INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UM I a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize m aterials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UM I directly
to order.

UMI
University Microfilms International
A Bell & Howell Information C o m p a n y
3 0 0 North Z e e b R o ad . Ann Arbor. Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1 3 4 6 U SA
3 13/76 1 -4 7 0 0

800 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0

O rder N u m b er 9223226

A description and analysis o f cam pus child care services at the
fifteen public universities in M ichigan
McCorriston, Mary, Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1992

UMI

300 N. ZeebRd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

A DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF CAMPUS CHILD CARE SERVICES
AT THE FIFTEEN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN MICHIGAN

By
Mary McCorriston

A DISSERTATION

Sub mit ted t o
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s
fo r the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department o f E d u c a ti o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

1991

ABSTRACT

A DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF CAMPUS CHILD CARE SERVICES
AT THE FIFTEEN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN MICHIGAN
By
Mary Mc Corriston

This s t u d y d e s c r i b e d and a n al y ze d t h e

features

s e r v i c e s a t t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in M ichigan.

child

care

benefits

t o campus employees and t h e v a r i e t y o f campus c h i l d

care

to

to

The i n f o r m a t i o n

on each

av ailab le

related

care

gathered

services

campus

of child

employer-sponsored

stu d en t-p aren ts.

The

d escrip tio n

also

i n c l u d e d t h e m u l t i p l e f u n c t i o n s o f campus c h i l d r e n ’ s c e n t e r s , which
may i n c l u d e s e r v i c e s f o r employee- and s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s ,
observation

facilities

for

university

c h i l d r e n as p a r t o f academic s t u d y .

students

at

each

services

w ith

affairs,

academic a f f a i r s ,

in t h e o p e r a t i o n o f campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s

university,
from

participating

as

I n f o r m a t i o n was a l s o g a t h e r e d

r e l a t i v e to the in t e g r a ti o n o f business
and s t u d e n t a f f a i r s

as w ell

the

and

to

the

standpoint

delivery
of

of

campus

organizational

child

care

stru ctu res,

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n codes o f c h i l d c a r e p e r s o n n e l , and fu n d in g r e s o u r c e s .
These

issues

were

addressed

in

a m ultifaceted

investigation

that

in c l u d e d campus s i t e v i s i t a t i o n s t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n from m u l t i p l e
sources.

Mary M cC or r is to n

All 15 campuses had some kind o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .
o f t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s had a t o t a l
enhanced

resource

and

sp en di n g

accounts,

and

o f 22 c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s ,

referral

services,

one

a

had

cafeteria

S t u d e n t s were i n v o l v e d w ith c h i l d r e n
all

centers.

Further d e scrip tio n s

five

f i v e had

offered

child

f o r academic
focused

F o u r te e n

flexible

care
study

on t h e

benefit.
in

nearly

integration

of

community a g e n c i e s in t h e d e l i v e r y o f campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s , as
well as t h e g o v e r n i n g d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y .
the com plexities

in t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n

campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s were a l s o p r o v i d e d .
care

service

components

at

all

Analyses of

in each o f t h e

Comparisons o f c h i l d

15 u n i v e r s i t i e s

were

illu strated .

C o n c l u s i o n s from t h e s t u d y were (a) l i m i t e d e m p l o y e r - s p o n s o r e d c h i l d
care services;

(b)

15

(c)

campuses;

in f a n t spaces r e s t r i c t e d
m u ltip licity

integ ratio n ,

and

organizational

i d p n t i f v i no

and

1 or a t i no

-

— -

*/

• •

and

community t a s k

options

on

each

services

association

(a)
force

campus,

to
to

(b)

among t h e

an

centralize
to

and

child

en co ur ag e

create

15 p u b l i c

d e v e l o p campus-community c o a l i t i o n s
services.

clien tele,

patterns;

camous
%

^

recommendations were

of

t o 16 s p a c e s among t h e
ad m in istrativ e

(d)

care

d ifficu lty

servi c e s .

interdepartm ental
child
a

in

care

The

campus

resources

statewide

universities,

and

children’s
and

(c )

f o r s h a r e d employee c h i l d

to

care

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The o n ly way t h i s

p r o j e c t r e a c h e d c o m p le ti o n was t h r o u g h

the

c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f t h o s e honored in t h e f o l l o w i n g acknowledgments.
F irst,

t o acknowledge a rainbow o f p e o p l e who k e p t t h e promise

o f c o m p le ti o n e v e r a l i v e

( p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e l a s t y e a r t h r o u g h t h e

b ir t h of a granddaughter,
leg,

and my f i f t i e t h

Carole

and

Dr.

Turner,

Dr.. J u l i e

Rose Ann and Dr.
Sw artz

for

his

escape

birthday):

Ro be rt

from t h e
Dr.

Kosanovich,

G ulf War zo n e,

Luanne and Dr.
Dr.

Wanda

Smith

Don Gogol i n ,
and

and J a c k Bonkowski, Dr. Ma rilyn K e i g l e y ,
Fred S w a r tz .
advice

on

the

Particular

a broken

Dr.

and Dr.

acknowledgment t o

"fundam ental

place

of

Jim

Fred

research

q u e s t i o n s and e f f i c i e n t w r i t i n g t o a s u c c e s s f u l d i s s e r t a t i o n . "
Second,

to

acknowledge

a bo ut me: my d a u g h t e r ,

L i sa

my m ot her ,
McCann,

Vearl

Bundy,

who

worried

who watched o v e r me;

my baby

g r a n d d a u g h t e r s , Amanie and S o p h ia , who p l a y e d w it h me; and t h e r e s t
of

my c h i l d r e n ,

Kelly,

Jodie,

and

M ic h a e l,

and

my b r o t h e r s

and

s i s t e r s , who b e l i e v e d in me.
T h i r d , t o acknowledge t h e f r i e n d s who added s p e c i a l s k i l l s w ith
e a g e r n e s s and e n t h u s i a s m :

Pa t Ponczk, t h e p i l o t , who f le w me t o t h e

Upper P e n i n s u l a o f Michigan;

Penny P h e l p s ,

the re a d e r,

who checked

t h e p ’ s and q ’ s; Linda S h e i l d , t h e g u a r d i a n a n g e l , who s e n t p o s i t i v e
t h o u g h t s my way; and Dr. Louis Hekhuis, t h e a d v i s o r , who h e l p e d keep

some humor,
members

of

rew rite
the

after

rew rite.

d o c t o r a l co m mi tt ee,

Rhonda E g i d i o ,

plus

p a r t i c i p a t e d as

w ell.

Special
Dr.

Dr. George F e r r e e

Eldon

thanks

to

the

Nonnamaker

and Dr.

Acknowledgment a l s o t o a l l

other
and Dr.

Howard Hi cke y, who
t h e s e f r i e n d s and

t h e many o t h e r s who gave me c o u r a g e .
Finally,
across
gave

to

Michigan
of

th eir

acknowledge t h o s e whom I met a t
involved
tim e

in

to give

the

lives

tours

of

of

the

children,

who w i l l i n g l y

th eirfa c ilitie s ,

i n f o r m a t i o n , and t a l k abo ut campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .

v

universities

share

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ......................................................................................................

ix

Ch ap te r
I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION

........................................................................................

1

S ta t e m e n t o f t h e Problem ........................................................
S ta t e m e n t o f Purpose .................................................................
S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e Study ........................................................
Research Q u e s ti o n s
......................................................................
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms ......................................................................
L i m i t a t i o n s and D e l i m i t a t i o n s ...............................................
O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e Study ........................................................

3
4
5
5
6
8
9

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.............................................................

11

H i s t o r y o f Campus C h il d C a r e ...............................................
Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e on Campus Chil d Care
S e r v i c e s ........................................................................................
F e a t u r e s and F u n c t i o n s o f C h il d Care in
M i c h i g a n ....................................................................................
I n t e g r a t i o n o f Campus C hi ld Care S e r v i c e s . . . .
D e l i v e r y o f Campus Chi ld Care S e r v i c e s
...................
Major S t u d i e s on Campus C hi ld C a r e .................................
The C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Study ........................
C i t y U n i v e r s i t y o f New York S tud y .................................
P r o f i l e o f Campus C hi ld Care Survey ............................
Summary o f t h e Review o f L i t e r a t u r e .................................
F e a t u r e s and F u n c ti o n s o f Campus C hi ld Care . . .
I n t e g r a t i o n o f C h il d Care S e r v i c e s
............................
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e o f Campus C h il d Care
S e r v i c e s ...................................................................................
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f C hi ld Care Pe rs on nel
...................
F i s c a l O p e r a t i o n s o f Campus C h i l d Care S e r v i c e s .

11
13
14
20
21
21
22
24
26
29
29
31
32
32
33

METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................

34

P o p u l a t i o n and Sample .................................................................
Research Design ...............................................................................

34
35

vi

Page

IV.

D a t a - G a t h e r i n g Methods .............................................................
Survey I n s t r u m e n t s .................................................................
Campus V i s i t a t i o n ......................................................................
J o u r n a l .............................................................................................
C o n te n t A n a l y s i s
..........................................................................
F e a t u r e s and F u n c ti o n s ........................................................
I n t e g r a t i o n o f Chil d Care S e r v i c e s
............................
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e ....................................................
C la s s if i c a ti o n Title/Codes
...............................................
F i s c a l O p e r a t i o n s ......................................................................
Data A n a l y s i s ....................................................................................
S i t e D e s c r i p t i o n s ......................................................................
I n d e x i n g ........................................................................................
M a t r i c e s ........................................................................................
T a b l e s .............................................................................................
Chronology f o r Data C o l l e c t i o n ..........................................
I n i t i a l I n q u i r y ..........................................................................
P i l o t S t u d y ....................................................................................
Tel eph one I n t e r v i e w .................................................................
.................................
S i t e I n t e r v i e w s and O b s e r v a t i o n s
Case R e c o r d s ...............................................................................
S i t e D e s c r i p t i o n s ......................................................................
A n al ys es and Comparisons ....................................................
P r e p a r a t i o n o f Final Document ..........................................

36
36
37
38
38
38
39
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
41
41
41
41
41
42
42
42
42
43

F I N D I N G S ..................................................................................................

44

U n i v e r s i t y Background I n f o r m a t i o n ......................................
C e n t r a l Michigan U n i v e r s i t y ...............................................
E a s t e r n Michigan U n i v e r s i t y ...............................................
F e r r i s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ........................................................
Grand V a l l e y S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ..........................................
......................................
Lake S u p e r i o r S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
Michigan T e c h n o lo g ic a l U n i v e r s i t y .................................
N o r th e r n Michigan U n i v e r s i t y
..........................................
Oakland U n i v e r s i t y .................................................................
Saginaw V a ll e y S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ......................................
U n i v e r s i t y o f Michiga n-D ea rb or n ......................................
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n - F I i n t ..........................................
Western Michigan U n i v e r s i t y ...............................................
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ...................................................
U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan--Ann Arbor .................................
Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ........................................................
..........................................................................
Con te nt A n a l y s i s
Resea rc h
Q uestion 1 .................................................................
Resea rc h
Qu es tio n 2 .................................................................
Researc h
Qu es tio n 3 .................................................................
Resear ch
Qu est ion 4 .................................................................
Resear ch
Qu est ion 5 .................................................................

45
45
46
47
48
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
62
63
71
74
77
78

vi i

Page

S u m m a r y .........................................................................................
81
Demographic Background ..............................................................
D e s c r i p t i o n o f C h il d Care S e r v i c e s ...........................
I n t e g r a t i o n o f C h il d Care S e r v i c e s ................................
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Campus C h il d Care S e r v i c e s
. .
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f C h il d Care P ers onn el
..................
F i s c a l O p e r a t i o n s o f C hi ld Care S e r v i c e s . . . .
V.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
REFLECTIONS................................................................................

81
82
84
85
85
86

88

Summary and C o n c l u s i o n s .............................................................
Demographic Background ........................................................
Re sea rc h Q u e s ti o n 1 ................................................................
Re sea rc h Q u e s ti o n 2 ................................................................
Resea rc h Q u e s ti o n 3 ................................................................
Resea rc h Q u e s ti o n 4 ................................................................
R es ear ch Q u e s ti o n 5 ................................................................
Summary o f t h e C o n c l u s i o n s ...........................................
104
I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r Research ...........................................
F e a t u r e s and F u n c t i o n s o f Campus Chil d Care
. . .
I n t e g r a t i o n o f S e r v i c e s .............................................................
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e o f Campus C h il d Care . .
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Perso nn el ..............................................
Campus C h i l d Care Funding ..................................................
Recommendations ....................................................................................
Ill
R e f l e c t i o n s ................................................................................

89
89
91
96
98
99
101
107
107
107
108
108
108
109

APPENDICES
A.

CAMPUS CHILD CARE SURVEY:

MICHIGAN UNIVERSITIES

B.

CONSENT F O R M ...............................................................................

C.

CAMPUS CHILD CARE SERVICES INTERVIEW FORMAT ....................

119

D.

CAMPUS CHILD CARE RESEARCH QUESTION MATRIX

....................

126

E.

SAMPLE OF MATRICES OF CAMPUS CHILD CARE ANALYSIS

F.

MAP OF MICHIGAN SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF THE 15
PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN THE STUDY ...............................................

REFERENCES......................................................................................................

vi i i

. .

115
118

. .

127

129

128

LIST OF TABLES

Table
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Page
P e r c e n t a g e o f Female P o p u l a t i o n o f Campus Employees
and S t u d e n t s , With Number and R a t i o o f C h il d Care
Spaces a t t h e 15 P u b l i c U n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan . .

51

F u n c t i o n s and F e a t u r e s o f t h e Campus C h il d Care
C e n t e r s a t t h e 15 P u b l i c U n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan . .

64

Campus C h il d Care S e r v i c e s and T r a i n i n g S i t e s A v a i l ­
a b l e t o Employee-, S t u d e n t - , and Community-Parents
a t t h e 15 P u b l i c U n i v e r s i t i e s in M i c h i g a n ........................

66

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e o f C hi ld Care C e n t e r s a t
t h e 15 P u b l i c U n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan ............................

75

Funding Sou rce s f o r C h il d Care S e r v i c e s a t t h e 15
P u b l i c U n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan ...............................................

79

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The c r i s i s

in c h i l d c a r e o f a f f o r d a b i l i t y ,

q u a l i t y has been v o i c e d from many s e c t o r s .

accessibility,

and

The f o r m e r U n it e d S t a t e s

S e c r e t a r y o f Labor, E l i z a b e t h Dole, p u b l i s h e d a government document,
Employers

and

explaining

Child

various

The N a t i o n a l

Care:

child

B enefiting

care

options

C h i l d Care B i l l ,

Work

and

Fa m il y

and b e n e f i t s

the f i r s t

to

(1989),

businesses.

in more th a n two d e c a d e s ,

was p a s s e d by t h e U n it e d S t a t e s Congress in f a l l 1991 (NAEYC, 19 9 0) .
The fo rm er g o v e r n o r o f Michigan,
Michigan

Commerce

D e p a r tm e n t’ s

James B la n c h a rd ,

Chil d

Care

as

part

Partnership,

of

the

sponsored

l o w - i n t e r e s t l o a n s t o h e l p c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s open o r expand t h e i r
services.
More t h a n

3,000

Un ited

States

businesses

offer

a variety

of

employer-sponsored c h i ld care b e n e f i ts t h a t include o n - s i t e daycare,
cafeteria

benefits,

vouchers,

and o t h e r

t o en co u r a g e h i g h e r p r o d u c t i v i t y ,
turnover

(Price,

provide

some

S teelcase,

198 8) .

type

of

Incorporated,

lower a b s e n t e e i s m ,

Ap pr o xi ma te ly
child
in

fam ily-oriented

care

37

Grand

Ra p id s,

and lo w er j o b

companies

assistan ce

incentives

in

(Bankes,

offers

Michigan
1988).

equip men t

and

t r a i n i n g t o o f f - s i t e f a m i l y d a y c a r e p r o v i d e r s who s u p p ly c h i l d c a r e
t o S t e e l c a s e employees ( P r i c e , 1988).

1

2

Parents,
affordable,

too,
quality

working p a r e n t s
care

options

h o us eh o ld s

have

been

child

has

care

has

an

1989).

added

to

concerns

(Straus,

necessitated

(B razelton,

also

voicing

the

1988).

increase
The

over
The

for

number

daycare

the

lack

of

of

two

rise

additional
of

child

sin g le-p aren t

dilemma

(Garfinkel

&

McLanahan, 19 8 6) .
Ch il d

care

providers

also

have

called

attention

to

their

im p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n and have so ugh t a s s i s t a n c e from t h e i r long h o u r s ,
low pay,

and l a c k o f r e c o g n i t i o n

(Michigan C hi ld

Care

Initiative,

1989).
C o ll e g e and u n i v e r s i t y campuses a r e y e t a n o t h e r v o i c e
issues of child

care.

They have t h e unusual

training

and e d u c a t i o n a l

as

as

well

an

emp loy er

facility
of

function

in

the

o f be in g

a

f o r academic s t u d y and r e s e a r c h ,

many working

parents

( A lg e r ,

198 4).

Changing dem og rap hic s o f t h e s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n t o an o l d e r and an
i n c r e a s i n g l y fem a le c l i e n t e l e have a l s o p u t p r e s s u r e on c h i l d

care

needs f o r s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s ( S c h l o s s b e r g , Lynch, & C h i c k e r i n g , 1989).
The f oc us o f t h i s s t u d y was on g a t h e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on campus
child care re la tin g
centers,

which

t o t h e m u l t i p l e f u n c t i o n s o f campus c h i l d r e n ’ s

often

include

services

for

employee-

and

student-

p a r e n t s as well as o b s e r v a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s f o r s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g
with

children

for

academic

study;

the

integration

of

child

se rv ic e s w ithin th e governing s t r u c t u r e of the u n i v e r s i t y ;
d e l i v e r y sy stem o f campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .

care

and t h e

3

S t a t e m e n t o f t h e Problem
Carol Keyes ( 1 9 9 0 ) , p a s t p r e s i d e n t o f t h e N a t i o n a l C o a l i t i o n o f
Campus C h il d Ca re , d e s c r i b e d t h e " m u l t i p l e m i s s i o n s " o f campus c h i l d
care

personnel

researchers.

as

em ployees,

Problem s

philo so p h ies,

services,

of

adm inistrators,

in teg ratin g

and

the

teach ers,

v aried

adm inistrative

and

m issions,

structure

between

employee and s t u d e n t ne ed s and academic s e r v i c e s a r e b e i n g f a c e d by
campus c h i l d

care

personnel.

Problems

for

campus

adm inistrators

i n c l u d e how t o e f f i c i e n t l y accommodate t h e chang in g emphasis on (a)
employees as working p a r e n t s w ith d a y c a r e n e e d s , (b) s t u d e n t p a r e n t s
b r i n g i n g b a b i e s as well as books t o campus, and (c ) s t u d e n t s n e ed in g
academic

laboratory

professional

experiences

in

c h ild care providers

the m ulti-m issions

order

to

(P ow e ll,

o f campus d a y c a r e

are

become

1988).
further

teachers

and

The demands f o r
exacerbated

when

c h i l d c a r e c o s t s , e s p e c i a l l y f o r i n f a n t s and t o d d l e r s , a r e v e r y high
and u n i v e r s i t y bu d ge ts a r e t i g h t l y squeez ed .
There i s

a l s o t h e need f o r campus p e r s o n n e l ,

facing

increased

b u d g e t a r y c o n s t r a i n t s , t o f i n d e f f i c i e n t ways t o expand s e r v i c e s and
incentives

to

(Schlossberg

recruit
et

a l.,

and r e t a i n
19 89 ).

s t u d e n t s who may a l s o be p a r e n t s

Incentives

are

also

necessary

for

r e c r u i t i n g yo u ng er f a c u l t y and s t a f f who w i l l be r e p l a c i n g t h e l a r g e
number o f t h o s e r e t i r i n g
care services
vital

issues

in t h e n ext deca de (Robb ins, 1990 ).

t o t h e campus community a r e
on which a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

and i n f o r m a t i o n (Keyes, 1990).

emerging

a r e as k in g

C h il d

as one o f t h e

f o r more r e s e a r c h

4

An a d d i t i o n a l
the

system o f

statew ide

problem f o r t h e 15 u n i v e r s i t i e s

autonomous g ov ern anc e o f

adm inistration

Political

of

higher

each

in stitu tio n

education

iso la tio n creates d if f ic u lty

in Michigan

is

versus

(H ines,

a

1988).

in bei ng a b l e t o a s s e s s what

c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s a r e a v a i l a b l e a t t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan o r
how

child

care

constituencies
w ell

as

services

of

autonomy,

are

the

campus

is

an a c u t e

p r e s e n t co m p ari so n d a t a

adm inistered

community.

abo ut

to

the

Geog rap hic d i s t a n c e ,

problem when a r e q u e s t
sister

varying

in stitutions.

is

as

made t o

The p o l i t i c a l

and g e o g r a p h i c i s o l a t i o n c r e a t e s

a la c k o f inform ation about c h ild

care

public

services

available

at

the

universities

in

Mich ig an.

T h e r e f o r e , a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e f e a t u r e s and f u n c t i o n s o f t h e c h i l d
care

services

analysis

at

of the

the

15

public

adm inistrative

universities

organization

in

Michigan

of these

and

services

an
are

needed.

S t a t e m e n t o f Purpose
The

researcher’s

purpose

in

th is

i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s

study

was

to

gather

in Michigan r e l a t i n g t o

( a) t h e f e a t u r e s and f u n c t i o n s o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s a t each campus
for

employee-

particip atin g

and

student-parents

w ith

children

for

as

well

as

academic

university

students

purposes,

(b)

the

i n t e g r a t i o n of th e a d m in is tr a tio n of c h ild care s e r v ic e s w ith in the
g o v e r n i n g s t r u c t u r e o f each u n i v e r s i t y ,
o f campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .

and (c) t h e d e l i v e r y system

5

S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e Study
An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f campus c h i l d c a r e
universities
and v a r i o u s

s e r v i c e s a t t h e 15 p u b l i c

in Michigan r e v e a l e d a number
child

care options.

of organizational

The g a t h e r e d

inform ation w ill

im portant to c h ild ca re d i r e c t o r s or c o o r d in a to r s ,
and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

care

directo rs

effectiveness
services

or

in

and

inform ation

to

other

im plem ent,

expand,

w ith

adm inistration

program s.

A nalysis

college
or

personnel,

and

The f i n d i n g s w i l l p r o v i d e campus c h i l d

coordinators

the

be

academic f a c u l t y

employee a s s i s t a n c e o r b e n e f i t s

student s erv ice s personnel.

models

and

im prove

inform ation

and

delivery

of

the

university
child

for
of

data

child

w ill

personnel

care

greater
care

provide

seeking

serv ices

on

to

th eir

r e s p e c t i v e campuses.
The d e s c r i p t i o n o f campus c h i l d c a r e
w ill

aid

services

in t h e

further

in M ichigan.

C h i l d Care i n Michigan:

s e r v i c e s from t h i s

development o f a d i r e c t o r y
The d a t a

su pplement

a recent

A P r o f i l e (Crawley, 1989 ),

Comprehensive C hi ld Care

(4-C)

office,

s tu d y

of child

care

publication,

by t h e Michigan

in which campus c h i l d

was l i m i t e d t o a o ne - p a g e summary o f t h e c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s

care
a t 26

o f t h e 97 c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan.

Research Q u e s ti o n s
1.

What a r e t h e f e a t u r e s and f u n c t i o n s o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s

a v a i l a b l e a t each o f t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan f o r (a)
cam pus-em ployee-parents,
observers?

(b)

student-parents,

and

(c)

stu d en t-

6

2.

How does each u n i v e r s i t y i n t e g r a t e c h i l d

em ployee-

and

stu d en t-p aren ts

as

w ell

as

care services

university

to

students

p a r t i c i p a t i n g w i t h c h i l d r e n as p a r t o f t h e i r academic s t u d y ?
3.

What i s t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s

w i t h i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y g o v e r n a n c e f o r each i n s t i t u t i o n ?
4.

What a r e t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t i t l e s / c o d e s f o r t h e c h i l d c a r e

p e r s o n n e l w i t h i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e framework o f each i n s t i t u t i o n ?
5.

How a r e t h e c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s funded and a d m i n i s t e r e d in

each u n i v e r s i t y ’ s f i s c a l

operations?

D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms
Campus

employees.

Any

p e rs o n s

employed

by

the

Thi s might i n c l u d e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , f a c u l t y , c l e r i c a l

university.

and ma in te na n ce

p e r s o n n e l , and o t h e r u n i v e r s i t y s t a f f .
Ch il d c a r e c e n t e r .
th at

cares

for

im m ediately

A f a c i l i t y other

ch ild ren

availab le

th a n a p r i v a t e r e s i d e n c e

whose

parents

the m

(M ichigan

to

or g u a rd ia n s
Departm ent

are
of

not

Social

S e r v i c e s , 19 8 4) .
C hi ld c a r e s e r v i c e s .
direct

care

of children,

and/or a v a i l a b i l i t y ,
for

child

include

care

in

children

Any program o r a s s i s t a n c e t h a t o f f e r s (a)
(b)

information

on c h i l d

care

resources

(c ) employee b e n e f i t s t h a t i n c l u d e comp ens at ion
some form,
for

the

and/or

(d)

observation

laboratory

programs

that

of t h e i r

grow th

and

dev elopm ent.
Daycare.

Full-day

services

working o r a t t e n d i n g c l a s s e s .

for

children

while

parents

ar e

7

Davcare t r i l e m m a .
conflicting

demands

caregivers,

and

A term co i n e d t o i l l u s t r a t e

of

quality

low c o s t s

care

for

of

t h e b a l a n c e of

children,

parents

good

wages

(U niversity

C hild

for
Care

Committee, 1988).
Dependent c a r e sp en d in g a c c o u n t .
by e m p l o y e r s
reduction

for

each

em ployee,

An i n d i v i d u a l

who

then

i n income and draws from t h i s

a c c o u n t s e t up

tak es

a cc o un t t o

a nontaxable
pay c h i l d

care

services

that

f e e s (D ole, 198 8) .
Em p lo y er -s p on so re d c h i l d c a r e .
are

fully

or

p artially

funded

by

Any c h i l d
employers

care
for

their

employees

(Michigan C h i l d Care P a r t n e r s h i p , 1990).
Family d a v c a r e p r o v i d e r s .

Per so ns who c a r e f o r u n r e l a t e d c h i l ­

dr en in t h e i r homes (Michigan Department o f S o c ia l S e r v i c e s , 1984 ).
Features
facilities

(of

or

child

services,

care

services).

such as

Elements

room l a y o u t ,

hours

numbers and ages o f c h i l d r e n , number and e d u c a t i o n a l
staff,
did

clientele

not

served,

include

and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

elem ents

of

curriculum ,

of
of

child

care

operation,

p r e p a r a tio n of

structure.
factors

The s tu dy
of

quality

programming, o r e f f e c t s o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s on c h i l d r e n , p a r e n t s ,
or students.
F iscal

op eratio n s.

sources, t u i t i o n fees,

T ho s e

functions

connected

to

funding

s a l a r i e s , o t h e r employee b e n e f i t s , and p a r e n t

payment p o l i c i e s .
Functions
objectives,

(of

mission,

child

care

purpose,

services).

That

job d e s c r ip tio n s ,

in v o l v e m e n t , o r academic use as a l a b o r a t o r y s i t e .

which

constitutes

p a r e n t and s t u d e n t

8

Infants.

C h i l d r e n from b i r t h t o t h e b e g i n n i n g o f in d e p e n d e n t

w alking ( a b o u t 12 months o f age) ( M or ris o n , 1988).
Lab s c h o o l s

or

child-developm ent

lab s.

Model

facilities

u s u a l l y d e s i g n e d t o r e f l e c t s p e c i f i c t h e o r i e s and methods.

Labs a r e

often

directly

designed

ob s e r v e

as

children

part

for

of

educational

preservice

in stitu tio n s

teachers

and

to

research

(M o r r is on ,

1988).
Latch

key.

C h il d

care

programs

serving

school-age

children

b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e i r r e g u l a r school day.
Preschoolers.

C h i l d r e n between t o d d l e r age and age o f e n t r a n c e

into kindergarten or f i r s t grade.
more w i d e s p r e a d , i t

Because k i n d e r g a r t e n i s becoming

i s custom ary t o r e f e r t o f o u r y e a r o l d s as p r e ­

s c h o o l e r s (M o r r is o n , 1988 ).
Reso urce and r e f e r r a l

(R & R ) .

A s e rv ic e t h a t connects c h ild

c a r e p r o v i d e r s in a g i v e n a r e a and p a r e n t s s e a r c h i n g f o r i n f o r m a t i o n
and c h i l d c a r e .
School-ane c h i l d r e n .

C h i l d r e n from 6 t o 12 y e a r s o f age ( Mi ch­

igan Department o f S o c i a l S e r v i c e s , 1984).
Student-parents.
children.

P ers on s e n r o l l e d f o r academic s t u d y who have

For t h i s s t u d y ,

" s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s " r e f e r s s p e c i f i c a l l y to

t h o s e s t u d e n t s w ith c h i l d r e n 0 t o 10 y e a r s o f age.
S tudent-observers/participators.

Per so ns

enrolled

in

courses

r e q u i r i n g a f a c i l i t y a t which t o o b s e r v e t h e growth and development
of children.

Some c u r r i c u l a may be c h i l d

dev elopm ent,

human e c o l o g y , p s y c h o l o g y , a n d / o r s o c i a l s c i e n c e s .

education,

9

Toddlers.

C h i l d r e n from t h e b e g i n n i n g o f in d e p e n d e n t w alking

t o about age t h r e e (M or r is on , 1988).
ZA e n d o r s e m e n t .

Acknowledgment on t h e Michigan t e a c h i n g

cer­

t i f i c a t e e n a b l i n g t h e h o l d e r t o t e a c h p re s c h o o l c h i l d r e n i n a p u b l i c
school s e t t i n g .
L i m i t a t i o n s and D e l i m i t a t i o n s
The
which

focus

is

one

of

this

segment

s tu dy was on campus
of

the

child

care

child

care

services,

profession.

A further

d e l i m i t a t i o n was t h e d e s c r i p t i o n

of ch ild care serv ices

public u n i v e r s i t i e s

in Michigan.

C h il d c a r e s e r v i c e s a t M i c h i g a n ’ s

community c o l l e g e s

and

private

in stitutions

were

not

a t t h e 15

included

in

t h i s study.
The c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f t h i s
the

types

of

child

care

s tu d y was a d e s c r i p t i v e o v e r v ie w o f

services

available

to

specific

campus

c o n s t i t u e n t s w i t h i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y community.

A n ot h er d e l i m i t a t i o n

was

structure

the

investigation

of

the

organizational

of

campus

c h i l d c a r e p e r s o n n e l and t h e i r employment s t a t u s in t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l
stru ctu re

of

the

u n iv ersity

system .

These

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n r a t h e r th a n i n s t r u c t i o n a l

are

areas

of

issues.

One o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t a f f e c t e d t h i s s t u d y was t h e l a c k o f
a

central

facilities
Also,

source

inform ation

on campus whose f u n c t i o n

some

populations
services:

of

in stitu tio n s
of

in

individuals

the

most

in c l u d e d

s tu d y

id e n tified

c a m p u s - e m p lo y e e - p a r e n ts ,

observers/participators.

on

did
as

campuses
caring
not

to

for

serve

seeking

student-parents,

locate

children.
all

three

child

care

and

student-

10

O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e Study
C h a p t e r I i n c l u d e s t h e need f o r t h e s t u d y ,

a statem ent of the

problem, and p ur p os e f o r t h e s t u d y o f campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s in
M ichigan.
research,
defined

The

researcher

presented
sp ecific

the

described

research

term s,

and

the

sig n ifican ce

questions

review ed

the

to

be

of

the

investigated,

lim itatio n s

of

the

research.
The i n f o r m a t i o n in C ha p te r I I i n c l u d e s a r e v i e w o f t h e r e s e a r c h
s t u d i e s and p o i n t s o f view on t h e h i s t o r y o f campus c h i l d c a r e ,
w ell

as

the

features

and

functions,

in teg ratio n

of

as

services,

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f p e r s o n n e l , and f i s c a l
o p e r a t i o n s o f campus c h i l d c a r e .
Chapter

III

contains

a description

of

the

methods

used

in

conducting t h i s study.
The f i n d i n g s a r e p r e s e n t e d
the

summaries

findings.

and

conclusions

in C h a p t e r IV.
from

the

Chapter V inc lu d es

analysis

of

the

study

CHAPTER I I

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The

researcher’s

purpose

in

th is

study

was

to

gather

i n f o r m a t i o n on campus c h i l d c a r e from t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in
Michigan.

A brief

literatu re

r e v ie w

history

relating

of
to

campus
(a )

the

child

care

features

introduces

and

the

functions

of

c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s a t each campus f o r employee- and s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s
as

well

as

academic
child

university

purposes,

care

university,

(b)

services
and

students

(c )

the

integration

w ithin
the

participating

the

delivery

of

the

governing
system

with

of

children

for

adm inistration
stru ctu re
campus

of

of

each

child

care

s e r v i c e s , which i n c l u d e s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f
c h i l d c a r e p e r s o n n e l , and f i s c a l o p e r a t i o n s .

