Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Caregivers in nonprofit and private child care centers: a qualitative analysis of perceptions of auspice… Clark, Kathryn Anne Mack 1996

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1996-0435.pdf [ 7.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054833.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054833-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054833-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054833-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054833-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054833-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054833-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054833-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054833.ris

Full Text

C a r e g i v e r s i n N o n p r o f i t a n d P r i v a t e C h i l d C a r e C e n t e r s : A Q u a l i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s o f P e r c e p t i o n s o f A u s p i c e a n d J o b S a t i s f a c t i o n b y K a t h r y n A n n e M a c k C l a r k B . A . , D u k e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 9 3 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N 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 F O R T H E D E G R E E O F M A S T E R O F A R T S i n T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S T h e C e n t r e f o r t h e S t u d y o f C u r r i c u l u m a n d I n s t r u c t i o n W e a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a J u l y 1 9 9 6 C o p y r i g h t K a t h r y n A n n e M a c k C l a r k , 1 9 9 6 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) I i i Abstract This study focused on two factors, auspice and job s a t i s f a c t i o n , which have been shown to impact on the q u a l i t y of c h i l d care programs. However, while research has indicated that auspice, job s a t i s f a c t i o n , and program q u a l i t y are intertwined, there i s a lack of research which explores these factors q u a l i t a t i v e l y . There i s also a dearth of research which has considered auspice from the caregivers' perspectives. Hence, the purpose of t h i s study was to explore the meaning that caregivers give to auspice i n t h e i r work i n nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care centers. As well, t h i s study sought to examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between auspice and job s a t i s f a c t i o n from the caregiver's point of view, paying close attention to differences i n job s a t i s f a c t i o n that existed between s t a f f employed i n nonprofit centers and s t a f f who worked i n private or f o r - p r o f i t centers. A series of q u a l i t a t i v e , in-depth interviews were conducted with eight c h i l d care workers from the Vancouver Metropolitan area. Four of the participants were employed i n or owned private centers and four of the participants worked i n nonprofit centers. P o s i t i v e and negative perceptions of both nonprofit and private auspice emerged. In p a r t i c u l a r , the nonprofit p a r t i c i p a n t s believed that c h i l d care should be operated as a service and not a business. They perceived that the motive to make a p r o f i t i n c h i l d care lead f o r - p r o f i t centers to s a c r i f i c e q u a l i t y i n order to cut costs and maximize p r o f i t s . On the other hand, the f o r -p r o f i t p a r t i c i p a n t s perceived that t h e i r centers provided high I l l q u a l i t y care and were dedicated to putting the needs of children and s t a f f f i r s t . In general, the participants'' perceptions of factors that influenced t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n were s i m i l a r across auspices. The nature of c h i l d care work and supportive r e l a t i o n s h i p s with co-workers were factors which p o s i t i v e l y influenced job s a t i s f a c t i o n while the perceived lack of status i n the eyes of society negatively affected s a t i s f a c t i o n . Differences i n job s a t i s f a c t i o n according to auspice were found on several factors, such as government p o l i c i e s and a perceived lack of enough time to accomplish job duties. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i Table of Contents i v Acknowledgements v i Chapter One Introduction of the Problem Introduction 1 De f i n i t i o n of Terms 2 Personal Ground 3 Background 5 Research Questions . 1 4 Significance of the Research 15 Design and Methodology 16 Chapter Two Lit e r a t u r e Review Introduction 19 Auspice and Quality L i t e r a t u r e 20 Job S a t i s f a c t i o n L i t e r a t u r e 37 Chapter Three Design and Methodology Description and Selection of Participants 44 Role of the Researcher 45 Data C o l l e c t i o n 47 Limitations of the Design 51 Data Analysis 51 Chapter Four Introduction of Participants Workers i n Private Centers 56 Workers i n Nonprofit Centers 68 Chapter Five Perceptions of Auspice and the Provision of Child Care Philosophical B e l i e f s and the Profit-Making Motive 82 Perceptions of Private Auspice 88 Perceptions of Nonprofit Auspice 101 Chapter Six Job S a t i s f a c t i o n and Auspice Nature of the Work 112 Conditions of the Work Status 113 Autonomy 116 Government and Regulations 118 Wage Supplement I n i t i a t i v e 122 Wages and Benefits 126 V Relationships with Staff 133 Time 139 Chapter Seven Conclusions and Implications 143 Bibliography 160 Appendix A Ethics Information 163 Appendix B Reciprocity Information 166 Acknowledgment I am g r a t e f u l to the eight early childhood educators who gave of themselves and t h e i r time to share with me t h e i r perceptions of auspice. Through t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s project, they demonstrated t h e i r dedication and commitment to bettering c h i l d care for both children and s t a f f . I extend my thanks to my thesis committee as well. Dr. H i l l e l Goelman f i r s t encouraged my i n t e r e s t i n auspice and c h i l d care and pointed me i n the d i r e c t i o n of q u a l i t a t i v e methodology. Without the help of Dr. Shauna Butterwick and Dr. Rita Irwin, my foray into q u a l i t a t i v e methods would have been neither pleasurable nor successful. F i n a l l y , I am thankful for the support, strength, and love extended to me over the course of many months by my husband Chad, my parents, and my Lord Jesus Christ . , ' 1 Chapter One Introduct ion of the Problem Introduction I t i s undeniable that high q u a l i t y c h i l d care programs are v i t a l to the well-being of children i n need of c h i l d care, t h e i r families, and ultimately, our society as a whole. Consequently, much research has been devoted to i d e n t i f y i n g those factors which impact on the l e v e l of q u a l i t y i n c h i l d care programs. Two such factors, auspice and caregiver job s a t i s f a c t i o n , are the focus of t h i s study. Auspice ref e r s to the f i n a n c i a l and administrative operating structure of a c h i l d care center. In Canada and the United States, programs are operated under nonprofit or private auspices by organizations or individuals. Job s a t i s f a c t i o n i s the amount of s a t i s f a c t i o n a person has for h i s or her job. Some studies on c h i l d care q u a l i t y indicate that auspice a f f e c t s the q u a l i t y of c h i l d care programs by influencing working conditions, salary, and employee p o l i c i e s (Whitebook, Howes, & P h i l l i p s , 1989; Kagan & Newton, 1989; Canadian C h i l d Care Federation/Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association, 1992). In turn, these factors are believed to influence caregivers 1 job s a t i s f a c t i o n , which has been shown to have a " d i r e c t impact on children through i t s influence on 1adult behavior and an i n d i r e c t influence through i t s association with high s t a f f turnover rates" (Doherty-Derkowski, 1995, p. 90). Hence, i t appears that auspice a f f e c t s the q u a l i t y of c h i l d care programs by influencing factors that impact on the job s a t i s f a c t i o n of caregivers. 2 However, while research indicates a r e l a t i o n s h i p between auspice, job s a t i s f a c t i o n , and quality, i t has yet to be explored whether caregivers themselves recognize auspice as a key component of c h i l d care q u a l i t y . Consequently, the purpose of t h i s study i s to explore the meaning that c h i l d care workers give to auspice i n t h e i r work i n nonprofit and private c h i l d care centers. As well, t h i s study seeks to examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between auspice and job s a t i s f a c t i o n from the caregiver's point of view, paying close attention to differences i n job s a t i s f a c t i o n that e x i s t between s t a f f who work i n nonprofit centers and those who work i n private or f o r - p r o f i t centers. D e f i n i t i o n of Terms I t i s necessary to determine what i s meant by the terms "nonprofit" and " f o r - p r o f i t " . As well, i t i s important to keep i n mind that the d e f i n i t i o n s provided here are general and that there i s tremendous v a r i a t i o n i n what i s considered nonprofit or, f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care i n d i f f e r e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n s . Nonprofit c h i l d care programs are either incorporated as a nonprofit organization or are part of a larger e n t i t y , such as the YWCA or a multiservice agency, that i s incorporated as a nonprofit organization (Friendly, 1995). A l l funds generated from the operation of a nonprofit c h i l d care program are supposed to be redirected into the operation of the program and nonprofit organizations may or may not have charitable status. Nonprofit c h i l d care programs are required to have a board of d i r e c t o r s . I f a nonprofit center i s operated as a stand-alone center, members of the board of directors are usually parents of children using the center. I f a nonprofit program i s a f f i l i a t e d with a larger organization, t y p i c a l l y the board of d i r e c t o r s i s part of the larger organization, i s not composed e n t i r e l y of parents, and does not s o l e l y oversee the c h i l d care program. Nonprofit c h i l d care programs include church-based programs, parent cooperatives, programs through groups such as the YWCA, and, frequently, government-operated programs. F o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care i s also referred to as commercial or private c h i l d care. According to Doherty-Derkowski (1995), f o r -p r o f i t c h i l d care includes "situations where one person operates one program or a number of programs as a business, but may or may not be incorporated, and f o r - p r o f i t corporations with several programs" (p. 102). Indeed, f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care programs include centers that operate as part of a chain, such as Kindercare i n the U.S., and independent "mom and pop" centers that are not part of a franchise. I t should be noted that some small owner-operators do not l i k e being included i n the f o r -p r o f i t category. They claim that they do not make a p r o f i t since any funds l e f t over a f t e r covering operating costs pay the owner/operator a salary that i s comparable to a d i r e c t o r ' s salary i n a nonprofit center (Doherty-Derkowski, 1995). For the sake of c l a r i t y , however, the centers where the caregivers i n t h i s study are employed w i l l be categorized according to the general d e f i n i t i o n s above. The centers are either "nonprofit" or " f o r - p r o f i t " only. As well, the terms " f o r - p r o f i t " and "private" are used interchangeably with no judgment intended with the use of the term " f o r - p r o f i t " . Personal Ground 4 When I moved from Maryland to B r i t i s h Columbia f o r graduate study, I wanted to f a m i l i a r i z e myself with the c h i l d care p o l i c i e s i n Vancouver and B r i t i s h Columbia because c i t i e s , states and provinces often have extremely d i f f e r e n t c h i l d care p o l i c i e s . Therefore, I interviewed various people involved with c h i l d care i n Vancouver as part of an independent study. Through these interviews, I came to r e a l i z e that auspice was a controversial topic within the c h i l d care community and that i t s t i r r e d up heated emotions and opinions. These strong feelings about auspice were rooted both i n c h i l d care p o l i c i e s and philosophical b e l i e f s . People mentioned that negative feelings about auspice stemmed from p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c i e s , such as the Wage Supplement I n i t i a t i v e , which were seen to favor nonprofit over f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care. As well, people stated that the d i f f e r e n t philosophical b e l i e f s about the fairness of making a p r o f i t from a service such as c h i l d care seemed to divide the c h i l d care community. Because auspice was at the center of discussion and debate within the l o c a l and p r o v i n c i a l c h i l d care community, I looked at the research on c h i l d care q u a l i t y and the research on auspice's r e l a t i o n s h i p to qu a l i t y . I was surprised to f i n d , j u s t as Kagan and Newton (1989) did, that "...relevant research has been sparse and has not offered an adequate analysis of the c e n t r a l issues related to p r o f i t and qu a l i t y i n c h i l d care" (p. 5). I also became interested i n auspice because I had worked as a caregiver i n an independently owned, f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care center i n Maryland. According to the small body of auspice research, many of the problems I had with the center, such as a . 5 low salary and unwritten, inadequate employee p o l i c i e s , could be attributed to i t s f o r - p r o f i t status. As a caregiver, however, I. r a r e l y connected my job d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n to the l e g a l sponsorship of the center. As I surveyed the auspice research then and considered my own feelings as both a caregiver and graduate student, I r e a l i z e d that a gap existed i n the l i t e r a t u r e that needed to be f i l l e d . The small body of auspice research concentrated on q u a n t i t a t i v e l y assessing the e f f e c t s of auspice on c h i l d care program qu a l i t y . However, there was l i t t l e or no research which explored auspice q u a l i t a t i v e l y or considered auspice from the caregivers* perspectives. I believed that caregivers would have valuable insights about auspice and c h i l d care work. I also believed that t h e i r perceptions would come across more accurately and i n more d e t a i l through q u a l i t a t i v e , rather than quantitative, methods. Consequently, I f e l t that in-depth interviews were the necessary vehicle to explore auspice i n the i n d i v i d u a l caregiver's work. It i s my hope that t h i s study gives caregivers a voice on the issue of auspice, explores i t s meaning i n t h e i r work i n nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t centers, and contributes valuable data from a new perspective to the body of auspice research. Background As mentioned before, auspice i s a c h i l d care top i c which s t i r s up heated emotions. Two d i s t i n c t and vehement b a t t l e c r i e s over the issue can be heard from within the c h i l d care f i e l d . On the one hand, advocates of nonprofit care claim that children and families are better served i n nonprofit centers than i n f o r -p r o f i t ones because a l l fees, subsidies, or grants are directed 6 into teacher s a l a r i e s , supplies, and the o v e r a l l operation of a center (Kagan & Newton, 1989). Advocates f e e l that the incentive of nonprofit centers i s to provide high q u a l i t y care, not to make money. They believe that q u a l i t y may be s a c r i f i c e d when a c h i l d care program i s operated under f o r - p r o f i t auspices because the need to make a p r o f i t provides a motivation to cut costs, for example, paying s t a f f lower s a l a r i e s (Doherty-Derkowski, 1995)* On the other hand, advocates of f o r - p r o f i t care state that a competitive market drives them to respond to consumers' needs. In order to respond to consumers' needs and r e t a i n families as c l i e n t s , private centers must provide the best possible care (Kagan & Newton, 1989). Therefore, f o r - p r o f i t advocates claim that the incentive of private care i s to provide high q u a l i t y care as well. Also, private centers which operate as part of a commercial chain claim that i t i s possible for them to provide high q u a l i t y care and make a p r o f i t at the same time because they operate with greater e f f i c i e n c y due to factors such as bulk buying (Doherty-Derkowski, 1995). And, as mentioned previously, some private owner/operators who oversee and work i n one or two programs claim that they do not even make a p r o f i t because any funds l e f t over from covering t h e i r centers• operating costs go towards paying them a salary that i s comparable to that of a dir e c t o r i n a nonprofit center. Consequently, they f e e l that concerns about them s a c r i f i c i n g q u a l i t y to make a p r o f i t are unfounded. Besides these concerns about quali t y , nonprofit and f o r -p r o f i t advocates are divided by t h e i r d i f f e r e n t philosophical b e l i e f s about c h i l d care. These philosophical b e l i e f s concern 7 whether or not c h i l d care should be operated as a business or a service. Nonprofit advocates would l i k e to see c h i l d care treated as a public good while private advocates would l i k e to see the continuation of c h i l d care as a private commodity. Presently, c h i l d care i n both Canada and the U.S. i s seen as a private commodity to be purchased at the going rate on the market. In such an environment, private and nonprofit c h i l d care programs compete for the same c l i e n t s , allowing private c h i l d care centers to e x i s t side by side with nonprofit ones, t h e o r e t i c a l l y d r i v i n g a l l centers to higher standards or lower costs to a t t r a c t customers (Tuominen, 1991). Within the market model, the percentage of licensed spaces i n c h i l d care centers offered by nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t providers varies widely across Canada. For instance, i n B r i t i s h Columbia, where t h i s study was conducted, approximately 37% of licensed spaces are offered by f o r - p r o f i t providers (Friesen, 1995). However, i n the maritime province of New Brunswick, the percentage of spaces offered by f o r - p r o f i t providers i s 57% (Goelman, 1992). Moreover, the vast majority of spaces i n Saskatchewan are provided by nonprofit operators while i n the neighboring province of Alberta, the majority of spaces are provided under private auspices (Goelman, 1992). Overall, the proportion of spaces i n f o r - p r o f i t centers i n Canada was 33% i n 1991 (Lero & Johnson, 1994) and i n the U.S. today, early care and education i s provided almost equally by f o r - p r o f i t and nonprofit operators (Scurria & Kagan, 1994). Although the market model allows both types of centers to operate and compete for c l i e n t s , c h i l d care within the market 8 model i s not necessarily i d e a l f or either nonprofit or f o r - p r o f i t operators. This i s because nonprofit and private centers are funded almost exclusively by parent fees and there i s an increasing discrepancy between what parents can aff o r d to pay and what i t costs to provide high q u a l i t y care (Cameron, 1992). Hence, nonprofit and private centers both struggle to a t t r a c t customers through competitive fees and yet generate enough revenue to cover operating costs and pay c h i l d care workers a salary that r e f l e c t s the importance of the work they do. Nonprofit and private operators would l i k e to see some type of stable funding mechanism designed, yet i t i s t h i s need which further i n c i t e s nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care advocates against one another. The possible provision of public funding to private c h i l d care centers i s already controversial because some fear that public money may be used to benefit the owners of f o r -p r o f i t centers. Concerns about funding do not stop there however. Supporters of nonprofit care advocate that c h i l d care should be considered a public good and as such that means certa i n government funding p o l i c i e s are suitable, p o l i c i e s such as "d i r e c t funding to programs and commitments for c a p i t a l expenditures to ensure that services are av a i l a b l e " (Friendly, 1995, p. 236). At the same time, i f c h i l d care i s treated as a government funded public good, then i t would be unsuitable for private c h i l d care businesses to be supported by public funds (Friendly, 1995). Currently, the amount of government money allocated to building and operating c h i l d care centers i s very small. However, private operators are mindful that should c h i l d care 9 come to^be considered a public good and governments a c t i v e l y support only nonprofit centers, the existence of private c h i l d care centers could be threatened because they may be unable to of f e r comparable services and compete for c l i e n t s with the nonprofit centers. Therefore, although private operators advocate for some type of stable funding mechanism to be designed for t h e i r c h i l d care centers, they r e a l i z e that the existence of private centers could be threatened as well as aided by the government and t h i s thought keeps them wary of increased government involvement i n the funding of c h i l d care. Indeed, private operators i n B r i t i s h Columbia recently feared the p r o v i n c i a l government was sending them signals that t h e i r presence was not as favored as nonprofit providers. The p r o v i n c i a l government established the Wage Supplement I n i t i a t i v e (WSI) to increase the wages of employees working d i r e c t l y with children i n licensed group centers. However, when the supplement was f i r s t introduced, only workers i n nonprofit centers were e l i g i b l e to receive i t even though a l l s t a f f i n licensed nonprofit and private centers meet the same p r o v i n c i a l t r a i n i n g requirements. There was an outcry from the private sector and the p o l i c y was changed subsequently to include workers i n private centers as well. Nonetheless, the f o r - p r o f i t sector f e l t that the government's oversight concerning them and the WSI, together with t h e i r exclusion from other p r o v i n c i a l grants such as operating grants, were an in d i c a t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia's intent to support and encourage the growth of only the nonprofit sector. Private owner/operators and workers i n private centers perceived 10 that t h e i r exclusion may also have been an i n d i c a t i o n of the province's move towards tr e a t i n g c h i l d care as a public good, which could severely impede t h e i r a b i l i t y to provide c h i l d care. While private operators i n B r i t i s h Columbia were upset by t h e i r exclusion from the WSI, many nonprofit advocates support regulations and/or l e g i s l a t i o n which e x p l i c i t l y favor the nonprofit sector. They f e e l p o l i c i e s such as those i n B r i t i s h Columbia, plus the steps taken by governments such as those i n Manitoba and Saskatchewan, can expedite the consideration of c h i l d care as a public good. