

Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J ., Riggins, R. Zeisel, S., Neebe, E., & Bryant, D. (2000).
Relating quality of center-based child care to early cognitive and language
development longitudinally Child Development, 71, 339-357.

Caminiti, S. (2001). Is daycare bad for your child? Parenting, 15(6), 51.

Campbell, P. H., & Milboume, S. A. (2005). Improving the Quality of Infant-Toddler
Care Through Professional Development. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 25(1), 3 - 15.

Cappizzano, J ., & Adams, G. (2000). The hours that children under five spend in child
care: Variation across states. A report assessing the new federalism. The Urban
Institute.

Capizzano, J. & Adams, G. (2003). Children in Low-Income F arnilies Are Less Likely to
Be in Center-Based Child Care. Snapshots of America’s Families 111, #16.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Caruso, C. C., Hitchcock, E.M., Dick, R.B., Russo, J .M., & Schmit, J .M. (2004).
Overtime
and extended work shifts: Recent findings on illnesses, injuries, and health
behaviors. DHHS (N IOSH) Publication No. 2004-143. Center for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for occupational Safety and Health, US
Department of Health and Human Services. Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh.

 

Ceglowski, D. and Bacigalupa, C. (2002) Four Perspectives on Child Care Quality. Early
Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 30 (2) 87-92.

Children’s Defense Fund. www.children’sdefensefundorg Infants and toddlers are
particularly vulnerable (p85-93) retrieved March 1, 2007

 

Clarke-Stewart, K. A., & Allhusen, V. D. (Ed.). (2002). Non-parental caregiving ((2nd
ed.,) ed. Vol. 3).

124

Coles, C. (2004). Odd Working Hours Cause Family Stress. The Futurist, 38(3), 9.
The Virginia Fairfax Council Early Childhood Council (2000, February 7, 2000).
Report to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. from
http://www.co.fiarfax.va.us/service/pdf/ECCCReport.pdf

Dickman, S. J. (2002). Dimensions of Arousal: Wakefulness and Vigor. Human Factors,
44(3), 429-442.

Didow, S. M. & Eckerman, C. O. (2001). Toddler Peers: From Nonverbal Coordinated
Action to verbal Discourse Duke University.

Dosa, N.P., Auinger, P., Olson, B. and Weitzman, M. (2002) Parents’ Work shift and
Attention and Behavior Problems in School Aged Children. Paper presented at
the Pediatric Academic Society’s Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, 4-7 May
2002.

Emlen, A. (1999). From a Parent 's Point of View: Measuring the Quality of Child Care,
Portland State University, Portland OR.

Erika E. Gaylord, M. S., Beth L. Goodlin-Jones, Ph.D., & Thomas F. Anders, M. D.
(2001). Classification of Young Children's Sleep Problems: A Pilot Study.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(1), 61 -
67.

F abes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Martin, C. L. (2003). Children at Play: The Role of Peers in
Understanding the Effects of Child Care. Child Development, 74(4), 1039-1043.

F enichel, E. M., T. L. (2001). Early Head Start for low -income families with infants and
toddlers. The Future of Children, 11(1), 134-142.

Gannon, M.J., Norland, D.L., & Robeson, PE. (1983). Shift work has complex effects on
lifestyles and work habits. Personnel Administrator, 28, 93-97.

Gevers Deynoot—Schaub, M. J. J. M., & Riksen-Walraven, M. J. (2005). Child Care
Under Pressure: The Quality of Dutch Centers in 1995 and in 2001. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 166(3), 280-296.

Ghazvini, A. M., R.L. (2002). Center-Based Care for Young Children: Examining
Predictors of Quality Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(1), 112-125.

125

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for
qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY Aldine.

Goffrnan, I. (1963) Stigma. Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood
Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

Goldberg, 8., PhD. (Summer 2002). The Parent-Teacher Partnership. Children and
Families, Vol XVI (3), N/A.

Golden, L. (2001). Flexible work schedules: Which workers get them? American
Behavioral Scientist, 44, 1 157-1 178.

Grosswald, B. (2004). The effects of shift work on family satisfaction. Families in
Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 85(3), 413-423.

