THE‘.”L This is to certify that the thesis entitled :A Descriptive Analysis of the Communication Patterns Between Rural Family Day Care Providers and the Parents of the Children in Their Care presented by Julie Anna Rawson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.A. degreein Child Development flm // {472/ Major professor Date February 22, 1980 0—7 639 OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per its: RETURNING LIBRARY MTERIALS: Place in boon return to remove charge fro. circulation records Illlljlllwflfllllwlflllflflllwwll © 1980 JULIE ANNA RAWSON ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNICATION PATTERNS BETWEEN RURAL FAMILY DAY CARE PROVIDERS AND THE PARENTS OF THE CHILDREN IN THEIR CARE BY Julie Anna Rawson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Family and Child Sciences 1980 ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNICATION PATTERNS BETWEEN RURAL FAMILY DAY CARE PROVIDERS AND THE PARENTS OF THE CHILDREN IN THEIR CARE BY Julie Anna Rawson The purpose of this study was to examine the caregiver-parent linkage between the family day care home and the family system. Specifically, four major areas of communication were examined as indicators of the strength of communication between the family day care provider and the parents of the children in their care. Those indicators were: (1) communication frequency, (2) methods of communi- cation, (3) content of communication, and (4) satisfaction with communication. In an attempt to limit sample size, providers were asked to select the parents of one child in their care when responding to a self-administered questionnaire. The data were collected along with that of a larger project from a sample consisting of 72 licensed family day care providers from four rural counties in Michigan. Percentages based on adjusted frequencies and Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were the Julie Anna Rawson major methods of statistical analysis utilized in the descriptive analysis. Rural family day care providers and mothers gene- rally interact on a one-to-one basis at the day care home rather than by means of the telephone, home visit, or a note sent home with the child. The majority of the pro- viders had known the parents of the children in their care prior to providing care, however, this did not affect the frequency of the communication between providers and parents. Providers who had known parents prior to providing care did tend to make home visits more often. Rural providers and parents who spoke with one another infrequently tended to discuss the child's daily activities, or the child's relationship with other children in the day care home. The more frequently that providers and parents spoke with one another, the broader their dis— cussions were, including such issues as the parent's job or school, and the parent's social activities. The patterns of communication content were the same regardless of whether or not providers and parents had been previously acquainted. The majority of the rural family day care providers indicated that they were satisfied with both the type and frequency of the communication they had with the parents of the children in their care. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express her thanks to all of those individuals that have contributed their support and encouragement throughout the course of her studies. Very special thanks must first be extended to my mentor and friend Dr. Alice Whiren. Dr. Whiren's model of professional excellence, as well as her time and energy have been most gratefully appreciated. My committee members Dr. Margaret Bubolz and Dr. Donald Melcer have also devoted their support and professional recommendations to this research. For their assistance I am most grateful. This research was conducted in conjunction with a larger project funded by the Michigan State Agricultural Experimental Station. I am grateful not only for their support, but for the Opportunity they have provided me to gain expertise in research development, administration, and evaluation. I wish also to express my thanks to Dr. Lillian Phenice, Dr. Gayle Clapp, and Dr. Anne Soderman for both their intellectual insight and their friendship. And to my typist Fayann Lippincott I must also express my thanks. ii Several individuals have provided me with emotional support and encouragement which have helped to minimize the stress in my undertakings. My friends Bill Luley, Doug Clark, Jeff Clevenger, Gary Reams, and Vincent Godfrey are especially worthy of recognition for their continuous sup- port. Mari Wilhelm, Meg Griffin, and Ellen Prevost have also been most tolerant of more than simply my educational trials. Lastly to Dr. and Mrs. Jesse M. Rawson, Patricia J. Wheeler, Dr. Jon M. R. Rawson, and especially to Marty, for inspiring and supporting all I have done. iii LIST OF LIST OF CHAPTER I. II. III 0 IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Assumptions . . . . . . . . Conceptual Definitions . . . . . . Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . Characteristics Characteristics Parent-Provider Family Day Care Summary . . . . of Providers . . . of Parents . . . . Communication . . Training Programs THE RESEARCH PLAN . . . . . . . . Sample Description . . . . . . . . Instruments to Measure Variables . Research Questions . . . . . . . . Administration of the Instrument . Data Collection . . . . . . . . . Method of Analysis . . . . . . . . THE RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . Communication Frequency . . . . . Methods of Communication . . . . . Communication Content . . . . . . Satisfaction with Communication . iv Page vi viii NCDQQU'IH I" 13 15 15 17 24 25 25 29 31 32 32 33 37 37 42 46 52 CHAPTER Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . 55 smary O O O O I O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 55 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Implications for Future Research . . . . . . . 59 Implications for Theory Development . . . . . 61 APPENDICES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 64 APPENDIX A. The Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 B. Codebook and Data from Summary Card #02 and Selected Descriptive Statistics . . . . 72 REFERENCES AND NOTES 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 9 3 Table 3-1. 3-2. 4-10. LIST OF TABLES Highest Level of Education Completed by Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Number of Providers per County Participating in This Study . . Who Generally Leaves the Child at the Family Day Care Home . . . . . . . . . How Often Do You Talk to the Child's Mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How Often Do You Talk to the Child's Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Length of Time Providers Had Known Parents Before Providing Family Day Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Initial Basis of Provider- Parent Relationships . . . . . . . . . Summary of Parental Participation in Activities in the Family Day Care Home Significance of Coefficients for Knowing Parents Prior to Providing Child Care with Frequency of Communication Between Providers and Mothers and Fathers . . . Summary of the Frequency of the Major Methods of Communication Utilized by Family Day Care Providers . . . . . . . Significance of Correlations Relating Knowing Parents Prior to Providing Child Care with Major Methods of Communication Utilized by Providers . . Summary of the Frequency of Parent- Provider Discussions . . . . . . . . . vi Page 27 33 38 39 4O 41 42 43 43 44 46 47 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients for Frequency of Com- munication with Mothers and with Fathers, with the Specific Content of Communication . . . . . . . . . Significance of Correlations Relating Knowing Parents Prior to Providing Care with the Specific Content of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Comparison of Communi- cation with this Child's Parents Relative to Communication with the Parents of Other Children Being Cared For . . . . . . . . . . Mean Age of Children and Mean Age of Family Day Care Providers . . . . . Mean Length of Time Child Had Been in Provider's Care . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 51 52 53 92 92 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page l-l. The Intersection of the Family System and the Family Day Care Home . . . . . . . . . . 11 3-1. Return Rate Response Graph I . . . . . . . . . 34 3-2. Return Rate Response Graph II . . . . . . . . . 35 5-1. The Intersection of the Rural Family System and the Rural Family Day Care System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Problem The issue of more and better child care has grown into a nationwide concern, a concern not only for children but also for parents, and society as a whole. As the number of working mothers in the United States increases steadily, so also does the need for efficient, economical child care. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (1976), in March 1976 there were approximately 28,159,000 children under the age of 18 with mothers in the labor force. The labor force participation of mothers with chil- dren between the ages of 6 and 17 increased from 46 percent in 1964 to 56 percent in 1976. Speculating from census data which discloses that 6,439,000 children under the age of six, and 13,458,000 children between the ages of 6 and 13 have working mothers, one can assume that many parents are sharing their parental responsibilities with surrogate parents. The National Childcare Consumer Study (1977) iden- tified 15 types of child care currently utilized in the United States. The 15 types of child care cited within the 1 consumer study include eight types of care within the home: care within the child's own home by a relative (not spouse or child's brother or sister), care in a child's own home by a nonrelative, care by spouse, care by older sibling, child stays by himself, child cares for self and younger sibling, care in another home by a relative, and care in another home by a nonrelative. In addition, nursery or preschool, day care center, cooperative program or baby- sitting c00perative, before or after school group care, Head Start, and public or private school represented the types of care parents utilize outside the home. The National Childcare Consumer Study (1977) indicates that 90 percent of all households in the United States use at least one of these types of care. The study further indicates that 43 percent of the respondents named care in the child's own home by a relative or nonrelative, 44 percent named care in another home by a relative or nonrelative, while the remaining 13 percent named other forms of external arrangements. Specifically, the most frequently used methods of child care include: 27 percent of the families surveyed have children cared for in another home by a relative; 22 percent have children cared for in their own home by a rela- tive; 21 percent have children cared for in their own home by a nonrelative; and 16 percent have children cared for in another home by a nonrelative (family day care). A day care system that is readily accessible to a large prOportion of the p0pulation may provide families with a greatly needed social service. Lazar (1971) indicates that the most frequent purposes of child care are: (1) to care for children whose parents must work outside the home, (2) to care for children whose mothers are supplementing the family income, (3) to permit women some Opportunities for activities other than childrearing, (4) to provide a setting for the care of handicapped children, (5) to enrich the deve10pment of normal children, (6) to assist mothers in personal distress, and (7) to train mothers for employ- ment. The National Childcare Consumer Study (1977) indicates the two most frequently reported reasons that parents use child care are to work or go out casually; child related reasons were rarely the most important reason for using child care. Because of the growing demand for the expansion of child care services some effort to improve existing sys- tems must be made. Family day care research (Host, 1976; Linden, 1973; Crowe and Pine, 1975) indicates that there are several issues to consider in selecting the type of child care that might best benefit the child and family. Selection factors fall into one of two major categories: convenience of care and quality of child care. Issues such as location of setting, availability of service at needed hours, weekend care, and cost may be considered parental conveniences. In addition day care homes may care for children with slight illnesses. Factors such as the atmosphere of the caregiving environment, and the amount of stimulation provided to chil- dren represent issues that determine the quality of the child care available. The flexible age range of the children cared for may