H i s t o r y o f Campus C h il d Care
The h i s t o r y o f c h i l d c a r e on campuses d a t e s

back t o t h e

late

1800s, when John Dewey s t a r t e d t h e f i r s t c e n t e r a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f
Chicago (Keyes, 19 9 0 ) .

These e a r l y c e n t e r s were e s t a b l i s h e d f o r th e

p r e p a r a t i o n o f t e a c h e r s and p s y c h o l o g i s t s

(Day, 19 84 ).

con du ct ed

departments

half-day

programs

in

academic

The c e n t e r s
designed

s t u d e n t s t o p a r t i c i p a t e with c h i l d r e n who u s u a l l y a r r i v e d
a t t h e same ti m e each day (Keyes, 1990 ).

11

for

and l e f t

One o f t h e e a r l y s c h o o l s ,

12

established

i n 1922 t o t r a i n t e a c h e r s and m o t h e r s , was t h e M e r r i l l

Palmer I n s t i t u t e in D e t r o i t , Michigan ( P i n e , 1984).

The f i r s t c h i l d

c a r e c o o p e r a t i v e was a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago
i n 1916 ( P i n e , 1 9 8 4 ) .
resulted

In t h e 1920s, t h e emerging s t u d y o f c h i l d r e n

in t h e op en i n g o f s e v e r a l

m i s s i o n was r e s e a r c h

on campuses

nursery
such

as

schools,
the

whose prim ary

U niversity

of

Iowa,

T ea ch er s C o l l e g e ( C ol u m bi a) , and Yale ( P i n e , 1984).
During t h e d e p r e s s i o n y e a r s and World War I I ,
factories

created

24-hour daycare

facilities

who were e i t h e r s t u d y i n g o r working.
the role
change

o f women t o

in

poverty,

em phasis
which

brought

about

accommodate women

The 1950s b r o ug ht a s h i f t in

remain p r i m a r i l y

from d a y c a r e

to

campuses and war

in t h e

home and a n a t i o n a l

needs o f c h i l d r e n

the

closing

of

to ch ild ren

many campus

in

centers

(Bauch, 1988; Keyes, 199 0) .
In t h e 1960s and 1970s, a r e s u r g e n c e o f demand f o r campus c h i l d
care

services

came w i t h

student

activism .

Students

with

babies

o f t e n marched i n t o p r e s i d e n t s ’ o f f i c e s t o make demands f o r d a y c a r e
services.

The women’ s movement, t h e chang in g f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e ,

affirm ative-action

issues

also

influenced

an

increase

in

and

campus

c e n t e r s (Day, 1984; Keyes, 1990).
D uring
declining

the
p o ol

recruitm ent
attention

to

and

1980s,
of

the

of

trad itio n al-ag e

retention

child

rise

care

of

issues

students

two

working

students,
and

on c o l l e g e

and

faculty

parents,
concerns
ag ai n

and u n i v e r s i t y

the
of

br oug ht
campuses

13

( P o w e ll ,

198 9).

family p o l i c i e s
continued

Stronger

insistence

on

from employee p a r e n t s

pressure

on

campus

employer

and c h i l d

child

care

in v o l v e m e n t

advocates

services

in

has

the

in
put

1990s

(Keyes, 1990; K r a f t , 1984 ).

Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e on Campus C h il d Care S e r v i c e s
In t h e l a s t few y e a r s ,

i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e i s s u e s o f c h i l d c a r e

has c e n t e r e d on t h e " d a y c a r e t r i l e m m a , " a term c o i n e d t o i l l u s t r a t e
t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e c o n f l i c t i n g demands o f q u a l i t y c a r e o f c h i l d r e n ,
good wages f o r

caregivers,

C h il d Care Committee,

and low c o s t s

1988 ).

O th er

for

parents

researchers

have

problems s u r r o u n d i n g c h i l d c a r e and working p a r e n t s ,
effects
business

of

with

topics.

In

o fficials,
leaders,

early

experiences

e m p lo y e r- s p o n so re d
the

forefront

of

child

on

children,

care

benefits,

discussions

have

and c h i l d - d e v e l o p m e n t
that

the

specialists.

separate

roles

studied

the

single parents,
effects
and

been

b u s i n e s s e m p l o y e r s and e m p l o y e e u n i o n s ,

have r e v e a l e d
blurred,

childhood

(University

on

related

government
educational

Many o f t h e

findings

o f employee and p a r e n t

are

and f a m i l y i s s u e s have a d i s t i n c t e f f e c t on t h e work plac e

( N o r th w e st ,

1990 ).

Former S e c r e t a r y

( c i t e d in Bankes,

1990)

the fro n t-b u rn e r

issues

c a r e i s b ei ng s t u d i e d ,

of

Labor Ann Dore McLauglin

s t a t e d t h a t c h i l d c a r e i s becoming "one o f
of th e decade."
and se m in ar s a r e

Em pl o ye r- sp on so re d

child

being co n d u ct ed on how t o

b a l a n c e c o s t s and e f f e c t i v e n e s s and a l s o how t o

support

work and f a m i l y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ( N or th w es t, 1990).

e m pl o ye es ’

14

As c o l l e g e s

and u n i v e r s i t i e s

women and m i n o r i t i e s

to

questions

are

be in g

affecting

the

changes

campus

asked
in

as

abo ut
the

seek t o

increase

students,

what

faculty,

demographic

coming

the

populations

number o f
and

trends
of

staff,
w ill

students

be
and

employees ( C o r r i g a n , 1984 ).

F e a t u r e s and F u n c t i o n s o f
Ch il d Care in Michigan
As t h i s

study is

public u n iv e r s i tie s

the d esc rip tio n

in Michigan,

o f campus c h i l d c a r e a t t h e

statistics

r e l e v a n t t o M ic h i g a n ’ s

c h i l d c a r e i s s u e s may p r o v i d e background i n f o r m a t i o n .
F i g u r e s from t h e E m p l o y e r s * Guide t o C h i l d Care,
t h e Michigan

House

Re p ub li can

Task

Force

on

C h il d

p u b l i s h e d by
Care

(Bankes,

1990), a r e as f o l l o w s :
* 58% o f t h e m a r r i e d - c o u p l e f a m i l i e s have dual incomes.
* 53% o f a l l Michigan f a m i l i e s a r e s u p p o r t e d by two o r more
earners.
* 51% o f t h e f a m i l i e s where both p a r e n t s work i n c l u d e c h i l d r e n
u n d er t h e age o f s i x .
* 162,904 c h i l d c a r e p la c e m e n ts [ s p a c e s ] e x i s t o f a l l t y p e s
[ d a y c a r e , p r e s c h o o l , e t c . ] f o r an e s t i m a t e d 342,557 c h i l d r e n .
* Women w i l l have 60% of t h e new j o b s c r e a t e d by t h e y e a r 2000.
* 37 companies in Michigan have em p lo y e r - s p o n s o r e d c h i l d c a r e .
Whether any o f t h e Michigan companies were c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r ­
sities

was

not r e p o r te d .

However,

in

1989,

Davenport C o l l e g e

in

Kalamazoo r e c e i v e d s p e c i a l r e c o g n i t i o n from t h e Michigan C h il d Care
C h a l l e n g e , a c o n t e s t sp o ns or e d by t h e House Re pu bl ica n Task Force on
Child

Care,

for

the

im p le m en ta ti on

s e r v i c e f o r emplo yee s.
s i t e ch ild care f a c i l i t y

Subsequently,

of

a

resource

and

referral

t h e c o l l e g e has added an on­

for student-parents

(Bankes, 19 9 0) .

Other

15

businesses
care.

also

have been

s e e k i n g ways t o

IBM announced a $22 m i l l i o n

(Academy,

weekly c h i l d

1990 ).

Burger

c a r e money t o

p a r e n t s with

child

i n i t i a t i v e to help in c re ase the

s u p p ly and d e v e l o p c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s
employees

aid

in t h e com mun it ies o f t h e i r

King

t h e i r wo rkers

in

Grand

(Price,

Rapids

1 9 88 ) .

offers
Oakland

P u b l i c S c h o o l s o f f e r s a t u i t i o n - b a s e d c h i l d c a r e program f o r i n f a n t s
th r o u g h p r e s c h o o l t o t h e i r employees (Bankes, 19 90 ).
F o llo w in g

is

inform ation

Michigan a r e r e c e i v i n g ,
Profile

(C rawley,

de

on

the

as r e p o r t e d

Pietro,

types

children

in

in C h i l d Care i n Michi ga n:

A

& Sullivan,

of

care

198 9) ,

published

by t h e

Michigan Community C o o r d i n a t e d Chil d Care (4 C’ s) A s s o c i a t i o n :
*
*
*
*
*
*

23%
22%
6%
24%
8%
16%

child care centers
f a m i l y d a y c a r e homes
in-home c a r e
r e l a t i v e s o t h e r th a n p a r e n t s
w i t h mother a t work
father

The re a r e 3,00 0 c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s in M ich ig an ,
universities
Community
campus

colleges

Coordinated

child

half-day

and

care

responding

C h il d

Care

services,

programs.

The

a

survey

A ssociation

13 had
data

to

were

full-day

(4

and o f t h e 26
by

C’ s ) ,

centers,

incom plete

the
3
and

State
had

no

10

had

regarding

what

a d d i t i o n a l s e r v i c e s were o f f e r e d , t o what c o n s t i t u e n t s o f t h e campus
the

services

were a v a i l a b l e ,

and w he th er

the

in stitutions

in

the

s u rv ey were p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e (Crawley e t a l . , 19 89 ).
Student-parents.

Campuses

also

changi ng r o l e s o f women and f a m i l i e s .

have

been

influenced

by t h e

The q u e s t i o n o f how n a t i o n a l

s t a t i s t i c s may t r a n s l a t e t o campuses and u n i v e r s i t i e s whose f o c u s i s

16

often

on

students

rather

background i n f o r m a t i o n .

th a n

on

employees

reveals

some

helpful

Foll ow ing a r e some r e l e v a n t s t a t i s t i c s :

* E n r o l l m e n t o f women in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n c r e a s e d a t a r a t e
n i n e t i m e s t h a t o f men between 1974 and 1984 ( S h i r a h , 1988).
* 83% i n c r e a s e i n women e n r o l l e d in c o l l e g e s between 1970 and
1982, r e s u l t i n g i n a 249% i n c r e a s e in women s t u d e n t s ages 25
t o 29 and a 314% i n c r e a s e in women s t u d e n t s ages 30 t o 34
( A l g e r , 1988; G reene, 1985).
* 60% o f t h e n a t i o n ’ s s t u d e n t s a r e 23 y e a r s o r o l d e r (C o l l e g e
Board, 1990 ).
* Women e a r n 51.9% o f a l l b a c h e l o r ’ s and m a s t e r ’ s d e g r e e s (Cen­
t e r f o r t h e American Woman and P o l i t i c s , 19 88 ).
* 54% o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e s a r e women ( W a l l i s , 19 88 ).
* T h e r e have been a 90% i n c r e a s e in campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s
s i n c e 1970 (G re en e, 1985).
* 40% o f campuses o f f e r some form o f c h i l d c a r e (G reene, 1985).
One o f
adult

the

student

services

needed

selectin g

an

and o f t e n

educational

demanded

by t h e

in stitu tio n

a v a i l a b i l i t y o f c h i l d c a r e (Champagne & P e t i t p a s , 1 98 9 ) .

is

older
the

One o f t h e

r e s u l t s o f t h e Wisc ons in s t u d y was t h e d e s i r e t o have t h e campus be
"fam ily

frien d ly "

statement is
m ittee,

for

students

and

from t h e Wisconsin r e p o r t

em ployees.

The

follow ing

( U n i v e r s i t y C h il d Care Com­

1989 ):

We [ t h e u n i v e r s i t y ] c a n n o t a f f o r d t o l o s e s i n g l e p a r e n t s who
canriuL keep up w it h s t u d i e s or come t o work due t o a l a c k o f
r e lia b le , q u a lity child care.
We c a n n o t a f f o r d t o l o s e t h e
p r o s p e c t i v e f a c u l t y member who does n o t ch oos e t h i s campus
b e c a u s e she wa nts a U n i v e r s i t y which o f f e r s an e x t e n s i o n o f t h e
t e n u r e c l o c k a f t e r h e r c h i l d i s b o r n . (p . 2)
Stanford

U niversity

has

one o f t h e

oldest

c a r e programs in t h e c o u n t r y (Almond & C r a i g ,
Student

Service

D ivision,

d i r e c tly serve c h ild re n ,
coordinating

the

services

ne tw or ks

19 8 8) .

include

five

of

child

Housed in t h e
centers

that

a system o f d a y c a r e homes, and two c e n t r a l

agencies with

the

community:

the

Childcare

Resource

17

C e n t e r and t h e Council on C h i l d c a r e .

The s e r v i c e s a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r

employee- and s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s .
Em plovee-parents.
i n c r e a s e o f women,

N at i o n al

statistics

p a r t i c u l a r l y mothers,

are

a b un d an t

in the workforce

on

the

and t h e

i m p l i c a t i o n s t h i s has on t h e d a y c a r e needs o f a l l working f a m i l i e s .
I n f o r m a t i o n from t h e Department o f Labor (Dole,

1989)

includes

the

following:
* 48% o f a l l m o t h e r s a r e r e t u r n i n g t o work b e f o r e t h e i r c h i l ­
dren are a y e a r old.
* By 1995, t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e mothers o f p r e s c h o o l e r s and t h r e e q u a r t e r s o f t h e mothers o f s c h o o l - a g e c h i l d r e n w i l l be in t h e
workforce.
* 60% o f men in t h e l a b o r f o r c e have employed w iv e s .
* Company s u r v e y s have r e v e a l e d t h a t , a t a v e r y minimum, two
o u t o f t h r e e w orkers have d i f f i c u l t y b a l a n c i n g t h e i r r e s p o n ­
s i b i l i t i e s a t home and on t h e j o b .
* 60% o f m o th er s w ith c h i l d r e n un d er s i x worked o u t s i d e t h e
home in 1989 ( i n 1950 t h e r e were 12%).
* Over t h e n e x t t e n y e a r s , women a r e p r o j e c t e d t o a c c o u n t f o r
t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e new w o r k e r s - - a b o u t 80% w i l l be o f c h i l d r e a r i n g age ( N o r th w e st , 1990).
* 6 . 6 m i l l i o n f a m i l i e s a r e now headed by a s i n g l e p a r e n t
(Bankes, 19 9 0) .
* Women as p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e w o r k f o rc e ( N o r t h w e s t , 19 90 ):
All i n d u s t r i e s
45%
Health s e r v ic e s
82%
Banking and f i n a n c e
72%
Legal s e r v i c e
72%
Insurance
63%
* T h r ee th o u s a n d companies p a r t i c i p a t e in e m p lo y e r - s p o n s o r e d
c h i l d c a r e (Bankes, 1990).
* Over o n e - t h i r d o f t h e w o r kf or c e c o n s i s t s o f p a r e n t s with
c h i l d r e n (Michigan C h il d Care I n i t i a t i v e , 19 8 9) .
Alth o ug h

the

woman’ s pr ob lem ,
which

men

parental

are

statistics

may

suggest

t h e co n ce rn s o f c h i l d r e n

not

exempt.

There

is

an

that

child

care

are a family
increase

in

issue
men

l e a v e and an i n c r e a s e in s i n g l e - p a r e n t f a m i l i e s

f a t h e r s (Bankes, 1990 ).

is

a

from

s e e k in g

headed by

18

A r e c e n t s u r v e y r e p o r t e d in t h e C h r o n i c l e o f H ig h e r Ed u ca t io n
(Mooney,

1991)

of

35,478

sources o f s t r e s s .

faculty

The f i n d i n g s

members
listed

included

child

care

a

section

as

a slightly

h i g h e r s t r e s s o r f o r men ( 2 9 . 0 ) t h a n f o r women ( 2 8 . 6 ) .

on

In a d d i t i o n ,

t h e c a t e g o r y o f c h i l d r e n ’ s problems was a l s o a h i g h e r s t r e s s o r f o r
men ( 3 2 . 5 )

t h a n f o r women ( 2 9 . 0 ) .

The s u r v e y was p a r t o f a st u d y

condu ct ed by t h e E d u c a ti o n Resea rc h I n s t i t u t e o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f
C a l i f o r n i a a t Los A n g e le s .
The t o p s t r e s s o r f o r both men ( 8 3 .5 ) and women ( 9 0 . 5 ) was time
pressures,
women

followed

(88.7).

teach in g

The

load

of

third

highest

(6 2 .1 ),

responsibilities
stressors

by l a c k

(73.3)

whereas
was

f o r men ( 5 9 . 8 )

whereas

for

women

load.

The

findings

profession

for

fourth

stress

w it h

the

for

men

stress

and

f o r men

fourth

was

household
position

of

responsibilities,

stressor

this

(76.2)

managing

ho us eho ld

ma jor

from

the

women
In

was managing

on

time

source of

third.

(72.1)the

correlate

personal

s tu d y

s t a t i s t i c s g iv e n

was t e a c h i n g
on

t h e academic

e a r l ie r for

the

general p o p u la tio n .
Family i s s u e s
Care Task

Force

and work o r

Committee

at

s t u d y were t h e
the

University

published a re p o rt e n t i t l e d U nfinished Business:
and

Child

1989).
the

Care

at

The f i n d i n g s

daycare

emph asizin g

UH-Madison

of

of the

Chil d

W i sc on s i n ,

which

C hild re n , Families

C h il d

Care

Committee,

added a f o u r t h component o f p a r e n t a l

trilem m a
the

(University

focus

of

q u ality ,

im p o r ta n ce o f p a r e n t a l

wages,

and

affo rd ab ility ,

invo lve men t w i t h

The e f f e c t o f ti m e p r e s s u r e s as a s o u r c e o f s t r e s s

ti m e t o

children.

in many campus

19

fam ilies

from t h e Wisconsin

study

resu lts

from

in

the

survey,

is

a reflection

which

tim e

of the

pressures

earlier

were

the

pr ed om in an t s t r e s s o r f o r both male and fema le f a c u l t y members.
The C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Perso nn el
contracted

for

a report

assistance.

d ep en d e nt c a r e
employee.

1991)

Of t h e

35

s u r v e y e d , 74% o f f e r e d some kind o f c h i l d

Of t h o s e o f f e r i n g

s p e n d in g a c c o u n t s ,

such

assistance,

which employers

set

92% o f f e r e d
up f o r

each

The employee to ok a n o n t a x a b l e r e d u c t i o n in income up t o

$5,000 and t h e n drew from t h i s
(Dole,

(CUPA,

on work and f a m i l y b e n e f i t s .

c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s
care

A ssociation

189).

ac c ou n t t o

pay f o r c h i l d c a r e

T h i r t y - n i n e p e r c e n t o f t h o s e campuses o f f e r i n g

fees
child

c a r e a s s i s t a n c e o f f e r e d r e s o u r c e and r e f e r r a l s e r v i c e s (27% i n - h o u s e
and 12% c o n t r a c t u a l ) ,

and 38% pr o v id ed

an on-

or n e a r - s i t e

c a r e c e n t e r t h a t was e i t h e r s u b s i d i z e d by t h e i n s t i t u t i o n

child

(25%) or

not su b sid iz e d .
At t h e S e v e n t y - F i f t h Annual Meeting o f t h e American A s s o c i a t i o n
of U niversity

Professors

( 1 98 9 ),

en co u ra g e t h e commitment o f

a recommendation was ap pr ov ed t o

in stitutions

to

provide

quality

child

c a r e in r e c o g n i t i o n o f f a c u l t y members w it h c h i l d - r e a r i n g r e s p o n s i ­
b ilities

to

participate

successfully

in

teaching,

research,

and

service.
Student o b s e r v e r s / p a r t i c i p a t o r s .
bac kground,
in

the

l a b o r a t o r y s c h o o l s long have been a s t a n d a r d component

preparation

laboratory

As r e p o r t e d in t h e h i s t o r i c a l

schools

of
are

teachers
half-day

of

young

children.

programs

preparing

T raditional
teachers

for

20

n u r s e r y s c h o o l s o r k i n d e r g a r t e n s ; however, t h e c ha ng in g demographics
o f working p a r e n t s have i n c r e a s e d t h e needs o f t r a i n i n g f o r d a y c a r e
personnel

(Day, 1 9 8 4 ) .

be

by

hired

H arriet

E a r l y c h i l d h o o d t e a c h e r s a r e more l i k e l y t o

daycare

A lg e r

centers

(1984),

T raining

in

campus

realistic

experience

a

nursery

pioneer

child
of

than

care

what

in

schools,

campus

centers

the

child

gives

according
care

programs.

students

expectations w ill

to

be

a more
in

th e

w o rk p la ce ( A l g e r , 1984 ).
The U n i v e r s i t y o f Akron s t a r t e d an academic p a r t - t i m e p re s ch o ol
program,

which

daycare

services

parents.

has

evolved

for

into

children

of

a

c o m b in a ti o n

300

to

500

of

comprehensive

university

student-

The program o f f e r s a v a r i e t y o f o p t i o n s f o r academic s tu d y

from c u r r i c u l a a c r o s s campus (Atwood, Tomi, & W i l l i a m s , 1988).

I n t e g r a t i o n o f Campus C h il d Care S e r v i c e s
Many campuses f a c e d w ith c h i l d c a r e demands from s t u d e n t em ployee-parents

and

the

high

costs

of

startin g

child

and
care

f a c i l i t i e s a r e r e o r g a n i z i n g t h e i r t r a i n i n g s i t e s t o accommodate t h e
changing needs o f t h e campus community (Day, 198 4).

The impo rta nce

o f maximizing t h e i n t e r d e p a r t m e n t a l inv ol ve me nt o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y i s
an i m p o r t a n t l i n k t o t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e m u l t i p l e needs o f f a m i l i e s ,
work, and s t u d y (Cook, 1984).
A s t u d y o f t h e s t a t u s o f campus
12

public

universities

(Co rd er , 1986 ).

(out

of

86

c h i l d c a r e in I l l i n o i s in c l u d e d
institutions

The p u rp os e was t o o b t a i n

in

the

s tu dy )

i n f o r m a t i o n on a l l

pre­

k i n d e r g a r t e n programs o p e r a t e d on campuses t h r o u g h o u t t h e s t a t e and

21

t o i d e n t i f y any l i n k a g e among progr ams .
to

ascertain

the

An a d d i t i o n a l

a d m in is tra to rs ’ perceptions

of

p u r p o s e was

the

relativ e

i m p o r ta n c e o f c h i l d r e n ’ s programs in t h e f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e m i s s i o n
of the i n s t i t u t i o n .

There were 22 p r e k i n d e r g a r t e n programs l o c a t e d

on t h e 12 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t y campuses in t h e s t u d y .
sponsored

by

academic

departments,

and

12

Ten (45.5%) were

(54.5%)

were

run

by

nonacademic u n i t s t h a t were s e r v i c e o r i e n t e d .

Al though t h e m i s s i o n

of

research,

the

academic-sponsored

education,

programs

was

or practicum experiences,

campus c e n t e r s
The f i n d i n g s

regardless
ind icated

of

for

continuing

s t u d e n t s o f t e n were p l a c e d

academic o r

a blurring

of

nonacademic
the

in

sponsorship.

d istin ctio n

between

academic and s e r v i c e - o r i e n t e d c h i l d r e n ’ s programs.

D e l i v e r y o f Campus C h il d Care S e r v i c e s
A self-study

by

U niversity

of

South

complexity

of

the

s t a f f development,

role

of

at

more

turnover

of d ire c to rs .
sy ste m s

the

(Swich,

the

C hildren’s
1988)

adm inistrator,

center service

and

support

staff

Carolina

projects

and

many

the

activities"

have

identified
"direct

at

the

that

the

curriculum ,

and p r a c t i c u m pr ogr am s,
(p .

A dm inistrative
may

Center

a

145)

was

structure,

variety

of

research

causing
staff

forms

to

rapid

patterns,
meet

the

c o m p l e x i t y o f m i s s i o n s and p h i l o s o p h i e s o f campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s
(Keyes, 19 90 ).

Ma.ior S t u d i e s on Campus C h i l d Care
Investigation
formal

research

of

campus

on q u e s t i o n s

child

care

raised

for

studies
this

revealed

study.

little

Included

in

22

this

section

components

are

in

three

the

studies

current

w it h

study

of

inform ation
the

public

that

parallels

universities

in

Michigan.
The r e v ie w o f t h e f o l l o w i n g campus s t u d i e s has been o r g a n i z e d
according to th e re s e a r c h q u e s tio n s ,

c e n t e r i n g on t h e f e a t u r e s

and

f u n c t i o n s o f campus c h i l d c a r e t o employee- and s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s
well

as

as u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g w ith c h i l d r e n as p a r t of

academic s t u d y ;
governance;

and

the

integration

the

of services

adm inistrative

w ithin

structure,

the

university

classification

of

p e r s o n n e l , and f i s c a l o p e r a t i o n s o f campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .
Three o f t h e m a jo r s t u d i e s on campus c h i l d c a r e t o be reviewed
The C a l i f o r n i a

include

C h i l d Care S e r v i c e s

State

U niversity:

(Summa A s s o c i a t e s ,

Study o f

t h e Need f o r

19 8 8 ) , An E v a l u a t i o n Repo rt

o f t h e C h i l d Care S y s t e m o f t h e C i t y U n i v e r s i t y o f New York (Keyes,
1988),
Care

Campus C h il d Care Survey co n d u ct ed by C h il d

and A N a t i o n a l
C enter

Magazine

(H err,

Zimmerman,

& Salenga,

1987)

in

c o o p e r a t i o n w it h t h e N a t i o n a l C o a l i t i o n o f Campus C h i l d Ca re .

The C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Study
The pr im ar y p u r p o s e o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a s t u d y was t o i d e n t i f y t h e
l e v e l o f need f o r c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s among s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s and t h e
adequacy

of

current

child

com prise t h e C a l i f o r n i a
1988).

care

services

S tate U niversity

at

19

sites

that

system (Summa A s s o c i a t e s ,

In a d d i t i o n , t h e s tu d y was d e s i g n e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r th e

s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s ’ need f o r c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s
to

the

education

and w h e t h e r

special

services

to

impeded equal
aid

access

student-parents

23

were neede d.

A s e c o n d a r y p u r po s e o f t h e s t u d y was t o d e t e r m i n e t h e

need f o r c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s among employees o f t h e sy stem and t h e
e x t e n t t o which any unmet c h i l d c a r e needs a f f e c t e d t h e u n i v e r s i t y ’ s
a b i l i t y t o f u n c t i o n as an o r g a n i z a t i o n .
by t h e

C alifornia

legislature

to

The s t u d y was commissioned

the

trustees

of

the

C alifornia

S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y in 1988.
F e a t u r e s and f u n c t i o n s .
site

child

available,
day.

care

centers

Ei g h te e n o f t h e 19 campuses had on­

(p.

1 75 ) .

Th ere

were

no

eve ni n g

hours

and t h e c e n t e r s were open an av e r a g e o f 1 0 .5 ho u rs p e r

S i x t y - t w o p e r c e n t o p e r a t e d d u r i n g t h e summer and 25% d u r i n g

academic b r e a k s (p . 1 79 ) .

Six o f t h e campuses s e r v e d o n ly 2 - 1 / 2 t o

six year olds,

and two s e r v e d i n f a n t s t h r o u g h s c h o o l - a g e c h i l d r e n .

The

ten

r e m a in in g

preschoolers,

campus

and

centers

school-age

had

children

c o m b in a ti o n s
(p.

c a p a c i t y was 36 t o 145 s p ac es a v a i l a b l e a t
N ea rly t w o - t h i r d s

of the d i r e c to r s

25 6) .

of
The

infants,
range

of

any one ti m e

(p.

180).

had m a s t e r ’ s d e g r e e s

in

early

childhood education or r e l a t e d f i e l d s .

All c e n t e r s used s t u d e n t s as

s t a f f members (p. 12 9) .
S tu dent-parents.

A pproxim ately

25% o f t h e

to tal

student

p o p u l a t i o n o f 3 32, 755 was a f f e c t e d by o r e x p e c t e d t o be a f f e c t e d by
child

care

while

a

student

(p .

174 ).

All

but

one

center

gave

s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s p r i o r i t y in adm iss io n (p. 180).
Em plovee-parents.
population

of

3 3, 975

Ap pr ox im at ely
was

affected

or

22% o f
expected

c h i l d c a r e o f one form o r a n o t h e r (p. 17 5) .

the
to

total
be

employee

affected

by

There was no breakdown

24

of

other

types

of

child

care

services

for

student-

or

employee-

p a r e n t s , such as r e s o u r c e and r e f e r r a l o r c h i l d c a r e b e n e f i t s .
Student o b s e r v e r s / p a r t i c i p a t o r s .
used

for

facilities

whose

C h i l d s t u d y c e n t e r s , t h e term

prim ary

fu nction

is

the

academic

p r e p a r a t i o n o f s t u d e n t s , a r e exempt from l i c e n s u r e in C a l i f o r n i a and
generally

are

not

directors

(p.

140).

however,

used

both

considered
Students
full-day

child

care

w ant in g

child

care

facilities

experiences
centers

by

with
and

th eir

children,

child

study

c e n t e r s ( p . 138) .
Integration of child care s e r v ic e s .

V ar io us l e v e l s o f i n t e g r a ­

t i o n o r c o o p e r a t i o n were r e p o r t e d between u n i t s on each campus, w ith
no s p e c i f i c p a t t e r n s g i v e n .

The f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d t h e r e was l i t t l e

c o n t a c t between r e l a t e d programs on t h e same campus ( p . 140 ).
A dm inistrative

structure.

The

directors

of

the

C alifornia

c e n t e r s r e p o r t e d p r i m a r i l y t o t h e g e n e r a l manager o f t h e A s s o c i a t e d
S tu d e n t Government o r t o a s t u d e n t a f f a i r s a d m i n i s t r a t o r (p. 13 5) .
Fiscal
parent

fees

operations.

Centers

and a s s o c i a t e d

$10,000 from t h e g e n e r a l

received

students’ fees.

f un d.

fund s

prim arily

Each campus

from

received

Income a l s o was g e n e r a t e d th r o u g h

fund r a i s e r s and low-income s t a t e g r a n t s ( p . 181).

C i t v U n i v e r s i t y o f New York Study
The pur pos e o f t h e s t u d y o f t h e c h i l d

care

system a t

the

19

campuses t h a t co m pr is e t h e C i t y U n i v e r s i t y o f New York (CUNY) was t o
lo o k a t t h e q u a l i t y o f c a r e p r o v i d e d by campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s ,
t o d e t e r m i n e t h e d e g r e e t o which t h e need f o r c h i l d c a r e was being

25

met by t h e p r e s e n t l e v e l

of service,

to analyze the a d m in is tra tiv e

s t r u c t u r e o f t h e c h i l d c a r e syst em , and t o e v a l u a t e t h e s u f f i c i e n c y
o f t h e s u p p o r t f o r campus c h i l d c a r e (Keyes, 1988).
Features

and f u n c t i o n s .

The c e n t e r s

operated

from 36 t o

75

hou rs weekly and had c a p a c i t y e n r o l l m e n t from 13 t o 52 s p a c e s a t any
one t i m e , w i t h a t o t a l o f 499 s p ac es (p . 2 5 ) .
o f t h e ag es s e r v e d a t t h e v a r i o u s c e n t e r s
co m par iso ns o f t h e 16 campuses

There was no summary

in th e study.

in t h e C i t y U n i v e r s i t y o f New York

t h a t had c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s were no t p a r t o f t h e s t u d y .
summary comments
qualified

it

staff

was

but

stated

some

Specific

that

centers

"all

do

not

centers
have

However, in

have

enough

some w e l l [staff]

p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e s u p e r v i s i o n and t r a i n i n g o f o t h e r s t a f f ,
s t u d e n t s , p r a c t i c u m s t u d e n t s and v o l u n t e e r s "
Integration.
between

the

The comment on t h e

campus c e n t e r

and

other

to

w or kstudy

(p. 1 2 ) .

integration
divisions

or coordination

of

the

university

was t h a t t h e r e was " c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a n c e from campus t o campus" (p.
v).

There were no examples o f what c o o p e r a t i o n o r v a r i a n c e e x i s t e d .
Adm inistrative s tr u c t u r e .

of a d u lt/c h ild

ratios

The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e summary c o n s i s t e d

and p er s o nn el

policies.

Comments were

no t

c l e a r r e g a r d i n g t o whom campus d i r e c t o r s were most o f t e n r e s p o n s i b l e
w i t h i n t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y syst em.
Fiscal
were l i s t e d

operations.
as

City

Funding r e s o u r c e s

U niversity

for

o f New York and

the

campus c e n t e r s

state

child

care

f u n d s , c i t y f u n d s , p a r e n t a l f e e s , USDA r ei m bur se me nt f o r f o o d , o t h e r
federal

funds,

social

s tu d e n t governm ent,

services

f u nd s ,

student a c t i v i t y

New York C i t y
fees,

Youth Bureau,

and f a c u l t y - s t u d e n t

26

asso ciatio n s.
m a in te n a n c e ,

In-kind

support

fa c u lty or s t a f f lin e s

and s t u d e n t i n t e r n s

(p. 2 3 ) .

included

space,

for directo rs,

Parental

u tilities,

w or k st ud y h e l p ,

f e e s and p e r s o n n e l

salaries

were n o t i n c l u d e d .