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, nonprofit c h i l d care t r a d i t i o n a l l y has been favored by these p r o v i n c i a l governments due i n part to the practice of p r a i r i e populism there (Goelman, 1992). "Participatory and community-supported farming and marketing cooperatives have long been part of the p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l f a b r i c of the two provinces" (Goelman, p. 251) so i t i s not surprising that an o f f i c i a l disdain for private or commercial c h i l d care i s present. Saskatchewan banned f o r - p r o f i t centers and Manitoba made f o r -p r o f i t centers i n e l i g i b l e for grants and subsidies, p o l i c i e s which are viewed favorably by nonprofit advocates across Canada. Manitoba and Saskatchewan can create p o l i c i e s which favor one sector over another because c h i l d care currently operates primarily within the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the provinces or t e r r i t o r i e s , not the federal government. The federal government and p r o v i n c i a l governments do cost share some expenditures related to c h i l d care, such as subsidies to low-income f a m i l i e s . However, the p r o v i n c i a l governments are responsible f o r s e t t i n g and enforcing regulations and creating p o l i c i e s and funding 11 mechanisms related to operating grants, salary enhancements, and c a p i t a l grants (Lero & Johnson, 1994). Ch i l d care centers i n c e r t a i n areas may also be subject to the rules and regulations of the municipality i n which they operate. I r o n i c a l l y , i t i s because c h i l d care operates within p r o v i n c i a l and t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n that the e f f o r t s of nonprofit advocates to have c h i l d care considered a public good and the e f f o r t s of f o r - p r o f i t advocates to continue the existence of c h i l d care within the market model are hampered. These e f f o r t s are hindered because "daycare p o l i c i e s tend to be highly uneven and diverse i n the d i f f e r e n t areas of the country" (Goelman, 1992, p. 225). Consequently, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to compare, examine, design or advocate for "Canadian" c h i l d care p o l i c i e s due to the v a r i a b i l i t y of l e g i s l a t i o n and regulation across j u r i s d i c t i o n s . Nonetheless, i t should be remembered that very l i t t l e government money i s provided for the operation^ of c h i l d care centers. Parent fees s t i l l compose the vast majority of ,the revenue that centers receive and i t appears as i f t h i s w i l l continue i n the near future. Therefore, the debate over c h i l d care as a public good or a marketable service w i l l continue as well. I t i s t h i s debate which frames the debate over auspice and i t w i l l p e r s i s t i n i t s intensity, as long as private and nonprofit supporters p e r s i s t i n t h e i r advocacy e f f o r t s f o r increased funding or support which promotes the s t a b i l i t y and s u r v i v a l of t h e i r respective operations. As discussed i n t h i s introduction, auspice i s a controversial t o p i c because of the d i f f e r e n t philosophical 12 b e l i e f s about c h i l d care and the concerns over the profit-making motive as i t re l a t e s to the q u a l i t y of programs. These b e l i e f s and concerns have motivated people to ask i f making a p r o f i t i n c h i l d care necessarily puts children at r i s k and i f high qu a l i t y c h i l d care i s available only i n nonprofit centers. In turn, these questions have spurred researchers to study the e f f e c t s of auspice on the qu a l i t y of care provided to children. While the focus of t h i s study i s not to assess the e f f e c t s of auspice on o v e r a l l program quality, i t i s nonetheless relevant to review the research which has focused on auspice and q u a l i t y . I t i s important to consider such research because i t provides a necessary background, t h e o r e t i c a l l y and methodologically, for the current study. Studies concentrating on one s p e c i f i c geographic area (Kontos & Stremmel, 1988; West, 1987; Friesen, 1995), statewide (Fiene & Melnick, 1989; Kagan & Newton, 1989), and even national studies (Keyserling, 1972; SPR Associates, 1986; Whitebook, Howes, & P h i l l i p s , 1989; Canadian Child Day Care Federation/Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association, 1992) have found s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n q u a l i t y of care and/or work environments between centers of d i f f e r e n t auspices. On factors such as developmentally appropriate caregiving, s t a f f - c h i l d r a t i o s , children's secure attachments to caregivers, and salary and benefits, these studies indicate a higher q u a l i t y of care and/or better working conditions i n nonprofit centers. Some studies do i d e n t i f y the existence of private c h i l d care centers which provide high q u a l i t y care and good work environments. 13 However, i n general t h i s body of research points to a higher q u a l i t y of care i n nonprofit centers. As well, some of the studies have implications f o r the exploration of auspice as i t r e l a t e s to job s a t i s f a c t i o n . The National Child Care S t a f f i n g Study (NCCSS) conducted i n the U.S. (Whitebook et a l . , 1989) and a national Canadian study by the Canadian Child Day Care Federation/Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association (1992) found higher turnover, lower wages, fewer benefits and lower job s a t i s f a c t i o n i n s t a f f working i n f o r -p r o f i t centers than i n s t a f f working i n nonprofit centers. A study conducted by Kontos and Stremmel (1988) i n Northeastern Pennsylvania also found that s t a f f i n nonprofit centers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y to receive better benefits than s t a f f i n f o r - p r o f i t centers. However, Kontos and Stremmel found that nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t workers i n t h e i r sample had wages and l e v e l s of job s a t i s f a c t i o n that were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from one another, a finding that d i f f e r s from the r e s u l t s of the national studies. These studies show that inconsistencies e x i s t i n the r e s u l t s of the research that has studied job s a t i s f a c t i o n as i t r e l a t e s to auspice and they i l l u s t r a t e the need fo r more research on t h i s topic. I t i s also important to review a representative sample of the research on job s a t i s f a c t i o n to further strengthen the t h e o r e t i c a l and methodological background of t h i s study. Much research has been conducted on caregiver job s a t i s f a c t i o n , usually as i t pertains to burnout (see Maslach & Pines, 1977; Whitebook, Howes, Darrah, & Friedman, 1982) and intention to leave c h i l d care work (see Stremmel, 1991; Jorde-Bloom, 1988; 14 Lindsay & Lindsay, 1987). These have been necessary f o c i because of t h e i r impact on children and c h i l d care centers. Researchers have found that the most s i g n i f i c a n t indicators of burnout and intention to leave are workers' low organizational commitment to job and center and also d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with salary (Whitebook et a l . , 1982; P h i l l i p s , Howes & Whitebook, 1991; Stremmel; Berk, 1985; Jorde-Bloom; Robinson, 1979). Throughout the auspice l i t e r a t u r e , the majority of studies found that f o r - p r o f i t status usually s i g n a l l e d lower wages, which, according to the job s a t i s f a c t i o n studies, leads to low commitment, turnover, and negative consequences for children. Studies on job s a t i s f a c t i o n , however, have not explored caregivers* perspectives of the factors which influence t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n and how such factors may r e l a t e to auspice. As well, the research on auspice and q u a l i t y has not explored how caregivers themselves view auspice and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to c h i l d care. This study, therefore, seeks to f i l l the need for research which explores at an in-depth and intimate l e v e l the relationships between caregivers, t h e i r work i n c h i l d care, and auspice. Research Questions The purpose of t h i s study i s to explore the meaning that c h i l d care workers give to auspice i n t h e i r work at c h i l d care centers. To t h i s extent, the primary research questions addressed are: 1. What are caregivers' perceptions of auspice and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the provision of c h i l d care? 15 2. What factors do caregivers perceive to influence t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n and how do these factors r e l a t e to auspice? Significance of the Research Auspice i s a topic that has generated much debate and seemingly sparse research. This study contributes to the r e l a t i v e l y small and much needed body of research on auspice i n a new manner. I t allows caregivers to share, i n t h e i r own words, the importance or relevance of auspice i n t h e i r working l i v e s and therefore contributes more in-depth information about auspice from a new perspective. At the same time, the study also contributes to the body of knowledge about job s a t i s f a c t i o n i n a novel and useful way by exploring the influence which auspice may or may not have on how caregivers f e e l about t h e i r work. I t i s c r u c i a l that attention i s given to caregivers 1 perceptions of auspice and job s a t i s f a c t i o n as t h e i r well-being at work may well influence t h e i r behavior with children i n c h i l d care. Moreover, t h i s study i s s i g n i f i c a n t because i t provides new information about auspice to both p o l i c y makers and p r a c t i t i o n e r s . I t i s important that p o l i c y makers and p r a c t i t i o n e r s have t h i s information because i t has been shown that auspice i s an i n f l u e n t i a l factor i n the design and implementation of c h i l d care p o l i c i e s , as exemplified by the Wage Supplement I n i t i a t i v e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. However, i t has not been shown that the reasoning for, and consequences of, such p o l i c i e s are grounded i n the best knowledge,and understanding of auspice and i t s e f f e c t s on caregivers and program q u a l i t y . 16 Indeed, workers i n private centers were excluded from the WSI not because they met the same t r a i n i n g requirements as nonprofit caregivers or because they may have had the same love for c h i l d care work as nonprofit workers. Caregivers i n private centers were excluded only because they worked i n f o r - p r o f i t centers. However, there i s no reported research i n d i c a t i n g that private auspice i n B r i t i s h Columbia creates c h i l d care s t a f f who are not worthy of having t h e i r wages increased. I t i s clear that more information and understanding about auspice and i t s e f f e c t s are needed. Hopefully, the data from t h i s study can further educate p o l i c y makers and p r a c t i t i o n e r s so they can make informed decisions about c h i l d care p o l i c i e s which a f f e c t children, caregivers, families, and society. Design and Methodology Because a need existed to hear what caregivers i n the f i e l d thought about auspice and c h i l d care, q u a l i t a t i v e in-depth interviewing was chosen as the most f i t t i n g method of inquiry for t h i s study. In-depth interviews were conducted with eight caregivers who worked i n eight d i f f e r e n t c h i l d care centers. Four of the caregivers were employed i n nonprofit centers and four were employed i n or owned private centers. Workers with d i f f e r e n t job r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were interviewed to y i e l d the most information possible about caregivers 1 perceptions of auspice. Within each auspice type, two head supervisors or owner/operators and two s t a f f with no administrative duties i n t h e i r job descriptions p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the interviews. The Executive Director of Early Childhood Educators of B r i t i s h Columbia (ECEBC) served as the gatekeeper to the sample 17 (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992; Goetz and LeCompte, 1984; Seidman, 1991). She nominated participants based on t h e i r membership to ECEBC, which i s an early childhood professional group, t h e i r p o t e n t i a l willingness to be involved i n the study, and the l e g a l sponsorship of t h e i r respective work places. She also kept i n mind the representativeness of jobs needed. Letters of introduction were then sent to p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s from myself and the Executive Director and when p a r t i c i p a t i o n was confirmed, the times and places of interviews were established. As the researcher, my r o l e i n t h i s study included one of interviewer and one who did analysis and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the data. Participants were interviewed twice for approximately one' hour each time at t h e i r place of employment or another location convenient to them. A tape recorder was used to record the i n -depth interviews and I also took notes to back up the tapes and note body language. Every p a r t i c i p a n t was interviewed once before the second round of interviews was conducted. Allowing for more than one interview enabled me to e s t a b l i s h varying degrees of rapport with participants (Seidman, 1991) and ensured the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of meanings and perceptions. As well, I used the time between interviews to review the data c o l l e c t e d i n the f i r s t round, observe trends or patterns, and formulate new questions for the second interviews, questions which often emerged from the data. After t r a n s c r i b i n g a l l taped interviews, data were coded and analyzed for patterns and i d e n t i f y i n g themes. Also, member checks were conducted by the eight p a r t i c i p a n t s to c l a r i f y meanings and increase v a l i d i t y of the data. 18 Summary The debate over nonprofit versus f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care was discussed as i t re l a t e s to concerns about q u a l i t y of care as well as philosophical b e l i e f s about whether c h i l d care i s a public good or a marketable commodity.. I t i s within t h i s context that the research problem was introduced, which i s the lack of research exploring auspice from the caregiver's perspective. This study seeks to f i l l t h i s need through the use of q u a l i t a t i v e methodology which allows participants to describe t h e i r perceptions of auspice i n t h e i r own words. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study are s i g n i f i c a n t because the r e l a t i o n s h i p between auspice and c h i l d care i s captured and described from a new and needed perspective. As well, t h i s study's r e s u l t s are important because they explore the l i n k between job s a t i s f a c t i o n and auspice from the point of view of c h i l d care workers. 19 Chapter Two L i t e r a t u r e Review Introduction During the 1970s, ^child care expanded r a p i d l y i n North America as women's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the work force skyrocketed. At that time, Pierce (1975) studied the c h i l d care phenomenon for over two years and found "the most controversial and persistent issue that kept coming up was the question of the p r o f i t motive as i t applies to human services and, more s p e c i f i c a l l y , to that human service we c a l l 'day care'" (p. 91). Over twenty years have passed since Pierce discovered the i n t e n s i t y of the debate over f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care. Nonetheless, the issue of making a p r o f i t from the provision of c h i l d care services i s s t i l l c o ntroversial and persistent today. What i s equally as controversial as the thought of making a p r o f i t i n c h i l d care i s how the profit-making motive might a f f e c t the q u a l i t y of c h i l d care programs. Parents, educators, and p o l i c y makers have wrestled with t h i s issue f o r many years now, debating the q u a l i t y of nonprofit versus f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care. While these concerns about q u a l i t y are heated and long-standing, i t should be noted that the body of research d i r e c t l y assessing the r e l a t i o n s h i p between auspice and q u a l i t y i s small. Nonetheless, the body df research i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n painting a picture of the e f f e c t s of auspice on q u a l i t y . While i t was not a goal of t h i s study to assess the e f f e c t s of auspice on the q u a l i t y of c h i l d care programs, these studies are reviewed below because they provide a conceptual and methodological framework on 20 which t h i s research was based. These studies also i l l u s t r a t e the need for more research which explores the r e l a t i o n s h i p between auspice and c h i l d care, a need t h i s study seeks to address. Readers interested i n a comprehensive look at q u a l i t y and research on q u a l i t y should r e f e r to P h i l l i p s (1987). As well, t h i s study seeks to f i l l the need for research which explores the r e l a t i o n s h i p between caregiver job s a t i s f a c t i o n and auspice. A b r i e f review of a representative sample of caregiver job s a t i s f a c t i o n l i t e r a t u r e i s provided. However, while a considerable amount of research has been done on caregiver turnover and burnout, only a handful of studies have looked at caregiver job s a t i s f a c t i o n and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to auspice i n any way. Auspice and Quality L i t e r a t u r e National Studies The e a r l i e s t study to contribute data to the nonprofit/for-p r o f i t debate was the National Council of Jewish Women's study, Windows on Day Care (Keyserling, 1972). The study was conducted i n the Summer and F a l l of 1970 to address the urgency of the day care shortage problem within the United States and "throw additional l i g h t on the day care picture i n numerous counties, throughout the country" (Keyserling, p. i i ) . The study was q u a l i t a t i v e i n design, employing hundreds of Council members i n data c o l l e c t i o n . The Council recognized from the beginning that without s c i e n t i f i c sampling guidelines, t h e i r findings "would not add up to a census-type, quantitative analysis" (p. 9). Indeed, Council members received no t r a i n i n g but c o l l e c t e d data on f u l l - d a y centers serving preschool-age 21 children through hundreds of observations and interviews with day care s t a f f , mothers, and community leaders. Council members v i s i t e d 127 f o r - p r o f i t and 304 nonprofit c h i l d care centers. After one v i s i t , members rated centers as superior, good, f a i r or poor. Ratings were based on center c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as center si z e , a d u l t - c h i l d r a t i o s , s t a f f s a l a r i e s and education, and degree of parental involvement. Only. 1% of f o r - p r o f i t centers received superior ratings while 15% of nonprofit centers received the highest r a t i n g . Moreover, while 11% of nonprofit centers were rated as providing poor q u a l i t y care, f u l l y h a l f of a l l f o r - p r o f i t s were regarded as poor. Also, council members found that expenditures i n nonprofit care exceeded those i n f o r - p r o f i t care. Higher expenditures i n nonprofit care were due to the higher s a l a r i e s paid to nonprofit workers, who were much more l i k e l y to receive higher s a l a r i e s than s t a f f i n f o r - p r o f i t centers. There are serious l i m i t a t i o n s , though, to the r e s u l t s of t h i s study as the survey gatherers were not trained and ratings should be considered general and impressionistic. However, while readers must keep t h i s i n mind, the study does portray nonprofit care i n a better l i g h t than f o r - p r o f i t care. While Windows on Day Care was conducted i n the U.S., a national study i n Canada conducted i n the mid-1980s was the e a r l i e s t Canadian study of the n o n p r o f i t / f o r - p r o f i t issue. SPR Associates (1986) conducted an exploratory study of f o r - p r o f i t versus nonprofit c h i l d care under order from the House of Commons Special Committee on Child care. The e x p l i c i t purpose of t h i s study was "to investigate and provide a general comparison of 22 s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences between f o r - p r o f i t and not-for-p r o f i t c h i l d care services, and to examine p o l i c y implications" (p. 1). The methodology employed was not t i g h t l y c o n t r o l l e d and the authors r e i t e r a t e often t h a t . t h e i r research should be considered exploratory. General q u a l i t y of care i n over 1,000 centers and de t a i l e d ratings of q u a l i t y i n over 250 centers were provided by 47 day care consultants selected for each p r o v i n c e / t e r r i t o r y i n consultation with p r o v i n c i a l / t e r r i t o r i a l day care d i r e c t o r s . The -authors do not state, however, exactly how many centers of each auspice i n each province or t e r r i t o r y were rated. Overall, government-subsidized nonprofit centers were rated as best/ followed by nonprofit centers, then f o r - p r o f i t chains and independent f o r - p r o f i t s , which had e s s e n t i a l l y the same average q u a l i t y ratings. While chain f o r - p r o f i t s did not vary much i n the q u a l i t y of care provided, nonprofits and independent f o r - p r o f i t centers varied widely i n q u a l i t y ratings. That i s , some nonprofits and independent f o r - p r o f i t s provided the highest q u a l i t y care while other nonprofit and independent f o r - p r o f i t centers provided the lowest q u a l i t y care. While the r e s u l t s of t h i s study point to the r e l a t i v e s u p e r i o r i t y of nonprofit care, i t i s important to remember that t h i s research was exploratory. The researchers point out that the day care consultants who rated q u a l i t y were not randomly selected and may have been biased as they were already f a m i l i a r with the centers they rated. Furthermore, they h i g h l i g h t that "severe s t a t i s t i c a l problems i n blanket comparisons of [quality] ratings" (p. 20) ex i s t due to the facts that not a l l auspices , 23 were covered by each consultant and that consultants who covered d i f f e r e n t auspices did not have the same number of centers under each auspice. Even with these l i m i t a t i o n s , though, i t s finding that nonprofit care was of higher q u a l i t y than f o r - p r o f i t care should be noted. A national study conducted i n the U.S. during the l a t e 1980s provides arguably the most v a l i d , r e l i a b l e data on the n o n p r o f i t / f o r - p r o f i t issue to date. Indeed, the National Child Care S t a f f i n g Study (NCCSS; Whitebook, Howes & P h i l l i p s , 1989) examined c h i l d care teaching s t a f f , t h e i r working conditions i n center-based care, and the q u a l i t y of care i n f i v e metropolitan areas i n the United States. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the t h i r d of four goals of t h i s large study was to examine differences i n the q u a l i t y of care offered to children and the work environments offered to s t a f f among centers that operated under d i f f e r e n t auspices. Four d i f f e r e n t auspices were defined including nonprofit^non-church, nonprofit/church, independent f o r - p r o f i t , and chain f o r - p r o f i t . T i g h t l y controlled sampling strategies were employed to r e c r u i t a t o t a l of 227 c h i l d care centers from Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, Phoenix, and Seattle. In each center, an infant, toddler and preschool classroom was observed by experienced l o c a l team members for at least two hours on more than one day i n both afternoon and morning time periods. Either the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS; Harms & C l i f f o r d , 1980) or the 24 Infant-Toddler.Environment Rating Scale 1 (ITERS; Harms, Cryer, & C l i f f o r d , 1986) was used to assess q u a l i t y of care while s t a f f -c h i l d interactions were assessed using the Arnett Scale of Teacher S e n s i t i v i t y (Arnett, 1989). Cross- and w i t h i n - s i t e , i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s on a l l of these measures exceeded 85%. Moreover, research teams interviewed two s t a f f at each s i t e for approximately one and one hal f hours with r e l i a b i l i t y of s t a f f interviews calculated as r=.79. Many s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n both q u a l i t y of care and work environments were found between centers of d i f f e r e n t auspices. In general, the authors conclude that "nonprofits ( p a r t i c u l a r l y those that were not church-sponsored) provided better q u a l i t y services for children than either type of examined f o r - p r o f i t center" (p. 144). Staff working i n f o r - p r o f i t centers were rated lower than non-profit s t a f f i n appropriate caregiving and developmentally appropriate a c t i v i t y scores. Also, children wandered aimlessly more often and developed secure attachments less often to teachers i n f o r - p r o f i t centers than nonprofit centers. This lower q u a l i t y of care i n f o r - p r o f i t centers was compounded by higher s t a f f turnover, more job d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n among s t a f f , and a lower proportion of center budgets allocated to teaching s a l a r i e s than i n nonprofit centers. F o r - p r o f i t s t a f f The ECERS and ITERS are r a t i n g scales used to obtain a global assessment of qu a l i t y . Observations are conducted i n preschool-age or infant/toddler classrooms to obtain scores on dimensions of q u a l i t y such as personal care or adult needs. These scores are then added together for an o v e r a l l assessment of q u a l i t y . These scales are commonly used as a global measure of q u a l i t y and are highly regarded. 