Han, W.-J. (2004). Nonstandard work schedules and child care decisions: Evidence from
the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19,
231-256.

Han, W.-J. (2005). Maternal Nonstandard Work Schedules and Child Cognitive
Outcomes. Child Development, 76(1), 137-154.

Han, W-J. (2007). Nonstandard work schedules and work-family issues. Invited entry,
peer-reviewed, for Sloan Work and Family Research Network Encyclopedia
www.columbia.edu/cu/ssw/faculty/profiles/han.html

Han, W-J. (2008). Shift work and child behavioral outcomes. Work, Employment, &
Society, 22(1), 67-87.

Hanley-Maxwell, S. D. C. (2000). "I Wanted to See if We Could Make It Work":
Perspectives on Inclusive Childcare Exceptional Children, 66(2), 241-255.

Harms, T., Cryer, D., Clifford, R. M. (2006). Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-
Revised Edition. New York, New York: Teachers' College Press.

Harms, T. C., D. (2003). Video Guide and Training Workbook for the Infant/Toddler
Environment Rating Scale - Revised Edition. New York, New York: Teachers
College Press.

Harms, T. C., D. (2003). Video Observations for the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating

Scale - Revised Edition.
126

Herman, A. M. (1998). Meeting the Needs of Today's Workforce: Child Care Best
Practices. U. S. Department of Labor.

Henly, J .R., & Lambert, S. E. (2005). Linking workplace practices to childcare
requirements : Lower-level workers in lower-skilled jobs. In S. M. Bianchi, L.M.
Casper, K.E. Christensen, & R. B. King (Eds), Workforce/workplace mismatch?
Work, family, health and well-being (pp. 473-492). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Henly, J.R., Shaefer, H.L., & Waxman, E. (2006). Nonstandard work schedules:
Employer and employee-driven flexibility in retail jobs. Social Service Review,
80, 609-634.

Heymann, J. (2000). The widening gap: Why America’s working families are in jeopardy
and what can be done about it. New York: Basic Books.

Hofferth, 3., Collins, N. (2000). Child care and employment turnover. Population
Research and Policy Review, 19(4), 357-395.

Horowitz, T. S. (2001). Efficacy of bright light and sleep/darkness scheduling in
alleviating circadian maladaptation to night work. American Journal of
Physiology, 281(2), E384-E391.

Jacobs, J. (2004) Dark Age Ahead. New York: Random House

Joshi, P. & Bogen, K. (2007). Nonstandard Schedules and Young Children’s Behavioral
Outcomes Among Working Low-Income Families. Journal of Marriage and
Family. Vol. 69 (1), 139-156. 8

Katz, L. (1993). Multiple perspectives on the quality of early childhood programs. ERIC
# ED355 041.

Kimmel, J. & Powell, L. M. (2006). Nonstandard Work and Child Care Choices of
Married Mothers. Eastern Economic Journal. Bloomsburg, 32(3), 397-419.

Kivimaki, M., Kuisma, P., Virtanend, M., & Elovainio, M. (2001). Does shift work lead
to poorer health habits? A comparison between women who had always done shift

work with those who had never done shift work. Work and Stress, 15(1), 3-13.

Kleiman, C. (2005, Nov 15). Weekends on the job often a fit for female workers:
_ Weekend warriors. Chicago Tribune Work life column.

127

Kochanek, T. T. (2002, July 2002). Toward Understanding the Feasibility, Desirability,
and Cost of Providing Nontraditional Hours Child Care. from
http://www.qualitychildcare.org/pdf/NonTraditionalHours.pdf

Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1998). Nonparental child care: Context quality, correlates and
consequences. In W. Damon, I. E. Sigel, & K. A. Renniger (Eds. ), Handbook of
child psychology (5th ed. Vol. 4): Wiley.

Langlois, J. H. & Liben, LS. (2003). Child Care Research: An Editorial Perspective.
Child Development, 74(4), 969-975.

Lardner, J. (1999). Kids and killer hours. U. S. News & Report World 12 7(24), 48.