P r o f i l e o f Campus C h i l d Care Survey
The pu rp os e o f t h e N a t i o n a l
was

to

States

obtain

a profile

( H err e t a l . ,

of

198 7) .

Campus C h il d

campus c e n t e r s

Care C e n t e r s

throughout

Members o f t h e N a t i o n a l

the

Survey
United

C oalition

of

Campus C h i l d Care were s e l e c t e d , and 184 r e s p o n s e s were r e c e i v e d ou t
o f 242 m a il ed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .

E ig h ty

responses

were

from p u b l i c

institutions,

and o f t h e s e o n l y 11 were from c o l l e g e s o f f e r i n g f o u r -

year

programs.

degree

community

colleges

or

The

rem ainder

private

of

responses

in stitutions.

The

were

fr om

findings

were

r e p o r t e d on t h e t o t a l number o f r e s p o n d e n t s , and an a n a l y s i s by ty p e
o f i n s t i t u t i o n was n o t i n c l u d e d .
Features
16 ,0 0 0 .

and

functions.

Campus

size

r an g ed

from

1,00 0

to

The number o f c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d in a c e n t e r ra n g ed from lu

t o 1 , 0 0 0 ; 72% o f t h e c e n t e r s s e r v e d 100 o r fewer c h i l d r e n .
o f c h i ld r e n served included:
I n f a n t s un d er 1 y e a r
1-2 y e a r s
3 -4 y e a r s
5-6 y e a r s
Over 6 y e a r s

33%
65%
98%
84%
28%

The ages

27

Types o f programs a v a i l a b l e were as f o l l o w s :
100 campuses
112
38
37
25
7
131
9

Full time
Half time
B e f o r e / a f t e r school
D r o p - in c a r e
Evening c a r e
Week-end c a r e
P r e s c h o o l program
S a t e l l i t e (home d a y c a r e network)

A d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e c e n t e r s in t h e s u r v e y were d i r e c t o r s , o f whom
52% had m a s t e r ’ s d e g r e e s ,
degrees;

4% o f

the

22% b a c h e l o r ’ s d e g r e e s ,

directors

had

less

than

and 16% d o c t o r a l

a bachelor’s

degree.

F i f t e e n p e r c e n t o f t h e c e n t e r s had a m a j o r i t y o f t h e t e a c h e r s w i t h
m aster’s degrees,

alm ost

half

of

the

teachers

h ad

b ach elo r’s

d e g r e e s , and 25% had t h e minimum s t a t e r e q u i r e m e n t s ( p . 1 8 ) .
C h il d c a r e s e r v i c e s t o s p e c i f i c campus p o p u l a t i o n s , s t u d e n t - o r
employee-parents,

were n o t i n c l u d e d ,

n o r were t h e r e

indications

of

p r i o r i t y o f admissions f o r student- or employee-parents.
Integration.

There was no r e p o r t i n g

of

integration

of child

care serv ices.
A dm inistrative s t r u c t u r e .

The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e was as

follows:
25% r e p o r t e d t o S t u d e n t A f f a i r s o r S t u d e n t S e r v i c e s D i v i s i o n s
36% r e p o r t e d t o Academic A f f a i r s in t h e f o l l o w i n g a r e a s :
13% S c h o o l s o f Home Economics
9% D epartment o f Schools o f E d uc a ti o n
7% E a r l y Childhood Education
7% C h i l d Development a n d / o r Family R e l a t i o n s
The

remainder

reported

to

auxiliary

p r e s id e n t of a d m in is tr a tio n or b u sin e ss;

services
three

or

to

the

vice-

centers reported

t h e i r own board o f d i r e c t o r s ( n o t p r e s e n t e d in p e r c e n t a g e s )

to

(p. 18).

28

N i n e t y - o n e p e r c e n t o f t h e c e n t e r s had p a i d t e a c h i n g s t a f f ,
75% employed

students

part

t i m e . More

th a n

half

had

and

volunteer

s t u d e n t s ( o f t e n as p a r t i c i p a n t s f o r academic r e q u i r e m e n t s ) ,

and 30%

had p a r e n t o r community v o l u n t e e r s (p. 1 8 ) .
C lassification.

T h irty -th re e percent of the d ir e c to r s

o f the te a c h e rs held f a c u lty s t a t u s .
of

adm inistrative

directors

had

allocations

full-tim e

h a l f time or l e s s ,

(p.

(p.

19).

The r e m a i n d e r were a v a r i e t y
19).

adm inistrative

Thirteen

percent

resp o n sib ilities,

and 30% had o n e - q u a r t e r time

nine p ercent a lso ta u g h t c h ild re n ,

or less.

the

r an ge

of

the

52% had
Thirty-

and 34% had an a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r

Only t e a c h e r s ’ s a l a r i e s were i n c l u d e d .

h o u r l y wage,

and 6%

For t h o s e on an

was $ 3 . 3 5 (minimum wage a t

that

ti m e )

to

$ 1 6 . 5 0 ; t h e wages o f t h o s e on 12-month c o n t r a c t s r a n g e d from $7,300
t o $ 2 9 ,0 0 0, w it h an av er a ge mean o f $15,794 (p. 1 8 ) .
Fiscal o p e ra tio n s .
support,

F o r t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d no u n i v e r s i t y

and none o f t h e c e n t e r s r e p o r t e d being f u l l y s u p p o r t e d by

u n iv e rs ity funds.

Of t h o s e r e c e i v i n g u n i v e r s i t y s u p p o r t ,

was 37% o f t h e i r b u d g e t s .

t h e mean

N i n e t y - f i v e c e n t e r s r e c e i v e d no s u p p o r t

f o r c l e r i c a l c o v e r a g e , whereas 43 r e c e i v e d up t o h a l f and 30 c e n t e r s
received
services

from
(p.

50% t o

47).

100% u n i v e r s i t y

support

for

secretarial

C o n t r i b u t i o n s f o r sp ace and m a in te n a n c e were as

f o l l o w s (186 c e n t e r s in t h e s u r v e y ) :
134
20
129
30

centers
centers
centers
centers

received
received
received
received

76% t o 100% b u i l d i n g space
no c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f space
75% t o 100% u t i l i t i e s
no c o n t r i b u t i o n s toward u t i l i t i e s

(p. 46)

29

Summary o f t h e Review o f L i t e r a t u r e
Foll ow in g a r e s i g n i f i c a n t a s p e c t s from t h e r e v ie w o f l i t e r a t u r e
r e l e v a n t t o t h e d e s c r i p t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f campus c h i l d c a r e a t t h e
15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan.

F e a t u r e s and F u n c t i o n s o f Campus Chil d Care
Child

care

has

seen changes o f pu rp o se

and p l a c e

on c o l l e g e

campuses as t h e r o l e s o f women have s h i f t e d between work and home,
and t h e number o f campus c e n t e r s has
1970s

(G ree ne,

19 85 ).

F o rt y

i n c r e a s e d 90% s i n c e t h e mid-

percent

of

campuses

S t a t e s have some s o r t o f campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e
A r e p o r t com plete d on c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s

in

the

U n ite d

(G ree ne,

19 8 5) .

a t 26 o f t h e 92 c o l l e g e s

and u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan i n d i c a t e d t h a t 3 had no c e n t e r s , 13 had
full-day
198 9).

programs,

and 10 had h a l f - d a y

In Michigan,

care ce n te rs,

23% o f c h i l d r e n

programs

(Crawley

a r e c ar e d f o r

et

a l .,

in 3 , 0 0 0 c h i l d

22% in f a m i l y d a y c a r e homes, 24% w it h r e l a t i v e s o t h e r

t h a n a p a r e n t , 16% w it h t h e f a t h e r ,

6% have in-home c a r e , and 8% a r e

w i t h t h e i r mo thers

e t a l . , 1989).

a t work (Crawley

Student-parents.
women o f a l l
of

of

the

now being

b ach elo r’s

and

American Women and P o l i t i c s ,
over

23

years

of

age

lik e lih o o d of students
The r i s e

a rapidly

r i s i n g number

of

ages s tu d y i n g on campuses in t h e l a s t d e c a d e , w i t h 54%

undergraduates

51.9%

There has been

women( W a l l i s ,
m aster’s
1988).

(C ollege

Board,

h ou se ho lds

degrees

Students

a l s o being p a r e n t s

of single-parent

1989 ),

has

who

also

(Center

are

1988),

for

older;

the

60% a r e

in creasin g

and n e e d i n g c h i l d
increased

ea r n

the

the
care.

number

of

30

women s e e k i n g e d u c a t i o n and t r a i n i n g and a l s o has a f f e c t e d t h e need
f o r campus c h i l d c a r e (Michigan League f o r Human S e r v i c e s , 19 87 ).
compre hen si ve c h i l d c a r e

study of the C a l if o r n ia

system (Summa A s s o c i a t e s ,
the

total

student

1988) r e p o r t e d t h a t

population

(3 32,775)

S tate

A

U niversity

a p p r o x i m a t e l y 25% o f

has been o r e x p e c t s

to

be

a f f e c t e d by c h i l d c a r e w h i l e a s t u d e n t .
Emplovee-parents.

There

has

also

been

a rapid

rise

in

the

number o f women, p a r t i c u l a r l y m o t h e r s , in t h e w o r k f o r c e in t h e l a s t
d ec a d e,

with

60% o f

all

m o th er s

w ith

children

u n d er

six

working

o u t s i d e t h e home (Dole, 1989 ).

The f a s t e s t r i s i n g number o f working

mo the rs a r e t h e 48% r e t u r n i n g

t o work b e f o r e

year

old

(Dole,

19 8 9) .

C hi ld

care

is

an

f a m i l i e s as o n e - t h i r d o f t h e w o rk f or c e a r e
children

(Michigan C h i l d Care I n i t i a t i v e ,

their

infants

important

parents
1989),

are

issue

a

for

w i t h dep en de nt

putting

increased

p r e s s u r e on p a r e n t s t o b a l a n c e home and work r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s (Dole,
1989).

The

pressure

of

tim e

and

balancing

home

and

w ork

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were in t h e t o p f o u r s t r e s s o r s o f f a c u l t y , both men
and

women,

in

a

s ur ve y

by

th e

university

of

C alifornia

( 1 33 1 ).

C o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s a r e a l s o b e g i n n in g t o a s s e s s t h e m s e l v e s as
em ployers a d d r e s s i n g work and f a m i ly b e n e f i t s .
35 c o l l e g e s

found 74% o f f e r e d

92% o f f e r e d
referral
The

de p en d e n t

services,

child

care

some kind o f c h i l d c a r e a s s i s t a n c e ;
accounts,

39%

offered

resource

and

and 38% had on- o r n e a r - s i t e c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s .

study

(Summa A s s o c i a t e s ,

care

A r e c e n t r e p o r t of

of

the

C alifornia

State

1988) found 22% o f t h e t o t a l

U niversity

system

employee p o p u l a t i o n

( 3 3, 97 5) had been o r e x p e c te d t o be a f f e c t e d by c h i l d c a r e .

31

Student o b s e r v e r s / p a r t i c i p a t o r s .

The i n c r e a s i n g need f o r f u l l -

day c h i l d c a r e f a c i l i t i e s f o r working f a m i l i e s ,
preschool

programs,

preparation

of

has

caused

students

a

to

sh ift

be

in a v a r i e t y o f c h i l d c a r e

The

of

training

and

in

the

teach ers,

adm inistrators
combining

as well as h a l f - d a y

service

and

p roviders,

programs
is

train in g

(Keyes,

happen ing

and
19 8 9) .

on

several

campuses t o g i v e p o t e n t i a l d a y c a r e t e a c h e r s o p p o r t u n i t i e s s i m i l a r t o
the

marketplace

study

(Summa

(Alger,

198 4) .

A ssociates,

c o n s i d e r t h e i r programs

1988)
as

The

C alifornia

found

academic

child

care

State

programs

facilities.

to

U niversity

m ission

and

purpose,

were

o f Wisconsin-Madison s tu d y

F o r ce , 198 8) .

also

did

services,

addressed

(U niversity

not

Interpretation

and c o n f l i c t s o f t e r m i n o l o g y w i t h i n campus c h i l d c a r e
related

U niversity

C h il d

as

in

the

Care

Task

The i n t e r e s t in c h i l d and f a m i l y devel opm ent has a l s o

i n c r e a s e d t h e number o f f a c i l i t i e s

offering

opportunities to

study

c h i l d r e n in o r d e r t o conduct r e s e a r c h and l e a r n r e s e a r c h t e c h n i q u e s .

I n t e g r a t i o n o f C hi ld Care S e r v i c e s
As t r a i n i n g and s e r v i c e s i t e s
c o o p e r a t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n

a r e merging,

of students

the

adm inistrative

f o r academic p u r p o s e s

b e g i n n i n g an i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s (Day, 1984 ).

is

One o f t h e ap p r o a c h e s

p r e s e n t e d t o a c h i e v e t h e m u l t i p l e needs o f f a m i l i e s , work, and s t u d y
is

to

across

capitalize

on

campus

the

in

s e r v i c e s (Cook, 1984).

the

interdepartm ental

adm inistration

and

in vo lv em en t

delivery

of

of

units

child

care

32

A dm inistrative S tru c tu re of
Campus C h il d Care S e r v i c e s
The d i r e c t o r s
A ssociates,

in t h e C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y system (Summa

1988) r e p o r t e d p r i m a r i l y t o

government p e r s o n n e l .
(Herr e t a l . ,
the

19 87 ),

U n ite d S t a t e s

academic a f f a i r s

In t h e P r o f i l e

More

participated,

o f Campus C h i l d Care Survey

36% o f

and were p r i m a r i l y

than

or student

in which 184 c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s

N in e t y - o n e p e r c e n t had p a i d s t a f f ,
tim e.

student a f f a i r s

half

used

in

the

directors

schools

reported

to

o f home eco n om ic s.

and 75% employed

volunteer

across

students,

students

who were

part
often

p a r t i c i p a t i n g f o r academic p u r p o s e s .

C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f C h il d Care P ers onnel
The P r o f i l e

o f Campus C h il d

Care Survey

(H er r e t

a l.,

1987)

r e p o r t e d t h a t 33% o f t h e d i r e c t o r s and 6% o f t h e t e a c h e r s were in
faculty positions.
with

a variety

The r e m a in d e r were in a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a l l o c a t i o n s

of descriptive

fu ll-tim e adm inistrators,
less

for

adm inistrative

titles.

T hirty-three

percent

were

52% o f t h e d i r e c t o r s had o n e - h a l f t i m e o r
duties

in

the

center,

and

30% had

one-

q u a r t e r t i m e o r l e s s ( t h e r e was no d e s c r i p t i o n in t h e r e p o r t f o r t h e
remaining

5%).

children,

but

T hirty-nine
34% had

director.

A self-study

lated

hi gh

the

turnover

an

percent

of

the

adm inistrative

directors

assistant

also

as

taught

well

as

a

a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f South C a r o l i n a c o r r e ­
of

campus

child

care

directors

with

the

c o m p l e x i t y o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s e x p e c t e d in t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e
center.

33

F i s c a l O p e r a t i o n s o f Campus
C h i l d Care S e r v i c e s
In t h e s t u d y o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y s yst em
A ssociates,

19 8 8 ),

t h e f u nd in g r e s o u r c e s o f t h e 19 c e n t e r s

s t u d y were

through

parental

u niversity

support

of

$10,000

Campus C h i l d Care (H err e t
184

centers

in

the

fees,

student

for

a l.,

survey:

each

1987)

gov ern me nt,

center.

The

reported the

43% r e c e i v e d

no

(Summa
in th e

and

direct

Profile

results

direct

of

o f the

university

s u p p o r t , and o f t h o s e r e c e i v i n g some s u p p o r t , t h e mean was 37%.

In-

kind

and

support,

salaries,

building

space

u t i l i t i e s were r e p o r t e d as t h e f o l l o w i n g :
and

100% o f

salaries,
included

the

wh ereas
no

directors’
58%

teachers’

salaries

included
salaries;

u t i l i t i e s and 12% d i d n o t .

no

and

and

m aintenance,

29% i n c l u d e d between 50%
16% o f

directors’

70% in c l u d e d

the

salaries
building

teachers’
and

69%

space

and

CHAPTER I I I

METHODOLOGY

The

research er’s

provision

and

universities
university

purpose

delivery

of

in M ichi gan.
students

academic

s t u d y were

functions

of child

in

child

care

care

study

services

centered
at

the

on

15

the

public

Employee- and s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s as w ell

participating
the

th is

w it h

populations
services

children

studied.

w ithin

the

as
The

part

of

as

their

adm inistrative

university

go v e r n a n c e

and t h e o p e r a t i o n o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s were t h e pr im ar y f o c u s .
The r e v i e w o f l i t e r a t u r e

in c l u d e d t h e h i s t o r y o f campus c h i l d

c a r e and demog rap hics r e l e v a n t t o work and f a m i l i e s , c h i l d c a r e , and
campus

inform ation.

Studies

relevant

to

the

purposes

of

this

r e s e a r c h were r e vi e w e d, as were p o i n t s o f view from p r o f e s s i o n a l s in
th e e a r l y childhood f i e l d .
The d e s c r i p t i o n
research design,

of

the

methodology

includes

d ata -g a th e rin g techniques,

the

content-

population,
and d a t a -

a n a l y s i s f o r m a t , and d a t a - c o l l e c t i o n t i m e t a b l e .

P o p u l a t i o n and Sample
The

15

public

stu d ied .

The

U niversity,

Eastern

universities

u n iv ersities
Michigan

in

Michigan

included
U niversity,

34

were

the

w ere

C entral

Ferris

State

population
M ichigan
U niversity,

35

Grand

Valley

M ichigan

State

N o rt h er n
State

State

U niversity,

U niversity,

Michigan

U niversity,

Superior

M ichigan

U niversity,
University

M ichigan-D earborn,

Lake

State

Technological

Oakland

U niversity,

U niversity,

Saginaw

o f Michigan-Ann A r b o r ,

U niversity

of

U niversity,

V a ll e y

U niversity

M ichigan-F lint,

Wayne

of

S tate

U n i v e r s i t y , and Western Michigan U n i v e r s i t y .
This
with

a

population
r an ge

predominantly

of

represented

missions

technological

in stitutions

from

large

of

higher

research

institutions;

education

universities

a geographic

range

to
from

t h e uppe r p e n i n s u l a o f Michigan t o t h e m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a o f D e t r o i t ;
a student
having

body numbering

highly

from

selectiv e

2,900

student

to

41 ,7 0 0;

enrollm ent

and
to

universities
open

student

The b a s i c r e s e a r c h d e s i g n was a d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s

approach

e n r o l l m e n t ( s e e Appendix F).

Res earch Design

u s i n g b ot h q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i t a t i v e measurements t o a s s e s s

the

s t r u c t u r e o f campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s f o r c a m p u s - e m p lo y e e - p a r e n ts ,
student-parents,

and s t u d e n t o b s e r v e r s / p a r t i c i p a t o r s .

The q u a l i t a ­

t i v e method p e r m i t s t h e s t u d y o f s e l e c t e d i s s u e s in d e p t h and d e t a i l
through c are fu l
in teractio n s,

description

and

o f program s i t u a t i o n s ,

observations

(Patton,

1987).

method i s used t o measure t h e r e s p o n s e s t o

events,
The

a lim ited

people,

quantitative
set of ques­

t i o n s , which f a c i l i t a t e s comparison o f t h e d a t a ( P a t t o n , 198 7).
N a r r a t i v e i n q u i r y was used t o d e s c r i b e t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c h i l d
care

services

available

at

each

university,

thereby

elicitin g

a

36

description

of

the

character,

s ce n e,

and

context

of

a

situation

(C o n n el ly & C l a n d i n i n , 1990).
A s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n o f each u n i v e r s i t y was w r i t t e n in n a r r a t i v e
form t o p r o v i d e a h o l i s t i c

p ic tu re of the u n iv e r s i ty ’ s c h ild

s e r v i c e and t o p r o v id e a system f o r a n a l y s i s .
compare and c o n t r a s t

the

relative

data

of

care

T a b l e s were used t o

the

universities

bei ng

studied.

D a t a - G a t h e r i n q Methods
The f o l l o w i n g t e c h n i q u e s were used t o g a t h e r

inform ation

for

t h e d e s c r i p t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s :

Survey I n s t r u m e n t s
D irector q u estio n n aire.
t o campus c h i l d
features

A q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix A) was g iv e n

care d ir e c to r s

to gath er basic

i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e

and f u n c t i o n s o f s e r v i c e s g i v i n g d i r e c t c a r e t o c h i l d r e n .

The q u e s t i o n s were from t h e f o l l o w i n g r e s o u r c e s .

Items 1-6 and 10-

14

and

were

N a ti o n a l

from

surveys

Coalition

of

prepared

in

1981,

Campus

Chil d

Care.

q u e s t i o n n a i r e used in 1988 by t h e Council
fe s s io n a l Recognition.

1984,

Item

1987
9

was

by

the

from

a

f o r E a r l y Childhood P r o ­

Items 4, 7, and 8 were c r e a t e d f o r r e s e a r c h

study.
In terv iew s.

During

campus

v isitatio n s,

interview s

were

co nd uc te d t o g a t h e r r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e t y p e s o f s e r v i c e s ,
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l h i e r a r c h y , and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e o f c h i l d c a r e
services

for

c a m p u s- e m p lo y e e - p a re n ts ,

observers/participators.

Interviews

student-parents,
were

c o nd uc te d

and s t u d e n t
with

campus

37

child

care

directors,

academic

coordinators,

benefits

officers,

a n d / o r o t h e r campus p e r s o n n e l deemed a p p r o p r i a t e t o a s s e s s t h e c h i l d
c a r e s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d by t h e i n s t i t u t i o n .

Each p e r s o n i n t e r v i e w e d

s i g n e d a c o n s e n t form (Appendix B) and was a d v i s e d o f autonomy and
the

confidentiality

from p e r s o n a l

disclosure.

The

questionnaire

d e s i g n e d f o r d i r e c t o r s was com plete d a t t h e s t a r t o f t h e i n t e r v i e w .
The

interview

sources.

questions

Items

1,

6,

(Appendix

11- 16 ,

18- 19,

C)

were

and

from

24-32

the

were

follow ing

from s u r v e y s

p r e p a r e d in 1981, 1984, and 1987 by t h e N a t i o n a l C o a l i t i o n o f Campus
C h i l d C ar e.

Items 2 - 4 ,

7 - 10 ,

and 21-24 were c r e a t e d

for research

study.
Pilot

study.

questionnaire
personnel

A pilot

and

s tu d y

interview

format.

from i n s t i t u t i o n s

r e s p e c t i v e campuses.

was

offering

c o nd uc te d
The

child

p ilot
care

w it h
study

services

both

the

in c l u d e d
at

their

R e v i s i o n s from t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e p i l o t s t u d y

were i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e and i n t e r v i e w f o r m at as
deemed a p p r o p r i a t e .

Campus V i s i t a t i o n
The campus

visitation

college catalo g u es,
printed

m aterials

included

brochures,

that

were

s t u d e n t and p a r e n t manuals,

provided

an

and

collection

new-employee p a c k e t s ,

appropriate.

Brochures,

were t a k e n .

opportunity

to

A v isit
peruse

p a m p h le ts ,
and

t o each campus

textbooks,

s t u d e n t s , and view some o f t h e l i f e a t each campus.

of

and o t h e r

and f l o o r p l a n s were a l s o g a t h e r e d ,

p h o to g ra p h s o f t h e f a c i l i t i e s
bookstore

interview s

watch

38

Journal
The r e s e a r c h e r k e p t a j o u r n a l
other

inform ation

pertinent

to

in which n o t e s , p h o t o g r a p h s ,
describing

each

campus

and

and

the

v a r i o u s c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d on t h e campuses were i n c l u d e d .
The a c c u m u l a t i o n o f t h e above m a t e r i a l s was t h e b a s i s f o r t h e
description
various

and

analysis

campus

child

of

the

care

features

services

and

and

functions

th eir

of

the

organizational

s t r u c t u r e a t t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s b ei n g s t u d i e d .

Cont en t A n a l y s i s
The a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a c o l l e c t e d from each u n i v e r s i t y in t h e
study

referred

to

each

of

the

research

questions

previously

presented.

F e a t u r e s and F u n c ti o n s
An a n a l y s i s
services

of the

available

at

features
each

of

and f u n c t i o n s
the

15

o f the

universities

child

included

d e s c r i p t i v e ove rv ie w o f t h e t y p e s o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s
for

c a m p u s - e m p lo y e e - p a r e n ts

analysis

were

the

child

and s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s .

care

services

available

s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g w ith c h i l d r e n f o r p r a c t i c u m ,
p a r t o f o t h e r academic s t u d y .
naire;
and

Items

1-13

a

available

Included
for

care

in

the

university

research,

o r as

in t h e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n ­

Items 1 - 2 , 7 - 8 , 13, 16- 17 , and 22-32 in t h e i n t e r v i e w f o r m a t ;

the

journal

(Appendix D).

related

to

the

analysis

of

Re s ea rc h

Q u e s ti o n

1

39

I n t e g r a t i o n o f C h il d Care S e r v i c e s
An e x a m in a t io n
u n iv ersity

studied

various d iv isio n s,
m a il e d

was

made

to

in teg rated
schools,

questionnaire;

determine

child

whether

care

services

or d epartm ents.

Items

2-3,

7-9,

and

or

how

between

each
the

Items 7 and 8 in th e
28-32

in

the

interview

f o r m a t ; and t h e j o u r n a l r e l a t e d t o t h e a n a l y s i s o f Research Q u es tio n
2 (Appendix D).

A dm inistrative S tru ctu re
O rganizational
ture

flow c h a r t s d e p i c t e d

o f campus c h i l d

u n iv ersity studied.
view f o r m a t

care

services

the

w ithin

adm inistrative

the

struc­

g o v er n an c e o f each

Items 4 - 6 , 8 - 9 , 1 1 - 1 2 , and 16-17 in t h e i n t e r ­

and t h e

journal

related

to

the

analysis

of

Research

Q u e s ti o n 3 (Appendix D).

C la s s if ic a tio n Title/Codes
An i n v e s t i g a t i o n was made t o c l a r i f y t h e c h i l d c a r e p e r s o n n e l
titles/co d es

in

the

adm inistrative

framework

of

each

of

the

u n iv e rs itie s studied.

Items 10, 12, 14,

and 16-17 in t h e i n t e r v i e w

f o r m a t and t h e j o u r n a l

r e l a t e d t o t h e a n a l y s i s o f Research Q ue sti on

4 (Appendix D ).

Fiscal Operations
A descriptive

a n a l y s i s was made t o

s e r v i c e s were funded
operations.

and a d m i n i s t e r e d

in

illu strate

how c h i l d

care

each u n i v e r s i t y ’ s f i s c a l

Item 13 in t h e m a il ed q u e s t i o n n a i r e ;

Items 11, 15, and

40

18-21

in

the

interview

format;

and

the

journal

related

to

th e

a n a l y s i s o f Research Q u es tio n 5 (Appendix D).

Data A n a l y s i s
S ite Descriptions
Each s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n was a c o n d e n s a t i o n o f t h e d a t a c o l l e c t e d
th r o u g h q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , i n t e r v i e w s , program documents, o b s e r v a t i o n s ,
photographs,

and j o u r n a l s ;

it

represented
-

i n s t i t u t i o n ’ s child

care serv ices.

the

phenomenon

of

each

o f each

site

•

C o n te n t a n a l y s i s

d e s c r i p t i o n i d e n t i f i e d t h e p a t t e r n s , th em es, and r e l e v a n t c a t e g o r i e s
to

compare

and

contrast

the

universities

in

the

study

(Patton,

1987).

Indexing
The
study,

data
as

were

outlined

functions,

organized
in

in teg ratio n

the

according
research

of

the

purposes

q u estions:

services,

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of personnel,

to

features

adm inistrative

and f i s c a l

operations

of

this
and

stru ctu re,

o f campus c h i l d

c a r e a t t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan.

Matrices
A variety
illu strate

the

of

m atrices

linkage

(Appendix

between

the

v a r i o u s c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e components.
the

linkages

expressed

as

themes,

a c t u a l a c t i v i t i e s ( P a t t o n , 1987).

15

E)

were

public

constructed
universities

to
and

The c e l l s in t h e m a t r i x held

patterns,

program

content,

or

41

Tabl es
S tatistical
summations

techniques

of the d a ta

in

th is

collected.

study

included

These d a t a

are

num erical

illustrated

in

t a b l e s , where a p p r o p r i a t e .

Chronology f o r Data C o l l e c t i o n
Initial

Inquiry

An i n i t i a l

t e l e p h o n e i n q u i r y made t o each u n i v e r s i t y

indicated

t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s on each campus in t h e s t u d y .
Child

care

service

personnel

lists

in t h e N at i o n a l

were

id en tified

through

membership

and Michigan C o a l i t i o n o f Campus C h i l d Care,

t h e N a ti o n a l Child Development Lab S ch oo ls A s s o c i a t i o n , t h e Michigan
E ar l y Childhood

E d u c a to r s

Co ns ortium ,

and d i r e c t

calls

to

the

15

p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in t h e s t u d y .

P i l o t Study
Feedback on t h e s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t s was asked f o r and r e c e i v e d
from t h e p er s o n n el
4- /■>
U V C

nw .1

be in g i n t e r v i e w e d in t h e p i l o t s t u d y .

A p p r o p r i-

♦

Telephone I n t e r v i e w
Follow-up t e l e p h o n e c a l l s were made t o e x p l a i n t h e p u r po s e o f
the

s tu d y

and s c h e d u l e

the

campus

visitation.

Appointments

s ch ed ul e d w it h t h e b e n e f i t s o f f i c e r a n d / o r d e s i g n a t e d p e r s o n n e l
any o t h e r s deemed a p p r o p r i a t e .

were
and

During t h e c o n t a c t by t e l e p h o n e ,

a

r e q u e s t was made f o r a d d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s , such as campus c a t a l o g u e ,
p a m ph le ts , and b r o c h u r e s o r p o l i c y ma nu als.

42

S i t e I n t e r v i e w s and O b s e r v a t i o n s
The

campus

visitations

included

interview ing

personnel, gathering appropriate m a te ria ls ,

the

necessary

tak in g photographs,

and

o b s e r v i n g t h e c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s o r o t h e r programs deemed a p p r o p r i ­
ate.

Each campus v i s i t to o k from one t o two d a y s , d ep end in g on t h e

number o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s

available

a t each u n i v e r s i t y .

Each

i n t e r v i e w l a s t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y one and o n e - h a l f t o two h o u r s .

Case Records
The
work able

raw

data

package.

were

organized,

During t h e

in d e x e d ,

analysis

and

of these

edited
data,

if

into

a

further

i n f o r m a t i o n was neede d, f o l l o w - u p c o n t a c t s were made t o a p p r o p r i a t e
personnel.

S ite D escriptions
The s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n s were n a r r a t i v e p i c t u r e s
s i t y ’s c h i ld care s e r v i c e s .

o f each u n i v e r ­

They i n c l u d e d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n n e c e s s a r y

t o a n a l y z e t h e f e a t u r e s and f u n c t i o n s o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e s e
services.

Analy se s and Comparisons
From t h e d a t a in t h e s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n s ,
sons

were

w ritten

and

m atrices

r e la te d to the research questio ns.

designed

to

a n a l y s e s and c o m p a r i ­
illu strate

the

data

43

P r e p a r a t i o n o f Final Document
Descriptions

and

tables

expected d i s s e r t a t i o n sta n d a rd s.

were

com piled

into

the

format

of

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

The

researcher’s

purpose

in

th is

study

was

to

gather

i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan r e l a t i n g

to

(a) t h e f e a t u r e s and f u n c t i o n s o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s a t each campus
for

employee-

and

p articip atin g

student-parents

w ith

children

as

for

well

as

academic

university

students

purposes,

(b)

the

in t e g r a ti o n of th e ad m in istratio n of c h ild care serv ice s w ithin the
g o v e r n i n g s t r u c t u r e o f each u n i v e r s i t y , and (c) t h e d e l i v e r y sy stem
o f campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .
A review of th e l i t e r a t u r e

included a h i s t o r i c a l

background o f

campus c h i l d c a r e and a p r e s e n t a t i o n o f b a s i c demog rap hics o f c h i l d
care

issues

in

populations.

Mich ig an,

women

and

the

w o r k p la c e ,

and

campus

Components o f t h r e e ma jor s t u d i e s and i n f o r m a t i o n from

professionals

in

early

childhood

were

review ed

and

organized

a c c o r d i n g t o t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s in t h e s t u d y .
A d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e methodology comprised t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n ,
data-g ath erin g
format.
15

and t h e

content-

and d a t a - a n a l y s i s

I n c l u d e d in t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n were o n - s i t e v i s i t s t o t h e

campuses

descriptions
of

techniques,

m aterials

of

the

public

u n iv ersities

f o r each u n i v e r s i t y were w r i t t e n
gathered

from

interview s

44

w it h

in

M ichigan.