25 were paid less, received fewer benefits and also had less education and experience than nonprofit workers. In conclusion, because of the magnitude of t h i s study, the care taken i n s e l e c t i n g the sample and i n c o l l e c t i n g and analyzing data, the r e s u l t s of the NCCSS are v a l i d and important i n shedding much-needed l i g h t on the n o n p r o f i t / f o r - p r o f i t debate, l i g h t that illuminates a higher q u a l i t y of care and better working conditions i n nonprofit centers. Another important national study which contributes s i g n i f i c a n t data to the n o n p r o f i t / f o r - p r o f i t issue i s Caring for a L i v i n g conducted i n Canada (Canadian Child Care Federation/Canadian Child Care Advocacy Association, 1992). This c h i l d care s t a f f i n g study surveyed nearly 3,000 c h i l d care workers to assess working conditions i n a l l Canadian provinces and t e r r i t o r i e s . Sampling was conducted with the aid of S t a t i s t i c s Canada to e s t a b l i s h r e l i a b l e , representative sample sizes of c h i l d care s t a f f and centers. Full-day, f u l l - y e a r centers were i n v i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e and were chosen to match the established p r o v i n c i a l / t e r r i t o r i a l sample s i z e s . A d i r e c t o r ' s telephone interview, a follow-up d i r e c t o r ' s questionnaire, and a s t a f f questionnaire were f i r s t pretested to e s t a b l i s h r e l i a b i l i t y and then administered. Data was then analyzed and the authors provide a detailed description of how they coded, cleaned and weighted data i n c a l c u l a t i o n s . Like the U.S. based NCCSS, t h i s study found s i g n i f i c a n t differences between s t a f f i n nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t centers. In p a r t i c u l a r , turnover was higher, wages were lower, job s a t i s f a c t i o n was lower, and benefits were fewer for s t a f f i n f o r -26 p r o f i t centers than i n non-profit centers. Furthermore, as i n the NCCSS, a higher percentage of non-profits' budgets were allocated for s t a f f s a l a r i e s than f o r - p r o f i t s ' budgets. While q u a l i t y of care i n centers of d i f f e r e n t auspices was not assessed, the study was conducted with the underlying assumption that c h i l d care s t a f f and q u a l i t y of care are i n e x t r i c a b l y linked. Caring for a Li v i n g , then, illuminates the p l i g h t of s t a f f i n nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t centers and adds support to the findings of the NCCSS that working conditions and s t a f f s a t i s f a c t i o n are higher i n nonprofit centers than i n f o r -p r o f i t centers, implying that q u a l i t y of care would follow the same pattern. Statewide Studies Three statewide studies report s i g n i f i c a n t findings concerning differences i n the q u a l i t y of care and/or working conditions between nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t group daycare centers. Pennsylvania. Fiene and Melnick (1989) tested f i v e hypotheses to examine licensure and program q u a l i t y i n c h i l d care centers and family day care homes located i n 11 counties. Two of the hypotheses tested address the n o n p r o f i t / f o r - p r o f i t issue and a l l comments below stem from the t e s t i n g of these 2 hypotheses. The f i r s t hypothesis was that there would be no difference on ECERS scores between centers of d i f f e r e n t auspices. The second hypothesis was that there would be a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between Child Development Program Evaluation (CDPE) l i c e n s i n g scores and ECERS scores; i n other words, that there would be a 27 p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between l i c e n s i n g and q u a l i t y i n nonprofit or f o r - p r o f i t centers. The sample represented statewide percentages for auspice types and consisted of 87 centers, 64% f o r - p r o f i t and, 3 6% nonprofit, a l l randomly selected from the Pennsylvania Day Care Licensing L i s t . ECERS scores were obtained by 17 graduate and undergraduate students from Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg a f t e r they completed a two week t r a i n i n g course. CDPE scores were obtained by the state regional day care l i c e n s i n g s t a f f . To t e s t the f i r s t of the two aforementioned hypotheses, the authors computed mean scores for private and then nonprofit centers on each of the 7 scales of the ECERS. After using t -te s t s , nonprofits ranked s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than f o r - p r o f i t centers on 6 of the 7 scales. To t e s t the second hypothesis, the authors compared averages of low, medium, and high scoring centers on the ECERS with the average low, substantial, and high compliance scores oh the CDPE. An i n t e r e s t i n g c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p appeared as medium qu a l i t y centers had f u l l compliance while high q u a l i t y centers only had substantial compliance scores. Low q u a l i t y centers were found to have low compliance scores as well. The r e s u l t s h i g h l i g ht once again a higher q u a l i t y of care provided by nonprofit centers. However, the r e s u l t s also suggest that compliance with regulations does not necessarily ensure high q u a l i t y care. Some weaknesses of the study's design d i l u t e these r e s u l t s , though, as the authors do not state whether or not the student observers were b l i n d to the already e x i s t i n g CDPE scores 28 of the centers where they observed. Also, the authors do not state how long i t took the students to c o l l e c t t h e i r data and they do not state how much time elapsed between the scoring of the CDPE and the observations. However, the o v e r a l l strength of the study's methodology and data analysis allow i t s findings to lend support to the growing body of evidence that shows nonprofit care i s of higher qu a l i t y than f o r - p r o f i t care. Connecticut. Kagan and Newton (1989) "conducted a study designed s p e c i f i c a l l y to evaluate the q u a l i t y of care and services i n f o r - p r o f i t and nonprofit centers, and to address fundamental issues confronted by p o l i c y makers and debated by c h i l d care p r a c t i t i o n e r s " (p. 5). A l l licensed centers i n Connecticut serving more than 12 children were i n v i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a mail survey, excluding those centers used i n a p i l o t study. A large number of centers, 439, or 64% of the 688 e l i g i b l e centers, returned the surveys. These 439 centers were e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r to nonparticipating centers, a conclusion drawn a f t e r analyzing state l i c e n s i n g records. From the 439 centers, the researchers randomly selected 57 centers of approximately equal numbers of f o r - p r o f i t and nonprofit auspice. This subsample was observed by researchers using a modified version of the Child Development Associate (CDA) Checklist and a Child Behavior Scale (CBS) created f o r the study. The researchers used chi square tests and ANOVAs to determine s i g n i f i c a n t differences between government-subsidized nonprofits, p r i v a t e l y supported nonprofit centers, and f o r -p r o f i t s . Where s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found between center types, government nonprofit centers usually scored highest while 29 private nonprofit centers followed but were "seldom s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from f o r - p r o f i t centers, which were the lowest" (p. 7) . This ranking was reported for variables such as paid s t a f f - c h i l d r a t i o s , r a t i o of children to a l l s t a f f (including volunteers), services offered to children such as screening and r e f e r r a l s for v i s i o n and hearing, and services to parents such as counseling on family matters. On some items of the CDA Checklist, though, a d i f f e r e n t ranking occurred. This time, both types of nonprofit centers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than f o r - p r o f i t s . Indeed, nonprofits had environments that were more c h i l d - s e n s i t i v e , p l e n t i f u l with materials, and encouraging of c r e a t i v i t y than f o r - p r o f i t centers. Furthermore, on analysis of a subset of CDA Checklist items, the researchers found that nonprofit s t a f f were more l i k e l y to encourage children to inter a c t with peers or materials and they were more l i k e l y to create and manage comfortable environments for the children. I t i s important to note, however, that no s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found between centers on s i x of the 10 CDA Checklist items including: safety; health; physical development; cognitive/language; i n d i v i d u a l strength; and s o c i a l interactions. Also, a l l behaviors measured by the CBS—including behavior such as crying, laughing, c l i n g i n g to an adult—were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between a l l centers. Kagan and Newton conclude that "while t h i s study demonstrates the r e l a t i v e superiority of nonprofits, i t does not support claims that f o r - p r o f i t s are 'poor' and provide unacceptable l e v e l s of service" (p. 8) . They c a l l f o r more research on the issue, e s p e c i a l l y since they point out that t h e i r findings are not necessarily generalizable outside of Connecticut. I l l i n o i s . Even though the I l l i n o i s Director's Study (Jorde-Bloom, 1989) focused on obtaining data on d i r e c t o r s of licensed, center-based programs i n I l l i n o i s , t h i s research i s pertinent to the current study because program q u a l i t y was assessed across auspices. Questionnaires were mailed to the d i r e c t o r s of 1,950 licensed c h i l d care centers. From the 990 d i r e c t o r s who returned the questionnaire, a random s t r a t i f i e d sample of 103 d i r e c t o r s was selected. From t h i s sample, an interview with each d i r e c t o r and a f i e l d observation at each center were then conducted and s t a f f at each center also completed a survey regarding t h e i r work environment and i t s organizational climate. Some findings were relevant to auspice and i t s e f f e c t on q u a l i t y and working conditions. F i r s t , while nonprofit program dir e c t o r s reported the highest l e v e l s of s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g , d i r e c t o r s of f o r - p r o f i t programs reported the lowest l e v e l s of s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g . This had repercussions for q u a l i t y and working conditions i n centers as those d i r e c t o r s with the highest l e v e l of s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g exhibited the most professional orien t a t i o n i n t h e i r work.- As well, s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g was p o s i t i v e l y associated with a center's l e v e l of professional orientation which was measured by the c o l l e c t i v e perceptions of s t a f f regarding d i f f e r e n t organizational practices. Second, through the observation measure used f o r accreditation by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), nonprofit centers consistently ranked 31 higher i n program q u a l i t y than did f o r - p r o f i t centers. Because of the r e l i a b i l i t y of data c o l l e c t i o n and analysis, these findings contribute more v a l i d information on the r e l a t i v e s u p e r i o r i t y of nonprofit programs over f o r - p r o f i t programs. Other Studies Three studies focusing on metropolitan areas o f smaller geographic regions than states or provinces are reviewed below, two conducted i n Canada and one i n the U.S. As well, a review of a focus group conducted at a national conference f o r private operators i n the U.S. i s included. Metropolitan Toronto. West (1988) conducted a study on the compliance of f u l l - d a y c h i l d care centers i n Metropolitan Toronto with the Ontario Day Nurseries Act. The study was done with the assumption that higher compliance with the Day Nurseries .Act translated into higher q u a l i t y care i n centers. A l l 431 f u l l - d a y c h i l d care centers i n Metropolitan Toronto were included i n the study. The same researcher used a c h e c k l i s t to obtain general information about each center from t h e i r respective Program F i l e and License F i l e . Information gathered included data such as ages and number of children served, auspice, and a number of variables required to achieve compliance with the regulations i n the Day Nurseries Act. A l l information was only from the year March 1, 1987 to February 29, 1988. Completed che c k l i s t s were v e r i f i e d and supplemented by the Program Advisor for each center to increase r e l i a b i l i t y . The author found a number of s i g n i f i c a n t differences between several compliance variables and d i f f e r e n t types of centers. F i r s t , private or f o r - p r o f i t centers were more l i k e l y to receive 32 a r e s t r i c t i v e type of operating license than other centers because they were less l i k e l y to meet requirements of the Day Nurseries Act. Second, f o r - p r o f i t centers had s i g n i f i c a n t l y more average t o t a l v i s i t s and average monitoring v i s i t s by Program Advisors than other types of centers. Third, f o r - p r o f i t centers were also most l i k e l y to have a complaint lodged against them. Fourth, f o r - p r o f i t centers were more l i k e l y to have a s t a f f - c h i l d r a t i o v i o l a t i o n and to have spaces that were not licensed because of lack of s t a f f and/or equipment than nonprofit centers. Due to the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses used and the method of data c o l l e c t i o n and v e r i f i c a t i o n , t h i s study's findings are v a l i d . Nonprofit centers met higher standards of the Day Nurseries Act and hence were considered to be i n the p o s i t i o n to provide higher q u a l i t y care than f o r - p r o f i t operators. Northeastern Pennsylvania. Kontos and Stremmel (1988) conducted research that examined the experiences and perceptions of c h i l d care workers from 10 northeastern Pennsylvania c h i l d care centers. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the researchers sought to gauge caregivers * perceptions regarding three aspects of t h e i r work places: center c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as auspice, task c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and salary and benefits information. As well, the study assessed the q u a l i t y of care i n centers of d i f f e r e n t auspices. The 10 centers were selected randomly from a group of centers already recruited to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a larger study of q u a l i t y and c h i l d development. These 10 centers represented the proportion of f o r - p r o f i t versus nonprofit and urban versus r u r a l centers i n the area. From these centers, 40 s t a f f members with 33 any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for 3-, 4-, and 5-year old ch i l d r e n f i l l e d out questionnaires. Several members of the research team used the ECERS to assess the q u a l i t y of the c h i l d care environment i n each center. In regards to o v e r a l l quality, as measured by the ECERS, nonprofit centers received s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher scores than did f o r - p r o f i t centers. At the same time, no s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found between nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t s t a f f i n job r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , wages earned, or job s a t i s f a c t i o n , r e s u l t s that contradict findings from both the NCCSS and Caring f o r a L i v i n g . S i g n i f i c a n t differences were found, though, i n the area of benefits, differences that mirrored the findings i n the NCCSS and Caring for a L i v i n g . Nonprofit s t a f f were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y to receive f u l l or p a r t i a l medical insurance, maternity leave, morning and afternoon breaks, and more vacation days per year than f o r - p r o f i t s t a f f . The o v e r a l l r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of t h i s study's r e s u l t s are strong due to the use of a well-regarded instrument such as the ECERS together with the questionnaire, which was d e t a i l e d i n the research. The researchers c a l l for future studies to seek a geographically more diverse sample as they suggest that some of the r e s u l t s (those which contradict findings i n the NCCSS and Caring for a Living) were d i r e c t l y influenced by the employment climate i n t h e i r sample area. Nonetheless, t h i s study provides yet another look at a higher q u a l i t y of care and better working conditions found i n nonprofit centers. This research was i n f l u e n t i a l i n guiding the current study. The r e s u l t s regarding s t a f f s a t i s f a c t i o n and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to 34 auspice c o n f l i c t e d with those i n the NCCSS and Carina for a Li v i n g . Such inconsistencies provided a foundation for the current study, which further investigated r e l a t i o n s h i p s between auspice and job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Also, Kontos and Stremmel gauged caregivers' perceptions through quantitative measures. A way to further explore caregivers' perceptions of auspice and job s a t i s f a c t i o n i s through the q u a l i t a t i v e methodology used here. Calgary. Alberta. Friesen (1995) conducted research that examined the impact of auspices on q u a l i t y i n c h i l d care centers, as well as auspices' impact on organizational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and how those r e l a t e to qu a l i t y . At the time of the study, government funding was available equally to both nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t centers i n Alberta. As well, regulations were the same fo r a l l auspice types. In essence, t h i s provided a l e v e l playing f i e l d for nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t centers, creating an environment i n which both types of centers could provide services and/or compete for customers on equal footing. A random s t r a t i f i e d sample of 45 centers was selected i n Calgary. Observations to assess q u a l i t y were conducted at each center using the ITERS. One researcher unaware of the focus on auspice conducted a l l ITERS t e s t s . Center d i r e c t o r s also completed a questionnaire that was pretested twice. As well, data were provided to the researchers by s t a f f about t h e i r work and background. The r e s u l t s showed that f o r - p r o f i t centers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y to o f f e r poor q u a l i t y care than nonprofit centers. Also, s t a f f i n nonprofit centers were more l i k e l y to be paid higher s a l a r i e s and benefits, have early 35 childhood diplomas or c e r t i f i c a t e s , be employed at t h e i r current center f o r at least f i v e years, and have more input into decision making than c h i l d care workers i n f o r - p r o f i t centers. These findings about s t a f f and working conditions were consistent with those of the NCCSS and Caring for a L i v i n g . And, the r e s u l t that higher q u a l i t y care was more l i k e l y to occur i n nonprofit centers mirrors what every study reviewed so f a r on auspice and q u a l i t y reported. Moreover, i t was s i g n i f i c a n t that when a p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n was computed and auspice was dummy coded, 14 organizational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with q u a l i t y of care were held constant. In other words, Friesen found that differences i n the s t a f f hired and modes of operation explained the differences i n q u a l i t y by auspice. This f i n d i n g i s important as i t indicates a new d i r e c t i o n or focus of auspice and q u a l i t y research. That i s , more research i s needed to explore not only how auspice i s related to q u a l i t y , but how organizational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are related to and influenced by auspice and/or qu a l i t y . A focus group. Scurria and Kagan (1994) reported on a focus group with leaders of the f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care community i n the U.S. at the National Child Care Association (NCCA) Conference i n 1993. Their a r t i c l e does not pretend to be designed and controlled research, rather a synthesis of the c r i t i c a l issues discussed at a large gathering of f o r - p r o f i t providers. Nonetheless, i t i s included for review here because i t presents the views of f o r - p r o f i t workers, which i s a goal of the current study. 36 F o r - p r o f i t providers shared t h e i r perceptions of government roles i n early care and education. Private operators f e l t wary of the government since they perceived "they have been treated u n f a i r l y by the government through burdensome and c o s t l y regulations, taxes, and the lack of access to food subsidies" (p. 6). They acknowledged the increase i n business generated by a program i n the U.S. c a l l e d the Chi l d Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), which made multiple options of c h i l d care, including private care, more available to consumers. However, i n general they believed that the government assumed nonprofit providers were morally superior to f o r - p r o f i t providers, a perception which tainted the government's treatment of the private sector. Private operators also c a l l e d for less regulations regarding the q u a l i t y of care, saying that states should only regulate minimum health and safety standards. Operators also f e l t that instead of creating more regulations, states should target parents for more education about c h i l d care so that q u a l i t y issues could be addressed by the market system. As well, f o r -p r o f i t providers f e l t research on auspice and q u a l i t y had not accurately measured q u a l i t y of care. Indeed, on factors such as s t a f f - c h i l d r a t i o s , a factor which research generally found was lower i n nonprofit centers, the f o r - p r o f i t providers argued "that r a t i o s are an i n e f f e c t i v e proxy for q u a l i t y because i t i s preferable to have one highly competent i n d i v i d u a l than several less capable providers" (p. 15). Other concerns were raised such as reaching low-income populations. Also, the a r t i c l e summarized the common inte r e s t s of the private and nonprofit sectors i n hopes of drawing 37 attention to the need for the acrimony between the sectors to be placed aside. Nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t providers shared concerns over unlicensed care and the more equitable a p p l i c a t i o n of regulations, the t r a n s i t i o n to elementary school, the reliance of p o l i c y makers on academics rather than p r a c t i t i o n e r s , the need for more status, and the education of parents and society about early care and education. This a r t i c l e recorded the views of f o r - p r o f i t providers on government's r o l e i n c h i l d care. While t h i s was not v a l i d , r e l i a b l e research where researchers s p e c i f i e d how and why they chose these f o r - p r o f i t providers or how data were analyzed, t h i s a r t i c l e was nonetheless the f i r s t attempt to record the perceptions of f o r - p r o f i t providers on an issue d i r e c t l y related to auspice. The i n t e n s i t y and range of b e l i e f s and perceptions signal the need for more research, such as the current study, which can explore f o r - p r o f i t providers' views and the implications for c h i l d care. Job S a t i s f a c t i o n L i t e r a t u r e The job s a t i s f a c t i o n of c h i l d care workers has been found to d i r e c t l y influence adults' behavior with children and i n d i r e c t l y e f f e c t turnover rates (Doherty-Derkowski, 1995). In turn, adults' behavior with children and s t a f f turnover are re l a t e d to qualit y , which, according-to the above studies, has been shown to be influenced by auspice. Therefore, reviewing a representative sample of job s a t i s f a c t i o n l i t e r a t u r e builds a stronger foundation for t h i s study which seeks to further delineate the relationships between auspice, q u a l i t y and job s a t i s f a c t i o n . 