be a convenience to parents as well as a factor in quality of care. The National Childcare Consumer Study (1977) reports several factors that parents consider when selecting a child care giver and a family day care home. The major concern of parents utilizing family day care was that the caregiver was a reliable and dependable individual. The next most impor- tant selection factors in order were warm and loving care— giver, clean and safe environment, child prefers this type of care, and discipline given when needed. In an investigation of the general satisfaction of parents with the caregiver or type of care their child was receiving 86 percent of the respondents in the National Childcare Consumer Study (1977) agreed with the statement, "I am happy with the person or place who takes care of my child," indicating a general satisfaction with the type of care provided. During the past year 90 percent did not change their main method of care while 76 percent reported that they would prefer not to change. Among the six most frequent main methods of child care, family day care was least preferred, and nursery or preschool was preferred most. Family day care was also the least preferred method of child care to those individuals interested in changing main methods of child care. Family day care because of its convenience may with continued emphasis and research develop the potential to become widely recognized as a major form of developmental child care. This study will focus on an aspect of family day care that to date has been covered very little in the research. Objectives The primary purpose of this study is to examine the role of human relationships in the context of the family day care home setting. Specifically, a descriptive analysis of the communication patterns between family day care providers and parents will reveal information relative to four major areas of communication. The four major areas and the ques- tions relevant to each area are listed below. Communication Frequency 1. How often do family day care providers and parents interact with one another? 2. Does knowing the parent prior to providing family day care for the child affect the frequency of the communication between parent and provider? Methods of Communication 1. What methods of communication do providers use most often to communicate with the parents of the chil- dren in their care? Does knowing the parent prior to providing care for the child affect the methods of communication employed by family day care providers? Communication Content 1. What issues constitute the major areas of discussion between licensed family day care providers and parents? Is there a relationship between the issues discussed by parents and providers and the frequency of com- munication between parents and providers? Does knowing the parent prior to providing care for the child affect the major areas of discussion between parents and providers? Communication Satisfaction 1. Are licensed family day care providers satisfied with the type and amount of communication they have with parents? Major Assumptions The following assumptions underlie this study: Family day care providers and the parents of the children they care for communicate with one another. 2. Communication between family day care providers and parents is not unidirectional. 3. The communication patterns between family day care providers and parents can be identified and ulti- mately stated in descriptive terms. 4. It is useful to try to identify the communication patterns and content of communication between family day care providers and parents. 5. Communication between adults and caregivers may play a central role in overall quality of child care. Conceptual Definitions In order to provide a common basis for understanding the following definitions for key terms will be used throughout this study. Family day care is day care in the home of an indi- vidual other than the natural parent, less than 24 hours a day, on a regular systematic basis. Family day care provider, day care giver, caregiver, provider are used interchangeably to refer to an adult who provides child care less than 24 hours a day in their own home, to other peOple's children for money. Parent refers to the child's natural parent, guardian, or other legally responsible individual. A licensed family day care home is a private enter- prise providing family day care with a license issued by the State of Michigan Department of Social Services. According to Act No. 116 of the Public Acts of 1973, a "Family day care home means a private home in which one but less than seven minor children are received for care and supervision for periods less than 24 hours a day, unattended by a parent or legal guardian, except children related to an adult member of the family by blood, marriage, or adop- tion. It includes a home that gives care to an unrelated child for more than 4 weeks during a calendar year." Methods of communication as referred to in this report are the modes individuals use to transfer messages to one another. Frequency of communication refers to the approxi- mate number of verbal interactions that occur between licensed family day care providers and parents during a specified time period. Nature of communication refers to the specific issues that licensed family day care providers and parents discuss. Conceptual Framework An ecological frame of reference will constitute the overall framework for this study. The ecological frame- work assumes that families and individuals do not exist in isolation but within the context of the total environment. This research is focused on the family as an ecosystem in interaction with the family day care system. Interfaces. between the family system and other systems are formed through boundary sharing, when interactions between the systems occur linkages are present. The family and the family day care system exist within the larger societal system. A basic premise of a systems perspective is that parts of a system affect one another; thus, the family affects the family day care system, and similarly the family day care system affects the family system. There are various ways of defining environments. Bubolz et a1. (1979) has identified three main components of the total environment within which human ecosystems function. They are: (l) the natural environment, (2) the human constructed environment, and (3) the human behavioral environment. The natural environment consists of the space- time, physical, and biological components which constitute the basis for the human life support system. The human constructed environments are made by man. Human constructed environments are formed by the creation and/or transforma- tion of physical and biological environments, and/or cul- tural and social structures. Clothing, roads, buildings, new and improved plants, animals, and drugs as well as social norms, values, laws, and institutions are all exam- ples of human constructed environments. The human behavioral environment consists of an individual or group of individuals and their interrelated biOphysical, psychological, and social behaviors. Members of religious, political, educational, and professional organizations or families are examples of human behavioral environments. 10 Both the family system and the family day care sys- tem have their own boundaries, their own interrelated parts, and their own rules and metarules for governing how their parts are to work in various contexts (Kantor and Lehr, 1977). The boundaries of both are not static; but flexible (Paolucci et a1., 1979). The information flow between parents and caregivers, children and parents, and between children and their caregivers make up the interface between the family day care system and the family system. Accord— ing to Kantor and Lehr (1977) when systems or subsystems recognize boundary sharing each system's members may recog- nize their potential for shaping and reshaping boundary walls. This study deals with an examination of the inter- face between the family system and the family day care sys- tem; specifically it is an investigation of the dyadic relationship between family day care providers and the parents of the children in their care. The intersections between the family day care home and the family system are illustrated in Figure 1-1. As can be seen in Figure 1-1, intersection A, the child, intersection B, the provider, and intersection C, the child's parents, all serve as mediators between the childrearing environments. The type of communication that exists within the interface between the family and the family day care home may determine the system's boundaries. The child, may in 11 Family Day Care Home A. Child B. Provider C. Parent Family System Figure 1-1. The Intersection of the Family System and the Family Day Care Home. 12 some cases, serve as the only linkage between his/her home and the family day care home. A weak relationship between providers and parents, as well as a strong provider-parent linkage may also affect the system's interface. Lastly, no interface may exist between the child's home, and the family day care home. It will be the attempt of this research to assess the strength of the relationship between rural family day care providers and the parents of the children in their care. The frequency of communication, as well as the methods utilized, and the overall satisfaction with communi- cation will serve as indicators of the strength of communi- cation. The content of the communication between providers and parents will serve as indicators of the nature of the communication. Overview Literature relative to family day care is reviewed in the second chapter. The design of the study and develOp- ment of the instrument are discussed in the third chapter, the fourth chapter contains the analysis of the results. A discussion of the results, implications, and recommenda- tions for further research are presented in the fifth chap- ter. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW The literature pertinent to this study is reviewed under four major headings: Characteristics of Providers, Characteristics of Parents, Parent-Provider Communication, and Family Day Care Training Programs. Characteristics of Providers Several investigators have attempted to characterize family day care providers. Although much of the available research is based on special samples (i.e., low income pro- viders, recruited providers, welfare assisted providers) the following demographic data have been collected. Crowe and Pine (1975) found in a study of family day care providers in Nassau County, New York that the typical caregiver was in her thirties, had graduated from high school, and had 2.7 children of her own. She had an average of two or three day care children in her home and indicated a high degree of job satisfaction. Collins (1969) studied a sample of providers and found one-third of the group to be 36 or younger while the range in age was from 20 to 75. Two—thirds had finished high school while the 13 14 remaining one-third had some college education. In a Massachusetts agency sponsored study by Rubin (1975) the typical family day care provider was a white, married, middle-income woman in her thirties. She had three children of her own and had been providing care for 2.5 day care children for almost two years. She was likely to have graduated from high school and often had some additional schooling or training, frequently in a skilled position. Keyserling (1975) found that only 1 percent of the day care providers in her sample were college graduates, while an additional 8 percent had one to three years of college, and 25 percent had completed four years of high school. Reinhart and Evans (1977) indicate that of 263 providers studied, 33 percent had one or more years of college, while 19 percent had less than a high school education. The majority of the providers studied lived in areas with a median annual income of $9,000. Burton (1973) reports that research indicates that day care providers come from a wide variety of back- grounds ranging from nursing assistants and teacher aides to mothers who receive public assistance. These studies clearly indicate the diversity among women who provide family day care. The caregivers profiled by this research have an average age of 30 years, less than 12 years of education, and come from intact, lower-middle income families. 