S ite

from t h e c o m p i l a t i o n
child

care

directors,

45

academic c o o r d i n a t o r s , and human s e r v i c e s p e r s o n n e l .
journal

entries,

photographs,

manuals c o n t r i b u t e d

to

the

brochures,

site

and

M a t e r i a l s from

student

descriptions.

and

parent

Data were

inde xed

according to the re s e a rc h purposes.
The f i n d i n g s
inform ation
description

on

reported

the

of the

in

th is

universities
child

care

chapter
in

the

services

the

linkage

study,

available

A n al ys es o f t h e inde xed d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d
research questions.

include

background

w ith

a

on each

in t h e

b rief
campus.

s eq u en ce o f t h e

When a p p r o p r i a t e , t a b l e s a r e used t o i l l u s t r a t e

between t h e

15 p u b l i c

universities

and

various

child

c a r e s e r v i c e components.

U n i v e r s i t y Background I n f o r m a t i o n
C e n t r a l Michigan U n i v e r s i t y
Back gro un d.

C e n t r a l Michigan U n i v e r s i t y (CMU), e s t a b l i s h e d in

1892 as C e n t r a l Michigan Normal School and B u s in e s s I n s t i t u t e ,
p u b l i c l y funded i n s t i t u t i o n
the

liberal

arts

and t h e

o fferin g

professions

is a

u n d e rg ra d u a te programs
(Barron’s,

199 0).

in

M aster’ s

d e g r e e s a r e a l s o a v a i l a b l e , as i s a d o c t o r a t e d e g r e e in p s y c h o lo g y .
S t u d e n t and employee p o p u l a t i o n s .
part-tim e

undergraduate

enrolled.
population.
Seventy-five

Female
The

students
average

percent

( B a r r o n ’ s , 1990).

students

of

the

and

comp ris e

age

of

faculty

There a r e 17,299 f u l l 1,600
57%

graduate

of

the

undergraduate
are

male

and

and

students

total

students
25% a r e

student
is

20.

fema le

The t o t a l number o f campus employees i s 2 , 1 8 7 , o f

whom 53% a r e fema le (Equal Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission, 199 0).

46

Location.

The 6 5 0 - a c r e campus

is

located

in a small

town o f

18.000 i n h a b i t a n t s in w e s t - c e n t r a l Michigan, 55 m i l e s n o r t h o f Grand
Ra pi d s.

(See Appendix F .)

Campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .
Laboratory,
addition

established

of the

in

The Human Growth and Development

1966,

home economics

is

currently

building

located

in t h e

in

a

new

c e n t e r o f campus.

The L a b o r a t o r y o p e r a t e s a h a l f - d a y p r e s c h o o l program.

E a s t e r n Michigan U n i v e r s i t y
Bac kground.
1849

as

M ichigan

in stitution
offers

to

S tate

educate

undergraduate

education,
1990).

E a s t e r n Michigan U n i v e r s i t y (EMU), e s t a b l i s h e d

health

Normal

S chool,

teachers.
programs

and

human

in

The
arts

was

M ichigan’ s

state-funded

and

first

in stitu tio n

and s c i e n c e s ,

services,

in

technology

business,
(B arro n ’ s,

D o c to r a l and m a s t e r ’ s d e g r e e s a r e a l s o a v a i l a b l e .

Employee and s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n s .
part-tim e

undergraduate

students

There a r e 17,804 f u l l -

and 7 , 0 9 6 g r a d u a t e

Female s t u d e n t s co m p ri s e 52% o f t h e t o t a l
av e r a g e age o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e

students

is

stu d en ts.

student population.
23.

and

The

S i x t y - f i v e and one-

h a l f p e r c e n t o f t h e f a c u l t y a r e male and 34.5% a r e female ( B a r r o n ’ s ,
1990 ).

The t o t a l

number o f campus employees i s 1 , 7 2 1 ,

51% o f whom

a r e female (Equal Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission, 1990).
Location.
25.000

The 4 6 0 - a c r e campus

in h ab itan ts

Michigan.

30

m iles

(See Appendix F.)

west

is
of

located

in a small

D etroit

in

city

of

southeastern

47

Campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .

The C h i l d r e n ’ s I n s t i t u t e ,

estab­

l i s h e d in 1979, i s l o c a t e d in two s i t e s n e a r t h e c e n t e r o f campus.
The Snow H e a lt h C e n t e r houses a p r e s c h o o l

program,

School

programs:

of Special

kindergarten

Ed u ca tio n

program,

an

houses

e v en i ng

three
program,

and

a

and t h e Rackham
a preschool/
summer

day-camp

program.

F erris S tate U niversity
Background.
in stitu tio n

F e r r i s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y (FSU) i s a p u b l i c l y funded

established

Woodbridge N.

F erris.

lib eral

and

arts

in

1884

by

U nd er g ra d ua te

sciences,

form er
programs

education,

pharmacy, t e c h n o l o g y , and b u s i n e s s .

allied

M ichigan
are

governor

offered

health,

in

the

optometry,

A s s o c i a t e and m a s t e r ’ s d e g r e e s

a r e a l s o a v a i l a b l e , as i s a d o c t o r a t e d e g r e e in o p to m e tr y .
S t u d e n t and employee p o p u l a t i o n s .

There a r e 11,600 f u l l -

p a r t - t i m e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s and 210 g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s .
s t u d e n t s comp ris e 41% o f t h e t o t a l

student population.

ano n f t h o nnHprnraHuatp stuHpnt. i s

?? .

and

Female

The av er a g e

Seventv-seven p e rc e n t o f

t h e f a c u l t y a r e male and 23% a r e female ( B a r r o n ’ s , 1990).

The t o t a l

number o f campus employees i s 1 , 4 4 6 , o f whom 44.5% a r e fem a le (Equal
Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission, 1990).
Location.

The 6 5 0 - a c r e campus

is

located

in a small

town o f

18,000 i n h a b i t a n t s in w e s t - c e n t r a l Michigan, 55 m i l e s n o r t h o f Grand
Rapids.

(See Appendix F.)

Campus
established

child
in

care

1986,

services.
is

part

of

The
the

C h il d
Center

Development
for

Early

Center,
Childhood

48

S tudies.
houses

Located on t h e f i r s t
the

College

of

f l o o r o f a remodeled d o r m i t o r y t h a t

Education,

the

center

is

a training

site

offering fu ll-d ay child care services.

Grand V a l i e v S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
Background.
in

1960,

is

programs

a

Grand V a l l e y S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
state-supported

in th e p r o f e s s i o n s ,

institution
business,

(GVSU), e s t a b l i s h e d

offering
nursing,

undergraduate
and

teach in g .

Master’ s degrees are a lso a v a ila b le .
S t u d e n t and employee p o p u l a t i o n s .
part-tim e

undergraduate

students

There a r e

and

1,894

Female s t u d e n t s co m pri se 59% o f t h e t o t a l

9,7 68

graduate

full-

and

students.

student population.

a v e r a g e age o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s i s 2 3 . 6 .

The

S ixty-six percent of

t h e f a c u l t y a r e male and 34% a r e fema le ( B a r r o n ’ s , 1990 ).

The t o t a l

number o f campus employees i s 790, o f whom 49.7% a r e fe m a le .
L ocation.
midway between

The 9 0 0 - a c r e campus i s
Grand

Rapids

and

Lake

located
Michigan

in a r u r a l
in

west

setting

M ichigan.

(See Appendix F . )
Campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .

The C h i l d r e n ’ s C e n t e r , e s t a b l i s h e d

in 1975, i s l o c a t e d on t h e edge o f campus in a remodeled r a n c h - s t y l e
hous e.

The c e n t e r i s a f u l l - d a y c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e o p e r a t e d under

Student A f f a i r s .

Lake S u p e r i o r S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
Background.
publicly

assisted

Lake

S uperior

in stitu tio n

Michigan T e c h n o lo g ic a l

S tate

founded

U niversity.

U niversity
in

1944

as

(LSSU)
a

is

b r an ch

a
of

U ndergraduate programs are

49

o f f e r e d in t h e l i b e r a l

a r t s and s c i e n c e s ,

the

A ssociate

health

field s.

and

technology, b u sin ess,

m aster’s

degrees

are

and
also

available.
S t u d e n t and employee p o p u l a t i o n s .

There a r e

2,74 7

fu ll-

p a r t - t i m e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s and 161 g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s .
s t u d e n t s co m p ri s e 46% o f t h e t o t a l

student population.

age o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s

i s 19.

f a c u l t y a r e male and 27% a r e

fem a le

and

Female

The av e ra g e

Seventy-three percent of the
(Barron’s,

19 9 0) .

The t o t a l

number o f campus employees i s 386, o f whom 44.3% a r e f em a le

(Equal

Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission, 19 90 ).
Location.

The 121- a c r e campus on t h e banks o f Lake S u p e r i o r

and Lake Huron i s l o c a t e d in a small
t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a o f Michigan,

town o f 15, 000 i n h a b i t a n t s in

280 m i l e s n o r t h o f L a n s i n g .

(See

Appendix F .)
Campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .

The C h i l d Care C e n t e r , e s t a b l i s h e d

in 1979, i s l o c a t e d in a small b r i c k house i n t h e c e n t e r o f campus.
The

center

is

a

training

site

and

offers

full-day

child

care

services.

Michigan T e c h n o l o g i c a l U n i v e r s i t y
Background.
lish ed

in

1885,

Michigan T e c h n o l o g i c a l
is

a

state-supported

u n d e r g r a d u a t e programs in e n g i n e e r i n g ,
the

liberal

arts,

and

social

studies.

doctoral degrees are also a v a ila b le .

U niversity

(MTU),

in stitu tio n

science,

forestry,

A ssociate,

estab­

o fferin g
business,

m aster’s,

and

50

S t u d e n t and employee p o p u l a t i o n s .

There a r e

6, 6 62

fu ll-

p a r t - t i m e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s and 504 g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s .
s t u d e n t s co m pri se 24% o f t h e t o t a l

student population.

age o f

undergraduate

21.

faculty

a r e male and 18% a r e

students

is

fema le

number o f campus employees i s

Ei g h ty - tw o
(Barron’s,

and

Female

The a v e r a g e

percent

19 9 0 ).

of

the

The t o t a l

1 , 3 2 3 , o f whom 41% a r e f em a le

(Equal

Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission, 1990).
Location.
7,500

The

inhabitants

2 4 0 - a c r e campus i s l o c a t e d in a small
near

Lake

Superior

Michigan, 600 m i l e s from D e t r o i t .

in

the

Upper

Peninsula

The campus d i d n o t have a c h i l d

care c e n t e r a t the time of th e study.

However,

the u n iv e rs ity

p a r t o f t h e Keweenaw Employer’ s C hi ld Care Co nsortium,

hospital.

the

county

involved.
a

health

serv ices,

a

which

bank,

and

is

also
the

The c o n s o r t i u m i s in t h e p r o c e s s o f p l a n n i n g a c h i l d c a r e

c en ter th a t w ill

offers

mental

of

(See Appendix F.)

Campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .

includes

town o f

The
child

give p r i o r i t y
projected
care

t o t h e employees o f t h e

openi ng

resource

and

is

fall

referral

1991.

The

service

to

businesses
university
employees

th r o u g h t h e l o c a l Community C o o r d i n a t e d C h i l d Care (4 C’ s) o f f i c e .

N o rth er n Michigan U n i v e r s i t y
Background.

N o r th e r n Michigan U n i v e r s i t y (NMU), e s t a b l i s h e d in

1899, i s a p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n o f f e r i n g u n d e r g r a d u a t e t r a i n i n g in t h e
liberal

arts

and

human s e r v i c e s ,

sciences,
nursing,

d e g r e e s a r e a l s o awarded.

business,

and

education,

technology.

health

A ssociate

sciences,

and m a s t e r ’ s

51

S t u d e n t and employee p o p u l a t i o n s .

There a r e

7, 60 0

full-

and

p a r t - t i m e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s and 770 g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d .
Female s t u d e n t s co m pri se 52% o f t h e t o t a l
av e r a g e

age

of

the

undergraduate

student population.

student

is

23.6.

The

Fifty-seven

p e r c e n t o f t h e f a c u l t y a r e male and 29% a r e f em al e ( B a r r o n ’ s , 1990).
The t o t a l number o f campus employees i s 1 , 0 2 5 , o f whom 43% a r e women
(Equal Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission, 1990 ).
Location.

The 3 0 0 - a c r e campus i s l o c a t e d

in an ur ban s e t t i n g

o f 23,000 i n h a b i t a n t s on t h e s h o r e s o f Lake S u p e r i o r in M ic h i g a n ’ s
Upper P e n i n s u l a .
Campus

(See Appendix F .)

child

established

in

care

1973,

is

services.

The

centrally

Child

located

ground f l o o r o f t h e gymnasium b u i l d i n g .

Development

on t h e

The c e n t e r

campus,
is

Center,
on t h e

a training

s i t e and o f f e r s a h a l f - d a y program.

Oakland U n i v e r s i t y
Background.
state-assisted
liberal

arts

Oakland U n i v e r s i t y (0U), e s t a b l i s h e d in 1957, i s a

institution,
and t h e

offering

professions

undergraduate

(Barron’ s,

degrees

199 0) .

in

the

M aster’s

and

doctoral degrees are a lso a v a i la b l e .
S t u d e n t and employee p o p u l a t i o n s .
part-tim e

undergraduate

students

and

There a r e 12,331

full-

2,239

stu d en ts.

Female s t u d e n t s co m p ri s e 63% o f t h e t o t a l

student population.

a v er a g e age o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s i s 26.
f a c u l t y a r e male and 30% a r e

female

graduate

and

The

Seven ty p e r c e n t o f t h e

(Barron’ s,

1990 ).

The t o t a l

52

number o f campus employees

is

811,

o f whom 63% a r e

fem a le

(Equal

Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission, 1990).
Location.

The 1 , 5 0 0 - a c r e campus, l o c a t e d in a s ub urb an a r e a 25

m i l e s n o r t h o f D e t r o i t , i n c l u d e s r o l l i n g h i l l s , woods, and f a r m l a n d .
(See Appendix F.)
Campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .
Center,

established

in 1975,

The Matthew Lowry E a r l y Childhood

is

located

t h r e e b u i l d i n g s ho us in g t h r e e programs:
toddlers.

on t h e edge o f campus
preprimary,

preschool,

in
and

The c e n t e r has f u l l - d a y c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s and c o o r d i ­

n a t e s a s p e c i a l - n e e d s program w i t h t h e l o c a l p u b l i c school sy st em .

Saginaw V a l l e y S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
Ba ckground.
lished

in

1963,

Saginaw
is

Valley

a state-supported

programs a r e o f f e r e d in t h e l i b e r a l
tion,

engineering,

State

and a l l i e d

U niversity

(SVSU),

in stitution.

arts,

health.

U n d e r g r a d u a te

science, b usiness,
M aster’s

estab­

educa­

degrees

are

also

5,2 6 3

fu ll-

available.
S t u d e n t and e m p l o y e e p o p u l a t i o n s .

There a r e

p a r t - t i m e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s and 652 g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s .
s t u d e n t s co m pri se 61% o f t h e t o t a l

student population.

age

26.

of

faculty

undergraduate

students

a r e male and 31% a r e

number o f campus employees

is

is

fema le
460,

Sixty-nine
(Barron’ s,

Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission, 1990).

Female

The a v e r a g e

percent

19 90 ).

o f whom 41% a r e

and

of

the

The t o t a l

f e m a le

(Equal

53

Location.

The 7 8 2 - a c r e campus i s l o c a t e d in a subu rb an a r e a 70

m i l e s n o r t h e a s t o f Lansing in e a s t - c e n t r a l

Michigan.

(See Appendix

F.)
Campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .

The C h i l d r e n ’ s

C e n t e r was e s t a b ­

l i s h e d in 1979 t h r o u g h t h e j o i n t e f f o r t s o f t h e s t u d e n t govern me nt,
t h e School

of Education,

S tate U niversity.
picturesque

and t h e

adm inistration

o f Saginaw V a ll e y

The c e n t e r i s l o c a t e d on t h e edge o f campus in a

setting

with

a

tree-lined

r a n c h - s t y l e house remodeled i n t o t h e
i s a l s o on t h e p r e m i s e s .

dr iv ew ay

that

leads

ch ild care ce n te r.

to

a

A r e d barn

The c e n t e r o p e r a t e s a f u l l - d a y c h i l d c a r e

program un d er S t u d e n t A f f a i r s .

U n i v e r s i t y o f Mic hiqan-Dearborn
Background.
lished

in

1959,

U n d er g r ad u at e
education,

The U n i v e r s i t y o f Mi chi gan -D ea rb or n (UM-D), e s t a b ­
is

part

students

engineering,

of

are
and

the

U niversity

offered

programs

business.

of
in

Michigan
the

syst em .

liberal

M aster’ s degrees

arts,

are

also

available.
S t u d e n t and employee p o p u l a t i o n s .

There a r e 11,77 8 f u l l -

p a r t - t i m e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s and 889 g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s .
s t u d e n t s comp ris e 52% o f t h e t o t a l

student population.

age o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s i s 23
percent

of

the

faculty

are

number o f campus employees

male
is

726,

( B a r r o n ’ s , 1990 ).

and 32% a r e fe m a le .
o f whom 50% a r e

Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission, 1990).

and

Female

The av e r a g e
Sixty-eight
The
fem a le

total
(Equal

54

L ocation.
Fairlane,

The

the

200-acre

Henry Ford e s t a t e ,

miles northwest o f D e t r o it .
Campus

child

care

Development C e n t e r ,
cooperative

campus,
is

which

located

in

an

part

of

area

10

ur ba n

(See Appendix F . )

services.

The

Early

established

in 1971,

school

an

nursing

in clu d es

and

L e a r n in g

began

early

as

and

a jo in t

childhood

l a b o r a t o r y o r g a n i z e d by a group o f s t u d e n t -

C hi ld
parent

education

and e m p l o y e e - p a r e n t s .

Located on t h e edge o f campus, t h e c e n t e r i s housed i n t h r e e s t o n e
c o t t a g e s , p a r t o f t h e o r i g i n a l Henry Ford e s t a t e ,
t h e c a r e and e d u c a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n .
and

operates

a

kindergarten.
resource

full-day
Employee-

and r e f e r r a l

child
and

service

and rem od el ed f o r

The c e n t e r i s a t r a i n i n g

care

program

student-parents
through

the

and

an

have

Family

site

accredited

access

Care

to

a

Program,

a

b e n e f i t o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan syst em.

U niversity of M ichigan-Flint
Bac kground.
lished

in

graduate

1956.

The U n i v e r s i t y
is

programs

of M ichigan-Flint

a p u b l i c l y funded
in

the

liberal

institution,

arts

and

(UM-F),

estab­

offering

under­

sciences.

M aster’ s

degrees are a lso a v a i la b l e .
S t u d e n t and employee p o p u l a t i o n s .

There a r e

6, 3 1 5

fu ll-

p a r t - t i m e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s and 367 g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s .
s t u d e n t s co m pri se 60% o f t h e t o t a l
age o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s
percent

of

the

faculty

are

student population.

i s 28 ( B a r r o n ’ s ,
male

and

37% a r e

19 9 0) .
female.

and

Female

The av e ra g e
S ixty-three
The t o t a l

55

number o f campus employees

is

463,

o f whom 54% a r e

fem a le

(Equal

Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission, 1990).
Location.
138,000

The 4 0 - a c r e campus i s

inhabitants

Michigan.

60

m iles

north

located
of

in an urban a r e a o f

D etroit

in

east-central

(See Appendix F.)

Campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .

The Campus C hi ld Care C e n t e r i s a

program w i t h i n t h e E d u c a t i o n a l Daycare C e n t e r o f t h e YWCA o f G r e a t e r
Flint.

The u n i v e r s i t y

c o n t r a c t s with th e

agency f o r 25 s p a c e s o f

t h e 100 a v a i l a b l e f o r e x c l u s i v e use by c a m p u s - e m p lo y e e - p a r e n ts
student-parents.

and

The YWCA, l o c a t e d w i t h i n a s h o r t b l o c k o f campus,

was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1970 and has had a c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e u n i v e r s i t y
s i n c e 1986.

Employee- and s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s have a c c e s s t o a r e s o u r c e

and r e f e r r a l

s e r v i c e th r o u g h t h e Family Care Program,

a b e n e fit of

t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan sy ste m .

Western Michigan U n i v e r s i t y
Ba ckground.

Western Michigan U n i v e r s i t y (WMU), e s t a b l i s h e d

in

1903, i s a s t a t e - f u n d e d i n s t i t u t i o n o f f e r i n g u n d e r g r a d u a t e programs
in l i b e r a l a r t s , b u s i n e s s , e d u c a t i o n , and e n g i n e e r i n g .

M a s t e r ’ s and

doctoral degrees are a ls o a v a i la b l e .
S t u d e n t and employee p o p u l a t i o n s .
p art-tim e

undergraduate

students

and

There a r e 1 9 ,9 28 f u l l 6,387

Female s t u d e n t s c o m p ri s e 55% o f t h e t o t a l
a v er a g e

age

of

undergraduate

students

graduate

stu d en ts.

student population.
is

21

and

(Barron’ s,

S i x t y - s i x p e r c e n t o f t h e f a c u l t y a r e male and 34% a r e f e m a le .

The
1990).
The

56

total

number o f campus employees

is

2,968,

o f whom 51% a r e

fema le

(Equal Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission, 1990).
Location.

The 451- a c r e campus i s l o c a t e d in an urban s e t t i n g

o f 8 0, 00 0

inhabitants

Michigan.

(See Appendix F .)

Campus

child

140 m i l e s

care

w es t

services.

of

The

D etroit

Sara

in

southwestern

Swickard

Preschool,

e s t a b l i s h e d in 1971 by t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f Women S t u d e n t s , was named
after

a

professor

U niversity.
shutters

in

teacher

education

at

W estern

M ichigan

Located on t h e edge o f campus in a w h i t e house w i t h r e d

remodeled

for

the

care

and

education

of

children,

the

c e n t e r i s a f u l l - d a y c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e and o p e r a t e s un d er S t u d e n t
A ffairs.

Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
Background.
1855,

is

Michigan S t a t e

a pioneer la n d -g ra n t

U niversity

institution,

(MSU),

established

in

offering

more t h a n

200

u n d e r g r a d u a t e and 500 g r a d u a t e programs.
S t u d e n t and employee p o p u l a t i o n s .
part-tim e

undergraduate

students

and

There a r e 34,951

full-

6,722

students.

Female s t u d e n t s co m pri se 51% o f t h e t o t a l
av er a ge

age

of

undergraduate

Seventy p e r c e n t o f t h e
total

students

faculty

number o f campus employees

graduate

student population.
is

20

(Barron’ s,

a r e male and 30% a r e
is 9,467,

and

The
199 0).

f e m a le .

o f whom 51% a r e

The
female

(Equal Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission, 1990).
Location.

The

5,239-acre

campus

is

located

s e t t i n g n e a r Lan si ng , t h e c a p i t a l o f Michigan.

in

a

suburban

(See Appendix F .)

57

Campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .
a f f i l i a t e d w it h t h e campus.

There a r e f o u r c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s

The e m p l o y e e - a s s i s t a n c e program o f f e r s

t h e C hi ld Care R e f e r r a l S e r v i c e (MSU-1) t o a l l
students.
1921,

is

C hi ld

Development L a b o r a t o r i e s

employees,

(MSU-2),

including

established

l o c a t e d n e a r campus in a remodeled e l e m e n t a r y school

in
and

o f f e r s f i v e programs:

S p a r t a n Nursery S ch o o l, L a b o r a t o r y P r e s c h o o l ,

Motor S k i l l s Program,

Family I n f a n t - T o d d l e r Learn ing Program, and a

kindergarten
(MSU-3),
prim arily

program.

established
for

Spartan
in

Village

1971,

is

a

student-parents;

it

is

hous ing u n i t on campus.

C h il d

Development

full-day
located

Center

child

care

service

in

large

campus

a

The C h i l d r e n ’ s Corner (MSU-4), e s t a b l i s h e d

in 1975, i s l o c a t e d in t h e Medical C l i n i c s C e n t e r and i s a d r o p - i n
center for p a tie n ts v i s i t i n g the c l in ic s .

U n i v e r s i t y o f Michiaan--Ann Arbor
Background.

The

University

of

Michigan-Ann

Arbor

(UM-A),

e s t a b l i s h e d in 1817 as t h e f i r s t p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t y in t h e n a t i o n ,
the

main

campus

undergraduate
architecture,
nursing,

of

the

University

programs
business,

in

the

education,

and p r o f e s s i o n a l

o f Michigan
lib eral

arts

engineering,

studies.

system

and

is

offers

and

sciences,

natural

resources,

M a s t e r ’ s and d o c t o r a l

degrees

are also a v a ila b le .
S t u d e n t and employee p o p u l a t i o n s .

There a r e 22,888 f u l l -

and

p a r t - t i m e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s and 1 2 , 9 5 7 g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s .
Female s t u d e n t s co m p ri s e 44% o f t h e t o t a l
av er a g e age o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s

student population.

i s 20.

Eighty-three

The

percent

58

o f t h e f a c u l t y a r e male and 17% a r e
total

f em al e

(Barron’ s,

number o f campus employees i s 1 2 , 9 8 0 ,

19 9 0) .

The

o f whom 53% a r e fema le

(Equal Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission, 1990).
Location.
110,000

The 2 , 5 9 5 - a c r e

inhabitants,

located

campus

is

35 m i l e s

in

an

w es t

urban

of

setting

D etroit.

of
(See

Appendix F .)
Campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .
a f f i l i a t e d w it h t h e campus.
A -l),
for

established
employee-

in 1989,

and

There a r e f i v e c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s

The Family Care Res our ces Program (UMis

an i n f o r m a t i o n

student-parents.

and r e f e r r a l

C hildren’s

Center

service
(UM-A-2),

e s t a b l i s h e d in 1980, i s l o c a t e d in an o l d h o s p i t a l remodeled f o r t h e
care

and e d u c a t i o n

of children.

The

operates w ithin the graduate school.
Parents

(UM-A-3),

g r a d u a t e school

established

across

Development
child

care

laboratory

setting

C h i l d r e n ’ s C e n t e r f o r Working

in 1986,

also

operates

w ithin

the

and i s a f u l l - d a y c h i l d c a r e program f o r employee-

and s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s .
church

half-day

th e

C en te r

The c e n t e r i s l o c a t e d on t h e ground f l o o r o f a

street

from campus.

(UM-A-4),

program f o r

C hildren’s

established

student-parents

in
living

Pound House (UM-A-5), e s t a b l i s h e d in 1976,

1989,
in

Services
is

C hi ld

a

full-day

family

housing.

i s l o c a t e d in a t u r n - o f -

t h e - c e n t u r y house remodeled f o r t h e c a r e and e d u c a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n
and i s a h a l f - d a y p r es ch o o l o p e r a t e d t h r o u g h t h e u n i v e r s i t y ’ s i n t e r ­
n a t i o n a l programs.

59

Wavne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
Background.
is

Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y (WSU), e s t a b l i s h e d in 1868,

a state-supported

arts

and

sciences,

engineering

and

university

business,

offering

health

technological

programs

fields,

areas,

and

in

the

education,

liberal

the

arts,

preprofessional

areas.

M a s t e r ’ s and d o c t o r a l d e g r e e s a r e a l s o a v a i l a b l e .
S t u d e n t and employee p o p u l a t i o n s .

There a r e 19,59 8 f u l l -

p a r t - t i m e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s and 1 0 , 6 4 2 g r a d u a t e
Female s t u d e n t s co m p ri s e 53% o f t h e t o t a l
average

age

of

undergraduate

E ig ht y p e r c e n t o f
total

the

faculty

students

27

(Barron’ s,

a r e male and 20% a r e

number o f campus employees

students.

student population.
is

is 3,985,

and

The
199 0) .

female.

o f whom 48% a r e

The
fema le

(Equal Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission, 1990).
L ocation.

The 1 8 0 - a c r e campus i s in a m e t r o p o l i t a n s e t t i n g

downtown D e t r o i t .

(See Appendix F.)

Campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .
affiliated

in

w it h t h e campus.

There a r e f o u r c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s

Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y N u r se ry School

(WSU-1), e s t a b l i s h e d in 1956, i s a l a b o r a t o r y p r e s c h o o l l o c a t e d in a
public elementary school.

Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Psycho logy C hi ld

Development L a b o r a t o r y (WSU-2), e s t a b l i s h e d in 1945, was o r i g i n a l l y
part of the M errill
care tra in in g

site.

Palmer

Institute

and

is

now a f u l l - d a y

P a r e n t s and C h i l d r e n T o g e t h e r

(WSU-3),

child
estab­

l i s h e d in 1977, i s a s e r v i c e program f o r h i g h - r i s k f a m i l i e s in Wayne
County

and

a

train in g

program

for

Neighborhood Family Resource C e n t e r s
i s an e d u c a t i o n a l

sociology
(WSU- 4 ) ,

graduate

students.

established

in 1979,

s u p p o r t s e r v i c e f o r s i x low-income communities in

60

Wayne County

and

operates

out

of

the

Center

for

Urban

Studies.

Wayne County K id sp ace , e s t a b l i s h e d in 1989, i s a f u l l - d a y c h i l d c a r e
program l o c a t e d i n t h e Wayne County B u i l d i n g in downtown D e t r o i t and
has a c o n s u l t i n g
the M errill

relationship

w i t h Wayne S t a t e

Palmer I n s t i t u t e .

U niversity

through

The c e n t e r s e r v e s o n l y Wayne County

government and c o u r t employees.
A com parison
populations

of

to tal

and t h e a v a i l a b l e

n u m b e rs
child

of

care

student
spaces

is

and

em ployee

illustrated

in

T ab le 1.
There were 15 s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d i n s t i t u t i o n s
student

populations

258,555

half-tim e,

(Barron’s,

199 0).

student population.

ranging
full-tim e,

from 2, 9 08

to

and g r a d u a t e

Female s t u d e n t s

in t h e

41,673.

study,
A

to tal

s t u d e n t s were

co m p ris ed

51% o f

w it h

enrolled
the

total

The av e r a g e age o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e s was 23.

t o t a l number o f f u l l - t i m e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

faculty,

of

The

and s t a f f a t t h e

15 i n s t i t u t i o n s was 40 ,8 3 1 , o f whom 50.7% were f e m a l e .

S ev e n t y -t w o

p e r c e n t o f t h e f a c u l t y a t t h e 15 u n i v e r s i t i e s were male and 28% were
fe m a le .

Oakland U n i v e r s i t y

had t h e

s t u d e n t s and employees ( bo th 63%).
sity

highest

percentage

of

Michigan T e c h n o l o g i c a l

had t h e l o w e s t p e r c e n t a g e o f fema le s t u d e n t s

fema le
Univer­

(24%) and alo ng

w it h Saginaw V a l l e y S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a l s o had t h e l o w e s t p e r c e n t a g e
o f female

employees

(41%).

Eight

universities

had more

than

female s t u d e n t s , and 11 i n s t i t u t i o n s had 50% fe ma le em plo yee s.

50%

61

T ab l e 1 . - - P e r c e n t a g e o f fem a le p o p u l a t i o n o f campus employees and
s t u d e n t s , w it h number and r a t i o o f c h i l d c a r e s p a c e s a t
t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan.

Students
Univer­
sity

Employees

No. o f
C h il d Care
Spaces

Ratio
S p ac es :
Stu+Emp

Total
Number

%
Women

Tota l
Number

%
Women

CMU

17,22 9

57%

2,187

53.0%

24

1:876

EMU

24,90 0

51%

1,721

51.1%

230

1:11 6

FSU

11,60 0

41%

1,446

44.5%

65

1:204

GVSU

11,66 2

59%

790

49.7%

30

1:415

LSSU

2,908

46%

386

44.3%

20

1:165

MTU

7, 1 66

24%

1,323

41.0%

0

NA

NMU

8 ,3 7 0

52%

1,025

43.0%

20

1:470

OU

1 4, 57 0

63%

811

63.0%

85

1:181

SVSU

5,91 5

61%

460

41.0%

30

1:213

UM-D

13 ,3 80

52%

713

49.0%

65

1:206

UM-F

6, 6 82

60%

569

52.0%

25

1:290

WMU

26,31 5

55%

2,968

51.0%

40

1:732

MSU

41,67 3

51%

9,467

51.0%

402

1:127

UM-A

3 5 ,9 4 5

44%

12,980

53.0%

230

1:213

WSU

3 0, 24 0

53%

3,985

48.0%

120

1:285

258,555

51%

40,831

50.7%

1,38 6

1:219

Tot al

62

Although a t o t a l o f 1,49 8 c h i l d c a r e s pa ce s were a v a i l a b l e from
t h e 25 campus programs, only 1,38 6 s p ac es were a v a i l a b l e t o s t u d e n t and

em ployee-parents,

at

a ratio

a f f i l i a t e d w i t h t h e campuses.
parents
sp ac es

as

drop-in

available

children

in

U niversity

child

campus
care

operated

Laboratories

w it h

(WSU-3)

Michigan

programs
w ere

and
w it h

served

300

the

was

programs

State

22

were

not

constituents.

spaces

12 s p a c e s
in

and

centers

five

one

space

to

219

people

Three programs s e r v e d o n l y community-

services

to

of

The

12

to

w ithin

available.

direct

the

(MSU-4)

program s.

the

Child

total

range

Michigan

of

S tate

Development

State
ea ch

A p p r o x im at el y

care

in

capacity

300.