38 Berk (1985) studied relationships between caregivers' behavior towards children and caregiver c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s including job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Thirty-seven center-based caregivers i n t y p i c a l small American c i t i e s f i l l e d out attitude and job s a t i s f a c t i o n questionnaires. Observations of caregivers were also conducted twice oh separate days. S i g n i f i c a n t findings included that the more educated caregivers were, the more s a t i s f i e d they were with t h e i r job. Also, caregivers generally s a t i s f i e d with job factors such as pay and working conditions engaged i n more encouraging and less r e s t r i c t i v e behavior with children. Lindsay and Lindsay (1987) conducted a survey of 303 c h i l d care workers i n Durham County, North Carolina. They found that workers exhibited a high degree of professionalism and were committed to t h e i r work and convinced of i t s importance. I t was the conditions of work such as low pay, lack of benefits, and lack of status, rather than the nature of the work, that promoted burnout. ' . J Stremmel (1991) studied turnover i n Indiana using a sample of 223 c h i l d care workers i n licensed centers. Staff f i l l e d out questionnaires and upon analysis Stremmel found that workers were s a t i s f i e d generally i n a l l facets of t h e i r work except pay and promotion opportunities. However, he found the most s i g n i f i c a n t predictor of intention to leave was not d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay and mobility but rather organizational commitment to job and center. P h i l l i p s , Howes, and Whitebook (1991) did a focused analysis of t h e i r data from the National Child Care S t a f f i n g Study i n 39 which they concentrated on the working conditions, patterns of job s a t i s f a c t i o n , turnover rates, and appropriateness of a c t i v i t i e s provided to children. As mentioned previously, 227 c h i l d care centers i n 5 d i f f e r e n t metropolitan c i t i e s i n the U.S. were included i n the sample. From t h i s wide range of centers, 13 09 s t a f f members par t i c i p a t e d i n interviews about t h e i r backgrounds, working conditions, and intention to stay i n c h i l d care work; As well, observations of p a r t i c i p a n t s ' work places using the ECERS gauged q u a l i t y and how well adult needs were met. The researchers found that job s a t i s f a c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y associated with wages, paid preparation time, reduced fee c h i l d care, and how well adult needs were met. Factors such as health benefits and merit increases were only sporadically associated with job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Moreover, those centers that offered higher wages and paid more attention to meeting adult needs provided higher q u a l i t y care as measured by the ECERS. Interestingly, i n t h i s concentrated study of the NCCSS data, workers and centers were not separated according to auspice. The NCCSS did report, though, that nonprofit centers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y than f o r - p r o f i t centers to pay higher s a l a r i e s and meet adult needs. In conclusion, P h i l l i p s et a l . o f f e r perhaps the most comprehensive look at the r e l a t i o n s h i p between q u a l i t y and job s a t i s f a c t i o n , as well as insights into how auspice re l a t e s to these factors through the NCCSS. Maslach and Pines (1977) found that several factors impacted on job s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h e i r study of 83 c h i l d care workers i n several day care centers. After analyzing questionnaires f i l l e d out by s t a f f , the researchers reported that high s t a f f - c h i l d 40 r a t i o s and long hours of work "on the f l o o r " with childr e n had negative e f f e c t s on job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Centers that allowed breaks away from the children, had regular s t a f f meetings with opportunities for input, and had an open, nonstructured program were seen to p o s i t i v e l y influence job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Whitebook, Howes, Darrah, and Friedman (1982) looked at burnout and turnover in' c h i l d care workers. Through interviews with 95 s t a f f members i n 32 c h i l d care centers i n San Francisco, the researchers found, l i k e Maslach and Pines (1977), that s t a f f -c h i l d r a t i o s , hours of work with children, breaks, a b i l i t y to have input, and f l e x i b i l i t y of center structure were a l l correlated with s t a f f perceptions of job s a t i s f a c t i o n . As well, low pay and unpaid hours were stated most often by subjects as a source of tension and what they l i k e d l e a s t about t h e i r job. Across auspices, the researchers found that turnover was highest among s t a f f i n private centers and that the highest r a t i o s , worst reported working conditions, lowest s a l a r i e s , most tension stated and fewest benefits were reported by f o r - p r o f i t s t a f f . Jorde-Bloom 1s (1988) research explored how personal and organizational factors r e l a t e to employee s a t i s f a c t i o n and job commitment. The study involved 629 early childhood workers i n nonprofit and private c h i l d care programs i n 25 states. Participants f i l l e d out the Early Childhood Job S a t i s f a c t i o n Survey (ECJSS), which had an o v e r a l l i n t e r n a l consistency of .89, and responded to two open-ended questions about job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Job facets such as co-worker r e l a t i o n s and the nature of the work i t s e l f were seen as sources of both s a t i s f a c t i o n and f r u s t r a t i o n . Moreover, the study's findings support research such as Maslach 41 and Pines (1977), Whitebook et a l . (1982), and Robinson (1979) i n fi n d i n g that i t was the conditions of work, such as s t a f f - c h i l d r a t i o s , which had a negative impact on job s a t i s f a c t i o n s A purpose of Jorde-Bloom 1s study was also to note differences i n employees working for programs under d i f f e r e n t auspices. The only s i g n i f i c a n t difference was that f o r - p r o f i t workers consistently rated s a t i s f a c t i o n with supervisors lower than did nonprofit workers. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between s t a f f i n centers of d i f f e r e n t auspices regarding co-worker r e l a t i o n s , nature of the work, pay and opportunities for advancement, and general working conditions. These findings are i n t e r e s t i n g as they diverge from those found i n the NCCSS and Carina for a Living, i n d i c a t i n g a need for more research which assesses the r e l a t i o n s h i p between auspice and job s a t i s f a c t i o n . What do these representative studies on job s a t i s f a c t i o n i n early childhood settings t e l l us? This l i t e r a t u r e shows how a v a r i e t y of factors a f f e c t how workers f e e l about and perform i n t h e i r jobs. As well, while the l i n k s between auspice and job s a t i s f a c t i o n and q u a l i t y may not be e x p l i c i t , t h i s l i t e r a t u r e -indicates that these three factors are intertwined with one another. More research i s needed to assess the r e l a t i o n s h i p of auspice, quality, and job s a t i s f a c t i o n and the current study seeks to f i l l t h i s need. Summary According to the auspice and q u a l i t y l i t e r a t u r e , nonprofit center-based c h i l d care was found to provide higher q u a l i t y care and/or better working conditions than f o r - p r o f i t care. I t must 42 be remembered, though, that these studies often found at least a few f o r - p r o f i t centers that provided high q u a l i t y care. Meanwhile, the job s a t i s f a c t i o n l i t e r a t u r e painted a p o r t r a i t of the influence that salary and benefits, s t a f f - c h i l d r a t i o s , co-worker relationships, and a myriad of other factors have on caregiver job s a t i s f a c t i o n . However, none of the studies from either the auspice and q u a l i t y l i t e r a t u r e or the job s a t i s f a c t i o n l i t e r a t u r e explored from the caregiver's point of view the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a center's l e g a l sponsorship, the q u a l i t y of care provided, and the job s a t i s f a c t i o n of the workers. I t i s t h i s need fo r q u a l i t a t i v e research from a new perspective which t h i s study addresses. \ 43 Chapter Three Design and Methodology "Qualitative research i s n a t u r a l i s t i c inquiry, the use of noninterfering data c o l l e c t i o n strategies to discover the natural flow of events and processes and how p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t e r p r e t them" (Schumacher & McMillan, 1993, p. 372). Such research i s further defined by a va r i e t y of factors. Data are coined " s o f t " , meaning r i c h i n d e t a i l , and are generally not conducive to s t a t i s t i c a l procedures. Researchers approach data c o l l e c t i o n seeking to understand the subjects from t h e i r own point of view, investigating topics i n the context of p a r t i c i p a n t s ' l i v e s rather than looking to t e s t presupposed hypotheses (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992) . A research method that embodies the above c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and which i s one of the best known representatives of q u a l i t a t i v e research i s in-depth interviewing. In-depth interviewing allows the researcher to understand what people think and how these thoughts were formed through the use of open-ended questions designed to l e t participants respond f r e e l y and honestly (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Because a need existed to hear what caregivers i n the f i e l d thought about auspice and c h i l d care, in-depth interviewing proved to be the most f i t t i n g method of inquiry for t h i s study. The use of in-depth interviewing i n data c o l l e c t i o n f o r t h i s study i s discussed below. As well, the other methodological components of t h i s q u a l i t a t i v e study are de t a i l e d . These components include the description and s e l e c t i o n of participants, 44 the r o l e of the researcher, l i m i t a t i o n s of the design, and a description of data analysis. Description and.Selection of Participants Eight workers i n eight d i f f e r e n t centers p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study. Four of these participants were employed i n or owned a private center and four of the workers were employed i n nonprofit centers. Six of the centers where parti c i p a n t s worked were f u l l -time group daycare centers that served between 10 and 140 children. Of the remaining two centers, one was a school-age care center that served over 100 children and one was a preschool that served approximately 40 children. The o r i g i n a l aim of the study was to interview workers i n group daycare centers only. However, including workers from a preschool and a school-age care center was more representative of the d i f f e r e n t types of early childhood work places that employees encounter. Criterion-based s e l e c t i o n was used to choose the part i c i p a n t s (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). I t was determined that workers with d i f f e r e n t roles within the nonprofit or f o r - p r o f i t centers would y i e l d the most information possible about workers' perceptions of auspice. Therefore, within each auspice type two owner/operators or two s t a f f with teaching and administrative duties were sought as well as two s t a f f without any administrative duties. The Executive Director of a professional association for early childhood educators, Early Childhood Educators of B r i t i s h Columbia (ECEBC), served as the gatekeeper to the sample (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Goetz & LeCompte; Seidman, 1991). Participants were nominated by the d i r e c t o r i f they met the c r i t e r i o n of working i n a nonprofit or private center i n the 45 Vancouver area as well as t h e i r membership to ECEBC and t h e i r p o t e n t i a l willingness to be involved i n the study. Two l e t t e r s of introduction were sent to p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s . The Executive Director of ECEBC wrote the f i r s t l e t t e r which introduced me as the researcher and explained how my research could benefit a l l early childhood educators. I wrote the second l e t t e r which provided more d e t a i l s about the research and what p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study would e n t a i l . In several cases, the member of ECEBC nominated and contacted o r i g i n a l l y was not e l i g i b l e to p a r t i c i p a t e because of the representativeness of jobs sought across auspices. However, those workers not e l i g i b l e recommended another s t a f f member i n the same center who met the c r i t e r i o n and then two l e t t e r s of introduction were sent to these p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s . Once p a r t i c i p a t i o n was confirmed and before the f i r s t interviews were conducted, p a r t i c i p a n t s signed permission l e t t e r s . These permission l e t t e r s guaranteed the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of a l l data and the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' r i g h t s to withdraw from the study at any time. (For ethics information, see Appendix A.) The participants were a l l women of various ages and races. They had d i f f e r e n t work h i s t o r i e s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s on the job, tr a i n i n g , education and personal l i f e h i s t o r i e s . Detailed descriptions of the in d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s are provided i n Chapter 4,. . • ' Role of the Researcher ^ My r o l e i n t h i s study included one of interviewer and one who did analysis and interpretation of the data. I paid close attention to shaping my r o l e as interviewer since t h i s r o l e would 1 4 6 a f f e c t my p a r t i c i p a n t s and consequently what they would share w i t h me. Although the l e t t e r s of i n t r o d u c t i o n were fo r m a l , mainly because t h e r e were c e r t a i n g u i d e l i n e s e s t a b l i s h e d by the U n i v e r s i t y ' s e t h i c s committee which had t o be met, my i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h p a r t i c i p a n t s p a s t t h i s p o i n t was i n f o r m a l and f r i e n d l y . I i n t r o d u c e d myself over the phone and b e f o r e the f i r s t i n t e r v i e w s as not o n l y a r e s e a r c h e r , but a former c h i l d c a r e worker.. I t a l k e d about the good and bad t h i n g s I experienced as a worker i n a p r i v a t e c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r and shared how t h a t experience sparked my i n t e r e s t i n s t u d y i n g a u s p i c e . I a l s o e x p l a i n e d t o p a r t i c i p a n t s why I was g e t t i n g a Master's degree i n E a r l y Childhood Education. I t o l d them t h a t I wanted e i t h e r t o con t i n u e doing r e s e a r c h i n c h i l d c a r e a t the d o c t o r a l l e v e l o r work f o r a c h i l d c a r e o r g a n i z a t i o n advocating f o r c h i l d r e n , s t a f f , and f a m i l i e s . I f e l t t h a t my d e s i r e t o b e t t e r c h i l d care coupled w i t h my experience as a daycare t e a c h e r allowed p a r t i c i p a n t s t o f i n d common ground w i t h me, which was confirmed by s e v e r a l p a r t i c i p a n t s who expressed t h e i r a p p r e c i a t i o n t h a t I was f o r m e r l y a c h i l d c a r e worker. Furthermore, i n my r o l e as i n t e r v i e w e r I d i d not want t o a l i e n a t e p a r t i c i p a n t s by my appearance. T h e r e f o r e , I p u r p o s e l y d r e s s e d f o r a l l i n t e r v i e w s i n c a s u a l c l o t h e s l i k e any c h i l d c a r e worker would wear on the job. I wanted the p a r t i c i p a n t s t o see me as a person who knew what i t was l i k e t o work w i t h k i d s f o r 8 hours a day r a t h e r than as a s c h o l a r i n a s u i t who c o u l d not a p p r e c i a t e the r i g o r s of c h i l d c a r e work. At the same time, I was m i n d f u l t o look neat and p r o f e s s i o n a l so t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s would view me as s e r i o u s and capable.. 47 Also i n my r o l e as interviewer, I made the decision to express my n e u t r a l i t y regarding the debate over f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care. I honestly saw both good and bad i n private c h i l d care and conveyed t h i s to part i c i p a n t s . I could have played advocate for either the nonprofit or f o r - p r o f i t side, which may have i n v i t e d more or d i f f e r e n t perceptions from par t i c i p a n t s , but I decided such role-playing was contrary to my b e l i e f s . As a new researcher, I f e l t acting contrary to my b e l i e f s was a s i t u a t i o n I could not handle e s p e c i a l l y since Marshall and Rossman (1989) warned "most participants detect and r e j e c t insincere, manipulating people" (p. 65). I f e l t my b e l i e f s about, and experience i n , private c h i l d care aided my r o l e as analyzer and interpreter of the data. Because I saw both bad and good i n private care and had not worked i n nonprofit care, I was not on the defensive regarding either type of auspice and I could concentrate on l e t t i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s ' perceptions emerge as they were. I found myself emotionally involved, though, when partic i p a n t s talked negatively about workers employed i n centers of d i f f e r e n t auspices. I had come to know and respect a l l of my partic i p a n t s and i t was in t e r e s t i n g that I f e l t protective of them, e s p e c i a l l y from each other. This emotional response, however, did not impact on my a b i l i t y to analyze p a r t i c i p a n t s ' perceptions. Rather, such a response helped me to focus on presenting the data as accurately and r e s p e c t f u l l y as possible. 1 Data C o l l e c t i o n In-depth interviews were used to explore p a r t i c i p a n t s ' perceptions of auspice. The purpose of in-depth interviews i s to 48 allow the participant's perspective on some phenomenon to unfold as the p a r t i c i p a n t views i t , not as the researcher sees i t (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). Therefore, a researcher may guide a p a r t i c i p a n t towards a t o p i c but "respects how the p a r t i c i p a n t frames and structures responses" (Marshall & Rossman, p. 82). Hence, the q u a l i t a t i v e in-depth interviews I used were much more l i k e a conversation than a highly structured interview. Two interviews with each pa r t i c i p a n t were conducted over 3 months for a t o t a l of 16 interviews. A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s were interviewed once before the second interviews were conducted. Having more than one interview with each p a r t i c i p a n t allowed us to e s t a b l i s h varying degrees of rapport (Seidman, 1991) and ensured the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of meanings and perceptions. Also, allowing for two interviews gave me time to review the data c o l l e c t e d i n the f i r s t round, observe trends or patterns, and formulate new questions as they emerged from the data. -x The interviews took place between November 1995 and January 1996, mostly at p a r t i c i p a n t s ' places of employment. For some partic i p a n t s , though, i t was more convenient to meet at t h e i r homes or i n a coffee shop. Each interview lasted approximately one hour. Before each interview, I assured p a r t i c i p a n t s of t h e i r anonymity and t h e i r r i g h t to withdraw from the study at any time. I used a tape recorder to record a l l interviews because t h i s "ensures completeness of the verbal i n t e r a c t i o n and provides material for r e l i a b i l i t y checks" (Schumacher & McMillan, 1993, p. 432). As well, I took notes during the interviews to back up the tapes and to record nonverbal communication. 49 The interview format chosen to explore p a r t i c i p a n t s ' views of auspice was a nonstandardized interview (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984) also known as the interview guide approach (Schumacher & McMillan, 1993). Using t h i s type of interview, I selected my topic, auspice, p r i o r to interviews but the exact wording of questions and t h e i r sequence i n the interview emerged informally as the interview occurred. Before the f i r s t and second interviews, members of my thesis committee reviewed my interview questions and offered suggestions. The f i n a l l i s t of questions f o r both interviews r e f l e c t e d a merger of Patton's (1980), Spradley's (1979), and Schatzman and Strauss' (1973) typologies of questions (as c i t e d i n Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). Types of questions such as descriptive, background, opinion, and hypothetical were posed to part i c i p a n t s . As per Patton's (1980) suggestion (as c i t e d i n Goetz and LeCompte), cues or explanations were provided when topics s h i f t e d i n the interviews, such as when we moved from demographic questions to auspice questions. This allowed parti c i p a n t s an opportunity to adjust t h e i r thinking to a new di r e c t i o n . As well, questions considered controversial or complex were asked towards the end of a l l interviews, allowing pa r t i c i p a n t s time to adjust to me and the process of being interviewed (Goetz & LeCompte; Schumacher & McMillan, 1993). Throughout the interviews I focused on what Marshall and Rossman (1989) c a l l the most important aspect of a researcher's approach to q u a l i t a t i v e interviews, "conveying the idea that the particip a n t ' s information i s acceptable and valuable" (p. 82). It was my intention to allow participants to f e e l comfortable by 50 using a nonstructured interview with i t s conversational s t y l e . This s t y l e , agree Goetz and LeCompte (1984), " i s most l i k e l y to e l i c i t the t r u s t , confidence, and ease among respondents necessary for y i e l d i n g elaborate, subtle, and v a l i d data" (p. 134). As well, I focused on affirming what was said through nodding or the use of a neutral probe such as "uh huh" or "r i g h t " (Bernard, 1994). I was careful not to r e f e r to private c h i l d care as f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care i n a l l interviews, aware that some part i c i p a n t s might be angered by or se n s i t i v e to such terminology. After each interview, the tape was transcribed by an o f f i c e service. I checked each t r a n s c r i p t i o n against the tape and made corrections as necessary. As well, a f t e r each interview I wrote interview elaborations i n my journal. These elaborations allowed me time, to review what was said, my feelings about my r o l e and the rapport established, and how the information could be extended i n the future. "This a c t i v i t y i s a c r i t i c a l time for r e f l e c t i o n and elaboration to esta b l i s h q u a l i t y control for v a l i d data" (Schumacher & McMillan, 1993, p. 433). These r e f l e c t i o n s aided i n the formulation of questions f o r the second interviews, implications for future research, and were informative throughout my data analysis. F i n a l l y , at the conclusion of each interview, I addressed the issue of r e c i p r o c i t y (Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Seidman, 1991). I gave two d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t y sheets to par t i c i p a n t s (see Appendix B) i n hopes that I could pass along new ideas and save workers some time i n planning an a c t i v i t y f or t h e i r classes. I used these a c t i v i t i e s when I was a c h i l d care worker and I found 51 them to be educational, entertaining, and c o s t - e f f i c i e n t . Although a small token of my thanks, the a c t i v i t y sheets were generally appreciated by participants, e s p e c i a l l y the song sheet which offered new l y r i c s and hand motions to a song that many of the p a r t i c i p a n t s already knew and