Love, J. M., Harrison, L., Sagi-Schwartz, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Ross., C., Ungerer,
J. A., Raikes, H., Brady-Smith, C., Boller, K., Brooks-Gunn, J ., Constantine, J .,
Kisker., E. E., Paulsell, D., Chazan-Cohen, R. . (2003). Child Care Quality
Matters: How Conclusions May Vary With Context. Child Development, 74(4),
1021-1033.

Mathematica Policy Research, I., for the US. Department of Human Services. (2001,
January 2001). Ancillary Services to Support Welfare to Work: Specialized child
Care. from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/ancillarv/CHCARE.htm

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (Vol. 41).
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Michigan, S. O. (2006, February 2006). Michigan in Brief - Child Care. from
http://www,michiganbrieforg/editionO7/Chapter5/ChildCare.htm

Mott, P.E., Mann, F .C., McLoughlin, Q., & Warwick, DP. (1965). Shift work: The social
psychological, and physical consequences. Ann Arbor: university of Michigan
Press.

National Child Care Information Center (2006, April 2006). Child Care During Non-
traditional Hours. Retrieved January 2007, 2007, from http://

www.nccic.org/poptopics/nontradhrs.html

 

National Child Care Information Center (2005). Child Care During Nontraditional Hours.
' from http://www.nccic.org/poptopics/nontradhrs.htrnl

128

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2006). The NICHD Study
of Early Child Care and Youth Development: Findings for Children up to Age
4 ’/2 Years. Available at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/seccvd.cfm

NICHD, (2005). Early Child Care and Children’s Development in the primary Grades:
Follow-Up Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. American
Research Journal, 42(3), 537-541

NICHD, (2003). Early Child Care Research Network. Does Amount of Time Spent in
Child Care Predict Socio-emotional Adjustment During the Transition to
Kindergarten? Child Development, 74(4), 976-1005.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2002). Early Child Care and Children's
Development Prior to School Entry: Results from the NICHD Study of Early
Child Care. American Educational Research Journal. , 39(1), 133-164.

NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network (2001). Child Care and Children's Peer
Interaction at 24 and 36 months: NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Child
Development, 72(5), 1478-1500.

NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network (2000a). Characteristics and quality of child
care for toddlers and preschoolers. Applied Developmental Sciences, 4, 116-135.

NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network (2000b). The Relation of Child Care to
Cognitive and Language Development. Child Development, 71(4), 960-980.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications, Inc.

Patton, M. Q., (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. London, United
Kingdom. Sage Publications, Inc.

Pollitt, K. (2001). Childcare Scare. The Nation, 19(May 14), 10.

Presser, H. B. (2003). Working in a 24/ 7 economy: Challenges for American families.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Presser, HE. (2000) Nonstandard work schedules and marital instability. Journal of
’ marriage and the Family, 62, 93-110.

129

 

Presser, H. B. (1999). Toward a 24-hour economy. Science, 284, 1778-1779.

Presser, H. B., & Cox, A. G. (1997). The work schedules of low-educated American
women and the welfare reform. Monthly Labor Review, 25-34.

Presser, HE. (1988). Shift work and child care among young dual-eamer American
parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 133-148

Presser, H. B. (1986). Shift work among American women and child care. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 48, 551-563.

Preston, V., Rose, D., Norcliffe, G., Holmes, J. (2000). Shift work, childcare and
domestic work: Divisions of Labour in Canadian paper mill communities.
Gender, Place and Culture 7(1), 5-29.

Reese, S. (1996). Moonlight and Childcare. American Demographics, 18(August), 20-22.

Reich, R. B., & Nussbaum, K. (1995). Care Around the Clock: Developing Child Care
Resources before 9 and After 5: U. S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau.

Riley, L., & Glass, J. . (2002). You can't always get what you want-Infant care
preferences and use among employed mothers. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 64, 2-15.

Selby, J. M. 3., Benjamin Sylvester. (2003). Infants In Groups: Extending the Debate.
Human Development, Vol 46(4), 10.

Smith, K. (2002). Who's Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Spring 1997. U. S.
Census Bureau, Current Population Reports(July 2002), 70-86.