15 Characteristics of Parents Very little research has focused on those individuals whose children are cared for in family day care homes. According to the National Childcare Consumer Study (1977) of the 21 percent of all respondents who use licensed family day care as a main method of child care, 78 percent are married couples, 63 percent are employed, and 9 percent are below poverty level. Results also indicate that 79 percent are white, 14 percent are black, 3 percent are Hispanic, and 5 percent were designated other by ethnic origin. All of the individuals using one of the nine principal methods of child care were asked why they used child care. Thirty- five percent indicated that working or looking for work was the most important reason, while 33 percent indicated that going out socially was the most important reason. In a study by Emlen (1977) of family day care in Portland, Oregon natural parents were found to have a mean age of 29. Emlen found that caregivers were more likely than natural mothers to have intact and larger families. Parent-Provider Communication The issue of parental involvement in day care is critical. However, much of the scant research available refers to either the parental role in program administration and policy making, or the integration of parents into parent education programs. There is no extensive information 16 relative to relationships between parents and family day care providers. A study by Emlen (1977) indicates that although 75 percent of the parents and providers surveyed lived within one mile of one another the most stable arrangements were made between individuals who had not been closely acquainted prior to beginning their day care arrangements. Powell (1977) in a study of interaction between child care center staff-caregivers and parents found that the highest frequency of communication between caregivers and parents occurred at the transition points (when parents left and picked up their children). The research indicates that parent conferences with center staff were never utilized by 25 percent of the parent sample, and were infrequent among the remaining 75 percent. Home visits by center staff were almost nonexistent. The study identified the telephone as a communication mode used with moderate frequency. The content of communication was also examined relative to the frequency of the content. The results indicate that center caregivers and parents discussed child-related tOpics with greater frequency than parent-family related tOpics. The study of center caregiver interaction and parent interaction indicates that one-third of the parent sample did not have one established parent-caregiver dyad. Rather, communica- tion was often exchanged among several caregivers. One— third of the caregivers studied indicated that they had known the parents of the children enrolled at the center 17 prior to the child's enrollment at the center. In addition results indicate that as communication frequency increased parent contact became increasingly focused on one caregiver. Thus, the frequency of communication between parent and caregiver significantly influenced the probability of form- ing and sustaining a consistent, stable relationship with one another. With increased frequency of communication, parents and caregivers increased their preferences for two- way communication. As the frequency of communication increased parental perceptions became more positive relative to the use of the day care center as a childrearing infor- mation resource, as did caregiver attitudes toward discuss- ing family information. Keyserling (1975) found that only 4 percent of the day care homes observed in her study had any sort of parental involvement in day care activities. No other studies relative to the relationships between family day care providers and parents were found. Family Day Care Traininngrograms The primary focus of much of the family day care research is the develOpment and administration of training programs and support systems for family day care providers. Across the country day care associations, agencies, and universities are making an effort to provide caregivers with the information necessary to upgrade child care. Pine (1979) states that: 18 When reference is made to quality child care in family day care homes it means a caregiving environment that ensures that the child's physical and psychological needs are met, that the child's sense of belonging to the family origin is not weakened by the family day care experience, that the child has Opportunities to develop relationships of trust and attachment to a small number of familiar adults responsible for his or her care, that suitable Opportunities are available for spontaneous pleasurable learning experiences that foster growth of the child's developing competencies. The best family day care home approximates a good natural home environment (p. 2). Investigation of the educational needs of day care providers indicate the primary concerns of providers to be: (1) the growth and development of the young child, (2) dis- cipline, (3) encouraging independence in young children, (4) emergency day care, (5) weaning, (6) toilet training, (7) feeding and nutrition, (8) methods of caring for sick children, and (9) business related aspects--licensing, fees, and methods Of collection. In an attempt to meet provider needs a variety of educational programs have been develOped. To a large extent these programs are based in large cities or university com- munities and are available only to a select sample of the provider population. The literature indicates that the majority of the programs consist of a curriculum based on the growth and development of children and the business related aspects of family day care. Only a few programs indicate that parent-provider relationships are dealt with in their curriculum. The New York Cooperative Extension Service has develOped a community based resource center from which a 19 number of programs for family day care providers have evolved (Crowe and Pine, 1975). Informal educational pro- grams as well as certified training courses and teen aide training are provided. The educational program is designed to cover concerns, issues, and needs of family day care providers. Increased knowledge and skills are also empha- sized. Caregivers cover a wide range of tOpics, including child develOpment and human relations, through experiential learning in the New York COOperative Extension program. A formal evaluation of the program indicated that partici- pants showed a statistically significant improvement on a 15 item pre-post test at the .05 level. The family day care program in Milwaukee, Wisconsin is noted to be one of the most innovative and progressive training programs available to providers. The program has been designed to serve the needs of not only parents, and children, but also providers. The training program concen- trates on health and safety, creative play and self expres- sion, homemaking arts and nutrition, and growth and develOp- ment. Providers are required to attend a one month training course. Upon successful completion of the course providers begin their day care career. Providers are offered the Opportunity to attend University Extension courses to com- plete their high school equivalencies and begin a two year program at the college level. Opportunities to continue family day care or begin a new career in a related child development area are possible with the completion of the 20 apprOpriate "steps in the New Careers Ladder." Wade (1970) reports that approximately 300 children receive care in the Milwaukee family day care program. Many of the 122 families that were being served at the time of the writing were able to leave the welfare rolls; there were 68 full time day care mothers, eight part time mothers, and six New Careers trainees. A home based model for providing family day care providers with critical issues in child development and family day care has been established in Ramsey County, Minnesota (Kilmer, 1979). The program which is based on an individual needs assessment of the provider is administered on an individual basis by a trained paraprofessional. The program consists of ten to twelve hours of training which are provided not to completely educate providers on methods of childrearing, but rather to help them become more aware of the business aspects of the family day care profession, and assist them in analyzing their child caring skills. The areas of concentration which are selected by the provider consist of the following tOpics: parent-provider relation- ships, recruiting children, contracts and fee collection, guidance techniques, children's activities, tax information, health and safety, nutrition and meal planning, developmental characteristics of children, sexual development and sex education, develOpment of self concepts (children's and pro- viders'), caring for children with special needs, ethnic influences on childrearing, planning and organizing the day, 21 providing for needs of individual children and families, community resources, licensing process, legal issues in child care, helping children learn, and the role of play in child develOpment (Developing Training Support Systems for Home Day Care, 1973; Trisdorfer, n.d.; Valenstein, 1972; Kilmer, 1979). The accountability for this training pro- gram is evidenced in the continuing use of the program since its inception in 1974, over 750 persons have partici- pated in the program. Initial evaluations during the demon- stration year indicate that of the 42 providers who com- pleted a written questionnaire 75 percent felt the training had changed their behavior. Ninety percent indicated that they would suggest the training program to friends. The Associated Day Care Service, Inc. of Philadel- phia, Pennsylvania Offers low income family day care pro- viders a week long, pre-service training program (Sulby and Diodati, 1975). The program has been designed to enhance the providers' mothering qualities while she develOps as a professional child care worker. The content of the pre- service program consists of discussions Of normal and abnormal growth and develOpment of children, advice and suggestions for program planning, consultation on nutrition as related to develOpment, and discussion of parent-provider relationships. Throughout the year family day care pro- viders participate in planning monthly in-service training workshOps which focus on problems they encounter, as well as provide further information on tOpics covered during 22 their pre-service training. Information on program evalu- ation is not available. The Family Service Agency of San Mateo, California provides a thirty hour training program to family day care providers prior to their first six weeks of employment. Although the specific content of the courses is not speci- fied in the literature, it does indicate that both community college and Red Cross courses are available to providers. The Family Service Agency has also prepared numerous work- shops, seminars, and monthly in-service programs for family day care providers (Voice for Children, 1975). In Boulder, Colorado providers meet once a week for a ten week period in an educational program designed for family day care providers. The literature does not specify the content or effectiveness of the training program but does indicate that individual training is an integral part of the program. The individualized training is provided by means of the home visit (Voice for Children, 1975). Literature indicates that Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and Kansas provide training and educational workshOps for family day care providers. However, the contents, method of implementation, and analysis of effectiveness are not mentioned. Illinois and Florida have also implemented book and toy lending libraries for family day care providers (Voice for Children, 1975). The educational training components that are being made available to providers are an advancement in the 23 promotion of quality child care. However, many of the training programs are aimed only at providing the caregiver with information relative to the growth and develOpment of children and the business aspects of family day care. Upon meeting with caregivers in an educational setting, Sale (1973) found that many of the social discussions of pro- viders revolved around the providers' relationship with the parents of the children they cared for. Case interviews by Collins (1966) indicate that the relationship between the day care provider and the natural mother might be of crucial importance to both the quality and continuity of the child care. Host (1976) notes that family day care calls for close coordination between the child's parents and the day caregiver. He indicates that although no two individuals can give a child identical care, children should be cared for in as similar a fashion as possible. Several investi- gators (Cohen, 1974; Host, 1976; Collins and Watson, 1969; Wallach and Piers, 1973) suggest that potential difficulties may exist between family day care givers and parents because of the complexity of rearing children in two different environments simultaneously. Not only may the result of different routines and standards of living cause friction, but the emotional attachment between the caregiver and the child, and the parent and the child may cause parents and providers to harbor resentment towards one another. Because both parents and the family day care provider act as agents 24 of socialization to children consistent messages are vital if Optimal development is expected. Summary Although family day care is the oldest, non-parental, out of the home child care implemented in the United States, it has not been widely emphasized or researched. The scant research that is available indicates that with further study and prOper recognition of individuals providing family day care the quality of the care may improve. Current research is based primarily on the charac— terization of family day care providers in an attempt to develop educational training programs relative to their needs. Many of the studies (Sale, 1973; Sulby and Diodati, 1975; Wade, 1970; Wattenberg, 1977) stress the importance of child growth and develOpment components in training family day care providers. Sale (1975) reports that in addition to information on child growth and develOpment providers expressed the need to learn how to develop posi- tive relationships with the parents of the children in their care. CHAPTER I I I THE RESEARCH PLAN The sample used for this study is described, followed by a discussion of the development and administration of the instrument. The research questions and method of analysis are also presented in this chapter. Sample Description The sample for this research project consisted of licensed family day care providers from four rural counties [Er A r: ‘1 I 45 .