used. Limitations of the Design This study concentrated on a small number of par t i c i p a n t s i n eight d i f f e r e n t work places. Only one method of data c o l l e c t i o n was used. Future research could include more pa r t i c i p a n t s or concentrate on exploring a smaller number of p a r t i c i p a n t s 1 perceptions over a greater length of time, perhaps through a l i f e h i s t o r y . As well, participants could be interviewed within the same work place to see i f perceptions were shared throughout work places or were based on i n d i v i d u a l factors such as education or l i f e experience. Interviewing p a r t i c i p a n t s not involved i n c h i l d care organizations might also y i e l d new perspectives and information. Indeed, my parti c i p a n t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n ECEBC and/or other c h i l d care advocacy or professional groups. Their p a r t i c i p a t i o n suggests that they could be more knowledgeable, more aware, or more interested i n c h i l d care issues than other workers. Also, to further explore the issue of auspice from caregivers' perspectives more than one data c o l l e c t i o n method could be used. Observations and/or document analysis along with interviews could be used to triangulate data across methods and provide more r i c h , descriptive data. Data Analysis Qualitative data analysis "involves working with data, organizing them, breaking them into manageable units, synthesizing them, searching for patterns, discovering what i s important and what i s to be learned, and deciding what you w i l l t e l l others" (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p. 153). The crux of these actions r e l i e s on inductive analysis as opposed to deductive analysis as done i n quantitative research. Inductive analysis allows patterns of meaning to emerge from the data i t s e l f rather than having patterns imposed on the data before c o l l e c t i o n (Schumacher & McMillan, 1993). Below I d e t a i l the steps I took to analyze my q u a l i t a t i v e data. The majority of my analysis took place a f t e r data were col l e c t e d . However, i n following q u a l i t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n , a portion of my analysis was completed while I c o l l e c t e d data (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Schumacher & McMillan, 1993). This interim analysis included writing interview elaborations that allowed me to notice emerging themes and patterns. As well, an analysis of elaborations from the f i r s t round of interviews prepared me for the second round, i d e n t i f y i n g new areas to explore or topics to be elaborated. After data c o l l e c t i o n was completed at the end of January 1996, I followed the advice of Bogdan and Biklen (1992) and took a break before s t a r t i n g analysis. While I attended to other d e t a i l s of my thesis, t h i s two week break allowed me to gain a fresh perspective on my relationships with my p a r t i c i p a n t s and the data. After t h i s break, I followed the advice of Goetz and LeCompte (1984) and I read my proposal to review and assess my research questions. As I had suspected during data c o l l e c t i o n , my second research question was not addressed by my data. 53 O r i g i n a l l y , I believed the participants would share how t h e i r perceptions of auspice influenced t h e i r stand on the debate over f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care. When I conducted interviews, though, i t became apparent that many participants were not aware of t h i s debate. Therefore, my second research question was l a i d aside and my f i r s t research question was broken into two separate questions focusing on what were t h e i r perceptions of auspice and c h i l d care and also how t h e i r perceptions of auspice re l a t e d to t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n . With my research questions c l a r i f i e d , I began analyzing my data over the course of the next 8 weeks. The steps I took are sim i l a r to those l i s t e d i n Schumacher and McMillan (1993), Bogdan and Biklen (1992), and Goetz and LeCompte (1984). F i r s t , I read through every t r a n s c r i p t , j o t t i n g down ideas and noting what jumped out at me. I went through the same process when I li s t e n e d to each of the interview tapes as well. Second, I read through the t r a n s c r i p t s again, blocking data units i n p e n c i l . A data unit could be a sentence, paragraph, or page that seemed meaningful or caught my attention. Dividing a l l of the data into units makes q u a l i t a t i v e data more manageable and less overwhelming. The t h i r d step involved going through the tr a n s c r i p t s again and coding the data units . As I coded, I asked questions of the data, checking why something was l e f t out, looking at units from a d i f f e r e n t perspective, and being aware of units that seemed exceptional to other units. I kept a master l i s t of color-coded codes, a l i s t including topics such as "turnover" and "role modeling". The fourth step was b a s i c a l l y a repeat of the t h i r d . I went back through the t r a n s c r i p t s and 54 coded again, asking questions of the data and making sure I noted those units that were coded two, three, or even four times. I decided to manage my data units through the cut and f i l e approach (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Schumacher & McMillan, 1993). Therefore, the f i f t h step consisted e n t i r e l y of photocopying my t r a n s c r i p t s , cutting up the copies into separate data b i t s , and f i l i n g the units into envelopes according to codes. The s i x t h step involved grouping these code envelopes according to categories. For instance, the code "turnover" was placed with other codes i n the category " s t a f f i n g " . My categories were both e t i c and emic; that i s , the e t i c categories came from my perspective as a researcher outside the s i t u a t i o n while the emic categories emerged from what the part i c i p a n t s said and how they viewed the phenomenon. Once I grouped code envelopes into category envelopes I wrote ana l y t i c memos about each category. When a code group or even a data unit appeared out of place as I analyzed, I tracked where and why i t was moved or changed. Throughout t h i s process I constantly compared, contrasted, established l i n k s , and speculated about the codes and categories. From playing with the data t h i s way, which Goetz and LeCompte (1984) c a l l the heart of the an a l y t i c process, themes emerged such as "Positive Perceptions of Private Auspice." Interestingly, while the an a l y t i c process began with inductive analysis, i t ended i n a deductive manner. Indeed, to e s t a b l i s h and confirm the v a l i d i t y of my themes, I moved back and f o r t h across my data, evaluating t h e i r adequacy, usefulness, and c e n t r a l i t y and then I determined what would be included i n the r e s u l t s to illuminate the research problem (Schumacher & 55 McMillan, 1993). The re s u l t s chapters show the fi n i s h e d product of my data analysis and what was selected to address the research problem. Once data analysis was completed and I began to write up my re s u l t s , member checks were conducted by a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s to v e r i f y the r e l i a b i l i t y of my findings. In May 1996, I sent pa r t i c i p a n t s the portions of Chapter 4 which pertained to them i n d i v i d u a l l y . The participants were asked to respond to me within 2 weeks with suggestions regarding how I interpreted the data or comments or concerns about the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of t h e i r i d e n t i t y . Of 8 participants, 5 confirmed the accuracy of what I had written. One part i c i p a n t corrected part of her background information, another participant shared her desire for a former work place to be less i d e n t i f i a b l e , and the f i n a l p a r t i c i p a n t c l a r i f i e d one of the opinions she expressed. A l l of the member checks were invaluable to me i n confirming, c l a r i f y i n g , and strengthening my r e s u l t s . Summary Qualitative research and the appropriateness of in-depth interviewing to the research problem were discussed. As well, the methodological components of the research were d e t a i l e d including the description and sel e c t i o n of par t i c i p a n t s , the r o l e of the researcher, l i m i t a t i o n s of the design, the use of interviews i n data c o l l e c t i o n , and a description of data analysis. 56 Chapter Four Introduct ion of P a r t i c i p a n t s In t h i s chapter, I introduce each p a r t i c i p a n t by presenting a synopsis of t h e i r work and personal backgrounds along with an overview of t h e i r perceptions of auspice. Neither the background information nor the summary of t h e i r views i s exhaustive. However, i t i s my hope that t h i s information paints a r e a l i s t i c p o r t r a i t of each woman i n the reader's mind. Knowing where each pa r t i c i p a n t comes from and how they f e e l about auspice lends more depth and meaning to the re s u l t s presented thematically i n the next two chapters. Part i c i p a n t s ' names have been changed to pseudonyms. A l l of the pseudonyms s t a r t with either the l e t t e r P or the l e t t e r N depending on whether the part i c i p a n t works i n a private or a nonprofit center. The participants who work i n private centers are described f i r s t : P h y l l i s , Peggy, Pauline, and Pamela. The partici p a n t s who work i n nonprofit centers are described second: Nina, Naomi, Nicole, and Natasha. Workers i n Private Centers P h y l l i s Background. P h y l l i s i s a head supervisor at a p r i v a t e l y owned and operated c h i l d care center i n the Vancouver suburbs. She has worked there for the past eight years and has worked i n the c h i l d care f i e l d o f f and on since 1967. In her 50s, she i s married and has nine children, one of whom died at a young age over twenty years ago. 57 P h y l l i s became involved i n c h i l d care by way of motherhood. She provided family day care out of her home for a while and also worked odd jobs here and there, "whatever you can do to r a i s e eight kids." After having her eighth c h i l d , she and some other women i n her neighborhood started a community play group because "we wanted more for our children." P h y l l i s volunteered the use of a room i n her home and successfully lobbied the housing commission to provide a safer playground for the children. Through her involvement and leadership i n t h i s group, P h y l l i s was offered a scholarship to the Early Childhood Education (ECE) program. Because the community colleges which presently t r a i n most c h i l d care workers i n Vancouver were not open then, P h y l l i s completed her ECE t r a i n i n g part-time at night at d i f f e r e n t s i t e s . As part of her course, she completed two practicum placements i n nonprofit c h i l d care centers. Because she took time o f f to have her ninth c h i l d and since she took the course part-time, P h y l l i s completed the program over several years. Aft e r she finished, she worked i n a nonprofit group center u n t i l she and her family moved from Vancouver to the suburbs. Then she spent several years working i n a nonprofit preschool. In 1974, P h y l l i s l e f t c h i l d care work to pursue an i n t e r e s t i n s o c i a l services. However, at t h i s time, her youngest c h i l d died and P h y l l i s did not work for 4 or 5 years. She then worked at some d i f f e r e n t jobs just to get herself out of the house before she returned to college to obtain a c e r t i f i c a t e i n s o c i a l services. With her c e r t i f i c a t e , P h y l l i s spent several years working i n a seniors' home and manning a c r i s i s l i n e . A few 58 years l a t e r , she returned to c h i l d care work as a supervisor i n a private group daycare center. After a few years i n t h i s private center, P h y l l i s was looking for a new job when she ran into one of her current employers, Vicky. P h y l l i s knew Vicky from before, since P h y l l i s had taught Vicky's daughter i n the nonprofit preschool many years e a r l i e r . Vicky now owned and operated a private center with another woman, and offered P h y l l i s a temporary p o s i t i o n . P h y l l i s has been there now for over eight years and hopes to stay at t h i s center u n t i l she r e t i r e s i n the next f i v e years or so. Overview of perceptions. P h y l l i s enjoyed working i n a private center, mostly because of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s she had with the owners. She considered the two owners, Vicky and Carrie, to be her friends more than her employers: They're very considerate of others. They're considerate of each person as a person. They don't j u s t look at you as an employee. They know that you as a person, you may have personal needs, etcetera and they're considerate of that. As well, she l i k e d the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y they gave her.in the center and the autonomy she had to make programming decisions. What i s more, P h y l l i s , her employers, and several s t a f f members shared a bond through C h r i s t i a n i t y . P h y l l i s enjoyed working i n an openly Ch r i s t i a n atmosphere because " i t ' s j u s t wonderful when, even when you have to get a f t e r a c h i l d to be able.to do i t i n a way that, that shows you care about C h r i s t . " She appreciated that the owners of the center created and managed a working atmosphere which encouraged C h r i s t i a n values. 59 P h y l l i s f e l t that her private center was excellent, but recognized that some private centers were concerned about money more than anything else. She said that from her experience i n private centers, "the bottom l i n e i s l e t ' s make a p r o f i t here, you know, a center where we need to be making money...." She pointed out that her current place of employment d i f f e r e d from those private centers that focus on p r o f i t s because "I think Carrie and Vicky go the extra mile or extra 20 miles and i t ' s not, 'What can we get out of t h i s ? ' but i t ' s 'What can we give to others?'" She witnessed her employers constant generosity with supplies and how they gave t h e i r utmost for the children. In other words, P h y l l i s knew the focus i n her private center was on the children f i r s t . When P h y l l i s was a c h i l d , she had a wonderful experience i n a Catholic church nonprofit center. She thought highly of nonprofit centers because of that experience and the time she spent working i n various nonprofit programs. However, P h y l l i s f e l t nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t programs were more a l i k e than d i f f e r e n t : I have been i n , working i n places that were non-profit but they r e a l l y wanted to make some money. I don't know exactly where i t went to...but I think, I don't think there's r e a l l y anything, such thing as nonprofit because I think everybody wants to make a p r o f i t . Moreover, she f e l t that one type of person worked i n c h i l d care, no matter i f i t was nonprofit or f o r - p r o f i t care. She believed c h i l d care workers were i n the profession to help c h i l d r e n and that these people were found across auspices. 60 Peggy Background. Peggy owns and operates a large private c h i l d care center i n the Vancouver suburbs. As well, she teaches i n the ECE programs at 3 d i f f e r e n t colleges and continuing education programs. She s p l i t s her time between the center and her teaching jobs, working as the administrator of her center three days a week. In her 40s, Peggy i s married and has two children. Peggy has been teaching i n some capacity f o r the l a s t 20 years. After receiving her teaching c e r t i f i c a t e i n elementary education from the University of V i c t o r i a , she taught and worked as a substitute for several years. However, Peggy became frustrated with the school system about the time she had her f i r s t c h i l d . Hence, her i n t e r e s t turned to early childhood education, which allowed her to move out of the public school system, yet kept her i n teaching and gave her more time with her family. She returned to the University of V i c t o r i a and f i n i s h e d her basic ECE t r a i n i n g . During the program she completed one practicum i n a nonprofit c h i l d care center. Peggy has worked i n a va r i e t y of c h i l d care settings. She was a family day care operator for a few years a f t e r the b i r t h of her f i r s t and then her second c h i l d . Also, she was employed i n a parent p a r t i c i p a t i o n preschool for one year before her second c h i l d was born. When she and her family moved from Vancouver Island to the Lower Mainland, Peggy worked i n a private group daycare i n a Vancouver suburb for three years. Next, she spent s i x years working i n a private preschool. She then worked on a c h i l d care administrative project for a b r i e f time while she b u i l t her current center. Her private center has been open 61 almost 6 years and o f f e r s a preschool program, a f t e r school care, and f u l l - t i m e care for children under 5. Peggy started teaching i n one ECE t r a i n i n g program 9 years ago. For 5 years she has taught i n three d i f f e r e n t programs. I t i s because of her work with adults i n these settings that she returned to school several years ago and i s i n the process of completing a Master's degree i n Human Development. Peggy also a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e s i n a va r i e t y of c h i l d care groups including ECEBC and the B r i t i s h Columbia Association of C h i l d Care Services. Overview of perceptions. Although she owns a private center, Peggy shared mostly negative perceptions of private auspice. From her own work experience and from l i s t e n i n g to her students over the years, Peggy f e l t many private owners either take advantage of t h e i r s t a f f and/or focus too i n t e n t l y on making money. She believed that even though private centers may s t a r t with good intentions of serving the community, most end up with a business focus. When centers have a business focus, the p r i o r i t y becomes money instead of children or s t a f f . Peggy p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y believed that c h i l d care d i d not belong as an industry. She was involved i n groups that advocated for nonprofit sponsorship of c h i l d care. Also, she disagreed with public money going to private businesses such as f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care centers and would l i k e to see the establishment of a community-based system of c h i l d care. Why does Peggy own and operate a private c h i l d care center yet oppose i t s very existence? From her perspective, there were no other options. She had moved to a suburb that was brand new and there were no community centers or r e n t a l spaces available for use. More importantly, though, she wanted f l e x i b i l i t y to be with her family and she needed job security due to a degenerative health condition; therefore, building her own center allowed her to be her own boss and i t gave her the opportunity to create a work place that responded to her physical needs. Peggy stated she would l i k e to convert to nonprofit status and was waiting for an appropriate conversion system to be established. However, Peggy f e l t i t was possible to run a private center focused on the best interests of children, f a m i l i e s , and s t a f f : I think i t i s possible to run a private center with i n t e g r i t y and with, you know, where people f e e l good about working there, but i t ' s based on one person and the chance that somebody...I mean, i t ' s based on my i n t e g r i t y and so i f , i f I act not e t h i c a l l y for a day that, that e f f e c t s everybody here. A private center's focus, therefore, depended on the owner and the owner alone. In Peggy's case, she f e l t she had the s k i l l s and i n t e g r i t y tcmake i t work. Usually, though, Peggy believed private auspice r e l i e d too heavily on business-focused owners. Although she voiced strong feelings against private ownership, Peggy did not wholeheartedly support a l l facets of nonprofit auspice. Indeed, she was not convinced that centers run by t r a d i t i o n a l boards were e f f e c t i v e organizations. She pointed out that "...sometimes people can be treated badly i n a nonprofit society because somebody on the board i s wanting to control everybody else's l i f e . " Also, Peggy f e l t that parents did not have a l o t of time to be involved i n running a nonprofit 63 center. However, she believed p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y that c h i l d care belonged i n a nonprofit system, preferably a community based system. Pauline Background. Pauline i s a s p e c i a l needs assistant i n a private preschool located i n a Vancouver suburb. She i s single, i n her 20s, and does not have any children. While she works i n the preschool every afternoon, she spends her mornings working with a s p e c i a l needs c h i l d i n a public school kindergarten. This i s her t h i r d year working i n the f i e l d f u l l - t i m e . A f t e r high school, Pauline took elementary education courses at Simon Fraser University for two years. Although she always pictured herself as a teacher, she was d i s s a t i s f i e d with the University's program. She decided to take some time o f f and while away from school, a neighbor asked her to help i n a nearby preschool. Pauline worked there as, an assistant for two years part-time before deciding to pursue her ECE at Capilano College. As part of her program, she completed p r a c t i c a i n a nonprofit daycare, a private group daycare, and a private preschool. After her practicum at the private preschool, she was hired to work there with a s p e c i a l needs c h i l d . Pauline worked at the preschool f u l l - t i m e f o r two years and then she returned to Capilano at night to take post-basic ECE courses. She recently completed her Special Needs and Infant/Toddler c e r t i f i c a t e s . Just t h i s school year she started s p l i t t i n g time between the preschool and a public kindergarten. One of the children she worked with at the preschool entered kindergarten and his family lobbied successfully for Pauline to 64 continue working with him. As well, she has worked with a c h i l d who has global d i s a b i l i t i e s for the past 5 years during the summer months and on the weekends. Pauline's future i s unclear as her pos i t i o n , which i s designated and paid f o r by the Ministry of S o c i a l Services, i s being revamped under Supported C h i l d Care, a p o l i c y that w i l l integrate s p e c i a l needs children into mainstream early childhood settings. Overview of perceptions. Pauline had both good and bad perceptions of private auspice, but f e l t that o v e r a l l , private centers were better than nonprofit centers. The biggest reason why private centers were better than nonprofit ones were the owners. Regarding her centers' owners Pauline said: I see the stimulating environment and the toys and the program and the e f f o r t and a l l that needs to go i n to make a great program for the children...I mean i t ' s coming d i r e c t l y out of the owners' pockets...whereas i n a nonprofit no one's done that. I t ' s l i k e i t ' s board run and no one's r e a l l y invested a, you know, a l o t into i t . What i s more, she found her two bosses motherly and supportive and f e l t they created an atmosphere i n the center i n which they a l l f e l t l i k e family. Pauline recognized the difference owners make i n operating a center, but knew that not a l l owners were as committed as those she worked fo r . She f e l t an owner not involved i n the d a i l y operation of the center would be disconnected from his/her s t a f f , decreasing t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n , "whereas my owners are both here so I see the work that they're doing and the dedication they have." Pauline also believed i t was possible that some private 65 owners t r y to make a p r o f i t f i r s t and foremost, maximizing t h e i r income by paying t h e i r s t a f f low wages. While now Pauline thinks more highly of private centers than nonprofits, she stated she was taught to think more highly of nonprofit centers during her t r a i n i n g . Seeing the commitment and dedication of her current employers changed her mind. More than auspice, though, Pauline f e l t s t a f f played a bigger r o l e i n how a center operated. She f e l t the lack of enthusiasm for work shown by the s t a f f i n both the private and nonprofit daycare centers where she did pr a c t i c a affected her performance on the job more than the centers' auspices. She thought the presence of energized s t a f f who shared the same philosophy and goals made a center work well, whether nonprofit or private. Pauline also expressed her opinions about daycare versus preschool. She was the only p a r t i c i p a n t to work presently i n a preschool. She f e l t that daycare was much more babysitting than preschool and she said preschool was d i f f e r e n t than daycare because children came to preschool to learn s p e c i f i c s k i l l s . In conclusion, Pauline viewed preschool as better than daycare, private auspice as better than nonprofit auspice, and centers with a cohesive, energized s t a f f as better than those with a lack l u s t e r s t a f f . Pamela Background. Pamela owns and operates a small private center out of part of her home. She works as both teacher and administrator i n the center and has been i n the early childhood f i e l d f or eight years. In her 30s, she has four children, i s married, and l i v e s i n a Vancouver suburb. 