Wayne

U niversity

available.

included

U niversity
had

2,724
The

drop-in
children

licen sin g

r e g u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e r e be a s p e c i f i e d number o f c h i l d r e n ,
d e t e r m in e d by t h e s q u a r e f o o t a g e p e r c h i l d ,
ti m e , which means h a l f - d a y o r f l e x i b l e

in t h e c e n t e r a t any one

schedules

may i n c r e a s e

the

number o f e n r o l l m e n t s o ve r t h e number o f c a p a c i t y l i s t e d .

C o nt e n t A n a l y s i s
The c o n t e n t
posed in t h i s

analysis

study.

focuses

In t h i s

on t h e

section,

five

research

each q u e s t i o n

f ol lo w ed by t h e f i n d i n g s f o r t h a t q u e s t i o n .

is

questions
restated,

63

Research Q ue s ti o n 1
What a r e t h e f e a t u r e s and f u n c t i o n s o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s
a v a i l a b l e a t each o f t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan f o r
( a ) c a m p u s - e m p l o y e e - p a r e n t s , ( b ) s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s , and ( c )
student-observers?
Features

and f u n c t i o n s .

All

15 campuses

had

a center-based

c h i l d c a r e program a f f i l i a t e d w it h t h e u n i v e r s i t y w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n
o f Michigan T e c h n o l o g i c a l U n i v e r s i t y , which was p a r t o f a c o n s o r t i u m
t o open a c h i l d c a r e f a c i l i t y by f a l l
child

care

centers

operated

at

1991.

the

The f e a t u r e s o f t h e 22

15

public

universities

in

Michigan a r e shown in Ta b l e 2.
The

o ld est

campus

child

care

program,

U n i v e r s i t y ’ s C h il d Development L a b o r a t o r i e s ,
70 y e a r s .
Arbor’ s

M ichigan

S tate

had been o p e r a t i n g f o r

The newest campus program, t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan-Ann
C h ildren ’s

Services

C h il d

Development

Center,

had

been

o p e r a t i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x months.
Of t h e 22 c e n t e r s , 11 o p e r a t e d on t h e academic c a l e n d a r and 11
operated throughout the year.

Four programs were open o n ly f o r h a l f

a dav: t h e r e m a in in g 18 r o n t o ^ c n n o r a t p H

from 9 t.n 1 4 . 5 h ou rs

day, f o r an a v e r a g e o f 10 hou rs p e r da y.

Only two programs o f f e r e d

?

«
*• tW

I

I II I I. J

w

v».

•

“ I

• —

-------,

oer

ev en i n g h o u r s , and t h r e e had k i n d e r g a r t e n c l a s s r o o m s .
Among t h r e e campus programs, t h e r e were 16 s p a c e s f o r f u l l - d a y
services
infants

for

un der

a year old.

Other programs

i n c l u d e d Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

U niversity
coming

infants

(WSU-2),

together.

w it h

programs

C hildren’s

(MSU-2)

involving

Corner

(MSU-4)

involving

and Wayne S t a t e

parents
offered

and
a

babies
drop-in

s e r v i c e , which i n c l u d e d i n f a n t s o f p a t i e n t s u s in g t h e campus medical

64

Table 2 . - - F u n c t i o n s and f e a t u r e s o f t h e campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s
a t t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan.

U n iv e r ­
sity

Years

Calendar

Hours

Ages

Capacity

E n r o l lm e n t

CMU

25

Acad.

2.5

3-4

24

47

EMU

12

Year

14.5

1-12

230

175

FSU

5

Year

1 0 .0

0-6

65

75

GVSU

16

Year

11.0

2.5-6

30

52

LSSU

16

Acad.

1 0 .0

3-5

20

30

MTU

1

Employee A s s i s t a n c e Program- -R and R

NMU

18

Acad.

4.0

2.5-5

20

48

OU

16

Acad.

10 .0

1.5-6

85

210

SVSU

12

Acad.

9.5

2.5-6

30

50

UM-D

20

Acad.

10 .5

1-6

65

120

UM-F

5

Acad.

1 0 .5

0-6

25

45

10. 5

40

50

WMU

20

Year

MSU-1
MSU-2
MSU-3
MSU-4

2
70
20
15

Employee A s s i s t a n c e ProgramAcad.
2.5
0-6
0-9
Year
1 0 .0
0-10
Year
9.0

-R and R
300
102
20

UM-A-1
UM-A-2
UM-A-3
UM-A-4
UM-A-5

1
11
5
.5
15

Employee A s s i s t a n c e Program2.5
1-6
Acad.
10 .0
2.5-6
Year
10 .0
2.5-6
Year
2.5-6
Acad.
9.5

-R and R
90
40
60
40

WSU-1
WSU-2
WSU-3
WSU-4

35
46
14
12

Acad.
Year
Year
Year

40
80
12
Flex.

Note:

2.5
10 .5
Flex.
F le x .

2.5-10

2.5-5
1.0-8
0-16
0-5

R and R i n d i c a t e s r e s o u r c e and r e f e r r a l

service.

300
D ro p- in

160
33
50
37
40
75
D ro p- in
NA

65

clinics.
to

the

Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , as p a r t o f i t s m i s s i o n o f s e r v i c e
community,

in v o l v e d

the

had

two

of

infants

care

drop-in

programs

th r o u g h

(WSU-3,

school-age

WSU-4)

children

while

p a r e n t s were in p a r e n t i n g gr ou ps o r o t h e r s u p p o r t pr og ra m s .
additional

that

Three

programs i n c l u d e d c a r e f o r t o d d l e r s 12 months and o l d e r .

Ten campus c e n t e r s o p e r a t e d f o r c h i l d r e n between 2 . 5 and 6 y e a r s o f
age; f o u r programs o f f e r e d c a r e f o r s c h o o l - a g e c h i l d r e n .
The t y p e s o f c h i l d

care

services

u n i v e r s i t i e s a r e shown in T a b l e 3.
constituency served.

available

a t each o f t h e

15

Each column i n d i c a t e s t h e campus

I n c l u d e d in t h e t a b l e a r e c o m m u n i t y - p a r e n t s ,

who a l s o were c l i e n t s a t most c e n t e r s in t h e s t u d y .
Ei g h t o f t h e

22 campus c h i l d

centers

had f u l l - d a y

child

care

programs whose p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n was s e r v i n g s t u d e n t - , em p lo y ee - , and
community p a r e n t s .

S ix c e n t e r s were c om bi n at io n t r a i n i n g s i t e s

for

s t u d e n t o b s e r v e r s / p a r t i c i p a t o r s and f u l l - d a y c h i l d c a r e programs f o r
campus

and

laboratory
i m w v,

c o m m u n it y
n^crhnnl

**wwi ^

f- * ——

fam ilies.

nrnnramc
j

■

■ ~

r

'

-------------->

and

Five

campuses

three

nroarams

had

half-day

were

community

^

v

s e r v i c e s t h a t were a f f i l i a t e d with academic programs.
S tudent-parents.
in

university

affiliated
children

family

centers

for

One c e n t e r s e r v e d o nl y s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s l i v i n g
h o u s in g
gave

ad m is s i o n

(UM-A-1).

Nine

stu d en t-p aren ts
and

offered

of

the

p rio rity

red u ce d

fees.

22

in

in t h e
service

U niversity
available

o f Michigan
to

system had a r e s o u r c e

s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s , and

two

selectin g

Two

o f f e r e d s i i d i n g - s c a l e f e e s t o a l l p a r e n t s based on income.

campus-

centers
Campuses

and r e f e r r a l

universities

had

Table 3 . --Campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s and t r a i n i n g s i t e s a v a i l a b l e t o e m p l o y e e - , s t u d e n t - , and
c o m m u n i t y - p a r e n t s a t t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in M ic h i g a n .

Univer­
sity

On-Site
F u ll
Care

Lab
F u ll
Care

CMU

Lab/
Pre­
sc ho ol

Reduced
Ch. Care
Center
Fees

Admis­
sion
P rior­
ity

R es o u r ce
and
Referral
Service

Sp end ­
ing
Acco unt

SP,EP
CP,SO

SP

SP

EP

FSU

SO,SP
EP,CP

SP

SP, EP

EP

SP, EP

SP, EP

EP

SP

SP, EP

SP, EP
CP
SO,SP
EP,CP

LSSU

Re s ea r c h

SO,FAC

SP-Br o ch ur e

SO,SP
EP,C0

EMU

GVSU

Cafe­
te ria
B enefits

SO,FAC

EP:
Admin.

EP

MTU
NMU

SO,SP
EP,CP

OU

CP,SO

SVSU

SP,EP
CP,SO

SP

SP

SP

SP,EP

SP-Br oc h ur e

SO,FAC

Table 3 . --C o n tin u e d .

Univer­
sity

On-Site
Fu ll
Care

Lab/
F u ll
Care

Lab/
Pre­
sch ool

SO,SP
EP, CP

UM-D

Reduced
Ch. Care
Center
Fees

Admis­
sion
P rior­
ity

Re s ou rc e
and
Referral
S ervice

SP,EP

SP, EP

EP,SP

EP

EP,SP

EP

UM-F

SP, EP

SP, EP

SP,EP

WMU

SP,EP
CP,SO

SP, EP

SP, EP

MSU

SP, EP

UM-A

SP

WSU

Key:

SP
EP
CP
SO

=
=
=
=

Cafe­
teria
B enefits

R es ear ch

FAC

EP

SO,CP

EP

EP,SP

SO

EP,SP

EP,SP
CP,SO

SO,CP

S tudent-parents
Employee-parents
C o m m un ity - pa re nt s
Student o b s e r v e r s / p a r t i c i p a t o r s

Spen d­
ing
Account

SO,FAC
EP

SO,FAC
SO,FAC

68

brochures f o r s tu d e n t - p a r e n ts , l i s t i n g c h i ld care o p tio n s a v a i la b l e
on and o f f campus.
Em plovee-parents.

All 15 campuses had some t y p e o f c h i l d c a r e

s e rv ic e f o r employee-parents.
site

child

care,

Thirteen

1 o ffered 1im ited-access

o f f e r e d r e s o u r c e and enhanced r e f e r r a l
spending

offered

accounts,

and

1 offered

1im ited-access

near-site

child

on ­

care,

3

programs, 4 o f f e r e d f l e x i b l e
a

child

care

option

as

a

" c a f e t e r i a b e n e f i t " t o employees in t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i v i s i o n .
Although t h e r e was o n - s i t e
one campus
spaces,

contracted

none

of

w ith

the

14

child care at

a community
centers

priority

in

placing

children

p rio rity

to

em ployee-parents

children of student-parents

agency

offered

for

for

25 c h i l d

Seven

had been p l a c e d .

first

centers

com m unity-parents

and
care

em ployee-parents

admission.

over

13 u n i v e r s i t i e s

gave

after

the

Four gave employee-

p a r e n t s red uce d f e e s from what co m m un it y -p ar en ts were c h a r g e d .

The

re m a in d er o f t h e campus c e n t e r s had a v a r i e t y o f a d m is si o n p r i o r i ­
ties,

w h ic h

diversity,
w ant in g

included

"serving

gender/age balance,

more

th a n

four

hours

p r e v i o u s l y used t h e c e n t e r .
applicants

for

adm ission

the

whole

"first-com e,
of

child

com m unity,"

cultural

f i r s t - s e r v e d , " parents
care,

or

fam ilies

that

Employee- and s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s c o u l d be
in

these

categories.

a v a i l a b l e c h i l d c a r e sp ac es f o r s t u d e n t -

Of

the

1,386

and e m p l o y e e - p a r e n t s ,

595

were l o c a t e d in h a l f - d a y - o n l y programs, l e a v i n g 773 f u l l - t i m e s p ac es
f o r 40,831 emplo yee s.
services.

Two o f f e r e d

None o f t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s
evening-care

options;

offered
Grand

sick-child

Valley

State

69

University

offered

care

one

night

a

week,

and

Eastern

Michigan

employee r e s o u r c e and r e f e r r a l

services

U n i v e r s i t y o f f e r e d f o u r n i g h t s o f c a r e each week.
U niversities
were
the

(a )

offering

Michigan T e c h n o l o g i c a l

Community C o o r d i n a t e d

U niversity,

Chil d Care

P e n i n s u l a f o r an enhanced r e f e r r a l
match-up

s yst em

between

(4 C’ s)

contracted

office

service offering

community-based

em ployers a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y ;

which

child

in

the

Ann A r b o r

campuses

care

providers

and
part

included
of

the

a staff

as

referral

u n i v e r s i t y employees,

contract

person

to

from

provide

the

enhanced
and

( c ) Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y (MSU-1), which had two c o n t r a c t s

for

referral

services

serving

including

Flint,

students;

enhanced

to

and

(b) t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f M ic h i g a n ’ s Family

Washtenaw 4C o f f i c e
services

Upper

a personalized

Care Re s ou rc es Program (UM-A-1), which s er v ed t h e D ear bo rn ,
and

with

employees

including

students.

One was w i t h t h e l o c a l

Ingham County 4C o f f i c e f o r employees a t t h e

main

Lans in g,

campus

in

East

and

the

other

enhanced

referral

c o n t r a c t was w ith t h e S t a t e Community C o or d in a te d C h il d Care o f f i c e
t o p r o v i d e s e r v i c e s f o r employees a t s i t e br an ch e s around t h e s t a t e
and f o r each cou nt y e x t e n s i o n program.

Each o f t h e s e s e r v i c e s had

been added w i t h i n t h e two y e a r s p r e c e d i n g t h i s s t u d y .
F l e x i b l e sp en di n g a c c o u n t s ,

o f f e r e d by f i v e u n i v e r s i t i e s ,

are

nontaxable s a la r y - r e d u c tio n op tio n s.

Employers s e t up a n o n t a x a b l e

account

the

for

each

employee

selecting

spending

ac c o u n t

option.

The employee t a k e s a r e d u c t i o n in income up t o $5,000 and t h e n draws
from t h i s

ac c o u n t

to

pay

for

child

care

fees.

One

university

70

offered a child

care option

as

part

of

a "cafeteria

benefit"

for

employees in t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e u n i t .
The U n i v e r s i t y o f M ic hi gan -D ea rbo rn and U n i v e r s i t y o f MichiganF l i n t had h i g h l y compre hen si ve s e r v i c e s
an

on -site

1im ited -access

co m m u ni t y- p ar en ts
compared

to

referral

in

those

the

for

child

to o ffe r

care

selection

of

employee-parents:

center,

p rio rity

children,

community-parents,

an

reduced

enha nc ed

over

fees

child

as
care

s e r v i c e , and t h e f l e x i b l e s p en di ng a c c o u n t o p t i o n .

Student o b s e r v e r s / p a r t i c i p a t o r s .

Twelve o f t h e 15 u n i v e r s i t i e s

had s t u d e n t s u s i n g t h e c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s f o r academic p u r p o s e s .

Of

t h e 22 campus c e n t e r s , 12 were e i t h e r a pr im ar y t r a i n i n g s i t e o r had
a dual

mission o f t r a i n i n g

university

students

academic s t u d y .
and t h e o t h e r

and s e r v i c e

participating

with

to

children

services
medical
and/or

units

as

facilities
part

of

seven were f u l l - d a y

services

cared

for

from g r a d u a t e
training.

The

children

students
seven

em ployee-parents,

also

the

centers,

their

ur ban

centers,

specific

training

Three programs housed in

w hile

in

had

w ith

parents
studies,

prim arily

students

using

were

seeking

counseling,
serving
the

university

centers

con d uc te d

research

i n v o l v i n g s t u d e n t s as well as f a c u l t y .

in

the

or

studentsites

e x p e r i e n c e s w ith c h i l d r e n o r some p a r t o f a c l a s s o r program.
of

for

Five o f t h e 11 programs were h a l f - d a y p r e s c h o o l s ,

components a f f i l i a t e d w i t h academic u n i t s .
academic

provide

child

for
Six
care

71

Resea rc h Q u e s ti o n 2
How d oes each u n i v e r s i t y i n t e g r a t e c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s t o
employee- and s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s as well as u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s
p a r t i c i p a t i n g w i t h c h i l d r e n as p a r t o f academic s tu d y?
An a n a l y s i s
services

by

child

integration.
and t h e

o f t h e d a t a on t h e use o f o t h e r
care

programs

revealed

campus u n i t s

two

p attern s

or
of

One was c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y s t r u c t u r e ,

second was

partnerships

or

linkages

with

the

communities

o u t s i d e t h e campus.
Campus i n t e g r a t i o n .

Academic program i n t e g r a t i o n was e v i d e n t

in 17 o f t h e 22 c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s , which had s t u d e n t s from m u l t i p l e
divisions.
were

R e p r e s e n t i n g more th a n 28 d i f f e r e n t c u r r i c u l a ,

p articip atin g

p articip atin g
internships;

in

in

teaching,

h ealth,

were

business,

education,

human

women’ s

of study.

social

and

growth

studies,

and

included

or

and f i e l d

fields

from t h e

th at

testin g ,

p ra c tic e teaching;

for entry into s p e c ific
represented

activ ities

students

observing;

screening;

research;

e x p e r i e n c e w it h c h i l d r e n
The c o u r s e s o r programs

behavioral

sciences,

developm ent,

counseling,

and

allied

fine

arts,

o th ers.

The

p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f s t u d e n t s f o r academic pu rp o s es was t h e same w h e th e r
the

center’s

primary

mission

also

was

represented

training

disciplines

were

beyond

responsible

fo r the c e n t e r ’ s o peration,

or

service.

M ultiple

the

specific

department

w ith t h e

l a b o r a t o r y p r e s c h o o l u s i n g o nl y e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s .

exception

o f one

Only one campus

r e p o r t e d hav in g b u d g e t a r y r ei m bur sem ent from o t h e r d e p a r t m e n t s u s i n g
t h e c e n t e r as an academic s i t e .

Some c e n t e r s a l s o had s t u d e n t s from

other u n iv e r s itie s

academic r e q u ir e m e n t s .

com pleting

Several

72

c e n t e r s r e c e i v e d in for m al f a c u l t y c o n s u l t i n g on c h i l d r e n o r b u s i n e s s
issues

from a v a r i e t y o f d i s c i p l i n e s ,

as well

as f a c u l t y

requests

fo r research purposes.
S t u d e n t and academic a f f a i r s j o i n t l y

a d m i n i s t e r e d two c e n t e r s ,

w it h t h e h e a l t h c e n t e r as t h e i d e n t i f i e d u n i t o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
each

center.

One

university

used

student

volunteers

f r a t e r n i t y / s o r o r i t y student a c t iv it y o rg anization.

from

the

S t u d e n t ho us in g

was in v o l v e d in a s s i s t i n g w ith t h e o p e r a t i o n o f one campus c e n t e r ,
and

another

published

facilities.

a list

N ontraditional

of

campus

students

and community
had

child

published

a

care

sim ilar

b r o c h u re a t t h e N o rt h e rn Michigan U n i v e r s i t y campus.
B u s in e s s

and academic a f f a i r s

had a j o i n t

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e r e s o u r c e and r e f e r r a l
sity

of

Michigan

The a f f i r m a t i v e
the

third

WI I I V C i

O I t j

(UM-A-1)

and Michigan

action

office

care

referral

child

in

the

s e rv ic e s a t th e Univer­

State

un de r b u s i n e s s
service

appointment

at

U niversity
affairs

Michigan

(MSU-1).

adm inistered
Technological

i

B u s in e s s a f f a i r s d i v i s i o n s had s e v e r a l components t h a t a s s i s t e d
the c h ild care c e n t e r ’ s o p e ra tio n .
u n iv ersity

group

policy

for

C e n t e r s were i n s u r e d u n d e r t h e

liab ility

and

property

coverage.

P a y r o l l and o t h e r a c c o u n t i n g s e r v i c e s were p a r t o f b u s i n e s s a f f a i r s
co n trib u tio n s,

and

at

N orthern

M ichigan

U n iv ersity ’s

center,

c o l l e c t i o n f o r c h i l d c a r e f e e s was done a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y c a s h i e r ’ s
office.

O th er

centers

used

the

student

work-study

program

and

73

student

employment t o

staff

the

center.

Financial

aid

personnel

helped s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s fin d reso u rces f o r c h i ld c a r e .

was

Community

integration.

integrated

into

Coordination

12 o f t h e

with

community

25 campus c h i l d

care

agencies

services,

as

summarized below:
* 3

r e s o u r c e and r e f e r r a l programs c o n t r a c t e d w it h Community
C o o r d i n a t e d C h il d Care O f f i c e s (4 C’ s ) .
c e n t e r s c o n t r a c t e d w ith t h e Michigan H igh -R isk F ou r -Y e ar Old Program.
c e n t e r s c o n t r a c t e d w it h l o c a l p u b l i c s c h o o l s :
one f o r a
n u r s e r y school l a b and a n o t h e r f o r a
special-needs
program.
c e n t e r s c o n t r a c t e d w ith t h e Department o f S o c i a l S e r v i c e s
f o r p a r e n t - c h i l d programs and s e r v i c e s .
c e n t e r c o n tra c te d fo r c h i ld care spaces a t a n e a r - s i t e
center.
c e n t e r c o n t r a c t e d w ith a church f o r t h e c h i l d c a r e f a c i l ­
ity.
c e n t e r used a community v o l u n t e e r program.

* 2
* 2

* 2
* 1
* 1
* 1

Career e x p lo ra tio n

by s t u d e n t s

r e p o r t e d by t h r e e c e n t e r s .
staff

w ithin

the

local

from high

school

Many o f t h e c e n t e r s

de p a rt m e n t

of

social

programs was

had l i a i s o n s
services

s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s w i t h economic and c h i l d c a r e ne e d s .

w ith

assisting

C o n t a c t s w ith

o t h e r s o c i a l a g e n c i e s t h a t o f f e r e d a s s i s t a n c e t o s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s was
also

part

of

licensure
several

of

the
all

community
but

one

community a g e n c i e s

integration

center

of

many

necessitated

from t h e

the

centers.

The

in vo lv em en t

Department o f S o c i a l

of

Services

and p o s s i b l y t h e P u b l i c H e a lt h Department.
Three

campuses

had

c o m p ri s in g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
parents,

and

the

strong

advising

from a v a r i e t y

community.

Spartan

C e n t e r a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

com m ittees

or

boards

of university d iv isio n s,

V illage

C h il d

Development

(MSU-3) was one o f t h e c e n t e r s

74

w i t h such a compre hen siv e b o a r d .
of

the

university

d iv isio n s

operation.

The c e n t e r

program t o

have s p a c e s

parents’

children

available.

whose

The program had i n t e g r a t e d s e v e r a l
and

co m m u n it y

services

had c o n t r a c t s

w it h

available

emergency

regular

for
child

the

care

its

em ployee-assistance
care

of

employee-

arrangement

Work-study s t u d e n t s were an i m p o r t a n t

r e c r u i t m e n t , as was s t u d e n t employment.

into

was

source

of

not
staff

A nother c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e

b u s i n e s s a f f a i r s d i v i s i o n was th r o u g h t h e f i n a n c i a l o f f i c e a s s i s t i n g
student-parents.
have s p a c e s

for

C o n t r a c t s were a l s o

stu d en t-p aren ts’ children

The ho using o f f i c e
center.

Students

had a l s o

integrated

t h e g r e a t e r Lansing

to

basis.

some programming w i t h

the

acro ss

the

f o r academic p u r p o s e s .

had c o o r d i n a t e d r e s e a r c h

affairs

on a s c h o l a r s h i p

from f i v e o r s i x d i f f e r e n t

campus used t h e s i t e
disciplines

made w ith s t u d e n t

curricula

F a c u l t y from s e v e r a l

at the c e n te r.

community had y i e l d e d

grants

Working with

toward

equipment

and r e n o v a t i o n improvements.

Research Q u e s ti o n 3
What i s t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s
w i t h i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y gov ernance f o r each i n s t i t u t i o n ?
A dm inistrative

services

were

a d m i n i s t e r e d p r i m a r i l y by academic a f f a i r s o r s t u d e n t a f f a i r s .

The

organizational

stru ctu re.

The

child

care

s t r u c t u r e s o f t h e c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s on each o f t h e

15 campuses a r e shown in Table 4.
Of t h e

25

a ffa irs division,
was

in b u s i n e s s

child

careserv ice s,

14 were

un d er

the

6 were under s t u d e n t a f f a i r s o r s e r v i c e s ,
a f f a i r s . Four were c o m b i n a t i o n s

academic
and one

o f academic

and

75

T ab l e 4 . - - O r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s a t t h e 15
p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan.

Univer­
sity

Division

School/
C o ll e g e

CMU

Academic
A ffairs

E d u c . , H e a lt h
& Hum.Serv.

EMU

Acad. &
Student
A ffairs

FSU

Academic
A ffairs

GVSU

Student
A ffairs

LSSU

Academic
A ffairs

S o c i a l S c ie n c e s

C h il d Care
Center

MTU

B u s in es s
A ffairs

A ffirm ative
A cti o n

Reso urce &
Referral

NMU

Academic
A ffairs

S ch. Te ch. &
Ap plie d Art

Consumer &
Family S t u d i e s

C hi ld D ev el o p ­
ment C e n t e r

OU

Academic
A ffairs

Sch.Educ. &
Hum.Service

Human Dev. &
C h il d S t u d i e s

Lowry E a r l y
Chi ldhood C e n t e r

SVSU

Student
A ffairs

Campus A c t i v i ­
t i e s & O rient.

Children’s
Center

UM-D

Academic
A ffairs

UM-F

Student
A ffairs

WMU

Student
A ffairs

C o ll e g e o f
E duc at ion

D ep ar tm en t/
Uni t

C h i l d Care
Service

Home Eco.,Fam.
L i f e & Con.Ed.

Human Growth
& D e v e l . Lab

H e a lt h S e r v i c e s

C hildren’ s
Institute

C h il d Develop­
ment Program

C h i l d D eve lop ­
ment C e n t e r
Children’s
Center

School o f
E duc at ion

Consumer
Res. & Tech.

E a r l y Le a rn in g
& C h .D ev .C en t er
U niversity
Center

Campus C h il d
Care C e n t e r

H e a lt h C en te r

S ar a Swickard
Pre sc hoo l

76

Table 4 . - - C o n t i n u e d .

U n iv e r ­
sity

Division

School/
C o ll e g e

Department/
U n it

C h il d Care
Service

MSU-1

B us in es s
A ffairs

Aca.Hum.Res.
& Fin./O per.

Human R e l a t i o n s
Employee A s s t .

C hi ld Care
Ref. S e r v i c e

MSU-2

Academic
A ffairs

College of
Hum. Ecology

Family and
C h i l d Ecology

C hi ld Develop.
Laboratories

MSU-3

Student
A ffairs
& Board

MSU-4

Academic
A ffairs

UM-A-1

Bus. A ff .
& Acad.
A ffairs

UM-A-2

Academic
A ffairs

Gra dua te
School

UM-A-3

Academic
A ffairs

Gra dua te
School

Spartan V illag e
C hi ld D ev el op ­
ment C e n t e r
C o l . o f Human
Med. & O sto.

Human H e a lt h
Programs

C hildren’s
Corner

Personnel
Sueprv.Prog.

Family Care
Resource

C hildren’ s
Center
D irector C hil­
d r e n ’ s Center

C hildren’s
Center f o r
Working P a r e n t s

Affair?;

H o us in g: F am il y
Housing

C hildren’s
S e r v i c e CDC

UM-A-5

Student
A ffairs

International
Center

Pound House

WSU-1

Academic
A ffairs

College of
E duc at ion

Teacher
E d u c a ti o n

WSU N u r s e r y
School

WSU-2

Academic
A ffairs

College of
L i b e r a l A r ts

Psycho logy

Psy. C h i l d
D e v e l . Lab

WSU-3

Academic
A ffairs

College of
L i b e r a l A r ts

Sociology

Parents & C h il­
dren T o g e t h e r

WSU-4

Academic
A ffairs

Center fo r
Urban S t u d i e s

Council on
E a r l y Childhood

Neighborhood
Fa m .R es .C e n te r

UM-A-4

Student

77

student

affairs,

contracts.
child care
human

academic

and

business

affairs,

or

priv ate

T h i r t e e n o f t h e v a r i o u s c o l l e g e s o r s c h o o l s housed t h e
services.

services.

Six were co n n e c te d t o e d u c a t i o n ,

Twenty-one

different

departments

or

health,
units

or

were

d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e 25 campus c h i l d c a r e
services;

the

highest

concentration

was

housed

under

family-and-

c h i l d - r e l a t e d s t u d i e s a n d / o r h e a l t h - r e l a t e d p ro gr am s.

Research Q u e s ti o n 4
What a r e t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t i t l e s / c o d e s f o r t h e c h i l d c a r e
p e rs o n n e l w i t h i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e framework o f each
institution?
C lassification title s/c o d e s
classification

for d ir e c to r s .

F o llo w in g a r e t h e

codes and t h e pr im ar y j o b d e s c r i p t i o n s

of d ire c to rs

a t t h e 22 campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s :
* 11

*

*
*

*

were f u l l - t i m e c h i l d c a r e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h t h e c l a s s i ­
f i c a t i o n o f a d m in is tr a tiv e p r o f e s s io n a l, d i r e c t o r , or the
equivalent.
6 had f a c u l t y a f f i l i a t i o n s :
2 were f u l l - t i m e o n - s i t e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
2 had o n e - t h i r d p a r t i a l t e a c h i n g l o a d s f o r a d m i n i s t e r ­
ing t h e c e n t e r / l a b .
1 had a d e p a r t m e n t a l committee a s s i g n m e n t as l i a i s o n
d i r e c t o r to the c e n te r.
1 was c l a s s i f i e d as r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t and t a u g h t u n i ­
v e r s i t y c o u r s e s as well as bei ng t h e c e n t e r a d m i n i s ­
trato r.
3 were c e n t e r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , c l a s s i f i e d as a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
p r o f e s s i o n a l s , and t a u g h t c h i l d r e n on a r e g u l a r b a s i s .
1 was c l a s s i f i e d as an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o f e s s i o n a l with
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f c e n t e r a d m i n i s t r a t o r ; in a d d i t i o n ,
t h e d i r e c t o r had a d j u n c t f a c u l t y s t a t u s when t e a c h i n g th e
u n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e s and t a u g h t c h i l d r e n on a r e g u l a r
basis.
1 had a s p l i t as s ig n m e n t as c e n t e r d i r e c t o r and v o l u n t e e r
c o o r d i n a t o r f o r 26 c l i n i c s .

78

Ten o f t h e c e n t e r s had a s s i s t a n t s in t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f th e
program

with

equivalent)

classifications
or

secretarial

of

adm inistrative-professional

clerical-tech n ical.

support,

Five

centers

had

and t h r e e had b u s i n e s s managers.

(or

full-tim e

F iv e c e n t e r s

had f u l l - t i m e program managers o r c o o r d i n a t o r s .
There was a wide r a n g e o f
f ro m

faculty

or

"m iscellaneous."

classifications

ad m in istrativ e
F iv e programs

p rofessionals

hired

assistant

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was d i f f e r e n t f o r each campus.
as

research

or

recreation

of

assistants;

head
to

teachers,

"other"

teachers,

or

and t h e

Some were c l a s s i f i e d

others

were

professional-

S ev en te en o f 22 c e n t e r s used w o r k - s t u d y s t u d e n t s .

Four c e n t e r s

technicals.

used o n ly s t u d e n t s as program s t a f f from a com bi n ati on o f w o r k - s t u d y
students,

student

em plo yee s,

student

observers/participators,

and/

or volunteers.

Research Q u e s ti o n 5
How a r e t h e c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s funded and a d m i n i s t e r e d in each
u n iv e rs ity ’ s f is c a l operations?
C h il d c a r e s e r v i c e s fu n d in g r e s o u r c e s .
of

f u n d in g

for

the

campus

child

care

See Ta b le 5 f o r s o u r c e s

services.

Six

child

care

s e r v i c e s had no p a r e n t f e e s f o r t h e s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d and were f u l l y
funded by t h e u n i v e r s i t y .

The t h r e e r e s o u r c e and r e f e r r a l

programs

(MTU, MSU-1, UM-A-1) were u n i v e r s i t y fun ded , two o f t h e Wayne S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y programs (WSU-3, WSU-4) were g r a n t fu nded, and t h e dr opin s e r v i c e a t t h e medical
basis

by

clinic

(MSU-5) was funded on a p e r - c h i l d

a c o o p e r a t i v e agree ment among t h e 26

clinics

using

th e

79

Tab le 5 . - - F un di n g s o u r c e s f o r c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s a t t h e 15 p u b l i c
u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan (by p e r c e n t ) .

USDA
Food
Program

Grants/
Scholarships

Oth er

17%

1% DSS

Parent
Fees

Univer­
sity
Su pport

CMU

20%

80%

EMU

60%

22%

FSU

78%

13%

7%

GVSU

50%

40%

10%

LSSU

75%

25%

MTU

No p a r e n t f e e f o r c h i l d c a r e r e f e r r a l s e r v i c e

NMU

77%

U n iv e r ­
sity

OU

Fund
Raisers

2% Reg.