\\1 MA in Michigan. The subjects/participating in the study resided in Shiawassee County (n = 16), Gratiot County (n = 13), Chippewa County (n = 20), and St. Joseph County (n = 23). Each county is rural and at the time of the study had approximately 70 licensed family day care providers. All of the providers in each county were asked to partici- 1557‘:‘ ’4" ’ pate in the study§7 Four percent of the providers had completed less than eight grades of elementary school, 10 percent had com- pleted eight grades of elementary, 21 percent had completed one to three years of high school, 56 percent had completed high school or its equivalency, and 4 percent had completed 25 26 one to three years of college. One licensed provider was enrolled part time in college, and others were enrolled in educational programs other than high school, college, or graduate school at the time of the survey. Eighteen per- cent Of the providers indicated that they had been enrolled in an educational program such as vocational training, in the past. Thirty—seven percent Of the providers indicated that they provide family day care less than 20 hours a week, while 26 percent provide care 41-50 hours a week, 18 percent provide care 21-39 hours a week, 10 percent provide care 40 hours a week, 4 percent provide care 51-60 hours a week, 2 percent provide care 20 hours a week, and 2 percent pro- vide care 51-60 hours a week. The rural providers surveyed indicated that they had provided care from less than one month to 32 years. Specifically, 31 percent of the pro- viders had provided care for less than one year, 15 percent of the providers had provided care for more than five years but not more than 10 years, 14 percent had provided care from 12 years to 32 years, 12 percent had provided care for at least two but less than three years, 10 percent had pro- vided care for at least one but less than two years, 9 percent had provided care for at least three but less than four years, and 7 percent had provided care for at least four but less than five years. The average estimated total family income before taxes in 1979 was $10,000-$11,999 with total family incomes 27 Table 3-1 Highest Level of Education Completed by Provider Educational Level Completed Absolute Adjusted Frequency Frequency Less than eight grades of 3 3 9 elementary school ' Eight grades of elementary 8 10 4 school ’ One-three years of high school 16 20.8 Completed high school received diploma or passed 43 55 8 high school equivalency ' exam One-three years of college 3 3.9 College graduate, bachelor's O 0 0 degree ' Post bachelor's course work 1 1.3 Master's degree 0 0.0 Post master's course work 0 0.0 Ph.D., Ed.D. O 0.0 Other professional degree 0 O 0 (MD, DO, JD, DDS) Missing data/no answer 28 ranging from under $3,000 a year to $25,000-$25,999. Fifty- five percent of the providers indicated that their family day care income in 1979 would be under $3,000, 12 percent indicated that they would earn between $3,000-$3,999, 9 percent indicated that they would earn between $4,000 and $4,999, 5 percent indicated that they would earn between $5,000—$5,999, 3 percent indicated that they would earn between $6,000-$4,999, 3 percent indicated that they would earn between $7,000-$7,999, and 2 percent indicated that they would earn between $20,000-$24,999. Eighty-four per- cent of the providers indicated that they own the home they are presently living in, while 16 percent are renting. Eighty-seven percent of the providers indicated that their family day care business is not their first job, while 13 percent indicated that being a family day care provider is their first job. Sixty-two percent of the pro- viders indicated that they would be satisfied to stay in their present position indefinitely while 38 percent indi- cated that they would not be satisfied in their present position indefinitely. Twenty-three percent of the pro- viders indicated that they anticipate a change from their present occupation in the near future, while 77 percent did not anticipate a change. Sixty percent of the providers surveyed indicated that they expected their financial situ- ation to remain the same in the coming year, while 29 per- cent indicated that their financial situation would improve, and 11 percent expect their financial situation to get worse. 29 Instruments to Measure Variables General information such as age, religion, race, housing, marital status, education, length of employment, length of work day, financial status, and family situation were collected to describe the sample. An instrument to measure the communication patterns between family day care providers and parents was developed by the investigator for the purpose of this study. The instrument was developed because an extensive review of the literature revealed a need for descriptive research to determine the role of human relationships in family day care. An extensive search through the literature disclosed one study relative to the role of parent-caregiver inter- action in a day care setting (Powell, 1977). Powell (1977) utilized trained interviewers in collecting data by means of a structured interview with parents and center staff caregivers. The questionnaire devised by the investigator was derived from concepts, questions, and problems disclosed by parents and providers throughout the literature. The investigator selected four major areas of concentration and develOped items with respect to each area of concentration. Three members Of the Family and Child Sciences Department assisted in the revision of the instrument.1 They reviewed the questionnaire for content and relevancy in relationship to the research questions posed. The questionnaire was revised in accordance with their suggestions. 30 The instrument was then administered to nine licensed family day care providers. Eight providers received self-administered questionnaires by mail. One provider consented to field testing the survey by means of an in-home interview. The investigator explained the pur- pose Of the study to all of the subjects and asked the pro- viders to suggest revisions of response categories and to offer criticisms of both the content and wording of each question and response. Minor changes in wording were suggested and made, and the final instrument was written (see Appendix A, page 64). The items can be categorized to yield data relevant to one of four content areas. The first category includes those items that refer to communication frequency. The second category includes items that refer to the methods of communication that providers and parents utilize to communicate with one another (i.e., telephone). The third category refers to the content of the communication between providers and parents. The fourth category includes items that refer to the provider's satisfaction with the amount and type of communication she has with parents of the chil- dren in her care. Providers were asked to randomly select one child in their care and answer each question in refer- ence to their communication patterns with that particular child's parents. 31 Research Questions This study examined the relationship between licensed family day care providers and the parents of the children in their care. Specifically, four major facets of provider-parent communication were examined. Communication Frequency 1. How Often do licensed family day care providers and parents interact with one another? Does knowing the parent prior to providing care for the child affect the frequency of communication between provider and parent? Method Of Communication 1. What methods of communication do providers use most frequently to communicate with the parents of the children in their care? Does knowing the parent prior to providing care for the child affect the methods of communication employed by family day care providers? Communication Content 1. What issues constitute the major areas of discus- sion between licensed family day care providers and parents? Is there a relationship between the issues dis- cussed by parents and providers and the frequency of communication between providers and parents? 32 3. Does knowing the parent prior to providing care for the child affect the major areas of discussion between providers and parents? Communication Satisfaction 1. Are licensed family day care providers satisfied with the type and amount of communication they have with parents? Administration of the Instrument The questionnaires were administered in conjunction with an ongoing research project associated with the College of Human Ecology at Michigan State University and the Michigan Agricultural Experimental Station.2 Self- administered questionnaires were mailed to each of the subjects. A cover letter introducing the study and its purpose was enclosed with each questionnaire. The letter assured subjects of the anonymity of the study and that participation would in no way endanger their licensing status. The auspices under which the study was conducted were identified and participants were given a number to call in the event that further information about the study was necessary . Data Collection Providers in two counties were sent questionnaires and self-addressed envelOpes. Because of the high attrition rate questionnaires were mailed to licensed providers in 33 two more rural counties in Michigan (see Table 2). Approxi- mately one week after receipt of the questionnaire each subject was telephoned and encouraged to complete and return the questionnaire. The return rate graphs illustrated in Figure 3—1 and Figure 3-2 indicate survey response rates. Table 3-2 Summary of the Number of Providers per County Participating in This Study Total Number of Number of Providers County Licensed Providers Participating 1978 in Study Shiawassee County 71 16 Gratiot County 63 13 Chippewa County 75 20 St. Joseph County 72 23 Method of Analysis The data Obtained from the questionnaires were encoded to numerical codes and reported on computer coding forms. This coding was then transferred to OPSCAN code sheets. The computer cards were punched via the OPSCAN. The computer programs used in data analyses were those available through version 7.0 of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. All analyses were imple- mented on the Control Data Corporation 6500 computer at the Michigan State University Laboratory. 34 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 ll 10 (Number of questionnaires returned) 1 r4: : _:— 1 1 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/12 2/14 2/16 2/20 2/23 (Date questionnaires were returned) Figure 3-1. Return Rate Response Graph I. 35 HHNNNNNNNNNNU) (DOOHNw-bUIO‘QmOO H F4 O‘fl H bald P‘ P‘lu u:.