6 6 Before becoming involved i n c h i l d care, Pamela completed four years at the University of V i c t o r i a and worked i n accounting for 12 years. When her f i r s t c h i l d was a toddler, though, she became involved i n c h i l d care. She wanted to f i n d part-time care for him and had a series of disappointing experiences and so she decided to stay home herself and become a family daycare operator. Pamela went through the process of becoming a licensed family daycare operator by attending s i x information sessions over s i x weeks. Pamela enjoyed c h i l d care work, but she found i t i s o l a t i n g . After one year of operating her family daycare she hired an assistant through the Aware Program. This i s a government program which develops s k i l l s i n women who have been out of the work force for many years. With her new assistant, Pamela had time to pursue more t r a i n i n g and education. She chose a Montessori program f i r s t that was offered by an outreach program through St. Nicholas College i n London. She trained i n Montessori for the next 10 months. As she wanted to expand her services and obtain a group license, Pamela then took the basic ECE program through the Burnaby School Board's Continuing Education program. Pamela completed three p r a c t i c a , one i n a private daycare and two i n nonprofit preschools. Meanwhile, she renovated part of her home to become s o l e l y a daycare center and upon completion of the ECE program, she received a group daycare license. Her private group center has been operating now for f i v e years. Overview of perceptions. In general, Pamela f e l t private centers had the poten t i a l to reach a higher l e v e l of qu a l i t y than 67 nonprofit centers. She believed private centers could o f f e r higher q u a l i t y because nonprofit centers were a more generic form of d e l i v e r i n g c h i l d care services, a form not f l e x i b l e enough to meet the needs of a l l f a m i l i e s . Pamela stated that i n nonprofit centers too many people need to agree to make decisions. Therefore, "change i s less l i k e l y to happen when there's more people that control that change and i t ' s going to be more p a i n f u l . " While Pamela f e l t that private centers p o t e n t i a l l y could provide higher q u a l i t y care than nonprofit centers, she recognized that not a l l private centers were excellent. The q u a l i t y of a private center rested on the shoulders of the owner: If somebody owns a center and works i n i t I think there's, there's a higher degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r both the owner and s t a f f than i f a center i s owned and someone else works i n i t , because the owner i s the one that controls the purse strings....In order for i t , a center, to run well, finances need to be directed towards heeds that are maybe immediate...and I think i n a private center that doesn't always work, that doesn't always happen. In other words, Pamela perceived that owners who worked i n t h e i r own centers and paid attention to t h e i r s t a f f and children's needs ran better organizations than those owned by a person not involved i n the d a i l y operation. Also, Pamela r e a l i z e d that some . . . . . . . v private owners may make t h e i r p r o f i t margin by skimming money off the top, lowering workers' wages and as a r e s u l t decreasing t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n . 68 Pamela strongly f e l t that a c h i l d care system needs a l l types of centers under d i f f e r e n t auspices to give parents more choices. However, she p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y believed that large group daycare, whether private or nonprofit, was an unnatural s i t u a t i o n for children. She f e l t children belonged i n small groups i n t h e i r own neighborhoods, surrounded by grass and trees. She would l i k e to see the expansion of opportunities for small group centers to operate out of homes i n children's own neighborhoods. Overall, Pamela saw more good than bad i n private centers and she perceived they could meet needs more r e a d i l y and could o f f e r higher q u a l i t y care than nonprofit centers. Workers i n Nonprofit Centers Nina Background. Nina i s a co-head supervisor at a small, stand-alone nonprofit center i n Vancouver. She has spent 13 years working at t h i s center, which i s located i n an i n n e r - c i t y neighborhood. In her late 30s, she has one c h i l d and i s not married. During her 20s, Nina l i k e d "people" jobs and worked a series a jobs that involved contact with people. I t was through one of these "people" jobs that she ended up i n c h i l d care work. Nina had pursued a c e r t i f i c a t e i n community homemaking from a community college and as a community homemaker, she worked with terminally i l l people i n t h e i r homes. I t just happened that one of her c l i e n t s had two children i n a daycare center that was looking for a s p e c i a l needs worker. The c l i e n t suggested Nina for the job and Nina decided to apply. She interviewed with the province and was then hired as a contract s p e c i a l needs worker 69 f o r the summer working a t the c e n t e r where she i s now employed. At t h i s p o i n t , she had no t r a i n i n g or e d u c a t i o n i n the e a r l y c h i l d h o o d f i e l d . When the c o n t r a c t was f i n i s h e d , she got another c o n t r a c t w i t h the p r o v i n c e . T h i s time she worked i n a church n o n p r o f i t c e n t e r f o r nine months w i t h a c h i l d who had severe b e h a v i o r problems. A f t e r these experiences, Nina d e c i d e d she wanted t o s t a y i n the f i e l d and hoped t o be h i r e d by the c e n t e r where she f i r s t worked. She worked as a s u b s t i t u t e t h e r e f o r one year u n t i l she was accepted i n t o and began the b a s i c ECE program a t Langara C o l l e g e . Nina took her courses p a r t - t i m e a t n i g h t and c o n t i n u e d t o work as a s u b s t i t u t e a t her p r e s e n t c e n t e r . During her second year a t Langara, she was h i r e d t o work as an ECE a s s i s t a n t i n a c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r a f f i l i a t e d w i t h a l a r g e n o n - p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n . She stayed f o r f i v e months and then r e t u r n e d t o her c u r r e n t c e n t e r as a s u p e r v i s o r - i n - t r a i n i n g . During her ECE t r a i n i n g , she a l s o completed two p r a c t i c a a t n o n p r o f i t c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r s . As w e l l , Nina f i n i s h e d a c e r t i f i c a t e i n S o c i a l S e r v i c e s 10 years ago. She wanted more knowledge about what s o c i a l s e r v i c e s were a v a i l a b l e and how they were d e l i v e r e d so she c o u l d b e t t e r h e l p the f a m i l i e s u s i n g her c e n t e r . Nina i s now co-head s u p e r v i s o r a t the c e n t e r where she has worked f o r 13 y e a r s . Overview of p e r c e p t i o n s . Nina h e l d mostly n e g a t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s of p r i v a t e c e n t e r s and c o n s i d e r e d n o n p r o f i t c e n t e r s t o o f f e r a b e t t e r environment f o r both c h i l d r e n and s t a f f . She s t a t e d she would not work i n a p r i v a t e c e n t e r "because from what I understand the wages are poor and people are e x p l o i t e d . 70 They're asked to do, put i n an enormous amount of hours at no cost to the center and they o f f e r no job sec u r i t y . " She believed turnover was higher i n private centers because of low wages and that i n general, private centers provided a less supportive work environment for employees. A l l of these factors she believed negatively affected q u a l i t y i n private centers. Nina also disagreed with the f a c t that daycare could be operated for a p r o f i t . Since part of her current job e n t a i l s s e t t i n g her center's budget, Nina could not understand where there was even a p r o f i t to be made i n operating a daycare center. In order for private centers to r e a l i z e a p r o f i t then, she believed q u a l i t y had to be s a c r i f i c e d . However, family daycare worried Nina more than private group care, "and I mean that's daycare for p r o f i t . " She had heard many negative s t o r i e s about family daycare, s t o r i e s that concerned her about why ce r t a i n people took children into t h e i r homes. She worried less about private group care because i t had more checks and balances than family daycare and more people were present to keep tabs on the operation. Nina viewed nonprofit auspice i n a more p o s i t i v e l i g h t than private auspice. In her nonprofit work place, she thought her input was valued and welcomed and she f e l t not so much an employee as she did someone i n charge of running the center. "It's a r e a l grassroots kind of establishment and I l i k e that personally.". Moreover, she l i k e d working with a parent board because: I t ' s not s t a t i c . . . i t ' s very in t e r e s t i n g , quite challenging. You have, you have to work with a r e a l v a r i e t y of people. 71 I t gives you l o t s of opportunity to get to know parents as ind i v i d u a l s . Nina believed her relationships with the parents p o s i t i v e l y affected how she f e l t about her work place. However, Nina recognized that a l l nonprofit centers were not the same, as exemplified by her experiences i n two previous centers. When she worked as a contract worker i n the church nonprofit center, the daycare was managed by a board composed of members of the church. These people were not very knowledgeable about daycare and "they didn't r e a l l y know what they were doing" i n running the center. From her experience i n a center a f f i l i a t e d with a larger organization she stated: I f e l t that i t was r e a l l y hard to make changes at the grassroots l e v e l because the administration was so huge and impersonal and decisions were made that r e a l l y weren't based on the people who were using the service or the s t a f f who were providing the service. For Nina, then, what made a difference i n nonprofit centers was who sat on the board and the board's a c c e s s i b i l i t y . In a small, stand-alone nonprofit she enjoyed having an impact on how the center was run and establishing relationships with parent boards. Overall, she f e l t that q u a l i t y and work environments were better i n nonprofit than private centers. Naomi Background. Naomi i s temporarily working as head supervisor at a small, stand-alone nonprofit center i n Vancouver while the center's regular head supervisor i s on maternity leave. She has 72 worked at t h i s center for 5 years and has been i n the early childhood f i e l d since 1980. In her 30s, she i s sing l e and does not have any children. Naomi went to Langara College a f t e r graduating high school and transferred to Simon Fraser University a f t e r two years. She was interested i n the arts program, but a f t e r her t h i r d year she decided to take some time o f f from school. She worked part-time at a h o s p i t a l and she volunteered with the Immigrant Resource Project (IRP), a government program that a s s i s t s new immigrants to Canada. Naomi volunteered with the project since her family had immigrated to Canada from Greece and because one of her s i b l i n g s was a s o c i a l worker with the program. I t was through the IRP that she f i r s t worked with young children, a s s i s t i n g i n the preschool program that cared for kids while t h e i r immigrant mothers received i n s t r u c t i o n on how to improve t h e i r English s k i l l s . Naomi spent two years volunteering i n t h i s preschool before she returned to Langara and completed the ECE t r a i n i n g program. She did p r a c t i c a at a special needs school, two private preschools, two public kindergartens and the University of B r i t i s h Columbia's c h i l d care centers. Upon completion of her ECE c e r t i f i c a t e , she was hired to work with IRP i n t h e i r preschool program i n the mornings. She spent the afternoons working i n a nonprofit school-age c h i l d care center. This arrangement lasted for about a year until^cutbacks i n the IRP forced her to f i n d steady f u l l - t i m e employment. She went to a church-run nonprofit daycare center where she worked as a supervisor. 73 Naomi stayed at the church-run center for almost 8 years. She then needed a change so she l e f t the church center and worked as a substitute i n various daycares i n Vancouver. At t h i s time, she and her family went to Greece for one year to be with t h e i r extended family. While i n Greece, she worked i n a private preschool. Upon returning to Vancouver, Naomi again worked as a substitute for a while u n t i l her present center offered her a fu l l - t i m e p o s i t i o n . She has been working there f o r f i v e years now. Overview of perceptions. Naomi had no working experience i n private centers i n North America and confessed she d i d not have much knowledge about private centers. She believed, though, that private centers operated mostly for the money. She questioned what type of people would operate f o r - p r o f i t establishments within a f i e l d such as c h i l d care: Like why are they doing i t ? Do they r e a l l y care about i t or do they see i t l i k e as a restaurant? I mean we're t a l k i n g about children here, we're t a l k i n g about l i v e s , we're not t a l k i n g about a plate of, you know. As well, Naomi f e l t that teachers might be less q u a l i f i e d i n f o r -p r o f i t centers than i n nonprofit centers. Indeed, she d i d not know i f teachers i n private centers had t h e i r ECE q u a l i f i c a t i o n s or i f a private owner could h i r e anyone o f f the street to watch children. Even with these negative perceptions, Naomi stated that there were probably some f o r - p r o f i t operators who had a true love for c hildren. She also expressed that she hers e l f would rather take i n a few children when she has a c h i l d than have to pay high 74 infant daycare rates. Technically, Naomi would operate a private family daycare. Her concern regarding private care, then, focused on the motivation and character of private operators and t h e i r s t a f f . She f e l t that the f i e l d and society should ensure that private operators put children f i r s t . I f not, the desire to make a p r o f i t placed children at r i s k . Regarding nonprofit auspice, Naomi shared both good and bad perceptions. She l i k e d working i n her present small, stand-alone nonprofit center because "our head supervisor i s a f a n t a s t i c person" and "we're treated as equal." Her pay and benefits package were never better i n a l l her years i n the f i e l d and she appreciated receiving feedback on how she was doing as a teacher. Naomi also f e l t the parent board and her head supervisor treated her with consideration. As well, she enjoyed how the center resonated with warmth, a warmth created by active, caring s t a f f supported by the parents and administration. When she worked i n a church nonprofit center, though, Naomi never f e l t the closeness with the s t a f f that she f e l t at her present center. Naomi stated the church center was more l i k e an i n s t i t u t i o n , that she never got any feedback on her work performance, and that she gave many hours of unpaid work. Members of the church sat on the board and the parents using the center had neither the time nor the desire to get to know the s t a f f . She also did not receive medical or dental benefits u n t i l her l a s t year at the center which she f e l t was unfair, Nicole Background• Nicole i s a head supervisor at a small, stand-alone nonprofit center i n Vancouver. She has worked at her 75 p r e s e n t c e n t e r f o r over 2 years and has been i n the f i e l d f o r 9 y e a r s . She i s i n her 30s, s i n g l e , and does not have any c h i l d r e n . During her s e n i o r year of h i g h s c h o o l , N i c o l e took a l e a d e r s h i p t r a i n i n g course t h a t prepared her t o work w i t h s c h o o l -age c h i l d r e n i n a summer camp. She worked w i t h c h i l d r e n t h a t summer, but N i c o l e had always been i n v o l v e d w i t h k i d s doing b a b y s i t t i n g or c h i l d c a r e work a t church. A f t e r working i n the summer camp, N i c o l e spent nine months i n a v o l u n t e e r program run by the Canadian government t o h e l p communities i n need. Through t h i s program she spent t h r e e months working i n a M o n t e s s o r i p r e s c h o o l i n O n t a r i o . When the program was f i n i s h e d , N i c o l e r e t u r n e d t o B r i t i s h Columbia and spent one semester a t the U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a b e f o r e d e c i d i n g t o take some time o f f . When she n o t i c e d an advertisement f o r the ECE t r a i n i n g program, she d e c i d e d t o apply. N i c o l e e n r o l l e d i n Langara C o l l e g e and completed her b a s i c ECE c e r t i f i c a t e i n one year on a f u l l - t i m e b a s i s . During her program, she completed^four p r a c t i c a , a l l i n n o n p r o f i t programs. A f t e r her p r a c t i c u m i n a s p e c i a l needs p r e s c h o o l , she was h i r e d t o work t h e r e . N i c o l e spent her f i r s t year a t the s p e c i a l needs p r e s c h o o l a t t e n d i n g Langara a t n i g h t t o r e c e i v e her S p e c i a l Needs c e r t i f i c a t e . She then worked f o r another t h r e e y e a r s a t the -p r e s c h o o l b e f o r e she d e c i d e d t o f i n i s h her b a c h e l o r ' s degree. N i c o l e spent two years completing her degree i n C h i l d and Youth Care from the U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a . 76 When she f i n i s h e d her degree, she again worked i n a s p e c i a l needs preschool i n Vancouver, one a f f i l i a t e d with the same large organization that oversaw her previous center. Nicole was employed there on a temporary basis f o r three months and then J spent a few months t r a v e l l i n g . After t r a v e l l i n g , she took another temporary po s i t i o n for eight months i n a nonprofit school-age care center. Both of these positions had been offered to her while s t a f f took maternity leaves. She was offered one more temporary p o s i t i o n to cover a maternity leave at her current center. This time, the p o s i t i o n turned into a permanent job and she has been working at t h i s center for over 2 years now and handles both teaching and administrative duties. Overview of perceptions. When auspice was discussed, Nicole pointed out that she had no working experience i n private centers. She said her perceptions about private auspice were based on the stigma about private centers i n the c h i l d care f i e l d as well as the l i m i t e d contact she had with people who had worked i n both sectors. She perceived that private centers needed to work harder to make money i n order to stay out of a d e f i c i t p o s i t i o n . Consequently, wages were lower' and fees were higher i n private centers than nonprofit ones. Regarding s t a f f i n private centers, Nicole believed "that they often use people who are not q u a l i f i e d to help maintain t h e i r r a t i o s through part of the day and, or people who are p a r t l y trained." Nicole also f e l t that hierarchy i n private centers created a less favorable work environment, "just the hierarchy hanging over one's head where, you know, i t has to be someone's, the top person's way or the highway." She stated that nonprofit centers 77 worked from more of a team perspective, which she enjoyed and preferred, and that working cooperatively gave workers some control or e f f e c t on t h e i r work place. Nicole f e l t some private operators probably offered high q u a l i t y care. She even admitted that she had thought about private ownership of a center and knew she could provide a favorable experience. However: Why would anyone do that unless you're t r y i n g to make a b i t of money, a decent salary? And how can you do that, myself knowing the fee rates and the competitive fee rates and the r a t i o and that kind of thing unless you cut corners somewhere? While Nicole acknowledged that private centers could provide high q u a l i t y care then, she f e l t that the f i n a n c i a l constraints ( iof operating a private business within the c h i l d care f i e l d , along with the hierarchy inherent i n private centers, hindered most f o r - p r o f i t centers from o f f e r i n g as good working environments and high q u a l i t y care as nonprofit centers. Nicole shared mostly p o s i t i v e perceptions of nonprofit sponsorship. She enjoyed working i n her current center because "we have quite a b i t of autonomy and I have quite a b i t of say on how things go." As well, Nicole l i k e d forming re l a t i o n s h i p s with parents on the board and appreciated t h e i r support and involvement. She believed that i n a private center i t might be harder to form relationships with parents because they are not as involved or as responsible for the center's operation. However, Nicole's experiences i n two s p e c i a l needs preschools, both a f f i l i a t e d with a larger organization, were not 78 a l l p o s i t i v e . She f e l t "there was l o t s of bureaucratic b u l l " that she had to deal with and that she did not have as much input into how things were run. Nicole's perceptions of nonprofit auspice, though, were much more p o s i t i v e than negative, e s p e c i a l l y concerning the small, stand-alone center where she currently worked. Natasha Background. Natasha i s i n her 2 0s, single, and does not have any children. She works as a program advisor i n a school-age c h i l d care center operated under the auspices of a nonprofit community school. This community school runs a v a r i e t y of programs i n a public elementary school located i n Vancouver. Natasha has worked at t h i s center for 2 years. Natasha was the only p a r t i c i p a n t without basic ECE t r a i n i n g from a university, community college or continuing education program. However, Natasha graduated from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia (UBC) with a bachelor of science degree i n neuroendocrinology. While she was on course to become a doctor or dentist, i t was during her f i n a l semester at UBC that she pursued her l i f e l o n g i n t e r e s t i n education. Her course load that semester was l i g h t e r than usual and so she took a part-time job at her current school-age care center. Natasha supervised the a f t e r school program and when she graduated shortly thereafter, she worked f u l l - t i m e i n the center supervising the summer program. When that summer was over, Natasha l e f t Canada to l i v e i n Japan for 2 years. She needed to further explore her i n t e r e s t i n education and make sure that she r e a l l y wanted to work With 79 children. She taught, wrote curriculums, and d i d some s t a f f t r a i n i n g and development projects as she managed a private school for c hildren ages 4 to 13. While there, Natasha r e a l i z e d that she wanted to stay i n the f i e l d of education and so when she returned to ,Canada, she went back to work at the school-age care center. She now manages the program for the kindergartners. Natasha i s currently taking the School-Age Care course at Langara College. This course d i f f e r s from the basic ECE program in that i t caters to individuals i n a f t e r school care, addressing the needs of school-age care workers through s i x sessions taken at night over the course of one academic year. Natasha also works at a members' club on Sundays, supervising children's birthday parties or other types of children's a c t i v i t i e s . As well, she i s active as a volunteer within the community and with advocacy groups for school-age c h i l d care. Overview of perceptions. Natasha perceived private c h i l d care to be synonymous with private schools. She believed that private care was not necessarily an option f o r a l l children and families because i t catered to people wealthy enough to choose private education over public education. She f e l t that private care should be a choice for parents, though, and was not necessarily bad just because i t was private. In terms of quality, Natasha thought private care could be better or worse than nonprofit care. I f the center could charge higher fees that wealthier c l i e n t s could pay, then children and s t a f f would have more resources. On the other hand, i f a private center aimed to make money f i r s t and foremost, then children and s t a f f would suffer. 