33%

100%

SVSU

75%

25%

UM-D

95%

5%

UM-F

F l a t r a t e pa i d f o r 25 c h i l d c a r e s p ac es t o YWCA

WMU

100%

MSU-1
MSU-2
MSU-3
MSU-4

No n a r e n t f e e f o r c h i l d c a r e r e f e r r a l s e r v i c e
Some
50%'
50%

UM-A-1
UM-A-2
UM-A-3
UM-A-4
UM-A-5

No p a r e n t f e e f o r c h i l d c a r e r e f e r r a l
74%
13%
.005%
85%
15%
Variable

WSU-1
WSU-2
WSU-3
WSU-4

No p a r e n t f e e f o r d r o p - i n s e r v i c e a t c l i n i c

85%
100%

service
13.5%

15%
100%
100%

80

service.

The

U niversity

r e s e r v i n g 25 s p a c e s ,
for

child

care

of

M ichigan-Flint

paid

a

flat

fee

and p a r e n t s d i r e c t l y p a i d t h e o f f - s i t e

services.

Three

child

care

centers

for

center

received

no

d i r e c t support.
The r a n g e o f u n i v e r s i t y

s u p p o r t was 5% t o 80%.

Funding from

t h e u n i v e r s i t y a t two campus c e n t e r s was 50% o r above, f i v e c e n t e r s
r e c e i v e d between 25% and 50%, and 11 campus c e n t e r s
t h a n 22% u n i v e r s i t y s u p p o r t .
without

university

support

The o n ly academic l a b o r a t o r y
was

C e n t e r a t Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
the hig h est u n iv e r s ity
80%.

received

the

Psychology

C h il d

less

program

Development

(WSU-2); t h e academic c e n t e r w ith

s u p p o r t was C e n t r a l

Michigan U n i v e r s i t y

at

The a v e r a g e p e r c e n t a g e o f u n i v e r s i t y s u p p o r t t o t h e 19 c e n t e r s

r e c e i v i n g any s u p p o r t was 22.4%.
In-kind

support

from

the

b u i l d i n g s p a c e and m a in te n a n c e ,
Twenty-two c h i l d
the

university.

support

as

services

The t h r e e
follow s:

u tilities,
received

programs
one

on

salaries,

and c u s t o d i a l

services.

some

that

paying

centered

in-kind

support

d id

no t

receive

a flat

fee

for

from

in-kind

child

care

s e r v i c e s (UM-F), one r e c e i v i n g s u p p o r t th r o u g h ho u sin g r e n t a l s

(UM-

A-4),

were

care

university

and one g r a n t program s e r v i n g

neighborhood programs

(WSU-4).

L i s t e d below a r e t h e i n - k i n d s e r v i c e s p r o v id e d by t h e u n i v e r s i t y t o
22 campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s :
*
*
*
*
*

20
18
16
15
14

received b u ilding space.
received u t i l i t i e s .
received custodial serv ice s.
r e c e i v e d ma in te na n ce ( p a i n t i n g , r e p a i r s , and so o n ) .
d i r e c t o r s ’ s a l a r i e s and o n e - f o u r t h o f a n o t h e r d i r e c t o r ’ s
s a l a r y were p ro v id ed th r o u g h t h e u n i v e r s i t y .

81

The

largest

U niversity,
director

where

and

u tilities,

amount
the

business

of

in-kind

university
manager,

support

was

at

Ferris

supported

the

salaries

building

space

and

reported

fund-raising

State
of

the

maintenance,

and c u s t o d i a l s e r v i c e s .

N ea rly

all

campus

involving p a re n ts,

centers

center s ta f f ,

activ ities

student o rg an izatio n s,

and/or

community works.

Summary
The

researcher’s

purpose

inform ation

on

campus

child

universities

in

M ichigan.

in

th is

care

study

services

A description

was

at

of

the

each

to

gather

15

public

campus

and

the

c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e p r o v i d e d a background f o r t h e a n a l y s i s
of

how c h i l d

em ployee-

care

and

services

were

stu d en t-p aren ts

adm inistered

as

w ell

as

and

university

p a r t i c i p a t i n g w it h c h i l d r e n f o r academic p u r p o s e s .
paragraphs,
summarized.

the

findings

Conclusions,

for

the

research

im plications

for

delivered

to

students

In t h e f o l l o w i n g

questions
further

are

briefly

research,

and

r e f l e c t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d in C h a p t e r V.

Demographic Background
There were 15 s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d
student

populations

ranging

institutions

f ro m

2,908

to

in t h e s t u d y ,
41,673.

with
Three

u n i v e r s i t i e s had more th a n 20,00 0 s t u d e n t s ,

s i x had between 10,000

and 20 ,0 0 0,

students.

and s i x

had fe w er t h a n

10,00 0

A total

of

258,555 p a r t - t i m e , f u l l - t i m e , and g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s were e n r o l l e d a t

82

t h e 15 u n i v e r s i t i e s .

Female s t u d e n t s c o n s t i t u t e d 51% o f t h e t o t a l

student population.
total

The av e ra g e age o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e s was 23.

The

number o f campus employees a t t h e 15 i n s t i t u t i o n s was 4 0 , 8 3 1 ;

50.7% o f

them were

female.

S event y-two

percent

of

the

faculty

of

fem ale

members were male and 28% were f em al e.
O akland
students

U niversity

and

had

em ployees

the

(both

highest
63%).

percentage

M ichigan

T echnological

U n i v e r s i t y had t h e l o w e s t p e r c e n t a g e o f fema le s t u d e n t s

(24%),

and

Saginaw V a l l e y S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y had t h e lo w e s t p e r c e n t a g e o f fem a le
employees (41%).

E i g h t u n i v e r s i t i e s had 50% fem a le s t u d e n t s , and 11

had more t h a n 50% f em a le employees.
campus

employees

numbered

public u n iv e r s i tie s
access

to

available

1,368
for

299,386 pe op le

in Michigan.

cam pu s

h a l f days

Combined s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t and

child
only.

affiliated

with

t h e 15

Employee- and s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s
care

spaces,

App rox imate ly

of

which

had

595

were

2,724

children

were

offered

among

e n r o l l e d in 19 o f t h e 22 c e n t e r s .

D e s c r i p t i o n o f Chi l d Care S e r v i c e s

Twenty-five

child

care

services

were

t h e 15

i n s t i t u t i o n s in t h e s t u d y , w i t h a t o t a l o f 22 on- o r n e a r - s i t e c h i l d
c a r e c e n t e r s on 14 campuses.
referral
and

one

services;
offered

five
a

adm inistrative unit.

There were f i v e enhanced r e s o u r c e and

offered

child

care

had

full-day

s p en d in g a c c o u n t o p t i o n s ,

"cafeteria

benefit"

Three campuses had m u l t i p l e s i t e s ,

to fiv e c h ild care f a c i l i t i e s
centers

flexible

child

on each campus.

care

programs;

Fourteen

eight

for

the

with th re e
o f t h e 22

prim arily

served

83

student-,
train in g

em ployee-,
sites

laboratory

w ith

age,

four

had

with

serv ices.

p ro gr am s ,

and

curricula

serving

16 s p a c e s ,

served

academic

campus c e n t e r s ,

com m unity-parents,

full-day

preschool

co n n e c te d t o

and

after-school

care,

three

and

and

Five
were

six

combined

were

half-day

drop-in

services

community p a r e n t s .
infants
two

Three

und er one y e a r

offered

evening

of

care.

Eleven c e n t e r s o p e r a t e d on a y e a r - r o u n d b a s i s and 11 on an academic
c a l e n d a r e x c l u s i v e o f summers.
Student-parents.

Twenty o f t h e 22 c e n t e r s

were

available

to

s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s ; one was e x c l u s i v e l y f o r s t u d e n t s in f a m i l y h o u s in g .
Nine o f t h e
ad m is si o n
U niversity

20 c e n t e r s

priority
of

and

Michigan

available

to

red u ce d

fees.

sy stem

also

student-parents
The t h r e e
had

child

offered

campuses

care

them

in

referral

the
and

resource services a v aila b le to student parents.
Em plovee-parents.
offered

None o f t h e 22 c e n t e r s

employee-parents

first

a d m is si o n

on t h e 14 campuses

priority.

Seven

gave e m p l o y e e - p a r e n t s p r i o r i t y o v e r c o m m u n it y - p a r e n ts ,
redu ce d f e e s .

F iv e

and r e s o u r c e

services

employees

flexible

institutions
available.

s p en di ng

had enhanced c h i l d
Five

ac c o u n t

universities

options,

and

centers

and f o u r had
care

referral

offered

their

one o f f e r e d

the

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e u n i t c h i l d c a r e as a " c a f e t e r i a b e n e f i t . "
Student o b s e r v e r s / p a r t i c i p a t o r s .

Eleven o f t h e 22 c e n t e r s were

e i t h e r a p r im ar y t r a i n i n g s i t e o r had a dual m i s s io n o f t r a i n i n g and
serv ice.
laboratories,
lab o rato ries.

Five
and

of
six

the

11

were

centers
c o m b in a ti o n

were

half-day

full-day

preschool

child

Th ree c h i l d c a r e programs were d r o p - i n

care

and

services

for

84

parents

seeking

services

studies,

counseling,

research

cond uct ed

students

for

fr o m

o r medical
by s t u d e n t s

stu d en t-p articip ato rs
training.
and

urban

Six o f t h e c e n t e r s

faculty.

academic p u r p o s e s was t h e

in

The

had

in v o l v em en t

same w h e t h e r

the

of

center’s

p r im ar y m i s s i o n was t r a i n i n g o r s e r v i c e .

I n t e g r a t i o n o f C h il d Care S e r v i c e s
An a n a l y s i s o f t h e f i n d i n g s r e v e a l e d two i n t e g r a t i o n p a t t e r n s .
One was w i t h i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y s t r u c t u r e , and t h e second was w i t h t h e
local

community.

The

academic a f f a i r s ,

largest

area

of

which was r e p r e s e n t e d

integrated

activity

in t h e o p e r a t i o n

was

o f 17 o f

t h e 23 c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s and in two o f t h e r e s o u r c e and r e f e r r a l
services.

In 17 o f

22 c e n t e r s ,

students

representing

c u r r i c u l a p a r t i c i p a t e d f o r academic p u r p o s e s .

28 v a r i o u s

The h i g h e s t l e v e l

of

i n t e g r a t i o n was S p a r t a n V i l l a g e C hi ld Development C e n t e r a t Michigan
State

U niversity.

business,
agencies
grants.

Th is

and s t u d e n t
in

the

larger

An other

center

center
affairs

combined
w ithin

community
operated

for
in

services
the

w it h

academic,

university

and w ith

personnel,
family

contracts,

h o u s in g

and

and

had

no

f u r t h e r i n t e g r a t i o n w i t h i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y o r t h e l a r g e r community.
B u s in e s s a f f a i r s u n i t s had p e r i p h e r a l r o l e s

in each c h i l d c a r e

s e r v i c e in t h e p r o v i s i o n o f a c c o u n t i n g s e r v i c e s , p a y r o l l ,
employee a s s i s t a n c e ,
Student a f f a i r s
the

stro n g est

in

insurance,

s t u d e n t employment o p t i o n s , and f i n a n c i a l a i d .
in te g ra tio n w ithin the c h ild
two

centers

where

there

was

c a r e c e n t e r s was
a

cooperative

85

arr an ge m en t

in

the

adm inistrative

functions.

A not her was w i t h

a

community c e n t e r where a c o n t r a c t u a l s e r v i c e had been n e g o t i a t e d .
Community and s t a t e a g e n c i e s had d i s t i n c t c o n t r a c t s w it h 11 o f
the

25 c h i l d

care

sp ac es in a l o c a l
employees
parents

located
as

well

services,

ranging

from

a contract

for

daycare

c e n t e r t o s t a t e w i d e enhanced r e f e r r a l s f o r campus
in
as

M ichigan.
employee-

Twenty c e n t e r s
and

served

student-parents;

community-

seven

centers

l i s t e d c o m m u n it y - p a re n ts as t h e i r p r im a r y c l i e n t e l e .

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Campus
Chi ld Care S e r v i c e s
Of t h e

25 campus c h i l d

care

services,

14 were unde r academic

a f f a i r s , 6 were un de r s t u d e n t a f f a i r s , 1 was under b u s i n e s s a f f a i r s ,
and

4

were

T hirteen

jointly

d ifferen t

adm inistered
colleges

by

or

co m b in a ti o n s

schools

housed

of

the

the

three.

child

care

s e r v i c e , w it h 21 d i f f e r e n t d e p a r t m e n t s o r u n i t s d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e
fo r the operation of the

child

care

services

on t h e

15 campuses.

The h i g h e s t c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f s e r v i c e s in t h e most s i m i l a r u n i t s was
f i v e c e n t e r - b a s e d s e r v i c e s in v a r i o u s h u m a n / f a m i l y / c h i l d devel opment
d e p a r t m e n t s , f o l l o w e d by t h r e e in h e a l t h - r e l a t e d u n i t s .

Some o f t h e

other

affirm ative

departments

action,

or

units

an i n t e r n a t i o n a l

in c l u d e d

center,

urban

p sy ch o lo g y ,

studies,
sociology,

education,

and a g r a d u a t e s c h o o l .

C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f C hi ld Care Personnel
Of t h e 22 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , 16 were c l a s s i f i e d as a d m i n i s t r a t i v e professional s (or the e q u iv a le n t),

whose r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

included

86

being

the

full-tim e

teaching c h i ld r e n ,
volunteer

center

adm inistrator

program s,

or p a r tia l

assigned

as

combined

in stru c tin g the u n iv e rsity courses,
and/or

conducting

a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e c h i l d c a r e program.
full

or

lo a d

for

duties

of

coordinating

research,

as

w ell

as

Five had f a c u l t y s t a t u s w ith

adm inistering

the departm ent’s li a is o n

the

child

director.

care

service

One d i r e c t o r

or
was

c l a s s i f i e d as a r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t ,

t e a c h i n g u n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e s and

adm inistering

centers

coordinators
business

the
or

center.

Five

ma nagers,

managers

and

who w e r e

five

had

also

had

full-tim e

full-tim e

classified

as

program

secretarial

or

ad m in istrativ e

p ro fession als or c l e r ic a l - te c h n i c a l s .
Teachers

and

assistant

range o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s
structure;

no c o n s i s t e n t

teachers
w ithin

patterns

of

the

the

children

u n iv ersity

emerged.

had

a wide

adm in istrativ e

Some were

faculty

or

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o f e s s i o n a l s ; o t h e r s were in c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s l a b e l e d
"other" or "m iscellaneous."
Se ve nt een
staff.

These

of the

25 programs

students

were

used

students

classified

as

as

part

work-study,

of

their

student

employees, s t u d e n t o b s e r v e r s / p a r t i c i p a t o r s , a n d / o r v o l u n t e e r s .

F i s c a l O p e r a t i o n s o f Child Care S e r v i c e s
Four o f t h e 25 c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s ( t h r e e r e s o u r c e and r e f e r r a l
programs and t h e c l i n i c a l d r o p - i n s e r v i c e ) were f u l l y funded th r o u g h
the u n iv e rs i ty ,

two o t h e r s were g r a n t fu nd ed,

and a n o t h e r r e c e i v e d

s u p p o r t as needed th r o u g h r e n t s p ai d i n t o u n i v e r s i t y h o u s i n g .

One

c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e had a c o n t r a c t w ith a l o c a l c h i l d c a r e agency t o

87

r e s e r v e s p a c e s , and p a r e n t s p a i d t h e agency d i r e c t l y .

Three c e n t e r s

received

remaining

no d i r e c t

support

from t h e

university;

the

16

c e n t e r s were r e c e i v i n g 5% t o 80%, w it h an av er a g e o f 22% u n i v e r s i t y
support.
I n - k i n d s u p p o r t , which might i n c l u d e s a l a r i e s ,
m aintenance
custodial

(painting,

services,

was

repairs,
part

campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .
of th e ir sa la rie s
building

s p ac e

the

resources

by t h e

university,

space,

u tilitie s,

and/or

for

the

F i f t e e n d i r e c t o r s had a l l

i n c l u d e d as i n - k i n d s u p p o r t .

allotted

i n c l u d e d as w e l l .

of

and so o n ) ,

building

22

of

25

or a portion

Twenty c e n t e r s had

and

18

had

u tilities

F i f t e e n c e n t e r s had b u i l d i n g m a in te n a n c e and 16

had c u s t o d i a l s e r v i c e s th r o u g h t h e u n i v e r s i t y .

The h i g h e s t l e v e l o f

i n - k i n d s u p p o r t was a t F e r r i s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , which i n c l u d e d t h e
salaries

o f t h e d i r e c t o r and b u s i n e s s manager,

m a in te n a n c e , u t i l i t i e s ,

and c u s t o d i a l s e r v i c e s .

building

space

and

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS

The pu rp os e o f t h i s s tu d y was t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e 15
public

universities

in Michigan r e l a t i n g

functions of child care

services

student-parents

as

children

for

as well
academic

features

and

a t each campus f o r employee-

and

university

purposes,

to

(a )

students

(b)

the

the

participating

in teg ratio n

w ith

of

the

a d m in is tr a t io n of c h i l d care s e r v ic e s w ith in th e governing s t r u c t u r e
o f each u n i v e r s i t y , and (c) t h e d e l i v e r y s yst em o f campus c h i l d c a r e
services.
A review

of

the

literatu re

included

a

b rief

h isto rical

background o f t h e growth and ch ang in g emphasis o f campus c h i l d c a r e .
Also i n c l u d e d was a p r e s e n t a t i o n o f b a s i c dem og rap hic s r e l e v a n t t o
working

women

populations.
early

and

fam ilies,

Information

childhood

field

child

and

were

care

surveys

r e v ie w e d ,

in
from

as

Mic hi gan ,

and

professionals

were

relevant

campus
in

the

components

s e l e c t e d from t h r e e m a jo r r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s on campus c h i l d c a r e .
Researc h methods s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s s t u d y were a c o m b i n a t i o n o f
n arrative

inquiry

and

quantitative

com p ar is o ns

s e r v i c e s a t t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s
of

the

methodology

techniques,

and t h e

included
content

the

in M ichi gan.

research

and d a t a

88

of

design,

analysis.

the

child

care

A description
data-gathering
Included

in

the

89

r e s e a r c h d e s i g n were v i s i t s

t o each u n i v e r s i t y in t h e s t u d y .

d e s c r i p t i o n s were w r i t t e n f o r each u n i v e r s i t y

Site

from t h e c o m p i l a t i o n

o f d a t a g a t h e r e d from q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and i n t e r v i e w s w it h c h i l d c a r e
directors,

academic

coordinators,

M a t e r i a l s from j o u r n a l e n t r i e s ,

and

human

photographs,

services

brochures,

personnel.
and s t u d e n t

and p a r e n t manuals a l s o c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n s .

Data

were ind ex ed a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e s t u d y .
The f i n d i n g s were i n t r o d u c e d w ith background s k e t c h e s on each
u n i v e r s i t y in t h e s t u d y , demog raph ics on t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f s t u d e n t s
and employees,
services

at

presented

and

each
in

a brief

in stitution.

the

A nal ys es

sequential

Comparative d e s c r i p t i o n s
campuses were i l l u s t r a t e d
between t h e

description

15 p u b l i c

order

of the
with

of

of the

campus

o f the

indexed d a t a were

the

25 c h i l d
tables

universities

research

care

to

child

q uestions.

services

on t h e

demonstrate the

and v a r i o u s

child

care

15

linkages

care

service

components.
T k»
i n

+ U «
u u c

IK I
ouiiimai

y

I
<->-C 4- U A
u i
u n c

A + I I /4 , »
o c u u j j

A
a

U
u

i

4 A^
i c i

O ( /*A A A A 1 A
o j n v p o i o

■C
u i

f Ua
o n e

i

r l "1 n r *
m u

and t h e c o n c l u s i o n s f o r each o f t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s a r e r e v ie w e d .
Im plications for f u r th e r research,
from

the

s tu d y

co m ple te

the

recommendations,

description

of

and r e f l e c t i o n s

campus

child

care

s e r v i c e s a t t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan.

Summary and C o n c l u s i o n s
Demographic Background
Summary o f

findings

on

state-supported in s titu tio n s

campus

populations.

There

were

15

in t h e s t u d y , with s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n s

90

r a n g i n g from 2, 90 8 t o 41, 67 3.

There were 205,456 u n d e r g r a d u a t e s and

53,090 g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s f o r a t o t a l o f 258,555 s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d a t
the

15 u n i v e r s i t i e s .

student population.

Female s t u d e n t s

comp ris ed

51% o f t h e

total

The av er a ge age o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e s was 23.

The

t o t a l number o f campus employees a t t h e 15 i n s t i t u t i o n s was 4 0 , 8 3 1 ,
o f whom 50.7% were f em a le .

Se ve nt y- tw o p e r c e n t o f t h e f a c u l t y were

male and 28% were fe m a le .
Oakland

U niversity

had

s t u d e n t s and fema le employees,

the

highest

percentage

of

fem ale

both o f which were 63% o f t h e t o t a l

number o f s t u d e n t s and employees.

Michigan T e c h n o l o g i c a l U n i v e r s i t y

had t h e lo w e s t p e r c e n t a g e o f female s t u d e n t s

(24%);

Michigan Tech

and Saginaw V a ll e y

lowest

percentage

S tate University

fema le employees (41%).
students,

had t h e

Ei ght u n i v e r s i t i e s had more t h a n 50% fema le

and 11 had more th a n 50% female employees.

e m p l o y e e - p a r e n t s had a c c e s s t o

1,36 8 campus c h i l d

which 595 were a v a i l a b l e f o r h a l f days o n l y .
campus c h i l d r e n were e n r o l l e d
student enrollment,

of

in

19 o f t h e

S t u d e n t - and

care

spaces,

of

A p p r o xi m at el y 2,72 4
22 c e n t e r s .

Combined

employees, and c h i l d r e n numbered 30 2,110 p e o p l e

a f f i l i a t e d w ith t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in M ichigan.
C o n c l u s i o n s from t h e demographic f i n d i n g s .
1.
parents
students
addition,

The
coul d
at

be
the

50,000

demand

for

substantial.
15

state

graduate

campus
The

child
av e r a g e

universities
students

were

in

care
age

services
of

Michigan

enrolled

at

by

student-

undergraduate
was
the

23.

In

Michigan

91

u n i v e r s i t i e s , who te n d e d t o be o l d e r t h a n t h e av e r a g e u n d e r g r a d u a t e .
With t h e peak c h i l d - b e a r i n g age o f women being 23 t o 30,

there

the

possible

potential

for

students

also

to

become

parents

with

is

demands f o r c h i l d c a r e .
2.

The 50.7% o f fema le employees a t t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s

in Michigan was above t h e

for

fem a le

In t h e Michigan C h il d Care I n i t i a t i v e (1989) r e p o r t ,

i t was

employees in a l l
3.

national

figure

o f 45% g iv e n

i n d u s t r i e s ( N o r th w e s t , 1990).

s t a t e d t h a t p a r e n t s w ith de pe nd e nt c h i l d r e n made up o n e - t h i r d o f t h e
workforce,
employees

which
at

coul d

the

mean

15 p u b l i c

approximately
universities

13,500

were

of

the

balancing

4 0 ,0 0 0

work

and

child care re s p o n s ib ilitie s .
4.

There

30 0,000
total

were

students

number

C alifornia

and

were

State

773

in

full-tim e

full-tim e
need

U niversity

of

child

care

spaces

for

almost

employees.

If

one-fourth

of

the

child

as

suggested

in

the

study

care,

(Summa A s s o c i a t e s ,

19 8 8) ,

there

wouiu u6 a r a t i o o f one c h i l d c a r e space p e r 97 a p p l i c a n t s , compared
t o one c h i l d c a r e sp ace p e r 50 a p p l i c a n t s in t h e C a l i f o r n i a s t u d y .

Resea rc h Q ue s ti on 1
What a r e t h e f e a t u r e s and f u n c t i o n s o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s
a v a i l a b l e a t each o f t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s i n Michigan f o r
( a ) c a m p u s - e m p l o y e e - p a r e n t s , ( b ) s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s , and ( c )
student-observers?
Summary o f f i n d i n g s on t h e f e a t u r e s
child care s e rv ic e s .

and f u n c t i o n s

o f campus

T w e n t y - f i v e c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s were o f f e r e d

92

among t h e 15 i n s t i t u t i o n s
near-site

child

enhanced

resource

care

in t h e s t u d y , w i t h a t o t a l

centers

on

and r e f e r r a l

spe nd in g a c c o u n t s ,

14

campuses.

services,

o f 22 on- o r

T he r e

five

were

offering

five

flexible

and one o f f e r i n g a c h i l d c a r e " c a f e t e r i a b e n e f i t "

to the a d m in istrativ e u n it.

Th ree campuses had m u l t i p l e s i t e s , w ith

t h r e e t o f i v e c h i l d c a r e f a c i l i t i e s on each campus.

F o u r te en o f t h e

total

eight

22 c e n t e r s had f u l l - d a y c h i l d c a r e pr ogr am s,

serving

stu d en t-,

em ployee-,

and/or

com m unity-parents

combining t r a i n i n g l a b o r a t o r i e s w ith f u l l - d a y
half-day

laboratory

p re s c h o o l

prim arily

progr ams ,

services.

and

three

and

six

Five were

were

drop-in

s e r v i c e s c o n n e c te d t o academic c u r r i c u l a s e r v i n g c o m m u n i t y - p a r e n t s .
Three campus c e n t e r s , w ith 16 s p a c e s , s e r v e d i n f a n t s un d er one y e a r ,
f o u r had a f t e r - s c h o o l

care,

centers

a

calendar
parents

operated

on

exclusive
as

well

and two o f f e r e d e v e n i n g c a r e .

year-round

o f summers.

as

Twenty

student-

lI i te«/ + nrl rVtfnmmi
in Uw. na
v ' onf c Uacw
Wlillll U ■( I **J
fSWkl S»ll V V

basis

and

wnw

and

11

centers

on

an

served

employee-parents;

Eleven
academic

community-

seven

centers

nv’imav'v
rw l• l( ow nn tww
o lI ow «
I I IIIW I j

S t u d e n t - p a r e n t s had a c c e s s t o 20 o f t h e 22 campus c e n t e r s ; one
was e x c l u s i v e l y f o r s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s l i v i n g in f a m i l y h o u s i n g .
of

the

priority

20 c e n t e r s
and

available

redu ce d

fees.

to student-parents

offered

Three

the

campuses

Michigan system a l s o had c h i l d c a r e r e f e r r a l
av ailab le to s tu d e n t-p a re n ts .

in

Nine

ad m iss io n

U niversity

of

and r e s o u r c e s e r v i c e s

93

E m p lo y e e - p a r e n ts had no f i r s t - a d m i s s i o n p r i o r i t y a t any o f t h e
22 c e n t e r s

on t h e

14 campuses.

Seven

em ployee-parents over community-parents,
fo r em ployee-parents.

centers

gave

prio rity

and f o u r had r e d u c e d

to
fees

Five i n s t i t u t i o n s o f f e r e d enhanced c h i l d c a r e

r e f e r r a l and r e s o u r c e s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e th r o u g h e m p l o y e e - a s s i s t a n c e
program s.
s p e n d in g

Five

u n iv ersities

accounts,

and one

offered

offered

th eir

the

em ployees

adm inistrative

flex ib le
unit

child

c a r e as a " c a f e t e r i a b e n e f i t . "
S t u d e n t o b s e r v e r s / p a r t i c i p a t o r s had f a c i l i t i e s

a v a i l a b l e a t 11

o f t h e 22 c e n t e r s t h a t were e i t h e r a p r im ar y t r a i n i n g s i t e o r had a
dual m i s s i o n o f t r a i n i n g and s e r v i c e .
h a lf-d a y preschool

laboratories,

c h i l d c a r e and l a b o r a t o r i e s .

and s i x were c o m b i n a t i o n

full-day

Th ree c h i l d c a r e programs were d r o p - i n

s e r v i c e s f o r p a re n ts seeking s e r v ic e s
urban s t u d i e s ,

Five o f t h e 11 c e n t e r s were

from s t u d e n t

c o u n s e l i n g , o r medical t r a i n i n g .

participants

in

S ix o f t h e c e n t e r s

had r e s e a r c h c o n d u c t e d by s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y .
C o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e f e a t u r e s and f u n c t i o n s .
1.

All o f t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s

type of c h ild care s e rv ic e s .

in Michigan o f f e r e d

Accord ing t o Greene ( 1 9 8 8 ) ,

some

o n l y 40%

o f t h e campuses i n t h e U ni te d S t a t e s had some form o f c h i l d c a r e .
2.

The 15 u n i v e r s i t i e s

had d i s p l a y e d

in p r o v i d i n g c h i l d c a r e f a c i l i t i e s .
housed in a v a r i e t y o f s e t t i n g s ,
houses,

to

contracted

remodeled
for

stone

serv ices,

in itiativ e

Campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s were

from farms t o t u r n - o f - t h e - c e n t u r y

cottages
and

considerable

and d o r m i t o r i e s .

another

was

entering

One campus
a business

94

consortium

to

share

a

child

care

facility

among

the

employees

involved.
3.
already

C o m m u n i t y - p a r e n t s a r e an a d d i t i o n a l
divergent

centers.

clientele

Twenty o f t h e

bei ng

served

22 c e n t e r s

population

in

included

campus

to

child

the
care

c o m m u n it y - p a r e n ts

as

w ell as s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s , e m p l o y e e - p a r e n t s , a n d / o r s t u d e n t s o b s e r v i n g
and p a r t i c i p a t i n g w i t h c h i l d r e n f o r academic p u r p o s e s .
4.

Student-parents

children

as

were

were

employee-

in

the

same

pool

for

and c o m m u n it y - p a re n ts

c e n t e r s a t M ic h i g a n ’ s p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s .

in

a d m is si o n

of

9 of

22

the

Th is compares t o 18 o f

t h e 19 c e n t e r s in t h e C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y sy stem g i v i n g t h e
c h i l d r e n o f s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s p r i o r i t y ad m is s i o n s t a t u s (Summa A s s o c i ­
a t e s , 1987).
5.
benefit

En ha nc ed r e s o u r c e and r e f e r r a l
for

finding

available

campuses in t h e l a s t two y e a r s .

child

services,

care,

had been

the

service

was

added t o

Although t h e s t a t e d

u n i v e r s i t i e s was f o r t h e r e s o u r c e and r e f e r r a l
students,

an i m p o r t a n t

m arketed

as

an

goal

services to

at

five
four

include

em ployee-assistance

program, which might make a c c e s s more d i f f i c u l t f o r s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s .
6.
only

16

An a c u t e problem was i n f a n t c a r e
s p ac es

were

available

among

( b a b i e s un de r one y e a r ) ;

all

15

campuses.

This

is

e s p e c i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t g i v e n t h e p o t e n t i a l numbers o f n o n t r a d i t i o n a l
students

and p e r c e n t a g e s

of

fem ale

students

employees (50.7%) a t t h e 15 u n i v e r s i t i e s

(51%)

in M ichi gan.

and

fem ale

In a d d i t i o n ,

t h e U nit ed S t a t e s Department o f Labor (Dole, 1989) r e p o r t e d t h a t 48%

95

o f mot hers

are retu rn in g to

work b e f o r e

their

infants

are

a year

all

on-

old.
7.

Cam p us -e m pl oy ee -p ar en ts

n ear-site centers.

had l i m i t e d

access

to

or

There was l i m i t e d a c c e s s f o r e m p l o y e e - p a r e n t s in

t h e f o l l o w i n g ways:

(a) C h i l d r e n o f e m p l o y e e - p a r e n t s were s e l e c t e d

for

after

a d m is si o n

placed,

only

children

of

student-parents

o r e m p l o y e e - p a r e n t s were in a l a r g e r pool

com m unity-parents,

which f u r t h e r

a v a i l a b l e t o em plo yee s,
o n l y on a h a l f - d a y

lim ited

the

had

of student-

nu m b e r o f

(b) With 595 c h i l d c a r e s p a c e s

basis,

full-tim e

been
and

spaces

available

employees were l i m i t e d t o

773

f u l l - d a y s p a c e s as well as t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s on s e l e c t i o n o f c h i l d r e n
f o r admission.
acute

on

two

F in d in g f u l l - t i m e d a y c a r e may have been p a r t i c u l a r l y
campuses

whose c h i l d c a r e

h a l f - d a y p r e s c h o o l prog ram s,
centers

during

sem ester

the

breaks,

summer,
which

centers

operated

only

as

(c) Six campuses d i d n o t o p e r a t e t h e i r
and

in some c a s e s

also

lim ited

the

not

during

access

of

term

or

fu ll-tim e

employees t o f u l l - d a y c h i l d c a r e .
8.
d ep en d e n t

Thirty

percent

of

the

15

care

s p en d in g

accounts

universities

for

campus

in

Michigan

employees.

had

This

is

compared t o t h e C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Personnel A s s o c i a t i o n s u r v e y
( 1 99 0) , which r e p o r t e d 92% o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s in t h e s t u d y o f f e r i n g
the

nontaxable

account

option

f o r employees

to

draw from t o

pay

child care fees.
9.