> (Number of questionnaires returned) H H 0 U1 Hch-moxxlooxo 2/26 2/27 3/1 3/2 3/6 3/7 (Date questionnaires were returned) Figure 3—2. Return Rate Response Graph II. 36 The strength of association between two variables can be estimated by the use of a single summary statistic. When both variables within the analysis are measured on a linear interval scale the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient can be computed. When one variable is a dichot- omy and the other is continuous a point-biseral coefficient may be computed. Phi coefficients may be computed when both variables are dichotomies. Such coefficients represent the degree to which variables vary together. The single summary statistics may range from -1.0 to +1.0. A coef- ficient of +1.0 indicates a "perfect" positive relationship; a coefficient of -1.0 indicates a "perfect" negative rela- tionship; and a coefficient of 0 indicates that no linear relationship exists. For the purposes Of this study missing data were coded as 0, thus adjusted frequencies have been reported without the inclusion of missing values. CHAPTER IV RESULTS This chapter is diVided into four major parts. The first reports the findings relative to the frequency of communication between family day care providers and the parents of the children in their care. The second part reports the major methods of communication utilized by family day care providers. The third part reports the findings relative to the content of the communication between family day care providers and parents. The fourth part examines and discusses provider satisfaction with parent-provider communication. Communication Frequency Ninety percent of the providers (Table 4-1) indi- cated that the child's mother generally leaves the child at the day care home, while 3 percent indicated that the child's father assumed the responsibility, 3 percent indicated that a brother or sister assumed the responsibility, and 3 per- cent indicated that the child arrived alone. Forty-three percent of the providers indicated that on occasion another individual left the child at the family day care home, 37 38 Table 4-1 Who Generally Leaves the Child at the Family Day Care Home? Absolute Sgggfizfigy Frequency (Percent) Mother 61 89.7 Father 2 2.9 Sister/Brother 2 2.9 Child Arrives Alone 2 2.9 Other 1 1.5 0 4 Missing Total 72 100.0 sixty-three percent of whom indicated that on occasion the father left the child at the family day care home. According to Table 4-2 62 percent of the providers speak with mothers twice each day, while 23 percent speak with mothers once each day. Nine percent of the providers indicated that they speak with the child's mother three or four times a week, while 4 percent speak with mothers once each week, and 1 percent speak with mothers once each month. As can be seen in Table 4-3, 44 percent of the pro- viders indicated that they never speak with the child's father, while 18 percent indicated that they talk with the child's father about once each week, 16 percent talk with the child's father about once each month, 12 percent talk 39 Table 4-2 How Often do You Talk to the Child's Mother? Absolute gggufizfigy Frequency (Pegcent) Twice each day 43 62.3 Once each day 16 23.2 About 3-4 times a week 6 8.7 About once each week 3 4.3 Never 1 1.4 O 3 Missing Total 72 100.0 with the child's father three or four times a week, 7 per- cent talk with the child's father about once each day, and 3 percent of the providers talk with the child's father twice each day. Providers were asked whether or not they had known the child's parents prior to providing the family with day care. Sixty-one percent indicated that they had known the child's parents before becoming the child's caregiver, 39 percent indicated they had not known the child's parents prior to providing care. Of those caregivers that had known the child's parents prior to providing care, 71 percent had been acquainted for more than one year, 7 percent had been acquainted for several months, 10 percent had been 40 Table 4-3 How Often do You Talk to the Child's Father? Absolute Sgggfizfigy Frequency (Percent) Twice each day 2 2.9 Once each day 5 7.4 About 3-4 times a week 8 11.8 About once each week 12 17.6 About once each month 11 16.2 Never 30 44.1 0 4 Missing Total 72 100.0 acquainted for several weeks, and 5 percent had known one another for a few days (Table 4-4). As indicated in Table 4-5, Of those caregivers that had known parents prior to providing care, 29 percent indi- cated they were friends, 24 percent were relatives, 15 percent were neighbors, 7 percent had met at church, 5 percent had met at school, and 20 percent indicated other in reference to the basis of the parent-provider relation- ship. Sixty-seven percent of the providers indicated that parents never participate in activities in the family day care home, while 17 percent indicated that parents 41 Table 4-4 Summary of Length of Time Providers Had Known Parents Before Providing Family Day Care Absolute gggujzigy Frequency (Pegcent) A few days 2 4.9 Several weeks 4 9.8 Several months 3 7.3 One year 3 7.3 More than one year 29 70.7 0 31 Missing Total 72 100.0 participate once each month, 12 percent participate once each week, 2 percent participate three or four times a week, and 2 percent indicated that parents participate once each day in activities within the day care home (Table 4-6). As can be seen in Table 4-7, knowing parents prior to providing care was not significantly related to the fre- quency of communication between family day care providers and the mothers of the children in their care (r = -.1342, p < .272). Knowing parents prior to providing day care was not significantly related to the frequency of communication between family day care providers and the fathers of the children in their care (r = -.1167, p < .343). 42 Table 4-5 Summary of the Initial Basis of Parent-Provider Relationships Absolute giggizigy Frequency (Percent) Church 3 7.3 School 2 4.9 Neighbors 6 14.6 Relatives 10 24.4 Friends 12 29.3 Other 8 19.5 0 31 Missing Total 72 100 0 Methods of Communication The major methods of communication employed by family day care providers when dealing with parents are summarized in Table 4-8. Providers most often talk with the child's mother on a one-to-one basis, rather than by means of the telephone, home visit, or a note sent home with the child. Providers indicated that 29 percent talk with the child's parents once each week, 28 percent talk with the child's parents on the telephone three or four times a week, 23 percent talk with the child's parents on the tele- phone once each day, 14 percent talk with the child's 43 Table 4-6 Summary of Parental Participation in Activities in the Family Day Care Home Absolute giggfigigy Frequency (Percent) Never 44 67.7 Once a month 11 16.9 About once each week 8 12.3 About 3-4 times each week 1 1.5 Twice each day 0 0.0 Once each day 1 1.5 0 7 Missing Total 72 100.0 Table 4-7 Significance of Coefficients for Knowing Parents Prior to Providing Child Care with Frequency of Communication Between Providers and Mothers and Fathers How Often Providers How Often Providers Talk With Talk With Children's Mother Children's Father Knowing parents prior to pro- viding child care r = -.1342 r = -.1167 (p < .272) (p < .343) *Significance p = .05 level. 44 o.ooa NH o.ooa NH o.ooa NH mcfimmflz m mcammflz H mcwmmflz H m.am om «.mm mm N.m v m.mm mm m.oa H m.ma m «.mm ma o.o o m.mm ma H.¢ m o.o o H.H~ ma H.v m o.o o H.mm ma deuce o Hm>mz canoe comm mono usond xmmz comm coco usond xmmB m mmEHu vim usonm Hop comm mono moomsvoum Hocmsvmnm mocmnvmum moqmsvmum wocmswmum mocmswoum emumsnem musaomna omumsfloa musaomna emumanca musaomna uwmw> meow muoz mconmmama mumpw>oum mumo moo HHfiEmm an OONHHADD :OAHBOHGOEEOU mo mcocumz Homo: can Mo Hocmsvmum can mo HHoEEdm mlv OHQMB 45 parents once each month on the telephone, and 6 percent indicated that they never talk with the child's parents on the telephone. Thirty-six percent of the family day care providers surveyed indicated that they made home visits about once each month, 31 percent never made home visits, 23 percent made home visits once each week, 5 percent of the providers made home visits once each day, and 5 percent of the family day care providers visited the homes of the children in their care three or four times a week. Eighty-nine percent of the providers indicated that they never send notes home with the children they care for, while 11 percent indicated that they send notes home with the children in their care about once each month. As can be seen in Table 4-9, knowing the child's parents prior to becoming the child's day care provider was not significantly correlated with the frequency with which providers talk with parents on the telephone (r = .1608, p < .201). Knowing parents prior to becoming the child's day care provider was not significantly correlated with the frequency with which providers sent notes home with the children in their care (r = -.0203, p < .873). However, knowing parents prior to becoming the child's day care pro- vider was significantly correlated with the frequency with which providers visited the homes of the children in their care (r = .3885, p < .002). 46 Table 4-9 Significance of Correlations Relating Knowing Parents Prior to Providing Child Care with Major Methods of Communication Utilized by Providers Method of Communication Telephone Note Home Visit Knowing parents prior to _ * providing child care ‘1608 '0203 -3885 *Significance p = .05 level. Communication Content Providers were asked to indicate the approximate number of conversations they had with parents relative to each of six specific content areas. Providers and parents discuss child related issues with greater frequency than parent and family related issues. The frequencies Of the issues that providers and parents discuss are displayed in Table 4-10. Among the most frequently discussed issues are the child's daily activities which were discussed once each day by 48 percent of the providers, about three to four times a week by 20 percent of the providers, once each week by 17 percent of the providers, once each month by 11 percent of the providers, and twice each day by 2 percent of the pro- viders. Three percent of the providers indicated they never discuss the child's daily activities. 47 o.oo~ NH 0.00~ NH 0.00H NH 0.06" NH 0.00u NH o.oo~ NH unsung: o3 vegans: o o:«..«: 5 oc...«: o sea-aux a mean-ax cu o.v n ”.0 v p.54 an o.o o n.v~ a o.- n3 o.o o o.o o m.~ a v.a o o.o o 8.3 a ~.n ~ 3.." a o.o~ . n3 n.o~ «A o.o~ ma ~.o~ ma ~.v~ ma n.o~ n3 a.o~ aa ~.o~ oz o.p~ p3 o.m~ o“ o.a~ a” o.n~ cu o.o~ p a.a~ ma s.- o n.- a H.om v~ v.vm - ~.n ~ ~.v~ m v.m~ ca 3.63 o” «1098 O Hue gun. coco Hoe son. .0439 so.) a caldu vun usond so.) coco coco anon: 5.8- 5010 0060 0:034 nopon Hucoavouh Hucosuouh Hocoavouu HucuavOuh Huconvouh HOOOOUOuh Hucoavoub Hucosvouh Ho:0560uh Hucoavouu Hucoavouh Hocozvouh van-sac: ous~oon¢ ecu-smut Ouauoont oouusnud cannons: vounanul ousaoont caunsnu< ousuonni covasnuc cannons: anoABOEE uoaaa>uuu¢ nouuqsauua unudnoua aoocom no couoaazo unguo sud: sadism u.u:oudm «canon u.u:ou-m Haw-O u.v««£U o:«uuo~u~«:u non u.u=ouam a«:-:o«».~o¢ u.o~«:u accuuusunao nocu>oumn»:0u¢a no Hocosvouh any uo Hun-lam Ouov Ganuh 48 The child's relationship with other children in the day care home was the second most frequently discussed issue. Twenty—six percent of the providers indicated that they discuss it once each week, 24 percent discuss it three or four times a week, 21 percent discuss it once each day, 16 percent of the providers never discuss the child's relation- ship with other children in the day care home, while 11 percent discuss it about once each month, and 2 percent discuss it twice each day (Table 4-10). The third most frequently discussed issue was the parent's job or school. Twenty-seven percent of the pro- viders indicated that they discuss the parent's job or school about once each week, 26 percent indicated that they never discuss the parent's job or school, 21 percent indi- cated that they discuss it three or four times a week, while 14 percent discuss the parent's job or school with parents once each day, and 13 percent discuss it about once each month (Table 4-10). Childrearing problems were discussed with parents about once each week by 28 percent of the providers, once 'each month by 28 percent of the providers, about three or four times a week by 20 percent of the providers, while 14 percent of the providers indicated that they never discuss childrearing problems, and 9 percent indicated they discuss them twice a day (Table 4-10). The parent's social activities were never discussed by 34 percent of the providers, they were discussed about 49 once each month by 25 percent of the providers, about once each week by 20 percent of the providers, 14 percent Of the providers indicated they discussed the parent's social activities three or four times a week and 6 percent of the providers discuss the parent's social activities once each day (Table 4-10). The issue that was discussed the least were the parent's family problems. Providers indicated that the parent's family problems were never discussed by 39 percent of the providers, they were discussed once each month by 29 percent of the providers, about once each week by 25 percent of the providers, once each day by 5 percent of the providers, and three or four times each week by 3 percent of the providers. Providers were also asked to indicate the informa- tion they discussed with parents upon