80 Natasha struggled with where making a p r o f i t f i t into private care. She expressed her thoughts about t h i s issue: If your philosophy i s that you're t r y i n g to create or f a c i l i t a t e an environment, a r e a l l y p o s i t i v e environment for kids, then kids are your f i r s t p r i o r i t y . And i f your p r i o r i t y i s to make money, then can you f i t the two together at the same time? Can you do that? Natasha concluded that whether or not both p r i o r i t i e s could f i t together depended on the i n t e g r i t y and motivation of private operators. However, because of the p r o f i t motive and i t s p o t e n t i a l negative e f f e c t s , she f e l t there should be checks and balances i n the form of regulations or standards that would ensure that private care s a t i s f i e d the needs of children and fam i l i e s . Natasha l i k e d that nonprofit care was availa b l e to a l l kids, regardless of t h e i r economic background. As well, she enjoyed working i n a nonprofit center because "the p r i o r i t y (children f i r s t ) has to be there because i t ' s not making money. I t ' s just there's no choice. And that almost makes the job easier because there's no a l t e r n a t i v e . " She f e l t her employers d i d t h e i r best to take care of s t a f f needs too, from paying for her college courses to giving her po s i t i v e feedback. And, she appreciated that parents were involved i n the program and supportive of the s t a f f . Summary Each of the participants was described to provide context to the r e s u l t s presented i n following chapters. Work and personal backgrounds were detailed and summaries of perceptions of auspice 81 were presented. Although p a r t i c i p a n t s had d i f f e r e n t l i f e s i t u a t i o n s and work experiences, t h e r e was some agreement i n p e r c e p t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o a u s p i c e . F o r - p r o f i t workers g e n e r a l l y viewed t h e i r a u s p i c e as good as or b e t t e r than n o n p r o f i t care w h i l e n o n p r o f i t workers g e n e r a l l y viewed t h e i r a u s p i c e as s u p e r i o r t o p r i v a t e c a r e . 82 Chapter F ive Perceptions of Auspice and the Prov is ion of C h i l d Care In t h i s chapter, I present the pa r t i c i p a n t s ' perceptions of auspice and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to c h i l d care. These findings address the f i r s t research question and are presented thematically. The themes which emerged from the data are: po s i t i v e perceptions of private auspice, negative perceptions of private auspice, p o s i t i v e perceptions of nonprofit auspice, and negative perceptions of nonprofit auspice. F i r s t , however, a description of what emerged as the foundation of these perspectives i s provided. Indeed, the foundation of caregivers' perceptions of auspice seems to be philosophical b e l i e f s about the profit-making motive as i t relat e s to c h i l d care. These philosophical b e l i e f s are discussed below along with how such b e l i e f s are linked to the f i r s t and most prominent perception of private auspice. Philosophical B e l i e f s and the Profit-Making Motive No where did the perceptions held by pa r t i c i p a n t s i n private centers d i f f e r more from those held by par t i c i p a n t s i n nonprofit centers than i n the area of philosophical b e l i e f s about c h i l d care. This difference i n views was i n t e r e s t i n g because two of the nonprofit workers, Natasha, who worked i n a school-age care center, and Naomi, who worked i n a small stand-alone center, were unaware of the debate over f o r - p r o f i t care which fueled t h i s study. However, they echoed many o f the philosophical b e l i e f s held by Nina and Nicole, who knew of the s p l i t between nonprofit and private advocates. Moreover, even though Peggy operated a 8 3 f o r - p r o f i t center, she was the only p a r t i c i p a n t from the private side to p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y a l i g n herself with the nonprofit side. These f i v e women a l l expressed, i m p l i c i t l y or e x p l i c i t l y , that c h i l d care should not be a profit-making enterprise. Peggy said, "I fundamentally don't believe that c h i l d care belongs as an industry. I t ' s a s o c i a l service...." Natasha expressed "I don't think i t ' s r i g h t to make a p r o f i t o f f kids. I don't, I don't think that's r i g h t . That's not obviously why I'm i n school age care." Naomi t o l d me "I don't think we should be making money of f of children." Nina and Nicole, who both worked i n small stand-alone centers, could not understand where there was even a p r o f i t to be made i n c h i l d care and Nina said "I almost don't even agree with the idea of daycare f o r p r o f i t . I mean we don't, have school f or prof i t . ... " From these b e l i e f s stemmed the f i r s t and most prominent negative perception about private centers. The nonprofit p a r t i c i p a n t s perceived that a private center's operation was grounded i n the quest to make money. Naomi f e l t private daycare needed to be watched because "there's a l o t of people there just for the money r i g h t and they open a center and they don't care about i t . " Natasha showed me how she viewed the focus of private centers through the following interchange: I : I'm going to s h i f t gears a l i t t l e b i t here and ask about the l e g a l sponsorship of t h i s center. How do you f e e l about working i n a non-profit? N: I haven't worked i n a center where, well I guess i n the English school (in Japan) i t wasn't r e a l l y a center but i t was, we were supposed to make money, we didn't 84 a c t u a l l y make money. [laugh] But that was part of the recession and what was happening i n Japan at the time. I don't know. I don't know how i t would be d i f f e r e n t i f i t was, i f our goal was to make... Well a c t u a l l y now that I think of i t I suppose i t would make a r e a l l y big difference i f the goal was to make money. But I love the fac t that our goal i s n ' t to make money. And i t i s to make an i n d i v i d u a l difference for each c h i l d . . . . From these comments, Natasha shows that she f e l t her nonprofit center focused on making a difference for each c h i l d while she believed that the goal of private centers was to make money. Nina and Nicole also perceived that the goal of private centers was to make money. Indeed, Nina even referre d to private daycare as " p r o f i t daycare" throughout the course of our interviews. However, both of these women, with access and input into t h e i r stand-alone nonprofit centers' budgets, d i d not understand where there was a p r o f i t to be made i n daycare. Nicole c a l l e d private c h i l d care a "losing business" and Nina stated "from what I know from attending budget committees there's no p r o f i t to be made." However, while they acknowledged there was no p r o f i t to be found i n operating a daycare center, i t appeared to be inconceivable for Nina and Nicole to consider that a private center or owner would absorb a loss or break even. I t was easier and more natural for them to perceive that the goal of making money was paramount and therefore services were cut to r e a l i z e a p r o f i t . Nicole represented t h i s t r a i n of thought when she said 85 "I would assume private organizations are not w i l l i n g to be i n a d e f i c i t p o s i t i o n the way n o t - f o r - p r o f i t has to be." Nina embodied t h i s thinking as well when she said: There's no money to be made i n daycare. And i f someone's making p r o f i t s i n daycare [pause] then...how are they making p r o f i t s i n daycare? They have to be doing something to, they have to either be, you know, they have to cut costs. T h e y have to cut costs. Where are they cutting costs? Art supplies. The q u a l i t y of the toys that are available, the art supplies, the program planning, do these children go on f i e l d t r i p s , are t h e i r s t a f f getting a d d i t i o n a l education? Now, so somehow they've cut, they've affected the q u a l i t y of the program, the care, to make a p r o f i t . I t ' s the only, I mean I see budgets a l l the time. Where would there be money for p r o f i t ? Even though Nina and Nicole struggled to understand where a p r o f i t exists i n daycare, they mirrored the thoughts of the other nonprofit workers. C o l l e c t i v e l y , then, Nicole, Nina, Naomi and Natasha perceived that making money was the motivating force behind private centers, a force of which these p a r t i c i p a n t s disapproved. Diametrically opposed to these perceptions were the views held by Pauline, who worked i n a preschool, P h y l l i s , who worked i n a group center, and Pamela, who owned and operated a small center. To some extent they acknowledged that others f e l t p rivate care was operated for the money. And they recognized that there were operators "out there" probably i n i t f o r the money, but not i n t h e i r cases. 86 P h y l l i s and Pauline f e l t t h e i r centers focused on the children they served, not on making money. Pauline said her owners were "doing something they believe i n , doing i t to the best of t h e i r a b i l i t y and i t ' s a l l coming out of t h e i r pockets." P h y l l i s commented about the motivation of her center's owners: "I mean obviously for them the children come f i r s t and they want them to have the best care and the best experience they can and that's what comes f i r s t . " Moreover, when I asked Pamela how she f e l t about the term " f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care" as opposed to "private," she said, "Well I think i t ' s quite laughable. I f I was working i n a nonprofit, I'd be earning more money." Pamela f e l t her center focused on q u a l i t y and s t a f f i n g f i r s t instead of p r o f i t s . The story she t o l d me of her conversation with a repair person i l l u s t r a t e s how she f e e l s : He said 'Oh you run a daycare'. He said 'there's l o t s of money i n that i s n ' t there?' I said 'well i f you t a l k to somebody who•s making l o t s of money out of t h e i r daycare you better take your child^out of that center because they're not committed to q u a l i t y and s t a f f i n g , they're looking at the money that's earned•. As well, when they talked about what motivated them to do t h i s type of work, the private workers mentioned children and working with children rather than making a p r o f i t . P h y l l i s , from her perspective as the oldest and most experienced participant, offered further insights on the issue of f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care. She acknowledged that making a p r o f i t was the bottom l i n e i n some of her previous work places. However, i n her current center she saw her owners operate with the children's needs i n mind. She also t o l d me that when she did private childcare i n her home, she was motivated by her love of children coupled with her need to make money. In her mind, though, making a , l i v i n g and providing c h i l d care could be harmonious: I'm sure that most people that go into ECE or daycare, whatever, go i n i t with those kinds of expectations that being with children, helping children, being around them, .teaching them things because they care about them and at the same time wanting to make enough money to earn a l i v i n g . To make i t worth your while because, you know, they don't give you houses, they don't give you food. They don't give you clothing and a l l , they don't l e t you o f f without paying taxes so you have to be r e a l i s t i c about those things. She also f e l t that there were not large p r o f i t s to be made i n private daycare and said "I think i f you r e a l l y .wanted money, wanted to make money and that's your primary thing you c e r t a i n l y wouldn't go into t h i s f i e l d . " P h y l l i s also expressed anger at the f a c t that nonprofit workers claimed i t was not r i g h t to make money of f of children. She pointed out that c h i l d care i s a service, that no one i s making l o t s of money i n the f i e l d , and that everything on t e l e v i s i o n from clothes to toys to food i s geared at making money of f of children. P h y l l i s r e a l i z e d that some private operators were motivated by making money, but i n general f e l t that making a l i v i n g and providing good c h i l d care could peacefully coexist. She believed her center's owners, were the perfect example of t 88 people under private auspices working to the best of t h e i r a b i l i t i e s to serve children. In summary, the nonprofit workers and one private owner, Peggy, did not phi l o s o p h i c a l l y believe c h i l d care should be operated as a business. These philosophical b e l i e f s seemed to a f f e c t t h e i r perceptions that private centers were motivated by money, regardless of the consequences on a center's operation. On the other hand, the private workers perceived t h e i r centers operated with the goal of serving children, the same goal as nonprofit centers only under the rub r i c of a d i f f e r e n t organizational structure. As the description of perceptions about auspices continues below, these differences of opinion regarding the profit-making motive continue to influence the views of nonprofit and private p a r t i c i p a n t s . Perceptions of Private Auspice P o s i t i v e Perceptions of Private Auspice Private care i s good care. A l l of the private workers believed t h e i r centers provided excellent care. Pamela stated "I f e e l r e a l l y good about the daycare that we o f f e r . " P h y l l i s expressed what made her center above average: This i s private childcare and i t ' s excellent. I think i t ' s sort of outstanding because i t ' s d i f f e r e n t . I t ' s a home, i t ' s a family, Vicky and Carrie (the owners) make the difference and the people that they h i r e make the difference. Even Peggy, who phi l o s o p h i c a l l y disapproved of private ownership i n c h i l d care, f e l t her private center was run well. "I think i t ' s possible, cause I think we do i t here, but I think i t ' s 89 possible to run a private center with i n t e g r i t y and with, you know, where people f e e l good about working there...." When Pauline talked about her preschool and i t s status as private, she said " i t works here. I mean they (the owners) had enough experience and education to make i t work." Moreover, Pauline viewed her private center as able to o f f e r better care and education than a nonprofit center. She f e l t t h i s way because she saw the personal commitment of time and money made by the owners "whereas i n a nonprofit no one's done that." Two other par t i c i p a n t s , Natasha and Pamela, shared t h e i r perceptions that private care could be better than nonprofit care as well. Even though Natasha worked i n a nonprofit school-age care center, she f e l t that i f a private center could generate more income through higher fees then there would be more resources available to children and s t a f f . Pamela shared that the decision making process i n private care was more conducive to implementing ideas and changes that benefit centers. With no board to labor over decisions, private owners such as he r s e l f "have more freedom to implement philosophies or ideas or new methods of de l i v e r y . . . . " Hence, private centers could reach a higher l e v e l of q u a l i t y than nonprofit centers because of t h i s streamlined decision making process. Also, Nina, Nicole, and Naomi, who i n general viewed private centers i n a more negative l i g h t , agreed that private care was not bad simply because i t was private. Nicole said "I don't think i t necessarily has to be a negative experience." Naomi, from her experience i n a private center during a practicum, stated that the center was "run very n i c e l y " and had a good 90 format plus the r i g h t equipment. As well, Nina said "I'm sure there i s a group of very dedicated people who work i n daycare for p r o f i t and t r y to provide q u a l i t y care following, within the r e s t r i c t i o n s that are placed upon them too." Owners make the difference. The private workers recognized that the atmosphere of a center as a place to work and a place to provide care was p o s i t i v e l y influenced by private owners. A private owner herself, Pamela f e l t that "most private operators bring as much enthusiasm and commitment and qu a l i t y and education to the f i e l d as a nonprofit society would." Peggy believed that as a private owner/operator she was responsible for creating and maintaining an excellent center. She shared how she made her decisions: It ' s not just saying 'I care about the people I work with' or 'I want to make t h i s a caring place f o r everybody'. You have to l i v e i t so every decision you make, you have to weigh i t against who i s t h i s good for? Is t h i s good fo r parents, i s i t good for children, i s i t good for s t a f f ? For Peggy, saying she cared about her center and her employees and showing she cared through the decisions she made were two actions i n e x t r i c a b l y linked. Peggy also recognized her employees as in d i v i d u a l s and f e l t i t was v i t a l to give her s t a f f control over the programs i n which they worked. "It' s important for me that they own t h e i r programs so I don't, I t r y to at least stay out of making decisions about programming." I t was impossible to gauge how Peggy's and Pamela's employees f e l t about t h e i r bosses, but the above 91 comments i l l u s t r a t e that Peggy and Pamela were aware of the influence they have on t h e i r centers. P h y l l i s and Pauline had a number of p o s i t i v e things to share about t h e i r centers' owners. Both of these women f e l t the owners were not simply employers, but rather friends or l i k e family. P h y l l i s t o l d me "they don't l i k e to be c a l l e d boss r i g h t , because they, they r e a l l y are friends." Pauline re l a t e d how " i t i s l i k e a mini-family" with her two employers. Pauline and P h y l l i s f e l t they were treated with consideration and rela t e d s t o r i e s of t h e i r employers supporting them i n various ways. Pauline's employers at the preschool fought with the Ministry of So c i a l Services to keep her salary from being reduced. P h y l l i s ' bosses supported her through personal c r i s e s and she said they "recognize that you have a family and that sometimes you need to be with your family instead of being here and they compensate and...they make that ok." Not only did these private owners take t h e i r s t a f f ' s needs into consideration but they showed through actions t h e i r desires to serve children. P h y l l i s expressed: They're not picky about 'oh don't use t h i s , don't use that. Let's cut corners, l e t ' s be ca r e f u l , l e t ' s not spend any money. Don't give them t h i s . ' They're very generous and open with the kids. I mean obviously f o r them the children come f i r s t and they want them to have the best care and the best experience they can and that's what comes f i r s t . I t doesn't matter whether they're making money or you know, t r y i n g to conserve a l l things. They're j u s t very open and generous people. 92 Pauline stated that with her owners " i t d e f i n i t e l y would never become an issue that we can't use that paper because i t costs ten cents more than the other paper. As P h y l l i s and Pauline show, along with Pamela and Peggy, a private operator can have a p o s i t i v e influence on a private center. While these participants expressed p o s i t i v e perceptions of private owners though, not one nonprofit p a r t i c i p a n t stated a p o s i t i v e view. This i s i n t e r e s t i n g because the nonprofit par t i c i p a n t s acknowledged the negative influence a private operator can have (as discussed later) but d i d not acknowledge the p o s s i b i l i t y of a p o s i t i v e influence. This one way perception of private owners could be due to the very l i m i t e d contact or experience the nonprofit workers had i n private centers. However, i t might also be an example of a bias held by the nonprofit sector against the private sector. What i s more, three of the nonprofit p a r t i c i p a n t s who had nothing p o s i t i v e to say about the i n d i v i d u a l private operator nonetheless f e l t that i f they were to run a private center or family daycare they would do a good job. Indeed, Naomi, Nicole, and Natasha expressed desires to either take i n children or run a center. What would separate them from other private operators? The answer to t h i s question traces i t s roots to the previous discussion of the profit-making motive. I believe these three p a r t i c i p a n t s f e e l private ownership would be acceptable and workable i n t h e i r situations because they would not be i n i t for the money. Private owners currently operating centers, though, are viewed as driven to make money, hence the lack of any p o s i t i v e opinions of private operators. 