U niversity

students

observing

or

p articip atin g

w ith

c h i l d r e n f o r academic p u r p o s e s was t h e same w h et h er t h e campus c h i l d
c a r e c e n t e r ’ s p r im a r y m i s s i o n was t r a i n i n g o r s e r v i c e .

The a c c e s s

96

to

multi-m ission

facilities

t h e 15 u n i v e r s i t i e s
S tate U niversity

by

student

observers/participators

in Michigan was t h e

study

same as

(Summa A s s o c i a t e s ,

at

in t h e C a l i f o r n i a

1987)

and t h e

survey

in

I l l i n o i s ( S h i r a h , 1988).

Research Q ue s ti o n 2
How does each u n i v e r s i t y i n t e g r a t e c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s t o
employee- and s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s as well as u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s
p a r t i c i p a t i n g w ith c h i l d r e n as p a r t o f t h e i r academic s t u d y ?
Summary o f f i n d i n g s on t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .
An a n a l y s i s o f t h e f i n d i n g s r e v e a l e d two i n t e g r a t i o n p a t t e r n s .
was w i t h i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y s t r u c t u r e ,
community

or

state

agencies.

activ ity

was

academic

affairs,

operation

o f 17 o f t h e

22 c h i l d

r e s o u r c e and r e f e r r a l
representing

28

various

and t h e second was w i t h l o c a l

The

services.

One

largest

which
care

was

area

of

integrated

represented

centers

and

in

in

the

two o f

the

In 17 o f t h e 22 c e n t e r s ,

cu rricu la

particip ated

for

students
academic

purposes.
B u s in es s a f f a i r s u n i t s had p e r i p h e r a l

roles

in each c h i l d c a r e

s e r v i c e in t h e p r o v i s i o n o f a c c o u n t i n g s e r v i c e s , p a y r o l l ,
employee

assistance,

student

employment

options,

and/or

insurance,
financial

aid.
Student a f f a i r s
the

stro n g est

arr an ge m en t

in

in t h e

in te g ra tio n within the child
two

centers

adm inistrative

where

there

functions.

was

c a r e c e n t e r s was
a

cooperative

An oth er was w i t h

community c e n t e r where a c o n t r a c t u a l s e r v i c e had been n e g o t i a t e d .

a

97

The h i g h e s t l e v e l
Development
combined

Center

services

o f i n t e g r a t i o n was a t S p a r t a n V i l l a g e C hi ld

at
w it h

Michigan

State

aca dem ic,

U niversity.

business,

and

Th is

center

student

affairs

w i t h i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y and w i t h a g e n c i e s in t h e l a r g e r community f o r
p e r s o n n e l , c o n t r a c t s , and g r a n t s .

An other c e n t e r o p e r a t e d i n f a m i l y

hou sin g and had no f u r t h e r i n t e g r a t i o n w i t h i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y o r t h e
l a r g e r community.
Community and s t a t e a g e n c i e s had d i s t i n c t c o n t r a c t s w i t h 11 o f
the

25 c h i l d

spaces

in

a

care

services,

local

center

ranging
to

from a c o n t r a c t

another

having

for

statewide

daycare
enhanced

r e f e r r a l s f o r campus employees l o c a t e d th ro u gh Mi chi gan .
Conclusions regarding a d m in is tr a t iv e i n t e g r a t i o n .
1.

I n t e g r a t i o n o f academic a f f a i r s and s t u d e n t a f f a i r s

a d m in istrativ e functions
common.

of the child care s erv ice s

Academic a f f a i r s

and

student

affairs

were

in t h e

were t h e

most

also

most

the

i d e n t i f i e d w it h campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s in t h e U nit ed S t a t e s ,

as

r e p o r t e d in t h e P r o f i l e o f Campus Chil d Care (Herr e t a l . , 19 8 7 ) .
2.

Some

insurance,

unit

of

business

affairs,

and s t u d e n t employment,

particularly

had a f u n c t i o n

in

accounting,
nearly

c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e a t t h e 15 u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan.

every

None o f t h e

r e s e a r c h on campus c h i l d c a r e revie wed f o r t h i s s t u d y d i s c u s s e d t h e
in vo lv em ent o f b u s i n e s s a f f a i r s .
3.

Integration

complicated

when

of m ultiple adm inistrative

community

agencies

are

added

systems

is

to

child

the

further

s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y system and t o t h e u n i v e r s i t y g o v er n an c e s y s t e m .

care
In

98

12

of

the

25 campus

child

care

serv ices

th ere

were

sp ecific

c o n t r a c t s w i t h community a g e n c i e s .

Resea rc h Q ue s ti o n 3
What i s t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s
w i t h i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y g o ve r na n c e f o r each i n s t i t u t i o n ?
Summary o f
services.

findings

on

adm inistration

of

campus

Of t h e 25 campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s ,

child

care

14 were u n d e r t h e

academic a f f a i r s d i v i s i o n , 6 were un de r s t u d e n t a f f a i r s , 1 was under
b u s i n e s s a f f a i r s , and 4 were j o i n t l y a d m i n i s t e r e d by c o m b i n a t i o n s o f
the th re e .
care

Thirteen

services,

various c o lle g e s

w it h

21

different

or schools

departments

housed t h e

or

units

child

directly

r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s on t h e 15
campuses.

The h i g h e s t c o n c e n t r a t i o n

five

care

child

centers

departments,

f o ll o w e d

Some o f

other

the

in

by

various

three

hum an/fam ily/child

centers

departments

affirm ativ e action,

in t h e most s i m i l a r u n i t s was

or

an i n t e r n a t i o n a l

in

units

devel opment

health-related

included

center,

units.

urban

p s y c h o lo g y ,

studies,
sociology,

e d u c a t i o n , and a g r a d u a t e s c h o o l .
Conclusions reg ardin g a d m in is te rin g c h i ld care s e r v i c e s .
1.

A revie w

of

the

findings

indicated

the

complexity

a d m i n i s t e r i n g a d i s t i n c t c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e , and in most i n s t a n c e s a
business,

within

an

complex

network

faculty,

directors,

c o m m u n it y

already

included

m ultiple

teachers,

connections,

established

and

u n iv ersity

assistant
students

university

teachers,
from

sy st em .

A

ad m in istrato rs,
support

academic

staff,

courses

prog ram s, w o r k - s t u d y prog ram s, a n d / o r s t u d e n t employment.

or

A si mp le

of

99

organizational
students.

structure

The

most

included

complex

a

director/teacher

adm inistrative

and

patterns

intern

were

those

combining academic l a b o r a t o r i e s and f u l l - d a y c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .
2.

The wide r a n g e o f d e p a r t m e n t s and u n i t s h o u s in g c h i l d c a r e

s e r v i c e s added t o t h e d i f f i c u l t y in i d e n t i f y i n g c h i l d r e n ’ s s e r v i c e s
on any one campus.

T h i r t e e n v a r i o u s c o l l e g e s o r s c h o o l s housed t h e

c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s , w i t h 21 d i f f e r e n t d e p a r t m e n t s o r u n i t s d i r e c t l y
resp o n sib le f o r the operation of child care s e rv ic e s.

Research Q u e s ti o n 4
What a r e t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t i t l e s / c o d e s f o r t h e c h i l d c a r e
p e r s o n n e l w i t h i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e framework o f each i n s t i t u ­
tion?
Summary o f f i n d i n g s on t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f c h i l d c a r e p e r s o n ­
nel .

Of t h e 22 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , 16 were c l a s s i f i e d as a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

professionals,
be in g

the

or

the

full-tim e

teaching

center

children,

volunteer

equivalent,

and/or

university
conducting

a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e c h i l d c a r e program.
full

or

assigned

partial
as

classified

the

lo a d

for

adm inistering

departm ent’ s li a is o n

the

center.

c o o r d i n a t o r s o r man age rs .
managers

Five

or

combined

courses,
research

included
duties

of

coordinating
as

w ell

as

Five were f a c u l t y s t a t u s w ith
the

child

director.

as a r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t t e a c h i n g

adm inistering

business

responsibilities

adm inistrator

instructing

programs,

whose

centers

care

service

or

One d i r e c t o r

was

u n iv e rsity courses

and

had

full-tim e

program

Five c e n t e r s had f u l l - t i m e s e c r e t a r i a l o r

who w e r e

also

p r o f e s s io n a ls or c l e r i c a l - t e c h n i c a l s .

classified

as

ad m in istrativ e

100

Te a ch er s

and

assistant

teachers

range o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s
structure;

no c o n s i s t e n t

adm inistrative

w ithin

the

patterns

professionals,

of

the

university

emerged.

and

children

others

had

adm inistrative

Some were
were

a wide

in

faculty

or

classifications

labeled "other" or "m iscellaneous."
Sev ent een
staff.

They

of the
were

25 programs

classified

as

used

students

work-study,

as

part

student

of th eir
employees,

student o b s e r v e r s /p a r t ic ip a to r s , and/or volunteers.
C o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n codes f o r c h i l d c a r e p e r ­
sonnel .
1.

D i r e c t o r s o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s a t t h e Michigan u n i v e r s i ­

t i e s were c l a s s i f i e d

prim arily

in f a c u l t y p o s i t i o n s .
directors

in

faculty

•• a + U a v i 11
U tilC I

status

as

reported

v.

ilmi c r ' n l 1 n n n n i t r
III I

in t h e

P rofile

o f Campus

1987) a c r o s s t h e United S t a t e s .

The r a n g e o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
Ul

w i t h 4%

Th is was s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s t h a n t h e 33% o f

C h il d Care ( H e r r e t a l . ,
2.

in t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e u n i t ,

I I Ul|l»v/U^ )

**

U ^|J

|

r +

t w u

of teachers,
+ U

hr««V»

n n i w o v 'c o l
U ill

I Cl

I

from f a c u l t y
n v 'n K lo m

!<; I C k / I W i l l

■P

WI

hniil

MUM

to
+ n

UW

c l a s s i f y t e a c h e r s o f young c h i l d r e n w i t h i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y s t r u c t u r e
when

"teacher"

often

refers

to

those

in stru ctin g

u n iv ersity

students.
3.

Many c e n t e r s ,

if

employing

h i r i n g o n ly w o r k - s t u d y s t u d e n t s ,
the

trained,

w it h c h i l d r e n .

or

in-training,

students,

were

which o f t e n d i d

personnel

desired

restricted

not give
or

needed

to

centers
to

work

101

Research Q u e s ti o n 5
How a r e t h e c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s funded and a d m i n i s t e r e d i n each
u n i v e r s i t y ’s f is c a l operations?
Summary o f
services.
referral

Four o f t h e
programs

funded t h r o u g h
another

findings

and

the

received

u n i v e r s i ty housing.
local

child

care

agency d i r e c t l y .
university.

on t h e

fiscal

25 c h i l d
the

operations

care services

clinical

drop-in

university,

two o t h e r s

support

needed

as

One c h i l d

agency

to

of

(three

child

r e s o u r c e and

service)

were

grant

through

care

were

fully

funded,

ren ts

paid

and
into

c a r e s e r v i c e had a c o n t r a c t w i t h a

reserve

spaces,

and

parents

paid

the

Three c e n t e r s r e c e i v e d no d i r e c t s u p p o r t from t h e

The re m a in in g 16 c e n t e r s were r e c e i v i n g 5% t o 80%, with

a 22% a v e r a g e , o f t h e c e n t e r ’ s budget coming from d i r e c t u n i v e r s i t y
support.
I n - k i n d s u p p o r t , which might i n c l u d e s a l a r i e s ,
maintenance,
resources

u tilities,

for

and/or custodial

22 o f t h e

25 campus

services,

child

care

building

space,

was p a r t o f t h e

services.

Fifteen

d i r e c t o r s had a l l o r a p o r t i o n o f t h e i r s a l a r i e s i n c l u d e d as i n - k i n d
support.

Twenty

university,

and 18 had u t i l i t i e s

had

m aintenance

university.

centers

and

16

The h i g h e s t

S tate U niversity,

which

business

building

custodial

manager,
services.

had

had

building

space

allo tted

i n c l u d e d as w e l l .
custodial

level

of

in-kind

s pac e

and

through

support
of

maintenance,

the

Fifteen centers

services

included the s a l a r i e s

by

was

the

at

the

Ferris

director

u tilities,

and
and

102

C o n cl us io ns on f u n d i n g r e s o u r c e s .
1.

The a v e r a g e d i r e c t s u p p o r t t o t h e campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s

from t h e Michigan u n i v e r s i t i e s
b ud g e t ,

which

was

less

th a n

was 22% o f t h e c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r ’s
the

average

of

37% r e p o r t e d

in

f i n d i n g s o f t h e P r o f i l e o f Campus C hi ld Care Survey ( H err e t

the
a l .,

1987) a c r o s s t h e campuses i n t h e U ni te d S t a t e s .
2.

The

in-kind

support

for

child

care

services

of

the

15

u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan was s u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r t h a n t h a t r e p o r t e d
in n a t i o n a l

studies

contribution

on campus c h i l d

had 68% i n c l u d i n g

including building

care.

Michigan

d ire c to rs’ salaries

and u t i l i t i e s ,

whereas

and n e a r l y

the national

t h e P r o f i l e o f Campus C h i l d Care Survey (H err e t a l . ,
including d i r e c t o r s ’ s a l a r i e s

universities’

and 70% i n c l u d i n g

figures

all
in

1987) had 29%

building

s p ac e and

u tilities.
Finally,
the

15

in l o o k i n g a t a l l t h e c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s p r e s e n t e d a t

public

u niversities,

id en tified

clientele

integrated

the

none

requiring

adm inistrative

c h ild care se rv ic e s.

of

them

adequately

served

child

care

services,

effectively

s y st em s ,

or

efficiently

all

delivered

Some i n s t i t u t i o n s were o u t s t a n d i n g in v a r i o u s

aspects of the study.
F erris S tate U niversity

had c o l l e c t i v e l y more components from

each o f t h e q u e s t i o n s be in g s t u d i e d .

In t h e f e a t u r e s and f u n c t i o n s

o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s , t h e r e was a com bi n ati on f u l l - d a y , y e a r - r o u n d
child care

for

student-,

em ployee-,

and c o m m u n i t y - p a r e n t s

and

l a b o r a t o r y f a c i l i t y d e s i g n e d f o r s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in a d eg r ee
program in c h i l d d ev el o p m en t .

E i g ht o f t h e 16 s p a c e s were a v a i l a b l e

103

for

infants

among t h e

15 u n i v e r s i t i e s

and s p a c e s

for

preschoolers

through school-age c h ild re n .
Student-parents
fees.

had

E m p lo y ee - p a re n ts

parents

and d ep en de nt

priority

of

had p r i o r i t y
care

a d m is si on
of

accounts;

were t h e o n ly employees from a l l

and

a d m is si on

the

paid

r e d uc e d

o v e r community-

adm inistrative

personnel

the u n i v e r s i t i e s with a c h i ld care

"cafeteria benefit."
Housed in t h e C o l l e g e o f E d u c a ti o n , as a community s e r v i c e , was
a bran ch o f f i c e o f t h e Kent County Regional
C h il d Care A s s o c i a t i o n .
and

referral

community,

service

Community C o o r d i n a t e d

Although t h i s was no t an enhanc ed r e s o u r c e
but

one

available

to

all

parents

t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e coun ty o f f i c e on t h e

in

Ferris

the

campus

was p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l t o employee- and s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s .
E i g h t academic u n i t s were u s in g t h e c e n t e r as p a r t o f academic
requirem ents involving c h i ld r e n .
ing
each

from t h e
te rm .

child-development
Students

from

Students observing o r p a r t i c i p a t ­
courses

other

numbered

curricula

were

approximately
from

150

optometry.

n u r s i n g , d e n t a l h y g ie n e , t e l e v i s i o n p r o d u c t i o n , h o t e l and r e s t a u r a n t
management,

and c h i l d p sy ch o lo g y .

There was no r e s e a r c h

co n d u ct ed

by s t u d e n t s .
The c e n t e r was housed
divisions
w ork-study
services.

in v o l v e d

in

programs,

the

in academic a f f a i r s .
c e n t e r ’ s operation

fin an cial

aid,

and

Business

included
insurance

affairs

accounting,
and

legal

There was a j o i n t a d v i s o r y committee between t h e academic

104

program and t h e c e n t e r composed o f p a r e n t s , an academic c o o r d i n a t o r ,
and o t h e r campus, community, and s t a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

structure

w ithin

c a r e c e n t e r was t h e most c o n f u s i n g ;
various

adm in istrato rs.
were

The

several

academic

separate

Ferris

campus

personnel

child

reported

program

and

the

w ithin

the

College

child

center

E d u c a ti o n .

There were a f u l l - t i m e d i r e c t o r and b u s i n e s s manager and
secretary.

C lassification

t e a c h e r s was in a c a t e g o r y l a b e l e d
assistant

teachers

and v o l u n t e e r s ,

and

students

as well

units

to

development

a three-quarter-tim e

in

the

"other."

of

the

of

full-tim e

Th ere were p a r t - t i m e

in w o r k - s t u d y ,

student

as t h e s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g

employees,

f o r academic

study.
The u n i v e r s i t y

contributed

13% t o

the

center’s

budget,

was lower t h a n t h e a v e r a g e among t h e o t h e r u n i v e r s i t i e s .
the

in-kind

support

was

o ne

of

the

highest

d i r e c t o r ’ s and b u s i n e s s m a n a g e r ’ s s a l a r i e s ,
nance , u t i l i t i e s ,

and

which

However,

included

building space,

the

mainte­

and c u s t o d i a l s e r v i c e s .

Summary o f t h e C o n c l u s i o n s
Of t h e 23 c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from t h e f i n d i n g s , e i g h t were i d e n ­
t i f i e d as most s i g n i f i c a n t .
1.
were

fema le

N ontraditional
students

universities.
universities

and

s t u d e n t s were a s i g n i f i c a n t
female

em plo yee s,

at

The a v e r a g e age o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e s
in Michigan was 23.

were e n r o l l e d .

population,

M ic h i g a n ’ s
at

public

t h e 15 p u b l i c

F i f t y th o u s a n d g r a d u a t e

students

Female s t u d e n t s c o n s t i t u t e d 51% o f t h e t o t a l s t u d e n t

as

105

p o p u l a t i o n o f 258,555 s t u d e n t s .

Female employees were 50.7% o f t h e

t o t a l employee p o p u l a t i o n o f 4 0 , 8 3 1 .
2.

Co mm un ity -p ar ent s

were

part

of

s er v ed in campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s .
in

19

of

the

22

em ployee-parents,

child

care

and/or

the

divergent

clientele

Comm un ity-pa rents were s e r v e d

centers,

university

as

were

students

student-parents,

p articipating

w it h

c h i l d r e n f o r academic p u r p o s e s .
3.

Em pl o ye r - s po ns o r e d c h i l d c a r e b e n e f i t s were l i m i t e d , as was

access

of

employee-parents

There

were

five

institutions
child

care

to

enhanced

all

22

resource

offering

d ep en d e nt

"cafeteria

option."

campus

and

care

child

care

referral

accounts,

centers.

services,

five

and one o f f e r i n g

Em p lo y e e - p a re n ts

were

lim ited

by

f i r s t p r i o r i t y o f a d m is si o n g iv e n t o c h i l d r e n o f s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s ,
lim ited

number

of

full-tim e

spaces,

and

lim its

of

the

a

a

academic

calendar.
4.

I n f a n t c a r e was l i m i t e d t o 16 s p a c e s among t h e 15 campuses.

The l a c k o f a d e q u a t e c a r e f o r i n f a n t s c o u l d be a m a jo r c o n c e r n w it h
a total

o f 30 0,000 s t u d e n t s

and employees s t u d y i n g

and wor king

at

t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in Michigan.
5.

Integration

complicated

when

of m ultiple adm inistrative

community

agencies

are

added

sy ste m s

is

to

child

the

further

s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y s yst em and t o t h e u n i v e r s i t y g o v e r n a n c e s y s t e m .
12 o f t h e

25 campus c h i l d

care

services

there

were

specific

care
In
con­

t r a c t s w it h community a g e n c i e s .
6.
centers

Organizational
were

more

patterns

complex

when

in

the

operation

com bining

of

m ultiple

child

care

m issions.

106

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e co m b in a ti o n s i n more t h a n h a l f o f t h e 25 campus c h i l d
c a r e c e n t e r s b le n de d s e r v i c e and academic t r a i n i n g .

Only 4% o f th e

d i r e c t o r s were in f a c u l t y p o s i t i o n s , even though u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s
participating
w hether

the

with

children

m ission

of

for

the

academic

center

was

purposes

was

the

same

service,

academ ic,

or

u n iv ersities

in

co m b in a ti o n s o f t h e two.
7.

Funding

resources

comparison t o n a t i o n a l
in

in-kindsupport.

u n i v e r s i t i e s was

f ro m

the

M ichigan

s u r v e y s were low in d i r e c t s u p p o r t and high

The a v e r a g e

direct

support

at

the

Michigan

22% o f t h e c e n t e r ’ s b u d g e t , which was l e s s t h a n t h e

n a t i o n a l a v e r a g e o f 37%.

I n - k i n d s u p p o r t a t t h e Michigan u n i v e r s i ­

t i e s was 68% i n c l u d i n g d i r e c t o r s ’ s a l a r i e s

and n e a r l y a l l

campuses

i n c l u d i n g b u i l d i n g and u t i l i t i e s , which was h i g h e r th a n t h e n a t i o n a l
av e r a g e

of

29% i n c l u d i n g

d irectors’

b u i l d i n g s p a c e and u t i l i t i e s
8.

rhilrl

adm inistrative
services.
aspects

of

emplo yee -,

care

system s,

t h i s study.
more

and

for

ben efits

Integration

of

70%

including

identified

clientele

pffpct.ivelv

were s t e l l a r

and

in

academic

as well

study.

availab le

academic

functions

int.earated

delivered

in

child

one o r more o f

One u n i v e r s i t y ’ s c h i l d

features

were

all

efficien tly

and c o m m u n it y - p a r e n ts

children

served

servirps.

Someu n i v e r s i t i e s

collectively

w it h

rarp

and

( H e r r e t a l . , 1987).

No one campus a d e q u a t e l y

rpnuirinn

salaries

care serv ices

place

as s t u d e n t s

for

cu rricu la

and

at
use

other
of

care
th e
had

student-,

participating

More e m p lo y e r - s p o n s o r e d
than

the

child

u n iv ersities.
a com prehensive

1 07

a d v i s o r y committee were a l s o commendable.

The u n i v e r s i t y ’ s i n - k i n d

s u p p o r t was t h e h i g h e s t o f t h e 15 u n i v e r s i t i e s .

The m a jo r weakness

was t h e

care

adm inistrative

structure

of

the

child

center,

with

various personnel re p o r ti n g to d i f f e r e n t u n iv e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r Research
As a r e s u l t o f t h i s

study,

the following are im p lic a tio n s fo r

fu rth e r research:

F e a t u r e s and F u n c ti o n s o f
Campus C h il d Care
1.

What

are

the

actual

numbers

of

student-

and

employee-

p a r e n t s on t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t y campuses in Mich ig an,

and what

a r e t h e a c t u a l o r a n t i c i p a t e d c h i l d c a r e needs o f campus p a r e n t s ?
2.

How do campus p a r e n t s f i n d c h i l d c a r e ?

3.

What a r e t h e community c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e

u n i v e r s i t i e s t h a t i n f l u e n c e t h e campus community?
4.
also

Are some o f t h e

connected

to

surrounding

the u n iv e rs i tie s

community c h i l d
th r o u g h

students

care

centers

observing

or

p a r t i c i p a t i n g w ith c h i l d r e n f o r academic p u r p o s es ?
5.

If

the

answer t o

the

preceding

question

is

"Y e s, "

what

r e l a t i o n s h i p do t h e y have w ith t h e academic u n i t s ?

I n te g ra tio n o f Services
1.
the

What b a r r i e r s p r e v e n t more c o o p e r a t i o n between d i v i s i o n s o f

university

(i.e .,

em p lo y e r - s p o n s o r e d

student

child

care

affairs,
issues

academic

arise,

affairs,

business

o f f e r more compre hen siv e c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s on campus?

and,

as

affairs)

to

108

2.
and

What s t r a t e g i e s

adm inistrative

c o u l d be used t o engage

support

for

child

care

interdepartm ental

services

in

academic,

s t u d e n t a n d / o r b u s i n e s s a f f a i r s , o r t h e community?
3.

How aware a r e a d m i s s i o n s ,

student a c t i v i t i e s ,

and b u s i n e s s

p e r s o n n e l o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s on t h e i r own campuses o r where t o
r e f e r c h i ld - r e la te d questions?

A dm inistrative S tru ctu re
o f Campus C h il d Care
1.

What a r e

the

sim ilarities

o f campus c h i l d

c h i l d c a r e syst em s t h a t o p e r a t e w i t h i n

bureaucratic

care

to

other

organizations,

i . e . , m i l i t a r y or c o r p o r a t e c h i l d c a r e ?
2.

What problems and a d v a n t a g e s a r e p r e s e n t when t r a i n i n g and

service f a c i l i t i e s

a r e combined,

and how a r e i s s u e s

of operational

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y resolved?

C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Per so nne l
1.

What

strategies

are

used

to

increase

the

professional

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e many e a r l y c h i l d h o o d e d u c a t o r s employed by t h e
u n i v e r s i t y and t e a c h i n g in campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s ?
2.

What t r a i n i n g

i s r e q u i r e d o r g iv e n f o r w o r k - s t u d y s t u d e n t s

working in campus c e n t e r s ?

Campus C h il d Care Funding
1.

What i s t h e c o r r e l a t i o n among t h e u n i v e r s i t y ’ s d i r e c t s u p ­

p o r t , i n - k i n d s u p p o r t , and p a r e n t f e e s ?

1 09

2.
support

What s t r a t e g i e s a r e used f o r d e v e l o p i n g i n t e r n a l u n i v e r s i t y
as well as s t a t e o r community f u n d in g ?

Two

c o m pa r is on s

for

further

S tudies

campuses

research

on

campus

child

care

include:
1.

of

w ith m u l t i p l e

particularly

in t h e Big Ten C o n f e r e n c e ,

com plexities

of

clientele,

and

child

care

sites,

and how a d m i n i s t e r i n g

integration

and

delivery

of

the

child

care s e r v ic e s are accomplished.
2.

S t u d i e s o f community c o l l e g e s and p r i v a t e u n i v e r s i t i e s

and

c o l l e g e s in M ichi gan.

Recommendations
As a r e s u l t

of gathering

and

analyzing

inform ation

for

this

s t u d y , t h e f o l l o w i n g recommendations a r e p r e s e n t e d :
1.

The

first

recom mendation i s

to

encourage

individual

campuses t o d e v e l o p a c h i l d c a r e t a s k f o r c e o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from
t h e campus and t h e community.
central

source

of

child

The p u rp o s e s would be t o e s t a b l i s h a

care

inform ation,

to

better

communicate

i n f o r m a t i o n on c h i l d c a r e i s s u e s a c r o s s i n t e r d e p a r t m e n t a l u n i t s , and
to

effectiv ely

individual
may

be

to

in teg rate

campuses.
explore

rec om mendations,

resources

Additional

availab le

of

and

on

issues of a ch ild care ta sk force

em ployer-sponsored

assessments

around

campus

child

care

dem ographics

options
of

and

children

l i v i n g on campus, c u r r e n t and a n t i c i p a t e d c h i l d c a r e needs o f campus
parents,

and

available

child

care,

p articu larly

for

in fan ts.

110

I n t e g r a t i v e and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o m p l e x i t i e s c o u l d a l s o be a d d r e s s e d
th r o u g h t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f a campuswide t a s k f o r c e .
2.

The

second

recommendation

is

to

establish

a

statew ide

c h i l d r e n ’ s s e r v i c e s a s s o c i a t i o n o f t h e 15 p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s .

The

a s s o c i a t i o n would co m p ri s e t h e f o u r p r i m a r y g r ou p s t h a t emerged from
t h e s t u d y as c o n t r i b u t i n g t o campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s :

(a ) c h i l d

care d eliv ery

employee-

personnel,

(b)

academic c o o r d i n a t o r s ,

(c)

a s s i s t a n c e o r b e n e f i t p e r s o n n e l , and (d) s t u d e n t s e r v i c e s p e r s o n n e l .
The p u r po s e would be t o exchange i n f o r m a t i o n , d e v e l o p communication
links,

share

research

and

dem og rap hic s

s e r v i c e s a t t h e 15 u n i v e r s i t i e s ,

pertinent

and problem s o l v e

to

child

sim ilar

care

issues.

The a s s o c i a t i o n would p r o v i d e a l i n k between t h e autonomy o f t h e 15
u n i v e r s i t i e s and p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o be s t r o n g e r a d v o c a t e s f o r
the

issues

of

campus

fam ilies,

early

childhood

educators,

and

s t u d e n t s in t r a i n i n g on t h e u n i v e r s i t y campuses.
3.

The

coalitions

third
with

recommendation

other

businesses

is
in

for
the

u niversities
community,

to

develop

especially

in

s m a l l e r communities where c o n s o r t i u m s may b e s t us e l i m i t e d r e s o u r c e s
for

employees

of

several

Michigan T e c h n o l o g i c a l

businesses

U niversity

(as

is

being

developed

in Houghton-Hancock in t h e

at

Upper

P e n i n s u l a o f M ic h i g an ) .
4.
at

The

private

l a s t recommendation i s t o
colleges

and

universities

replicate
and

the cu rren t

community

s tu d y

colleges

a t t a i n a more c o m pl et e p i c t u r e o f campus c h i l d c a r e in Mich ig an.

to

Ill

Reflections
Child c a re i s
these

voices

universities
d irect

an i s s u e

were

v o ic e d from s e v e r a l

identified

in M ic hi g an .

pro v id ers,

the

campuses

of

the

Many o f
15

public

Voices o f e a r l y c h i l d h o o d e d u c a t o r s

parents,

children, nontraditional

on

sectors.

students

students,

preparing

for

work

and employees a r e c a l l i n g

and
w ith

atten­

ti o n to th e c h i ld r e n connected to u n i v e r s i t y l i f e .
The

u n iv ersities

have

teachers

and p r o v i d e r s

for

year

requiring

an

the
the

educated

u n i v e r s i t i e s have f a c i l i t i e s
but

many

are

no

longer

Perhaps

growing

and

loving

offering

for

influence

numbers

of

fu tu re

children

caregiver.

degrees

All

every
of

the

or

training

in

child

The tr i le m m a o f c h i l d c a r e a d d r e s s e s

low wages o f s t a f f ,

encouragem ent

to

t o p r e p a r e t e a c h e r s o f young c h i l d r e n ,

development o r r e l a t e d f i e l d s .
quality of care,

poten tial

the

and a f f o r d a b i l i t y f o r p a r e n t s .

education

and

preparation

of

c a r e g i v e r s s h o u ld a l s o be added.
Although o n l y some i n s t i t u t i o n s o f f e r t r a i n i n g
opportunities
childhood

to

future

educators

as

teachers,

every

directors,

be

a strong

c h i ld h o o d

voice

in

the

educators

as

they

em ployee-parents.
ing

and

mode ling

university

adm inistrators,

t h e 25 campus c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s .

and e d u c a t i o n a l
employs

early

and t e a c h e r s

in

Campuses have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o

professionalism
care

for

required

children

of

for

early

student-

and

These e a r l y c h i l d h o o d e d u c a t o r s a r e a l s o e v a l u a t ­
for

students

academic s t u d y and r e s e a r c h .

participating

with

children

for

112

The v o i c e o f working p a r e n t s i s new on many campuses.

Michigan

u n i v e r s i t i e s a r e emplo yer s o f more th a n 4 0, 0 00 f u l l - t i m e

employees

and an u n d et er m in e d number o f p a r t - t i m e employees who may be working
up t o 35 h ou rs p e r week.

C h il d c a r e s e r v i c e s c a n n o t be o v e r lo o k e d

as an i s s u e i n t h e r e c r u i t m e n t and r e t e n t i o n o f q u a l i f i e d employees.
The c o l l e c t e d

v o i c e o f employees

beg i n n in g

listen

to

to

as

is

one t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s

employer-sponsored

child

are ju s t

care

options

become more w id e l y implemented.
Ch il d

care

is

an i s s u e

loudly c a l l i n g fo r help.

in which

nontraditional

students

are

The av er a ge age o f s t u d e n t s in Michigan i s

i n c r e a s i n g , w it h c o n c o m it a n t i n c r e a s e s in t h e number o f s t u d e n t s who
are

single

parents

and f e m a l e s .

With

all

indications

predicting

t h i s c o n t i n u i n g t r e n d , c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s need t o be a c c e s s i b l e and
a f f o r d a b l e so t h a t s t u d e n t s ,

and even some f a c u l t y ,

no l o n g e r need

t o t a k e c h i l d r e n t o c l a s s e s bec au se th e y l a c k a d e q u a t e c h i l d c a r e .
The b l e n d i n g o f t h e s e v a r i e d v o i c e s

from academic p r e p a r a t i o n

and advocacy,

business

and employee b e n e f i t s ,

and

into

integrated

services

an

ch or us

is

and

student

difficult.

affairs
However,

a d d r e s s i n g t h e needs o f campus f a m i l i e s i s now a t a p o i n t where t h e
wi de r c u l t u r e

i s r e c o g n i z i n g t h e s t r e s s o f b a l a n c i n g work and home

responsibilities.