agreeing to care for a child. The majority of the providers surveyed asked parents the following information: the child's name, address, and home phone number (75 percent), emergency pro— cedures and numbers (78 percent), the hours of care (78 percent), special likes and dislikes of the child (71 per- cent), medical problems and permission to administer medi- cation if necessary (71 percent), discipline procedures (68 percent), written authorization for emergency medical treatment of child (68 percent), the individua1(s) who have permission to pick the child up (68 percent), fees and collection of payment (67 percent), and anything that might 50 make the child's adjustment to the home (56 percent). Only 39 percent of the providers discussed with parents the need for parental support and cooperation, while 33 percent inquired about the child's background of previous child care, and 22 percent discussed their policy on overtime. The frequency of the conversations between family day care providers and the mothers Of the children in their care was inversely related to the frequency of discussions of the parent's social activities (r = -.2667, p < .033), as well as discussions of the child's relationship with other children in the day care home (r = -.3040, p < .016). A weak negative relationship was suggested between the frequency of conversations between family day care providers and parents and the frequency Of discussions of childrear- ing problems (r = -.2240, p < .075) and discussions Of the parent's job or school (r = -.24l4, p < .057). As indicated by the correlation coefficient (r = -.l370) in Table 4-11 the frequency of the conversations between the children's mothers and providers was not significantly correlated with the provider-parent discussions of the parent's family problems (p < .288). No significant correlations were indicated relative to the frequency of the conversations between family day care providers and fathers and the frequency of the various content areas (Table 4-11). Knowing the parents of the child prior to providing the child with care did not correlate significantly with 51 oHQKVMH mo. H Q “AHMUHHHCmflmfi moao.l vH¢N.I Hoosom HO non m.u:mnom mac: OHOO HMO wcu cw vmma.| aoeom.| cmupafino Hmnuo cua3 manmcohumamu m.eauno . .I mEOHnOHm HmHo OHmH HHHEmw m.ucmumm .I .I mmflufl>wuom ommo «Hmmm Howoom m.ucmumm mmmo. ovNN.I Emanoum mcflummuoaflnu magnum m.:mueflano we» BUN: “mayo: m.cmueflaso ms» spas Rama mumcfl>oum cmumo 30: Rams mumcw>oum :mumo 3O: acoucou coaumOHcsEEoo cofluoowcsfifiou mo ucoucou mewoomm may nuH3 .mumnumm npflz can mumnuoz nuwz :oHumowcsEEOU mo Hocmnvmum How mucmHOHmmmoo :Oaumamuuoo ucosoz uoscoum comummm HHIv OHDMH 52 the content of the communication between family day care providers and parents (Table 4-12). Table 4-12 Significance of Correlations Relating Knowing Parents Prior to Providing Care with the Specific Content of Communication Provider Acquaintance with Parents Communication Content Prior to Providing Child Care Childrearing problems -.1205 Parent's social activities "0087 Parent's family problems “’0728 Child's relationship with other children .1758 in the day care home Parent's job or school .0999 Child's daily activities -.0092 *Significant p = .05 level. Satisfaction with Communication In answering the questionnaire providers were asked to select one child in their care and respond with respect to their communication patterns with the parents of that particular child. Fifty-nine percent of the providers surveyed indicated that they had about the same amount of communication with the parents of the child they selected when answering the questionnaire as they did with other parents of children in their care. Thirty-eight percent 53 of the providers indicated that they had more communication with the parents of the child they selected when answering the questionnaire than they do with other parents of chil- dren in their care, while the remaining 3 percent indicated that they had less communication with this child's parents than they do with the parents of other children in their care (Table 4-13). Table 4-13 Summary of the Comparison of Communication with this Child's Parents Relative to Communication with the Parents Of Other Children Being Cared For Adjusted Absolute Frequency Frequency (Percent) About the same 36 59.0 Less 2 3.3 o 11 Missing Total 72 100 0 Ninety—four percent of the family day care providers surveyed indicated that they were satisfied with the type of communication they had with parents, while 6 percent were not satisfied with the type of communication they have with parents. 54 Ninety-six percent of the family day care providers surveyed indicated that they were satisfied with the fre- quency of the communication they had with this child's parents, while 4 percent were not satisfied with the fre- quency of the communication they had with the child's parents. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Summary Family day care is the Oldest and one of the most widely used forms of child care in existence in the United States. Because of its numerous properties Of convenience it seems possible that with continued emphasis, family day care has the potential to become widely recognized as a major form of developmental day care. Family day care providers, at present, have limited access to resources for the improvement of their understand- ing of matters relative to the business related aspects of child care, the growth and development of children, and parent-provider relationships. Many of the programs designed to assist family day care providers are available only through an experimental university related project, or an agency supported program. Sale (1975) indicates that the majority of the programs that have been designed provide information relative to the business related aspects of child care and the growth and develOpment of children. Family day care providers from four rural counties in Michigan provided the information necessary for this 55 56 research. The providers resided in Shiawassee County, Gratiot County, Chippewa County, and St. Joseph County. Each county was rural and at the time of the study had approximately 70 licensed family day care providers. This study was designed to yield descriptive data on the communication patterns between family day care pro- viders and the parents of the children in their care. Pearson product moment correlations were used to measure the significance of the relationships in question. Rural family day care providers interact most often with the mothers of the children in their care. Although most of the providers have some interaction with fathers, providers generally interact with the children's mothers on a one-to-one basis, daily, when the mother leaves the child at the day care home. Because of the similarities between the family system and the family day care home the boundaries are permeable. The similar values and life experiences, and in many cases the long term connections between the children's parents and the family day care provider may also account for the frequent, personal interaction they share. Rural parents do not appear to perceive the child care responsibility as an equally divided task, but instead one in which mothers play a more active role than fathers. Rural providers and parents discuss child-related issues with greater frequency than parent-family related issues. The most frequently discussed issues are the child's daily activities, the child's relationship with 57 other children in the day care home, and childrearing prob- lems. The most frequently discussed parent/family topic was the parent's job or school, followed by the parent's social activities, and the parent's family problems. Thus, it appears that the child and his activities provide parents and caregivers with a common bond. Focusing on the child and his activities may be more pertinent to the family day care relationship, and the parent's job or school, and the parent's social activities may be more socially apprOpriate than discussions of parent's problems with their children or their family. Providers and parents discuss a variety of topics. The more frequently providers and parents communicate the less frequently they discuss the parent's job or school, and childrearing problems. Discussions of the parent's family problems were rare. Thus, it appears that the strong provider-parent linkage that is perceived by rural family day care providers may be due to the personal—social nature of their interaction. The relationships between rural family day care providers and parents are not perceived by providers to be businesslike or therapeutic in nature, nor does the provider attempt to serve as an information source. A majority of the rural family day care providers had known the parents of the children in their care prior to providing the child with day care. However, this did not affect the frequency or content of the communication they shared. Thus, most rural family day care providers and 58 parents interact on a frequent basis in a socially apprOpri- ate manner. Providers that had known parents prior to pro- viding care visited the homes of the children in their care with greater frequency. The rural family day care providers sampled indi- cated a general overall satisfaction with both the type and frequency of the communication they had with parents. One might assume that their satisfaction is in part due to their daily interaction on a personal basis with the children's parents. The social nature Of their interaction, with dis- cussions of a variety of topics may also contribute to overall satisfaction. Lastly, the fact that the majority of the rural providers and rural mothers have similar values, similar life experiences, and long term familial or friend- ship connections may add to the satisfaction with both the type and amount of communication that rural family day care providers perceive. Conclusions The following conclusions were drawn from this study: 1. Rural family day care providers interact most fre- quently with the mothers of the children in their care. 2. Rural family day care providers and mothers inter- act on a one-to-one basis, daily. 59 3. Knowing the parents prior to providing family day care for the child does not affect the frequency or content of communication between providers and parents. 4. Rural family day care providers and parents discuss child related issues with greater frequency than parent or family related concerns. 5. The more interaction rural family day care pro- viders and parents have the greater the variety of the issues they discuss. 6. Rural family day care providers are generally satis- fied with both the type and frequency of communi- cation they have with the parents of the children in their care. Implications for Future Research The data gathered in this study suggest that rural family day care providers are generally satisfied with the amount and type of communication they have with parents. Powell (1977) indicates in his research on the communica- tion patterns between parents and center staff caregivers, that although caregivers indicate a high degree of satis- faction, parental perception may differ. Research relative to the satisfaction of the family day care consumer with parent-provider communication may provide one with informa- tion undisclosed by the present research. A comparative study of the overall general satisfaction of family day care 60 provider and parent communication in an urban setting may also be worthy of research. The frequency of the communication between family day care providers and parents suggest that communication is not rigid, but instead flexible over time, thus, a design over time would yield relevant information on the changing nature of the relationship between rural providers and parents. Because of the similarity of the values and life experiences of rural providers and parents research relative to provider and parent awareness of the effects of adults on children's lives would be useful in program develOpment. In the present research rural family day care pro- viders have indicated a general overall satisfaction with both the type and frequency of the communication they have with parents. One might wonder if rural providers perceive their relationship with parents as a major determinant in the effectiveness of the day care home? Also, are family day care providers knowledgeable of and responsive to parental needs? How would rural parents respond to a family day care provider that served as a source of child- rearing information? DO parents and providers perceive family day care as a support system? Investigations need to be undertaken to determine how parent-provider relationships develOp. Does the pro- vider's first interaction with parents mark their relation- ship? And if so, how? Does the relationship between 61 providers and parents affect the child? What are the long range effects of the provider-parent relationship on the socialization of the child? Implications for Thecpy Develcpment An ecological frame of reference was the basis of this study of the communication patterns between family day care providers and parents. The ecological framework assumes that families and individuals do not exist in iso- lation but within the context of the total environment. This research focused on the family as an ecosystem in interaction with the family day care system. The interface between the family system and the family day care system is formed through boundary sharing; when interactions between providers and parents occur linkages are present. Both the family system and the family day care system are human behavioral environments (Bubolz et a1., 1979). Both systems have their own boundaries, their own interrelated parts, and their own rules and metarules for governing how their parts are to work in various contexts (Kantor and Lehr, 1977). The boundaries of both are not static; but flexible (Paolucci et a1., 1979). The informa- tion flow between parents and caregivers, children and parents, and between children and their caregivers make up the interface between the family system and the family day care system. 