Solomon, M. (2000). The Downside of 24/7 Service. Computerworld
(Farmingham, Mass. ), 34(13), 52.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. Orlando, Florida: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, Inc.

Stratham, J., & Mooney, A. (2003). Around the clock: Childcare services at atypical
times (Report No. 1 86134 502 X). Southampton: Joseph Rowntree Foundation by
Policy Press.

Strazdins, L., Clements, M. S., Korda, R.J., Broom, D.H., & D’Souza, RM. (2006).
Unsociable work?: Non-standard work schedules, family relationships, and
children’s well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family 68(2): 394-410.

130

Strazdins, L., Korda, R.J., Lim, L.Y., Broom, D.H., & D’Souza, RM. (2004). Around-
the-clock: Parent work schedules and children’s well-being in a 24-hr economy.
Social Science and Medicine 59(7): 1517-1527.

Tasto, D.L., Colligan, M.J., Skjei, E.W., & Polly, SJ. (1978) Health consequences of
shift work. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Report no.
NIOSH-78-154.

US Census Bureau (2007) Current Population Reports: A Child ’s Day: 2003 (Selected
Indicators of Child Well-Being) issued January 2007 pp 70 -109

US Congress. Office of technology Assessment. (1991). Biological rhythms:
Implications for the worker. OTA-BA-463. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office.

US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005). Employment Characteristics
of Families in 2005. from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee
Retrieved February 20, 2007.

US Department of Labor Statistics. (2005). Workers on flexible and shift schedules in
May 2004. United States Department of Labor. Retrieved January 5, 2007, from
http://www.nls.gov/newsrelease/flex.toc.htm

US Department of Labor, Women's Bureau (February 2000). Non-Standard Work Hour
Child Care Project.

US Department of Labor, Women's Bureau (1995). Care around the Clock: Developing
Child Care resources Before 9 and After 5.

US General Accounting Office. (1999, November 1999). Education and Care: Early
Childhood Programs and Services for Low-Income Families. GAO report
HEHS-OO-I I, from http://www.gao.gov

Van Ijzendoom, M. H., Tavecchio, L. W. C., Stams, G. J. J. M., Verhoeven, M. J. E.,
Reiling, E. J. (1998). Quality of Center Day Care and Attunement Between
Parents and Caregivers: Center Day Care in Cross-National Perspective. Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 159(4), 437- 454.

Vandell, D. L., & Wolfe, B. (2000). Child care quality: Does it matter and does it need to
131

be improved? Report prepared for the Department of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC.

Wacharasin, C., Barnard, Kathryn E., Spieker, Susan J. (2003). Factors affecting toddler
cognitive development in low-income families: Implications for practitioners
Infants and Young Children, 16(2), 7.

Waldfogel, J., Han, W.-J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. . (2002). The effects of early maternal
employment on child development. Demography, 39, 369-392.

Wall, S. M., Taylor, N. E., Liebow, H., Sabatino, C. A., Mayer, L. M., Farber, M. Z.,
Timberlake, E. M. (2005). Early Head Start & Access to Early Intervention

Services: A Qualitative Investigation. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 25(4), 218-23 1.

Watamura, S. E., Donzella, B., Alwin, J ., & Gunnary, M. R. (2003). Moming-to-
afternoon increases in cortisol concentrations for infants and toddlers at child

care: Age differences and behavioral correlates. Child Development, 74, 1006-
1020.

Weare, K. (2002). Emotional and social competence - the key to better education? Health
Education, 102(3), 2.

Weber, RP. (1990). Basic content analysis (2"d ed.) Quantitative Applications in the
Social Sciences Series, vol. 49. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wien, C. A. (1996). Time, work, and developmentally appropriate practice. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(3), 377-393.

Weiss, B. (2004). Taking on the Night Shift. RN, 67(8), 59-60.

Wiscombe, J. (2001). A Controversial child-care study has a message for HR. Workforce,
80(6), 17.

Zimmmerman, L., and Fassler, Irene. (2003). The dynamics of emotional availability in
childcare: How infants involve and respond to their teen mothers and childcare
teachers. Infants and Young Children, 16(3), 10.

132