At

awareness

care

of

child

most

universities

issues

from

the

there
isolated

seems

to

be

an

perspective

of

academic p r e p a r a t i o n , o r employee b e n e f i t s , o r s t u d e n t n e e d s , b u t in
many c a s e s one u n i t was unaware o f o r u n w i l l i n g t o seek t h e e x p e r ­
t i s e a l r e a d y a v a i l a b l e on campus.

Thi s i s o l a t i o n weakened a t t e m p t s

t o s o l v e t h e co n ce r n s o f s t u d e n t -

and e m p l o y e e - p a r e n t s o r

students

11 3

requiring

participation

effective

ways.

various c h ild

w it h

children

Exacerbating

care

services

the

in

the

most

d ifficu lties

in

on Michigan campuses

is

ch ild ren ’s center,

and

unifying

the

the

a r r a y o f t e r m i n o l o g y us ed in t h e c h i l d c a r e f i e l d .
e a rly childhood e d u c a tio n ,

efficient

Terms such as

chi 1d -d ev elo p m en t c e n t e r s ,

child-developm ent

confusing

la b o ra to rie s,

daycare,

child

care

b e n e f i t s and a h o s t o f o t h e r r e l a t e d v o c a b u l a r y add t o problems in
id en tify in g

m ission,

q u ality ,

and

av ailab ility

of

ch ild

in

the

care

services.
Econ om ic
populations

pressures
w ill

also

and d e m o g r a p h i c
in flu en ce

changes

university

campus

adm inistrators

to

c o n s i d e r t h e im p o r t a n c e o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s as a b u s i n e s s a s s e t .
C o m p e tit io n

for

the

recruitm ent

and

retention

e s p e c i a l l y women and m i n o r i t i e s ,

will

continue

over t h e n e x t d e c a d e .
the

marketing

of

of
to

students,

and

be a c h a l l e n g e

As t h e w o r k f o rc e a l s o becomes more s e l e c t i v e ,

child

care

services

to

attract

employees

and

s t u d e n t s t o campuses w i l l become i n c r e a s i n g l y v a l u a b l p .
In r e s o l v i n g t h e

issues of preparation

and p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m o f

e a r l y c h i l d h o o d e d u c a t o r s , c r e a t i n g a more " f a m i l y f r i e n d l y " campus,
and

providing

a

possible

economic

benefit

to

em p lo y er s ,

it

is

im p o r t a n t t o r e c o g n i z e t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s and c o n c e r n s o f t h e campus
as

a whole

com munity.

A child

care

consultant,

can

conduct

universityw ide

strengths,

and

options

surrounding

from t h e

15 campuses

Representatives

task

force,

re vi e w s

of

campus
can

also

child
add

or

the
care

outside
concerns,
issues.

information

by

114

me eting on a r e g u l a r b a s i s ,

sim ila r to other

academic and s e r v i c e

u n i t s , t o exchange t h e r e s u l t s f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s and problem
s o l v e w i t h each o t h e r .
The

findings

from

this

s tu d y

i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e d e s c r i p t i o n
spectra
are

of child

in t h e

serving

a

care

large

and

of child

in Michigan.

uniq ue p o s i t i o n
varied

of

add

being

to

the

care

growing

services

The u n i v e r s i t i e s
both

population

models

w ithin

the

field

across
in

of
many

Michigan

and p a r t n e r s

in

adm inistrative

s t r u c t u r e o f t h e campus, in l o c a l commu nit ies , and in t h e s t a t e .

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

CAMPUS CHILD CARE SURVEY:

MICHIGAN UNIVERSITIES

11 5

CAMPUS CHILD CARE SURVEY
Michigan Universities
Name of Univers ity : _________________________
Name of Child Care Program/Service_____________________
1.

Who is served by university-affiliated child care services
available on or near your campus for:
EP = University Employee Parent
SP = Student-Parents
SO = Student-Observers (i.e. Child Development,
or Participants
Education, Psychology majors)
CP = Community-Parents
Services______________________ Service Groups
(Circle all that apply
EP
SP
SO
CP
Child Care Center
SP
SO
CP
Home based Program
EP
SO
CP
EP
SP
Resource & Referral
CP
EP
SP
SO
Financial Aid for Students
SP
SO
CP
EP
Lab School
SP
SO
CP
Employer-Sponsored Benefits
EP
SP
EP
SO
CP
Agreement or Contract with
community provider
O t h e r :____________________________________________________

2.

What type of child care do you offer?
Full-day care
Half-day care
Drop-in care
Evening Care (after 6:00)
Weekend care
After-school care
Preschool program
Kindergarten
Special needs
Sick children care
Other

( Check a l l

that apply.)

3. On what calendar basis is child care offered?
Academic year only
Academic year and summer
Full 12 mont h basis
4. What licensing/accreditation standards has your program met?
(Check all that apply.)
Licensed by the State of Michigan
Not licensed, but meet licensing requirements
Accredited by the National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC)
Exempt (Please explain)__________________________
Other:___
__________________ __
______________

116

What is the location of your center? ( C h e c k o n e . )
On campus
Off campus
O t h e r : ___ ________________________________________
6. How many years has your center operated?.
7. What is the primary purpose of your center?

( Check o n l y o n e . )

Education— to provide teacher training
Service— to provide care for st u d e n t s 'children
Service— to provide care for campus e m p l o y e e s 'children
Equal emphasis on educational lab and service
Other, please explain_____________________________________
8. What other types of child care are affiliated with the university?
( Check a l l t h a t a p p l y . )
Full-day day care
Half-day day care
D r o p - m care
_Sick Care
_Evening day care {after 6:00)
_Evening Lab for university courses
Weekend child care
_Preschool Lab Program for university courses
Satellite child care (Off campus, home care affiliated with
the university)
Referral Services
_0ther, please specify_________________________________ _
None
9. What is the number of children you are licensed to serve at any
one time? ______
Total number enrolled ______.
10. Please check the total number of children for which child care
is currently provided both part-time and full-time?
Part-Time
Full-Time
Part-Time
Full-Time
1-25__ __________ __________
176-200__ __________
__________
26-50
201-250
_________
__________
51-75 ________ _ __________
251-300
76-100 __________ __________
301-350
101-125 __________
__________
351-400
126-150 __________ __________
over 400
151-175

117

11. What are the ages of the children that are served?
that a p p ly.)

( Check a l l

less that one year of age
1-2 years
3-4 years
5 years-Kindergarten
School age-over 5 years
12. Does your center give priority to any group of children at your
university?
YES
NO
13. Please rank the priority given to each group.
( Rank 1 = H i g h e s t a n d 5 = L o w e s t )
Children of students
Children of faculty
Children of staff
Community Children
Special Needs Children
14. What is the parent fee for each age group that your center
serves? (A copy of your fee schedule, if available, may be
attached to this form.)
Student-Parent
Non-Student Parent
Half-day
Full-day
Half-day
Full-day
_________
Less than 1 year
1-2 years
_________
3-4 years________________________
5 years-kindergarten _________
School Age
_________

_________
_________
_________
_________
_________

_________
_________
_________
_________
_________

________
______
________
________
_________

Your Name:________________________________ T itle :______
A ddress:

____________________________________________

_________________________________ Telephone:__
Name of Child Care Director:______________________
(I f d i f f e r e n t from above)
Ad dre ss :
__________________________________ T e l e p h o n e :
THANK YOU!

If further questions call

Mary McCorriston

616/775-0042.

APPENDIX B

CONSENT FORM

118

CONSENT FORM

A DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF CAMPUS CHILD CARE SERVICES
AT THE FIFTEEN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN MICHIGAN

I understand that my participation in the answering of research
questions and the interview are voluntary and at any time I feel
uncomfortable with any of the questions I may withdraw from the
study.
I further understand that personal names will not be used
in the study.

Signature

Date

Title

Statement of Anonymity and Confidentiality
The names of any of the participants, which will include child care
personnel, faculty, other campus administrators, will not
be disclosed in any of the analysis or presentations, written or
oral.
Students are not included in this study.
Further protection
of the participants is the inclusion of a Consent Form seeking
their willingness to participate and confirming the confidentiality
of their responses.

APPENDIX C

CAMPUS CHILD CARE SERVICES INTERVIEW FORMAT

1 19

CAMPUS CHILD CARE SERVICES INTERVIEW GUIDE
THE FIFTEEN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES OF MICHIGAN

Interviewer________________________________________ Date.
Name of University______________________________________
Address

Telephone.
Child Care Service or Program_
Name of person being interviewed.
Title

Classification Code

SECTION I:
INITIAL INFORMATION
1.
Do you have any type of child care service available on
or near campus operated by the university that includes
children? (C h e c k a l l t h a t a p p l y . )
Center
.Home-based
Other
( I f YES t o a n y o f
None

Lab
Contractual
t h e a b o v e , go

t o SECTION I I I . )

If NONE to #1, are there any other campus child care
services available for administration, faculty, staff,
and/or students?
Resource & Referral
.Employer Sponsored
( I f YES t o a n y o f t h e a b o v e ,
NONE

3.

Community Resources
go

to

SECTION I I I . )

If NONE to #1 and #2, how do you think those of the
campus community find child care?

120

SECTION II: CHILD CARE CENTER INFORMATION
NOTE: I f m o r e t h a n o n e c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e / p r o g r a m on a s i n g l e
c ampus c o m p l e t e s e p a r a t e i n t e r v i e w on e a c h o n e .
4.

Under what division of the university are the child care
services/program administered?
Administration
Student Services
Other

_

Academic Affairs
Business

5.

Under what school or college is the child care service
housed?

6.

What unit or department is responsible for the operation of
the child care center or program?
___________________________________
University
Independent, nonprofit
Independent, for profit
Parent Co-op
Other

7.

What is the primary function of this child care
service/program?
(Ask f o r copy o f p r i n t e d m is s io n o r p h i l o s o p h y , i f
a v a i l a b l e .)

8.

What, if any, is the integration of services between any of
the administrative divisions, units or departments to the
clientele served, and/or as it fulfills the mission and function
of this child care program? ( F o r e x a m p l e , i s t h e a c a d e m i c l a b
a l s o a s e r v i c e t o s t u d e n t - p a r e n t s o r campus e m p l o y e e s ? )

9.

Fill out organizational flow chart.
paper.)

(Outline

on g r a p h

10. What are the classification codes of the child care
personnel in the university system? ( W r i t e on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
c h a r t .)

121

11.

What are the benefits that are included for child care
personnel?
{F i l l o u t t i t l e s a c c o r d i n g t o e a c h c e n t e r ' s
codes.)

Health Insurance
Life Insurance
Retirement
Social Security
Sick Leave
Child Care
Tuition Waivers
Education Stepend
Family Leave
Vacation
Other

12.

What is the education preparation of the child care staff?
(E n te r t i t l e s from o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r t and i n d i c a t e the
number s t a f f i n each c a t e g o r y . )

Non-degreed
CDA
Associate's degree CD
Associate's degree Other
Bachelor's degree CD or ECE
Bachelor's degree Other
Master's degree CD or ECE
M a s t e r ’s degree Other
Ed.D or PH.D

13.

What percentage of director's assignment is administrative?
1-25%____________________ ____ 76-99%
26-50%
____ 100% administrative assignment
51-75%

14.

What responsibilities does the director have, in addition to
being center administrator?
(C h e c k a l l t h a t a p p l y . )
Teaching children on regular basis.
Supervising student teachers/interns.
Coordinating research projects.
Conducting research projects.
Teaching college level courses.
Researching grant opportunities.
Other:___________

___ __________

122

15.

What is present salary range of child care personnel?
(E n te r t i t l e s from o r g a n iz a tio n a l c h a r t .)

Others

16.

Describe how parents are involved in the center or program.
( Check a l l t h a t a p p l y . )
Co-op
Parent Classes
"Other

17.

Describe how students are involved in the center.
( Check a l l t h a t a p p l y . )
Volunteer
Observers
Other

18.

Volunteer
Parent Board
NONE

____ Work Study
____ Student Employment
Interns/Student Teachers

What are your funding resources and approximately what
percent?
Rank or Percent
Parent Fees
___________
University__________________________________ ___________
DSS
___________
Child Care Food Program
___________
Job Training Partnership
___________
Carl Perkins Vocational Act
___________
Michigan High Risk 4's Program
___________
Student Services/Activity Fees
.
Grants
___________
Scholarships___________________________________________
Student Lab Fees
___________
Other
___________

123

19.

What percentage does the university or college contribute
for the following?
0%
1-25
26-50
51-75
76-99
100%
Secretarial Support_____
Director's Salary
Teacher's Salary
Building Space
Utilities
Building Maintenance
Center Equipment and
Supplies

20.

___
___
___
___
___
___
___

____
____
____
____
____
____
____

_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____

_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____

_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____

What are some of the procedures for the following fiscal
operations?
Insurance-liability_______________________________
building _______________________________
Fee Collection-Univ. Business Office
Center Office Manager
Center Director
Other procedure: _____________

Collection of Non-Payment Policy_

Discounts-Pay in full (term/semester)
Weekly
Siblings
Other _____________________

SECTION III:
EMPLOYER-SPONSORED INFORMATION
21. What are the employer sponsored child care benefits?
(Check a l l t h a t a p p l y . )
Vouchers
Family Leave
On-Site Care
"Cafeteria" Benefits
Other:
NONE
Describe _________________________________

22.

What determines eligibility?

____
____
____
____
____
____
____

124

23.

Who offers referrals or information about child care in
the community?

SECTION IV:
LABORATORY INFORMATION
24. Does your program serve as a teacher training site?
No
Yes

25. Does completion of training result in:

{ Check a l l

that

apply.)

CDA
Nanny Certification
Associate Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Master of Arts
Other: _____________________________________________________

26. How many students are trained in your program each
quarter/semester?

27. What types of teacher training experiences are offered to
students in your program? ( C h e c k a l l t h a t a p p l y . )
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________

Observation of children
Assisting Staff
Practice Teaching
Work with parents
Practicums
Other:________________________________________

28. Which academic departments use your program as a lab or
training site? ( C h e c k a l l t h a t a p p l y . )
Allied Health
Child Development
Education
Home Economics
Physical Therapy
Photography
Psychology
Television Production
Other:__________________________________

_____

____

125

29.

Does your program serve as a research site?
Yes
No

30.

Approximaely how many research projects are conducted each
year?___________

31.

Which departments particapate in these research projects?

32.

What facilities do you have for research projects?
{ Check a l l t h a t a p p l y . )
Observation space
Testing rooms
Audio-visual equipment
Other:____________________________________________

Record any o t h e r n o t e s o r d ata t h a t seems a p p r o p r i a t e .
Ask for Parent and Student Manuals.

APPENDIX D

CAMPUS CHILD CARE RESEARCH QUESTION MATRIX

126

Survey
Questions
IQ1
IQ2
IQ3
IQ4
IQ5
IQ6
IQ7
IQ8
IQ9
IQ10
IQ11
IQ12
IQ13
IQ14
IQ15
IQ16
IQ17
IQ18
IQ19
IQ20
IQ21
IQ22
IQ23
IQ24
IQ25
IQ26
IQ27
IQ28
IQ29
IQ30
IQ31
IQ32
QQI
QQ2
QQ3
QQ4
QQ5
QQ6
QQ7
QQ8

QQ9

RQla
x
x

RQlb
x
X

Research Questions
RQ2
RQ3
RQlc
x
x
x
x
x

RQ4

RQ5

X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
QQ10
X
X
X
QQ11
X
QQ12
X
QQI 3
X
X
X
QQ14
X
J
X
X
RQl= Features and Functions
RQla= Campus Employees
RQlb= Student-parents
RQla= Student-observers
IQ= Interview Questions QQ=

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X

RQ2= INTEGRATION
RQ3 = ADMINISTRATION STRUCTURE
RQ4= CLASSIFICATION TITLES
RQ5= FISCAL OPERATIONS
Questionnaire Questions J= Journal

APPENDIX E

SAMPLE OF MATRICES OF CAMPUS CHILD CARE ANALYSIS

12 7

TITLE
Com ponents o f Campus
C h i l d C a re S e r v i c e s
M ic h ig a n
U n iv e rsitie s

THEMES, PATTERNS, PROGRAM
CONTENT OR ACTUAL ACTIVITIES

APPENDIX F

MAP OF MICHIGAN SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF THE
15 PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN THE STUDY

128

MICHIGAN

CHU
EHU
FSU
GVSU
LSSU
HSU
MTU

NMU
OU
SVSU
UH-A
UH-D
UH-F
VMU

Wiu

C e n tr a l M ichiga n U n i v e r s i t y
E a s t e r n M ichigan U n i v e r s i t y
F erris S ta te U niversity
Grand V a l l e y S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
Lake S u p e r i o r S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
Michigan T e c h n o lo g ic a l U n i v e r s i t y
N o r th e rn M ichiga n U n i v e r s i t y
Oakland U n i v e r s i t y
Saginaw V a l l e y S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan - Ann Arbor
U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan - Dearborn
U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan - F l i n t
W es tern M ichigan U n i v e r s i t y
VJsyr.c
U niversity

KEY Student body
#GVSU
1 - 10,000
10,001

-

20,000

20,001

+

Lake Borden Baaed on the National Atlaa of the United States of America 1970

■V
20

>.0
4 0

Base M ap: E J . Senniger
Revised: R.A Santer 1976

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

A l g e r , H. A.
(1984, S p r i n g ) . Changes in t h e American f a m i l y :
I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r campus c h i l d c a r e .
Focus on L e a r n i n g . 1 0 ,
9-10.
A l g e r , H. A ., Keyes, C. R ., & P o s t e r , J . P.
(1988, A u g u s t ) . An
e v a l u a t i o n s t u d y o f t h e c h i l d c a r e sy ste m o f t h e C i t y U n i v e r ­
s i t y o f New Y ork. Milwaukee, WI: N a t i o n a l C o a l i t i o n f o r Cam­
pus C h i l d Care.
Almond, D. K., & C r a i g , P. H.
( 1 9 88 ) . C o o p e r a t i v e c h i l d c a r e a t
S t a n f o r d : The devel opment o f a c h i l d c a r e r e s o u r c e c e n t e r , a
net wo rk o f d a y c a r e homes, and a c o u n c i l on c h i l d c a r e .
In
Campus c h i l d c a r e i s s u e s and p r a c t i c e s (pp. 5 6 - 6 1 ) . Milwaukee,
WI: N a t i o n a l C o a l i t i o n f o r Campus C h i l d Care .
American A s s o c i a t i o n o f U n i v e r s i t y P r o f e s s o r s .
(1990, J a n u a r y February).
F a c u l t y c h i l d c a r e . Academe, 54Atwood, M., Tomi, V., & W i l l i a m s , J .
( 1 9 8 8 ) . A co m p reh en siv e model
f o r campus c h i l d c a r e .
In Campus c h i l d c a r e : I s s u e s and
p r a c t i c e s (pp. 6 2 - 6 5 ) . Milwaukee, WI: N a t i o n a l C o a l i t i o n f o r
Campus C h il d Care .
Bankes, L. R.
( 1 99 0) . Michigan e m p l o y e r s ’ g u i d e t o c h i l d c a r e (and
t h e Michigan c h i l d c a r e c h a l l e n g e ) . La n s i n g , MI: House Repub­
l i c a n Task Forc e on C h il d Care.
Bankes, L . , M i l l e r , J . , & Grimes, M. S.
(1988, J u l y ) . Michigan
employers* g u i d e t o c h i l d c a r e . L a n s i n g , MI: House R e p u b l ic a n
Task Forc e on C h i l d Care.
Barron’ s Educational S e r i e s .
( 1 99 0 ).
c o l l e g e s . New York: Au thor.

B a r r o n ’ s p r o f i l e s o f American

Bauch, J . P.
(1988, December). D e m o n s tr a t io n s c h o o l , c h i l d c a r e
c e n t e r o r bo th? 100 y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e a t Peabody C o l l e g e .
I n s t r u c t i o n a l Psychology, 15 (4 ).
B r a z e l t o n , T. B.
pp. 6 6- 7 0 .

(1989, F ebr uar y 1 3 ) .

129

Working p a r e n t s .

Newsweek,

130

Brophy, B., & Walsh, M. (1986, O c t o b e r 2 7 ) .
U.S. News and World R e p o r t , pp. 58 -6 4.

C h i l d r e n un de r s t r e s s .

Champagne, D. E . , & P e t t i t p a s , A.
(1989, Summer). P la n n i n g d e v e l ­
opmental i n t e r v e n t i o n s f o r a d u l t s t u d e n t s .
NASA. 26, 265-271.
C h il d c a r e w a n t i n g .
C o l l e g e Board.
students.

(1988, O c to b e r 1 0 ) .

A d m i n i s t r a t o r . 7, 3 .

(1990, A p r i l ) . A d m i t t i n g and c o u n s e l i n g a d u l t
New York: A ut h or .

C o ll e g e and U n i v e r s i t y P ers onn el A s s o c i a t i o n .
(1991, A p r il 1 5 ) .
S p e c i a l r e p o r t : Work and f a m i l y b e n e f i t s p r o v i d e d by c o l l e g e s
and u n i v e r s i t i e s . CUPA B e n e f i t s A l e r t .
C o n n e l l y , F. M., & C l a n d i n i n , D. J .
(1990, J u n e - J u l y ) .
S to rie s of
e x p e r i e n c e and n a r r a t i v e i n q u i r y .
E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h e r , pp.
2 - 1 4.
Cook, R. E.
(1984, S p r i n g ) . U n i v e r s i t y in v o l v e m e n t : A key t o
campus c h i l d c a r e s u r v i v a l .
Focus on L e a r n i n g . ]_0, 1 7 - 2 1 .
Cook, R. E.
( 1 9 8 8) . A c h a l l e n g e f o r campus c h i l d c a r e .
In Campus
child care:
I s s u e s and p r a c t i c e s (pp. 1 6 8 - 1 7 3 ) . Milwaukee,
WI: N a ti o n a l C o a l i t i o n f o r Campus C h il d Ca re .
C or de r, L. J .
( 1 98 8) . S t a t u s o f campus c h i l d c a r e :
Illin o is,
1986.
In Campus c h i l d c a r e :
I s s u e s and p r a c t i c e s (pp. 3 0 - 3 6 ) .
Milwaukee, WI: N at i o n al C o a l i t i o n f o r Campus C h il d C a r e .
C o r r i g a n , R. A.
(1984, S p r i n g ) .
Campus c h i l d c a r e :
c o l l e g e community. Focus on L e a r n i n g . 10, 5 - 7 .

Value t o t h e

Crawley, M., de P i e t r o , L . , & S u l l i v a n , M. ( 1 9 89 ) . C h il d c a r e in
M ichigan: A p r o f i l e . L an s i ng : Michigan C o o r d i n a t e d C h i l d
Care A s s o c i a t i o n .
Day, N.
(1984, J a n u a r y ) . Day c a r e comes t o t h e campus:
have found t h e key t o l u r i n g a new kind o f s t u d e n t .
M o th er , pp. 37 -4 1.

Colleges
Working

Dole, E.
( 1 9 89 ) .
Employers and c h i l d c a r e : B e n e f i t i n g work and
f a m i l y . U.S. Department o f Labor, O f f i c e o f t h e S e c r e t a r y
Women’ s Bureau. Washington, DC: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g
O ffice.
Edelman, M. W. (1989, S p r i n g ) .
Economic i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o c h i l d
c a r e and e a r l y c h i ld h o o d e d u c a t i o n .
T e a c h e r s ’ C o l l e g e R ec or d.
90, 342-351.

131

Equal Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission.
(1 9 90 ). H igh er e d u c a t i o n
s t a f f i n f o r m a t i o n (EEO-61: P u b l i c / p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s and
ca m p us es . Washington, DC: H ig h er Ed uca tio n R e p o r t i n g Commit­
t e e , EEOC Program Resea rc h and S ur vey s D i v i s i o n .
G a r f i n k e l , I . , & McLanahan, S. S.
( 1 9 8 6 ) . S i n g l e mo th ers and t h e i r
c h i l d r e n : A new American dilemm a. Washington, DC: The Urban
I n s t i t u t e Press.
Greene, E.
(1985, September 2 5 ) . C o l l e g e s hard p r e s s e d t o meet
demands f o r c h i l d c a r e ; fu n d in g c a l l e d i n a d e q u a t e . C h r o n i c l e
o f H ig h e r E d u c a t i o n .
H e r r , J . , Zimmerman, K., & S a l e n g a , P.
(1987a, J a n u a r y ) . A p r o f i l e
o f campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s n a t i o n a l s u r v e y : P a r t I .
C h il d
Care C e n t e r , pp. 6 - 7 .
H e r r , J . , Zimmerman, K., & S a l e n g a , P.
(1987b, March). A p r o f i l e
o f campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s n a t i o n a l s u r v e y : P a r t I I .
C hi ld
Care C e n t e r , pp. 18-19.
H e r r , J . , Zimmerman, K., & S a l e n g a , P.
(1987c, May). A p r o f i l e o f
campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s n a t i o n a l s u r v e y : P a r t I I I .
C h il d
Care C e n t e r , pp. 46-47.
H in es , E. R.
( 1 9 88 ) . H ig he r e d u c a t i o n and s t a t e g o v er n m e n ts :
Renewed p a r t n e r s h i p , c o o p e r a t i o n , o r c o m p e t i t i o n (ASHE-ERIC
H ig he r E d u c a ti o n Repo rt No. 5 ) .
Hodgkin, H. L.
( 1 9 85 ) . All one sy st em : Demographics o f e d u c a t i o n ,
k i n d e r g a r t e n t h r o u g h g r a d u a t e s c h o o l . I n s t i t u t e f o r Educa­
tio n a l Leadership.
Keyes. C.
(1 9 80 ).
D e s c r i p t i v e s t u d y o f campus c h i l d h o o d c e n t e r s in
t h e New York m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a . Unpu blish ed d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a ­
t i o n , Union G ra d u a te Sc hoo l-Mid we st.
Keyes, C.
(1 9 84 ).
Campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s :
ch ang e.
Focus on L e a r n i n g . 10, 3 5 - 43 .

D i v e r s i t y and

Keyes, C.
(1988, A u g u s t ) . An e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t o f t h e c h i l d c a r e
sy stem o f t h e C i t y U n i v e r s i t y o f New York. Milwaukee, WI:
N a t i o n a l C o a l i t i o n f o r Campus C h il d Care.
Keyes, C.
(1990, J a n u a r y - F e b r u a r y ) . M u l t i p l e m i s s i o n s :
c h i l d c a r e prog ram s. Academe, pp. 25-28.

Campus

Keyes, C . , & Cook, R. E.
(1 9 88 ). Meeting t h e c h a l l e n g e s .
In
Campus c h i l d c a r e :
I s s u e s and p r a c t i c e s (pp . 1 2 - 1 7 ) .
Milwaukee, WI: N a t i o n a l C o a l i t i o n f o r Campus C hi ld Care .

132

K r a f t , B. S.
(1981, F eb r u ar y 1 5 ) . D ay - ca r e programs t a k e h ol d on
campuses. C h r o n i c l e o f H ig he r E d u c a t i o n , pp. 21-22.
Michigan C h i l d Care I n i t i a t i v e .
summary. Au thor.

(1989, O c t o b e r ) .

Michigan C h i l d Care P a r t n e r s h i p .
M ic h i g a n ’ s f u t u r e . Au thor.

(1990, June 1 ) .

Ex e c u ti v e

S h a r e h o l d e r s in

Michigan Department o f S o c i a l S e r v i c e s .
(1984, March). L i c e n s i n g
r u l e s f o r f a m i l y day c a r e homes. Lans in g: A ut h or .
Michigan Department o f S o c i a l S e r v i c e s .
(1984, A u g u s t ) .
r u l e s f o r c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s . L an s i ng : A u th o r.

Licensing

Michigan E du ca ti on Guide.
( 1 99 0) . Michigan e d u c a t i o n d i r e c t o r y and
b u y e r ’ s g u i d e . La ns in g: A ut h or .
Michigan League f o r Human S e r v i c e s .
(1987, May).
c a r e in Michigan.
I s s u e a n a l y s i s . Lans in g:

Subsidized c h ild
Author.

Mooney, C. J .
(1991, May 8 ) . What p r o f e s s o r s t h i n k : R e s u l t s o f a
survey.
C h r o n i c l e o f H igh er E d u c a t i o n , 37, A15-A17.
M o r ri s o n , G. S.
( 1 9 88 ) . E a r l y c h i l d h o o d e d u c a t i o n to d a y ( 4 t h e d . ) .
Columbus, OH: M e r r i l l P u b l i s h i n g .
Murphy, L.
(1986, Summer). C h i l d c a r e w o r k e r s .
Outl oo k Q u a r t e r l y , pp. 29-31.

O c cu pa ti o na l

New c o r p o r a t e f u ndi ng t o improve c h i l d c a r e and s u p p o r t a c c r e d i t a ­
tion.
(1990, W i n t e r ) . Academy U p d a t e . 4, 2 - 3 .
Northwest 2001.
(1989, March 2 1 ) . C o n s i d e r i n g a c h i l d c a r e
b e n e f i t ? A g u id e t o employer o p t i o n s . Wi lliam Rainey Ha rper
C o l l e g e : Au thor.
P a t t o n , M. Q. ( 1 98 7) . How t o use Q u a l i t a t i v e methods in e v a l u a ­
t i o n . B ev er l y H i l l s , CA: Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s .
P e r r y , K. S.
(1982, A u g u st ) .
Employers and c h i l d c a r e : E s t a b l i s h ­
ing s e r v i c e s th r o u g h t h e w o r k p la c e (Rev. e d . ) .
U.S. Department
o f Labor, Women’ s Bureau. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
P rin tin g Office.
P i n e , M. A.
(1984, S p r i n g ) . The n a t i o n a l c o a l i t i o n o f campus c h i l d
c a r e : A ca s e s tu d y o f s h o e s t r i n g s and s t r u g g l e .
Focus on
L e a r n i n g . 10, 11-16.

133

P o v e l l , P.
( 1 9 88 ) . C r i t i c a l i s s u e s in campus c h i l d c a r e .
In
Campusc h i l d c a r e i s s u e s
and p r a c t i c e s (pp. 1 8 - 2 0 ) . Milwaukee,
WI: N at i o n al C o a l i t i o n f o r Campus C h il d Care .
P o we ll, D. R.
( 1 9 88 ) .
I n t e r p r e t i n g c h i l d c a r e and e a r l y c h i ld h o o d
education.
In Campus c h i l d c a r e i s s u e s and p r a c t i c e s (pp . 11 1 ) . Milwaukee, WI: N a t i o n a l C o a l i t i o n f o r Campus C h il d
Care.
P r i c e , C.
(1988, F e b r u a r y ) . Who’ s minding t h e baby boomlet?
c o r p o r a t e America, day c a r e i s i n i t s i n f a n c y . Michigan
B u s i n e s s . 4, 29-32.
Robbins, R.

(1990, September 1 8 ) .

In

H ig h er Ed u ca ti o n A d v o c a te . 8.

Schlossberg,
N. K., Lynch, A. Q., & C h i c k e r i n g , A. W. (1 9 89 ).
Improving h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n e nv i ro nm en t f o r a d u l t s . San
F r a n c i s c o , CA: J o s s e y - B a s s .
S h i r a h , S.
needs.

(1988, December). Campus c h i l d c a r e : Meeting uniq ue
J o u r n a l o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l P s y c h o lo g y . 15, 135-137.

S t r a u s , H.
(1988, S e p te m b e r) . The day c a r e dilemma.
H e a l t h , pp. 61 -6 2 , 64, 66, 68.
S u l l i v a n , M. (1989, May).
The Beacon. 13.

American

You a r e a c h i l d c a r e " p r o f e s s i o n a l . "

Summa A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
( 1 9 88 ) . The C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
s t u d y o f t h e need f o r c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s . (ERIC Document
R ep r o d u ct io n S e r v i c e No. ED 301 347)
Thon, A. J .
(1984, S p r i n g ) .
Responding t o t h e no n-academic needs
of adult students.
NSPA J o u r n a l . 21.
Thon, A. J .
(1987, J u n e ) . Reshaping campus s e r v i c e s t o meet t h e
needs o f a d u l t s t u d e n t s more e f f e c t i v e l y . The Commuter. 12.
U n i v e r s i t y C hi ld Care Committee.
(1988, J u l y ) .
Unfinished
b u s i n e s s : C h i l d r e n , f a m i l i e s and c h i l d c a r e a t UW-Madison.
Madison, WI: Au thor.
W a l l i s , C.

(1989, December 4 ) .

Onward, women.

Time, pp. 80 - 8 9 .

Wi ld in g , S.
(1987, March). H elping t h e a d u l t s t u d e n t :
beyond t h e i s s u e o f r e t e n t i o n .
The Commuter. 12.

A challenge

Wilson, S. L.
(1 9 88 ). How campus c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s can h el p
s t u d e n t p a r e n t s cope.
In Campus c h i l d c a r e :
I s s u e s and
p r a c t i c e s (pp. 1 8 3 - 1 88 ) . Milwaukee, WI: N a t i o n a l C o a l i t i o n
f o r Campus C hi ld Care .