62 This study dealt with an examination of the inter- face between the family system and the family day care system; specifically it was an investigation of the dyadic relationship between family day care providers and the parents of the children in their care. The intersections between the family day care home and the family system are illustrated in Figure 5-1. As can be seen in Figure 5-1, intersection A, the provider, and intersection B, the child's parents, serve as the mediators between the childrearing environments. The frequent, varied conversations between rural family day care providers and parents indicate that the boundaries between the rural family system and the rural family day care system are flexible, and that parents and providers serve as the mediators between the similar childrearing environments. 63 (\\ \\\‘ / \ I Family Day Care Home \\ 2' \ ( / _-..I_\_ /l \ / \\ / \ \ / ‘\ A. Provider B. Parent :4/ \d//'/ ,‘ i J Family System // \\ \/ Figure 5-1. The Intersection of the Rural Family System and the Rural Family Day Care Home. APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE INSTRUMENT APPENDIX A THE INSTRUMENT Provider-Parent Communication The following set of questions pertain to the type and amount of communication between licensed family day care providers and parents. In answering the following set of questions, please select one child in your care between the ages of one and five. Answer the following questions with respect only to that child. 2.1a How Old is the child that you will be referring to in this set of questions? 2.1b How long has this child been in your licensed family day care home? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) l) 2) Who generally leaves the child at the family day care home? Mother Father Sister/Brother Guardian Child arrives by himself Other (please specify) Does anyone else ever leave the child at the family day care home? Yes No 64 2.4b 2.4c l) 2) 3) 4) 5) 65 If yes, who? Mother Father Sister/Brother Guardian Other (please specify) How often do you talk to the child's mother? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Twice each day Once each day About 3-4 times a week About once each week About once each month Never How often do you talk to the child's father? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Twice each day Once each day About 3-4 times a week About once each week About once each month Never Did you know the child's parents before you 1) 2) became the child's day care provider? Yes NO If yes, how long did you know the parents before 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) l) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) you became the child's provider? A few days Several weeks Several months One year More than one year If you knew the parents prior to becoming the child's day care provider, on what basis was your relationship formed? Church School Neighbors Relatives Friends Other (please specify) 66 How did the child's parents find out that you 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 1) 2) provide licensed family day care? Newspaper advertisements Referral from a neighbor Referral from a parent Referral from a relative Referral from the Department of Social Services Bulletin Board advertisement Other advertisement Other (please specify) How did the parent first contact you to ask you to provide child care? Telephone Visited your home Letter Of inquiry Other (please specify) The first time that the parent brought the child to your home did they stay long enough for you to get some general information from them about the child? Yes No If yes, what information did you ask the parent for at that time? Please put a check in the box corres- ponding to each item that you asked the parent. 1) Child's name, address, home phone number 2) Special likes and dislikes of the child 3) Background of previous child care 4) Medical problems and written permission to administer medication if necessary 5) Discipline procedures 6) Need for parental support and cooperation 7) Emergency procedures and numbers 8) Fees and collection of payment 9) Hours that the child will be in your care 10) Your policy on overtime 11) Written authorization for emergency medical treatment of child 12) Anything that might make the child's adjust- ment to you and your home a little easier 13) Who may or may not have permission to pick the child up 14) Other (please specify) 2.8 2.11a 2.11b 2.1lc 67 How often do you talk to the child's parents on the telephone? 1) Once each day 2) About 3-4 times a week 3) About once each week 4) About once each month 5) Never How often do you give the child a note to take home to his parents? 1) Once each day 2) About 3-4 times a week 3) About once each week 4) About once each month 5) Never How often do you visit the home of the child that you are caring for? 1) Once each day 2) About 3-4 times a week 3) About once each week 4) About once each month 5) Never How often do the child's parents arrive to pick up their child later than the agreed upon time? 1) Once each day 2) About 3-4 times a week 3) About once each week 4) About once each month 5) Never Does this annoy you? 1) Yes 2) No If yes, how do you communicate this to parents? 2.1ld 2.12a 2.12b 2.12c 2.12d 2.12e 2.13a 1) 2) 3) 4) l) 2) l) 2) 3) 4) How do you collect unpaid fees? 68 When do you communicate this to the child's parents? Immediately after the first tardiness After two or three Offenses Never tell them it bothers you Other (please specify) Does this child's parents complain about the fees you charge? Yes No How often do you collect fees? Daily Weekly Monthly Twice monthly l) 2) l) 2) 3) 4) 5) 1) 2) When do you collect fees? In advance of service After the service has been provided How often do you have to remind the child's parents that their fees are due? Once each week About 3-4 times a week About 3-4 times a month Never Other (please specify) Do you know the parent's method of discipline? Yes No 2.13b 2.13c 2.13d 2.14a 2.14b 2.14c 69 Do you agree with the child's parents' methods Of discipline? 1) Yes 2) No If not, why not? How do you communicate this to the parents? Does this child's parents experience jealousy toward you because of the child's attachment to you? 1) Yes 2) No How did you find this out? If yes, how do you deal with them? How do you think this child's parents perceive family day care? What kinds of services do this child's parents ask you to perform other than providing child care within your home? Please list. 2.18 70 Did you ask to meet this child before agreeing to take care of him? 1) Yes 2) NO Are you satisfied with the type of communication you have with the parents of this child? 1) Yes 2) No Are you satisfied with the frequency of the communication you have with this child's parents? 1) Yes 2) No ******* When answering the following questions please continue referring to the family you have used throughout this study. When answering the following set Of questions, please refer to the parent/guardian with whom you have the most contact. 2.20a 2.20b 2.20c 2.20d 2.20e l a a to O (J m >1 >~ m o E o m m a: :4 c: a tax H or: O m r: .c m ouoxvm O 0 5555853.: :3 24424434450) a) O 5 Did 0 o .8 C) (Dal-H 8 a fi 2 3 How often do you discuss the following items with the child's parent(s): Childrearing Problems 1. 2 3 4: 5 6 Parent's Social Activities 1. 2 3 4: 5 6 Parent's Family Problems 1. 2 3 4: 5 6 Child's relationship with other children in the day 1. 2 3 4: 5 6 care home ‘ Parent's Job or School 1. 2 3 4 5 6 71 I Never About Once Each Month About Once Each Week ABOut 3—4 Times Each Week Twice Each Day Once Each Day The child's daily activities .1 2 13 4 5 6 How Often do the parents participate in activities :1 2 ‘3 4 5 6 with your day care children in your home? - How would you rate the amount of communication you have with this child's parents in comparison with your communication with the other parents of children in your care? 1. More 2. About the same 3. Less Prepared by Rawson for this study (1978). APPENDIX B CODEBOOK AND DATA FROM SUMMARY CARD #02 AND SELECTED DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS anxzmqmuu Aoaumv oaum mo Hogan: thou Amqu mIH IIMZfiAmII Amlmv mum ammuaam aHzam mucsoo mzmmmfino u v momlmma QHzoo mqmzam Ivy v Hmmnaoo "mmpoo mo mmcmm HOQEDG .Q.H HO>OO DHde Amlav MIH .02 @562 .02 .OZ OOwumHHOmma EOUH OHQMHHM> Accommov :EdHOU mmHmmZOHfidqmm mmOH>OmmIBzmmHBmHMUmmO Dmfiumdmm 02¢ Net Dm<0 wm¢229m 20mm £840 02¢ MOOmmDOU m XHDmemd 72 73 munch m mummw m whom» H mummm m whom» m mHmOH w whom» m whom» N mmma no How» H um3mcm oz me we Ho mo mo we no me do oo mmOOHummsv mo now many OH Op mcHHuOuOH on Hafiz so» umnu caflno map ma OH0 303 .Oawno was» on HHOO uowmmmn sufl3 mcoflummsw OOH3OHHOM on» Hmzmcd .O>Hm Ono woo mo mmmm may :mm3umn choc HOOH CH OHflno mco pomamm mmmmam .mcoflu Immsv mo uwm OGHSOHHOM may mcflum3mcm OH .mucmumm cam mnmcfl> loam mumo Hop HHAEMM OmmcmOflH cmmzuwn OOHUOOHQOEEOO mo HOOOEM can waxy can on :Hmuumm mcofiummsv mo pom mcfl3OHHOM was NN.N I H.N HON mcofiuosuumcH AHVMH.N AHHV HHIOH coaumwuommo .02 08m2 .Oz EOOH manmflum> Accommov ooz GEOHOU mmHmmZOHBOmmlfizmm¢m "noduomm No CHOU OHOE no munch OH munch whom» whom» munch munch whom» munch mumma HOOH H can» mmmH HO and» Hm3mcm oz HNMQ‘IDOI‘GDO‘ 74 II II II II II II II II II OHNMV'IDSDFQDGO r-I HmEoc oumo HMO HHHEMM OomcmOHH use» :H amen eaflno mflnu mm: mcoH 30m ANCQH.~ ANAL NH nmcHO no name» mH u MH mummm NH u NH whom» HH u HH whom» OH H 0H .02 oEoz .oz .02 coHumHHOmwo EmuH OHQMHMM> Accommov :EdHOU mmHmmonemqmm mmoH>ommuezmmmmH um>m mmHO mcomco moon ll Or-INMQ'IDKO AHMHommm mmmmHmv umnuo mammsfln an mm>fluum UHHBO cchuosw Hmcuoum\umumHm Hocumm Hmnuoz u umzmcm oz u mmeon mumo Hop HHHEMH can an OHHno may mm>me HHHmumcmm 0:3 Amva.N AmHv AvVUH.N AHHV AmVOH.N AmHV mH VH MH :OHumHHommo .Oz mamz .oz EmuH mHanHm> Accommov .oz GEOHOU mmHmmZOHadqmm mmDH>OmmIBme¢m “coHuomm No onmo 76 02 H N mm? " H Hm3mcm oz u o HHOOH>OMQ mnmo Hop m.OHHnO on» mamomn OOH OHOmmn musmumm m.OHH:O can zocx OOH OHQ AmVMv.N AmHV mH H0>mz " Q space some coco uaonfl u m xmmz some coco usond u e xmmz m mmEHu vim “503$ n m Hop comm coco u N HMO some OOHBB u H szmcm oz u o mumnumm m.eHHno may 0» Pam» so» ow cwumo 30m IHVm.~ AHHV AH Hw>mz " W canoe some mono usond u m xoms comm coco uson< u w xmmB m mmEHu elm usond n m Hop zoom mono u N Hop comm OOH3H n H Hmzmcm 02 u o muonuoa m.eHHno man on Pawn so» ow cmumo 30: lev~.~ ABHC SH .02 mEmz .Oz .02 coHumHuomOO EmuH OHQMHHM> Accommov GEOHOU mmHmmoneaqmm mmoH>ommuezmm¢m "coHuomm No pumo 77 AHMHommm OmomHmv Hmsuo OOOOHHH mm>HumHmm muonnOHmz Hoonom nousso u um3mcm oz H II CDHCVWW¢U1® mpweu0m mHsmcoHumHou “OOH mm3 mHmon ums3 :O .HOOH>OHQ mnmo Hon m.OHH£O on» OOHEOOOO ou HOHHQ mucmumm may 3mcx OOH «H AOHVOO.N AONV ON ummH one can“ muoz u m HOOH Ono n v mnucoa Hmum>mm n m mxmmz chm>om u N meO 3mm d u H Hw3mcm oz n O NHOOH>OHQ m.OHHno mnu baboon OOH 0H0mmn museumm may song soH OHO maoH 30: .mm» «H Im3n4.~ AmHO ma .Oz mEmz .Oz .02 OOHumHuommo EmuH OHQMHHO> Accommov :EsHOU mmHmmonemqmm mmaH>omm|Bzmmdm u:OHuomm No Oumo 78 HHMHommm wmmOHmv Hmzuo n O HHHOOOH mo HOOOOH u m 080: HOOH OOOHmH> n N OOOSQOHOB u H Hmzmco oz n O mmumo OHHOO OOH>OHQ on OOH xmm ou OOH uomucoo umuHm ucmumm may OHO 3oz ANHVO.N ANNO NN HHMHOOQm OmmmHmv Hmsuo u m quEmmHuHm>Om Hmnuo u H uOmEmmHuum>Om Oumom OHuOHHOm n O mmOH>HOm HOHoom mo uOmEOuommO on“ Eoum Hmunmmmm u m O>HumHOH m Eoum Hmuummmz u v OOOHOQ m Eonm Hmuummmm u m HOQOOHOO m Eoum Hmuuommm n N muOOEmeunm>Om Homommzmz u H um3mOm oz n O mmumo HMO HHHEMM OmmOOOHH OOH>OHQ OOH Hash use Och museumm m.OHHno was OHO 30m AHHOm.~ HHNO Hm .oz mEmz .oz .02 OOHumHHOmmo EOOH OHanum> Accommov OEOHOU mmHmmZOHadqmm meH>Ommlfizmm¢m "GOHHOOm No UHMU 79 mmw " H H®3mcm oz nll C mumo OHHOO mOoH>mum mo OOOOHOxomm mO HOvaO HONO ON mmWHH Hozmcm oz n O OHHOO on» m0 moxHHmHO OOO mmxHH HmHoomm NO HmHVNO AmNO mN mmwnH um3mOo oz n O HOQEOO mconm macs .mmmueem .msmc m.oHHso Ho AHHOHo 14ml Hm .ucwumm msu pmxmm OOH umnu EOOH zoom 0» OOHOOOQmeHOO xon 0:» OH Human o uOm mmmmHm NOeHO was» no MOM ucmumm may xmm OOH OHO OOHOMEH0mOH uos3 .mmH NH OH.N OZHN mmWNH um3mcc oz n O NOHHSO may OOOQO Ems» Eonm OOHOmEHOmOH Hmumcmm meow pom ou OOH How SOOOOO OOOH Hmum HOOO OHO OEOS HOOH Op OHHOO on» unOOOHO ucmuom may Own» OEHO umHHm one HmHOmH.N AmNO MN .02 mamz .Oz .02 OoHumHuommo EOOH mHanHm> Accommov OEOHOU mmHmmZOHfiddmm mmaH>OmmlBme¢m "GOHHme No CHOU 80 mOH H Hm3mOm oz n O OHOO usoH eH ma HHH3 OHHao may umnu mason mo Hmmvmo Immv mm WQWNH HosmOO oz n O OOOEHOO mo OOHOOOHHOO OOO mmom OO HHNOOO HHmO Hm WQNNH Hm3mOm oz n O mHOOEOO OOm mOHOOOOOHm HOOOOHOEH HO HONVHO HOmv Om mmWHH Hm3mOm oz n O OOHO Imummooo OOO OHOOQOO HOOOOHOQ How Ommz OO HOHOOO AONO mN mmWHH um3mOm oz n O mmusemooum wcHHOHomHo mo zmHOmo Ammo mm mmwufl HosmOm oz n O HummmOOOO OH OOHOOOHOOE HOOOHOHEOO on Oon :mHaumm cmuuHuz one mamHnouO HmoHumz so IHHOHO IHNO AN .02 mEmz .Oz .02 OOHumHHOmOO EOOH OHOOHHO> HOmomOOO OEOHOU mmHzszHHOHmm mmOH>ommlezmm¢m "OoHuOOm NO Oumo mO HOQEOO OHOO mmm mm» H H. Hmsmam oz H C 81 AHHHommm mmmmHmO umnuo 4H IHNOHH AHmO Hm mmwuH HmsmOm oz n O as OHHso map HoHO on OonmHEHOz O>mO OOO HOE Ho HOE OOB mH HONOmH HOMO mm WQWHH HO3mOm oz n O HOHmmO OHOOHH m oEOO HOOH OOO OOH Op uO¢EumOHOm m.OHHso ms» axes uane puny mcHnuHem NH ImNONH Ammo mm mmWHH Hm3mOm oz n O OHHOO mo OOOEOOOHO HOOHOOE HOOmmanO now OOHOONHHOOOOO OOuuHuz HH HvNOHH vav vm meNH HO3mOO oz n O meHuum>o so HoHHoO usow 0H HmmvoH IMHO mm .oz mfimz .oz .oz OoHumHuomma EOOH OHOOHHO> HOOommov OEOHOU mmHmmonHOHmm mmoH>Omm|Bzmm¢m "OOHuOOm No OHOU 82 Or-INMQ'ID um>mz OOOOE OOOO OOOO OOOOO u xowz OOOO OOOO OOOOO u xmm3 m mOEHO Hum OOOOO u HOO OOOO OOOO u um3mOm oz u NmuOoumm mHO ou OEOO mxmu o» muoc m OHHHU may o>Hm soH oe :mumo 30: HmNOm.~ Hmmv mm Hm>mz H m OuOOE OOOO OOOO uOon< n O xmmz Oomm OOOO uOOOO u m xmmz m mmEHu vim OOOOO n N HmO OOOO OOOO u H Hmszm oz n O NOOOOOOHOO on» O0 muOmHmm m.OHHno on» on HHmu OoH 0O ampuo 30: Ammvm.m zmmv mm .oz Oemz .oz .oz OOHOHHHOOOO EOOH OHOOHHO> HOmommoO OEOHOU mmHmmZOHfifiqmm mmDH>OmmIBzmm4m "GOHuowm NO OHOU 83 02 H N mm» H H ngmgm oz 0 msoH Hoccm mHnu mmoo AmmOnHH.~ ANOO NO HO>Oz OOOOE OOMO OOOO OOOOO How; OOMO OOOO uOOOO xmm3 M MOSH» Oum OOOOO HMO OOMO OOOO HmsmOM oz ll OHNMQ'LO NOEHu OOQO OOOHOM MOO OMOO HOOMH OHHOO HHOOO QO xOHm on m>Huum museumm m.OHHno may on amumo 30m meOmHH.m HHOO HO Hm>mz " m OuOOE OOMO OOOO OOOOO n O xwmsa SUMO OOGO #5034 N m xmm3 M mOEHu Olm OOOQO u N HMO OOMO OOOO n H HMSOOM oz n O Nuow OOHHMO OHM OOH uMOO OHHOO mg» no macs may uHmH> soH ow amumo 30: HomOOH.~ HOOO 0O .oz OEMz .oz .oz OOHOQHHOOOO EOOH OHOMHHM> AOMommov OEOHOU mmHmmZOHedqmm mmnH>OmmIBzmmOz mOOOOmmo OOHOO no ozu uOumm OOOO IHOHMu umuHm OOO HOumM HHOuMHOOEEH HOBOOM oz O m N H O NOOOOHMQ O.OHHOO OOH ou OHOu OOMOHOOEEOO OOH OO OOO3 OO HOQEOO OHMO OOm NOOOOHMO Op OHOH OOMOHOOEEOO OOH OO 30: .OMH NH AmvaNH.N AmOv mO HOvaHH.N AOOV OO AmvaHH.N HmOv MO OOHOOHHOOOO .oz OEMz .oz .oz EOOH OHOMHHM> HOMOOQOO OEOHOU mmHmMZOHafiqmm MMQH>OmmlazmmOz OOOOE M OOEHO Olm uOOO4 HOO3 M OOEHu Oum OOOOO HOOB OOMO OOOO HOsmOM oz u H OHNMV'U) HOOO OHM mOOm HHOOO OMOO OOOOHMO O.OHHOO map OcHEOH op m>ms soH on :muuo so: .mmOme.~ meO HO OOOH>OHQ OOOO OM: OOH>HOO OOH HOHMO u N OUH>HOm MO OUGM>GM CH H H HO3OOM oz n O mmmmm HomHHoo 50H OHO cmsz ImmOONH.N Have as NO HOOEOO OHMO OOm mmmmm OHmmcs HomHHoo soH ow 30m szOoNH.N AHOO HO HHOOOOE OOHza n O HHOucoz u m HHHmmz u N HHHMD u H HOszM oz n O mmmmm HomHHoo so» ow :mumo 30m Homvan.~ Host OH .02 OEOZ .02 .OZ OOHOQHHOOOO EOOH OHOMHHM> HOMOOHOO OEOHOU mmHmmoneOHmm mmOH>ommnezmm HOMOOQOO OEOHOU mmHmmonHOHmm mmoH>ommuazmmOm “coHuoom NO OHOU OZ OOH OO3OOM oz N H O NEH: mo OHMO OHM» OH OOHOOHOM whomon OHHno mHnu Home 0» Hmo ooH OHo AmOOHH.m Ammo mm .mH HOQEOO OHMO OOm .OmHH OmMOHm NOEOO HOOH OHOOH3 OHMO OHHOO OOHOH>Oum OMOu HOOOO EHOMHOO Ou OOH me muOOHMm m.OHHno mHnu ow mooH>uom mo mcaHH page AmOOmH.~ Immv mm .OH HOQEHHC QHOU Omm m HOHMO HMO HHHEMH O>HOOHOQ muomuom m.OHH:o mHnu HcHnu soH 0O 30m AHOOHH.~ szO Hm .MH HOOEOO OHMO OOm mama» nqu Homo ooH on 3o: .mmH OH AOOOoOH.~ Heme mm .NH MOQEOO OHMO OOm mono mHnu OoHH soH oHn so: meOnOH.~ Hmmv mm 53.6.... my 2%”; games 9%: mmHmmZOHBOmmIBzmmmn so» 8033 suw3 cmflcumsm \ucmumm map on Hmmmu mmmmam .mcowummsw mo umm mcH3OHH0m ms» mcflum3mcm smnz .wcsum was» uzonmsounu vwm: m>mn so» mHflEmm mnu ou mcwuummwu mzcwucoo mmmmam mCOflummsw mcfl3oHH0m man mcaumsmcm c033 OZHN mmWNH Hmzmam 02 u o mmucmnmm m.vawno was» spas m>mn so» coflumowcsfifioo may mo mocmswmum may nufl3 cmfimmflumm so» mu¢ Aamvma.m Aamv Ho OZHN mmVNH Hm3mcm oz u o mwaflno many «0 mucmumm wnu £Ufl3 m>ms so» cowumowcsEEoo mo mama man an“; cmflmmflumm so» mu< Aomvma.~ Aomv on .02 mEmz .oz .oz coaumflnommn EmuH manmwum> Aamommov cEdHOU mmHmmZOHfiddmm mmDH>OmmlBme¢m «GOHuowm No QHMU 89 amv comm moco amc comm mofi3a xmm3 comm mmaflu vim usocd xmm3 comm moco unocm cocoa m moco Hm>mz um3mcm 02 II II II II II II oammvmxo "mEchoum maaEmm m.ucmnmm amn comm moco mmc comm moflzfi cmmz comm mmaflu mum unocd xmm3 comm moco usocd cocoa m moco um>mz Hm3mcm oz CHNMQ‘LOKO mmflufl>fluo¢ Hmfioom m.ucmnmm hmn comm moco wmc comm moH3B xmm3 comm mmEHu vim unocd xmmz comm moco unoc¢ cocoa m moco um>mz um3mcm oz II II oammvmxp mamacoum mcflummuwawco Aumvoom.~ Aqmv mm Ammvcom.m Ammv mo Ammvmom.m Ammv No coflumfluomma .oz mEmz .02 .oz EmuH macmflum> Acmommov cafiaoo mmHmmZOHfiéqmm mWQH>OmmlBZHm¢m «GOHuomm No UHmU 90 cmm3 comm mmEHu vim yucca xmmz comm moco unoc¢ cocoa m moco Hm>mz Hm3mcm oz ”mmmum>fluom maflmm m.maflso wmm comm moco amm comm moHBB xmmz comm mmefiu vim usocd xmmz comm moco usocm cocoa m moco Hm>mz HmSmcm oz II ChflCVF1V B on II II II II II II CHNMVIDW "Hoocom no con m.ucmumm hmo comm moco >mU comm moflze xmmB comm mmEHu vim usocd xmm3 comm moco unocm cucofi m moco Hm>mz Hm3mcm 02 II II II II II OHNMQ‘IDO umEoc mnmo wmm mcu cw cmumcflno umnuo sums mmnmcomumamu m.mamno Anmvmo~.m Ahoy Ammvmom.m Ammv Ammvvom.m Ammv hm mm mm coflumwuommo .oz mEmz .oz EmuH macmflum> Acmommov .oz GESHOU mmHmmZOHfifiqmm meH>OmmIBzmm¢m "cowuomm No mumo 91 «« mm «m «m mm mm «« mmmJ—H " m mEmm mcu usocm u N mHoz " H Hmzmcm oz u o mmHmo H50» ca cmuo Icho mo mucmnmm Hmcuo mcu cufl3 cowumo lacsEEoo “50> cufi3 comHHmQEoo ca mucmnmm m.©aflco mflcu cuw3 m>mc so» coHumowcsE IEoo mo mucsosm mcu mumu no» caso3 30m Ammvmm.m Ammv mo >mo comm moco u o >m© comm moH3B u m xmm3 comm mmeflu vim unoc< u v xmm3 comm moco usoc< u m cucofi m moco u N Hm>wz nll H Hmzmcm 02 u o mmEoc usow ca cmuoaflco mumo mmm use» cuw3 mmwufl>wpom ca mummaofluumm mucmumm mcu 0U cmumo 30m Ammvam.m Ammv mm mmn comm moco u m wmn comm moflza u m .oz mEmz .oz .oz coflumwuomma EmuH macmflum> Acmommov cEdHou mmHmmZOHeflqmm mmOH>OmmIBzmm¢m "cowuomm No CHMU 92 Selected Descriptive Statistics Table B-l.--Mean Age of Children and Mean Age of Family Day Care Providers (in years). Y Age- X’Age- Children Range Provider Range Composite _ _ Sample 3.6 l 8 36 18 36 Table B-2.--Mean Length of Time Child Had Been in Provider's Care (in years). 2 Length of Time in Care Range Composite Sample 1.6 1-5 REFERENCES AND NOTES REFERENCES AND NOTES References Barton, J. Family day care. In P. Roby (Ed.), Child Care--Who Cares? New York: Basic Books, 1973, 262—272. Bubolz, M.; Eicher, J.; and Sontag, M. S. The human ecosystem: a model. Journal of Home Economics, 1979, 71(1), 28-32. Burton, W. Today's Child. Harvard Laboratory for Human Development. January, 1975. Cohen, D. J. Curricula for family day care. Serving Pre-school Children. Press, 1974. Collins, A. H., and Watson, E. L. Exploring the neighbor- hood family day care system. Social Casework, 1969, 50(9), 527-533. Collins, A. H., and Watson, E. L. Family Day Care. Boston: Beacon Press, 1977. Crawford, C. H. A family day care program. Child Welfare, 1969, 48, 160-162. Crowe, N. D., and Pine, B. A. Familnyay Care: An Educa- tional and Support System Model Developed by Cooperative Extension New York State. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. Emlen, A. C. Family Day Care for Children Under Three. Paper presented to the International Symposium on the Ecology and Education of Children Under Three, February, 1977. Fandetti, D. V. Day care in working-class ethnic neighbor— hoods: implications for social policy. Child Welfare, 1976, LV(9), 618-623. Foley, F. Family day care for children. Children, 1966, 13(4), 141-144. 93 94 Host, M. S. Family day care--a broad perspective. In R. Elardo and B. Pagan (Eds.), Perspectives on Infant Day Care. Southern Association for Children Under Six, 1976. Kantor, D., and Lehr, W. Inside the Family. Harper Row, 1975. Keyserling, M. D. Windows on Danyare. National Council of Jewish Women, Inc. New York: 1970, 130-165. Kilmer, S. Family day care training: a home based model. Younnghildren, 1979, 34(3), 12-19. Lazar, I., and Rosenberg, M. E. Day care in America. In The Office of Economic Opportunity (Eds.), Day Care Resources for Decisions. Day Care and Child Devel- Opment Council of America, Inc., 1971. Lesser, G. The need for diversity in American day care. In The Office of Economic Opportunity (Eds.), Day Care Resources for Decisions. Day Care and Chil Development Council ofiAmefica, Inc., 1971. Linden, E. The Day Care Home: A Study of Use and Problems of Child Care in Private Homes. Detroit: United Community Services of MetrOpolitan Detroit, November, 1973. Morgan, G. Family day care: where it's at. In R. Elardo and B. Pagan (Eds.), Perspectives on Infant Day Care. Southern Association for Children Under Six, 1976. Paolucci, B.; Hall, 0.; and Axinin, N. Familnyecision Making: An Ecosystem Approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1977. Pine, B. A. The Cooperative Extension Familny y Care Pilot Program. Paper presented to the Food and Agricultural Outlook Conference, Washington, D.C., November, 1978. Powell, D. R. The Interface Between Families and Child Care Programs: A Study of Parent-Caregiver Relation- ships. The Merrill-Palmer Institute, 1977. Reinhart, R., and Evans, J. Family day care: early identi- fication of children with emotional disorders. Child Welfare, 1977, LVI(2), 109-119. 95 Rodriguez, D., and Hignett, W. F. Guidelines for the selection of home-based day caregivers. Child Welfare, 1976, 55(1), Rubin, S. Home visiting with family day care providers. Child Welfare, 1975, 54(9), 645-657. Sale, J. S. Family day care--a valuable alternative. Young Children, 1975, 28(4), 209-215. Shoffner, S. M. Rural Mothers' Needs for Child Care-- Attitudes and Preferences: Implications for Application. Paper presented to the Food and Agricultural Outlook Conference, Washington, D.C., November, 1978. Sulby, A. B., and Diodati, A. Ingredients of a creative family day care program. Child Welfare, 1975, 64(2), 97-101. Sulby, A. B., and Diodati, A. Family day care: no longer day care's neglected child. Young Children, 1975, 30, 239-247. Trisdorfer, A. Family day care mothers: what they want in training programs. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univer- sity, College of Human Ecology: n.d. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Finance. Child Care: Data and Materials (Committee print). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 31, 1977. Day Care and Child Development Council of America, Inc. Voice for Children. Washington, D.C., 1975, 8(10), 16-17. Valenstein, T. What day care mothers need to know--guide- lines for a pre-service or in-service educational program for family day care mothers. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 1972. Wade, C. The family day care program in Milwaukee: a three- faceted approach to community enrichment. Child Welfare, 1970, 49(6), 336-341. Wallach, L. B., and Piers, M. W. Family day care: the humanistic side. Child Welfare, 1973, 52(7), 431- 435. 96 Wattenberg, E. Characteristics of family day care pro- viders: implications for training. Child Welfare, 1977, 54(4), 211-229. Willner, M. Family day care: an escape from poverty. Social Work, 1971, 16(2), 30-35. Zamoff, R. B., and Lyle, J. R. Who needs what kind of day care center. Child Welfare, 1973, 52(6), 351-357. Reference Notes lA. Whiren, M. Bubolz, and D. Melcer. Family and Child Sciences Department, Michigan State University. 2Michigan Agricultural Experimental Station Research #3213, Family Day Care Learning Packet, Michigan State University, College of Human Ecology, Department of Family and Child Sciences, 1978-1979. H ICH IGAN STQTE UNIV. L IBRRR IES NI \ ll MI (H W “I Mill (0 II (I) IUI ml IN “IN I( Ill) 1 ll 31293103833608