9 3 Negative Perceptions of Private Auspice Sta f f . Nina, Nicole, and Naomi, who a l l worked i n small stand-alone centers, believed that private care was not automatically bad. However, t h e i r perceptions of workers i n private centers were pessimistic. Nicole r e l a t e d that the stigma i n the early childhood f i e l d about private workers was that they had less t r a i n i n g and were paid less i n order f o r t h e i r employers to stay out of a d e f i c i t p o s i t i o n or make a p r o f i t . She f e l t t h i s s i t u a t i o n was "not great for the children obviously and i t ' s not good for the f i e l d o v e r a l l cause i t lowers the q u a l i t y of care and the professionalism too." Although she never worked i n private care, her contact with friends or substitutes who worked in the private sector "didn't do anything to d i s p e l the myths of private daycare." Nina t o l d me that "daycare f o r - p r o f i t centers I think are notoriously low wage daycares" and that low wages contribute to lower job s a t i s f a c t i o n and higher turnover i n private centers. She also perceived that turnover was higher i n private centers than nonprofit centers because s t a f f did not get the benefits or support they needed. As well, she said: I think that i f you have a background i n early childhood education and you understand what q u a l i t y care i s for children that I think that the care would be less than i d e a l (in private centers) and I think i t would be hard f o r a l o t of people to stay i n that kind of situation.. Turnover of s t a f f , Nina felt,.had negative repercussions for private center s t a f f l e f t behind, who she perceived were most l i k e l y recent graduates or people who could not f i n d a job 94 elsewhere i n c h i l d care. These workers had no experienced staff, from which to garner information and support. Naomi also held a negative perception of private workers: There i s a ce r t a i n expectation of the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the teacher (in nonprofit). You know, she needs to have those q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , be caring, be a lovable person, making sure you know she can provide a good program fo r the children as where i n the p r o f i t , 'Well I ' l l j u s t h i r e t h i s ECE teacher.' She insinuated through t h i s comment that private s t a f f were much less l i k e l y to be trained, caring, loving, and oriented towards providing a q u a l i t y program than nonprofit s t a f f . Naomi did not even know i f s t a f f i n private centers were required to be trained or i f private owners could h i r e anybody from the street. "Here you have to have your ECE, you have to have your f i r s t aid. Do they have the same q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ? " I t was i n t e r e s t i n g that Naomi held t h i s perception since a l l licensed nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t group c h i l d care centers are subject under B r i t i s h Columbia's Community Care F a c i l i t y Act to meet the same q u a l i f i c a t i o n s for s t a f f members, including educators and assistants. As well, Naomi alluded that private s t a f f might not be committed educators, even i f they were trained: You can probably have some people who they thought that being an ECE teacher was an easy thing but once when they got i n i t , they were l i k e 'oh my goodness, i f I have to go to a center and I have to have a theme or plan, and a l l t h i s , well I won't. And I can go to t h i s (private) place and do whatever I want' you know. 95 In other words, Naomi f e l t that private centers attracted less motivated workers. Owners make the difference. While owners were recognized for t h e i r p o s i t i v e influence on private centers, p a r t i c i p a n t s perceived that private owners could have a negative e f f e c t as well. As mentioned during the discussion of the profit-making motive, the four nonprofit workers and one private owner, Peggy, viewed private owners and t h e i r motives s k e p t i c a l l y . These views affected t h e i r perceptions here. What i s i n t e r e s t i n g , moreover, was that the remaining private workers acknowledged that negative perceptions of private owners were accurate under c e r t a i n circumstances. While Naomi questioned the t r a i n i n g and commitment of private s t a f f , her biggest concern regarding private care stemmed from her perception of owners. She seriously wondered what motivated owner/operators. "I just want to know are those people r e a l l y i n i t for the children, l i k e i s t h e i r heart to give them the best care and the best, you know, of everything." Nina thought private owners exploited s t a f f by paying them low wages and expecting them to work an enormous amount of hours at no cost to the center. She pointed out that the bottom l i n e of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y rests on the owner i n a private center. This dependence of everything on the owner concerned her: I know the cost of running a center and providing q u a l i t y snacks and toys, and the whole nine yards. So unless t h i s person has been able to put an in c r e d i b l e amount of money into the center to begin with out of t h e i r own pocket the, they're going to have to cut corners somewhere and again I 96 think i t ' s , i t can only come from two places. I t ' s going to come from the s t a f f or i t ' s going to come from the services that are being provided for the children. In other words, Nina was concerned that the need f o r an owner to make a p r o f i t resulted i n paying low wages to the s t a f f and/or a reduction i n the qu a l i t y of care provided. Peggy, a private owner herself, shared a story which i l l u s t r a t e d her opinion that the majority of private owners focused on money f i r s t : I worked for a private person who made us count the t o i l e t paper cause she f e l t we were using too much. That's just [laugh] that i s odd [laugh]. That i s so bad! So i f we ran, what i t was, you know she had i t worked out where each c h i l d should use three, l i k e you know, those l i t t l e square things.... She owned a number of centers so she would know l i k e to buy you a case of t o i l e t paper would l a s t X amount of time because each c h i l d should use... Can you imagine even thinking i n that, I mean i f people need new t o i l e t paper, they need more t o i l e t paper! She concluded her story by t e l l i n g me "to even think i n that way of that, you know, finances are more important. I t blows my mind. So, but that's what happens because the more that people can save as a private operator the more they can make." Peggy expressed a very negative perception of private owners. Her perception was based on her experience working i n private centers and from the st o r i e s she heard every week from the ECE students she taught. She was concerned that even though private owners might be good people to begin with, the nature of 97 private ownership i n c h i l d care changed people's focus from a community or caring focus to a business focus, which was not good for children or s t a f f . Nonetheless, regardless of the concerns or negative perceptions she expressed about private owners, Peggy continued to own and operate a private center and f e l t she was able to do so with i n t e g r i t y . P h y l l i s recognized that not a l l private owners were as warm and generous as her current employers. Pamela and Pauline acknowledged that some private owners e x p l o i t s t a f f or compromise services. Interestingly, Pamela, an owner/operator, and Pauline, a s p e c i a l needs assistant i n a preschool, voiced the same opinion of what type of owner had p o t e n t i a l l y bad consequences for a private center. Both women f e l t that an owner who simply owned the center from afar and did not p a r t i c i p a t e i n the day to day running of i t negatively affected the center. Pauline pointed out the difference such owners made i n private workers' job s a t i s f a c t i o n : Maybe the owner who owns the center i s not f u l l y involved i n i t so i t seems l i k e they're working fo r t h i s person who i s n ' t connected to them. Whereas my owners are both here so I see the work that they're doing and the dedication they have. Pamela said, "I suspect that people who own and work i n t h e i r centers provide a higher q u a l i t y than people who own from afar, you know, and operate from afar." As well, Pamela theorized that private centers that paid s t a f f the lowest wages were owned from afar "because the owner who doesn't work i n the center i s skimming money. I mean why else would they be running i t I 98 suppose. But most people that I know that run centers and work in them work for f a r less money than t h e i r s t a f f . " Pamela's and Pauline's perceptions of private owners deserve further consideration. While Nicole, Nina, Naomi and even Peggy perceived that private owners as a whole could have a negative influence, i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to see i f any differences i n q u a l i t y of care or working conditions existed between private centers operated by an owner on-site or by an owner o f f - s i t e . Research has concentrated on categorizing f o r - p r o f i t centers as independently owned or part of a chain, but the r o l e of the owner, who may or not work i n the center, has not been adequately assessed. Quality. As Nicole, Nina, Naomi, and Peggy perceived, a less q u a l i f i e d s t a f f and an owner who cuts corners to save money are the factors which lead these part i c i p a n t s to conclude that private care i s lower q u a l i t y than nonprofit care. "Somebody's paying for them to make a p r o f i t , " said Nina, "and I believe i t ' s the workers and the children because I don't think you can impact one without impacting the other." As well, Peggy and Natasha f e l t q u a l i t y could be jeopardized by, the lack of checks and balances inherent i n private centers. Peggy said, "There aren't the checks and balances i n a private operation to make sure that people are taken care of." Instead, a private operation depends on the i n t e g r i t y of one person, the owner. Natasha thought "there has to be checks and balances, there has to be key points that need to be s a t i s f i e d " to make sure private care met the needs of f a m i l i e s . 99 No more public d o l l a r s . Peggy shared an i n t e r e s t i n g perception of private auspice that stemmed from her perspective as a private owner, an active member of various c h i l d care organizations, and her experiences i n the daycare community. She expressed at length her displeasure with the private sector's wish for government funding. She believed private operators should not receive government funds and should stop clamoring for them: If people are wanting to do control of t h e i r own program and do good for t h e i r community, why i s there t h i s big uproar about how come private centers don't get a l l that money? Why are people, why do people care about that i f what they want to do i s do t h e i r own thing? Go do your own.thing but then don't complain because you don't get public d o l l a r s . Peggy insinuated through comments such as t h i s one that private operators were motivated by money. Otherwise, i f they t r u l y wanted to run a private business because they wanted control over an operation or because they wanted to meet children's needs, they would not expect outside funding. She viewed private operators' c r i e s for funding as controversial, even h y p o c r i t i c a l , since that funding would be used not to meet children's needs, but to support an adult's need to run a private business. Family daycare. Two of the p a r t i c i p a n t s offered u n s o l i c i t e d comments about family daycare. Both Nina, who worked i n a small nonprofit center, and Pamela, who owned and operated a small private center, viewed family daycare as private or f o r - p r o f i t daycare. Technically, family daycare i s f o r - p r o f i t daycare as 100 there i s neither a board of directors nor a law that a l l finances must be redirected into the daycare's operation. Nina f e l t family daycare was more worrisome than private group care, which i s i n t e r e s t i n g since Nina did not view private group care i n a very p o s i t i v e l i g h t . "I j u s t wonder how some people can provide care i n t h e i r home day i n and day out and maintain a q u a l i t y of care for those ch i l d r e n . " She had heard s t o r i e s of people locking children i n basements or on balconies. She considered private group daycare as better than family daycare because "when you put a bunch of people together, i f someone's doing something wrong inev i t a b l y I think that w i l l come out." , Pamela perceived that family daycare operators did not need the t r a i n i n g that other workers, including private workers, were required to have and yet they could make more money. She knew that family daycare operators worked hard and worked long hours, but she seemed dismayed that t h e i r pay or status could surpass private center owners or workers. Pamela's perception of family daycare operators could also be affected by government p o l i c i e s such as B r i t i s h Columbia's Infant/Toddler Incentive Grants Program. While her center was e l i g i b l e to receive t h i s funding targeted at s t a b i l i z i n g and increasing the number of licensed spaces f o r infants and toddlers, no private centers licensed a f t e r May 1, 1992 are e l i g i b l e . Only nonprofit centers and licensed family daycare homes licensed a f t e r May 1, 1992 can receive t h i s grant. There 101 i s no o f f i c i a l explanation for why private centers are 2 . excluded. What does t h i s say about the government's perception of private care? I t can be inferred that the government believes a private owner would not be accountable f o r the money, yet a family daycare operator, also o f f e r i n g private care, would be viewed as accountable and not be suspect of pocketing the funds. The accuracy of such a perception could be explored i n future research that compares the p r o f i t margins and organizational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of family daycare with private group daycare. Perceptions of Nonprofit Auspice P o s i t i v e Perceptions of Nonprofit Auspice Board of d i r e c t o r s . Nicole, Nina and Naomi a l l worked i n small stand-alone nonprofit centers with parent board of d i r e c t o r s . They viewed working with a parent board as a p o s i t i v e aspect of nonprofit auspice. Nicole commented about her center's board of d i r e c t o r s : Well I think i t ' s p o s i t i v e for the children, the daycare and the s t a f f that the parents are so involved and you have that chance to form the relationships and the t r u s t and the understanding about the organization. Naomi's feelings about her center's board echoed Nicole's sentiments: There's an open communication with the parents and the parents get to know you, you know, what the s t a f f i s about Private centers are not e l i g i b l e for any other grants i n B r i t i s h - Columbia besides the Wage Supplement I n i t i a t i v e which i s available to s t a f f i n nonprofit and private centers. Licensed family daycare operators are not e l i g i b l e for any other grants besides the Infant/Toddler Incentive Grants. 102 and each s t a f f i s an i n d i v i d u a l . And they bring i n t h e i r strengths to the center too. F i n a l l y , Nina said: I work i n a nonprofit society with a board so I have a l o t of contact with parents. I'm not being, I'm not representing a company, they know me as Nina, the co-head supervisor and I have l o t s of opportunity to t a l k to parents, either i n the center as they bring t h e i r c h i l d i n and at the end of the day, but also at board meetings, budget meetings, playground renovation meetings. You name i t , usually we're represented and I enjoy that part of i t because i t gives the s t a f f a say i n the way the center i s run. Not only did Nina appreciate establishing r e l a t i o n s h i p s with parents, but she enjoyed working with a board and knowing her opinion was valued and welcomed. Input from stakeholders. Natasha did not single out her center's board of dir e c t o r s , perhaps since her center i s a f f i l i a t e d with a larger organization whose board oversees the school-age care center. Nonetheless, Natasha was proud of the e f f o r t her center made to include s t a f f , parents, and board members i n the d i r e c t i o n of the center. The following quote i s long, but emphasizes Natasha's admiration and appreciation of the way her nonprofit center i s run: We have the annual general meeting, the AGM, at the beginning of the year and the goals are l a i d out. This, i t ' s r e a l l y neat. We have a r e a l l y neat mediator that comes i n and a l l the parents and a l l the s t a f f and then the board, 103 they come i n . She's great. What she does i s she gives everyone those l i t t l e post i t notes and everyone writes t h e i r goals...and we write down a l l the ideas of things that we think are r e a l l y important. Whether i t ' s having a homework club, having the kids having more snack, having a longer free period, making sure that there's more safety. 1.. .You get the whole spectrum and then what happens i s she gives everyone three l i t t l e s t i c k y dots and a l l the suggestions, every single one i s written on the board and the s t i c k y dots go beside, you have three dots and you have to put them on the three things that you rank as the most important. And then from there, i t may be next to having grape j u i c e rather than orange j u i c e had eight dots so i t ' s a higher ranking than having the f l o o r swept every day. And then so every single suggestion i s put on a main l i s t , ranked i n order, and l a s t year we did everything but two things on the l i s t . And that's a r e a l , I mean that's a huge accomplishment I think for a program because we've lis t e n e d to our s t a f f , our kids, our parents, our board of d i r e c t o r s , and everyone's a part of what the program i s . And there's a r e a l sense of ownership. I t ' s r e a l l y e x c i t i n g that way. Notice Natasha ends with how e x c i t i n g i t i s to have ownership of the program by a l l stakeholders, a condition not necessarily av a i l a b l e under private auspice as the owner/operator has the most say and determines whether input i s welcomed at a l l . Also, Nina and Nicole enjoyed the autonomy and input they had as head supervisors i n t h e i r stand-alone nonprofit centers. Nina commented about her center " i t ' s a r e a l grassroots kind of 104 establishment and I l i k e that personally." Nicole shared that "as a stand-alone not for p r o f i t we are, we have quite a b i t of autonomy and I have quite a b i t of say on how things go." While Nicole and Nina l i k e d t h e i r opportunities f o r input into how things were run, i t was t h e i r opinion that these opportunities were 'not prevalent i n either private centers or nonprofit centers a f f i l i a t e d with larger organizations. Nina also f e l t that working i n a nonprofit organization encouraged and required more commitment from workers. "We have to attend board meetings, we have budget meetings, we have parent pot lucks, and we have l e t ' s clean up the daycare weekends." She insinuated that the nature of nonprofit sponsorship of a daycare center drew workers that were more dedicated to i t s operation than workers i n private centers. I r o n i c a l l y , her f e e l i n g s about the personal commitment of nonprofit workers mirrors what Pauline, from her vantage point i n a private preschool, mentioned about the personal commitment of private owners. Both women perceived that personal commitment by stakeholders i n a center was more l i k e l y to be found in' centers under t h e i r type of auspice. While Pauline and Nina clashed on where personal commitment was more l i k e l y to be found, they agreed on the p o s i t i v e influence such commitment generated. A v a i l a b i l i t y . An i n t e r e s t i n g p o s i t i v e perception of nonprofit care was voiced by Natasha alone. She l i k e d nonprofit care because i t was available to everyone regardless of socioeconomic status unlike private care which she f e l t catered to wealthier f a m i l i e s . She t o l d me: 105 I'm so against kids not getting an opportunity because of t h e i r environment, r i g h t , or because of t h e i r parents' mistakes or t h e i r parents' s i t u a t i o n and so the f a c t that nonprofit, t h i s type of care, they can s t i l l get i t i f they have f u l l subsidy. You know, they only have to pay the $10 and. the $50 refundable deposit at the end of the year and they can come to the program and they can get the s k i l l s and a l l the s t u f f that they need. Natasha viewed nonprofit care favorably because she believed i t was accessible to anyone. She was unaware that subsidized spaces e x i s t i n both private and nonprofit c h i l d care centers i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Natasha's perception probably stems from her experience i n a private school i n Japan as well as the f a c t that she i s new to the f i e l d and has not completed basic ECE t r a i n i n g . Nevertheless, i t i s in t e r e s t i n g that she equates private c h i l d care with private education. Grants. Another i n t e r e s t i n g p o s i t i v e perception of nonprofit auspice emerged from P h y l l i s and Pamela, who viewed the various government grants available to nonprofit centers i n Vancouver and B r i t i s h Columbia (grants not availa b l e to private centers) as b e n e f i c i a l to nonprofit sponsorship. Pamela said "I know that there are grants and certa i n fundings that are availab l e to the nonprofit centers that aren't ava i l a b l e to us f o r - p r o f i t centers." She t o l d me i f she opened her center today, she would consider opening up as a nonprofit center. "I would consider that mainly because of the grants and support you can get." 106 P h y l l i s , whose center was experiencing low enrollment when I spoke to her, mentioned how government grants protect nonprofit centers: I think i n nonprofit childcare you have...more protection maybe. I don't know. Because private depends on how i t ' s going l i k e , j ust l i k e here now, when the enrolment i s down i t • s sort of hard to keep your head above water when you don't have the children and, whereas i n a nonprofit you've got the backing and support of somebody so you're not r e a l l y quite as vulnerable. This perception of grants i s i n t e r e s t i n g since i t was held by two workers from the private sector. None of the nonprofit workers mentioned government grants, except to say they were generally unstable, took too much time and energy to apply for, and were never enough money. However, P h y l l i s ' and Pamela's comments hint more at viewing grants as a support, even i f only psychologically, on which nonprofit centers and not private ones could e s t a b l i s h a sense of security. This perception i s d i f f e r e n t than Peggy's, however, who saw the private sectors' cry for funding as motivated by greed more than anything else. Negative Perceptions of Nonprofit Auspice Board of d i r e c t o r s . Just as the board of d i r e c t o r s was mentioned as an advantageous aspect of nonprofit auspice, so too was i t referred to as a negative aspect. Nina stated the pro and con nature of her r e l a t i o n s h i p with a parent board: There's some respect gained and sometimes there i s n ' t . Sometimes, I mean these people don't have a background i n 107 ECE, a l o t of them. And what they think i s daycare and what you know to be daycare might be two d i f f e r e n t things. Nicole said: If you have say one board member who had a d i s l i k e for you or whatever—it's happened i n the past f o r one of the people that I know—that they can be pretty much out of a job just from one board member. And things can change quite quickly when i t ' s not anything r e a l l y to do with job competency. Peggy also believed that s t a f f i n nonprofit centers could be treated badly by board members and f e l t that inexperienced boards could be i n e f f i c i e n t i n running a nonprofit center. Moreover, Peggy f e l t that the decision-making process through boards i n a nonprofit center was laborious: If you had a board, the board made every sing l e buying decision. You know, l i k e *Oh we need a $25 petty cash. What do you think board?' Yes. No. Huge discussion. I t ' s such an unwheeling p o s i t i o n . Pamela also believed i t was harder to make changes and implement ideas i n a nonprofit center. She f e l t decisions i n nonprofit centers included too many people between the s t a f f and the board of d i r e c t o r s . Notice that the two private owner/operators and the two nonprofit head supervisors pointed out the problems with board of d i r e c t o r s . These four p a r t i c i p a n t s have the most control and authority i n t h e i r current positions and therefore seem more aware of threats to that control. Parents. While Naomi viewed the parent board of dir e c t o r s i n her current center p o s i t i v e l y , she commented that the parents at her former church-run center negatively impacted that center 108 through t h e i r lack of involvement. "We even t r i e d to hold meetings, l i k e for them to come. No. Some parents j u s t choose that. They just don't want any involvement." Peggy would use Naomi's experience to bolster her perception that the t r a d i t i o n a l nonprofit society i s not working as i t should. She stated: There are too many problems r i g h t now i n that (nonprofit) system. Too many people t i r e d , busy, you know, don't have any i n t e r e s t i n making paint or a l l those things that supposedly parent helpers were supposed to do. Generally, however, the p o s i t i v e aspects of parental involvement i n nonprofit s o c i e t i e s including p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n boards outweighed these negative perceptions. A f f i l i a t i o n with a larger organization. Nicole, Nina and Naomi, who worked i n stand-alone nonprofit centers, saw or experienced negative aspects of nonprofit centers run through a larger organization. From her experience i n a s p e c i a l needs preschool, Nicole related that "with a bigger organization, a l o t of times you get stonewalled or you know i t takes longer to get the b a l l r o l l i n g i n some respects." Nina t o l d me that when she worked i n a nonprofit daycare a f f i l i a t e d with a larger organization, the administration was so huge that i t d i d not and could not address the needs of those people working i n or using the center. Both Naomi and Nina related negative perceptions of nonprofit centers run by churches. When Nina worked on a spe c i a l needs contract for less than a year i n a church center, she had no c h i l d care t r a i n i n g . Nonetheless, she recognized and f e l t the ef f e c t s of the center's board of d i r e c t o r s : 109 The board was act u a l l y members of the church, which was kind of weird, and they didn't r e a l l y know any of the issues around daycare and I think...that affected t h e i r judgment i n terms of what they were doing. Naomi's perception was based on her experience i n a church-run nonprofit center where she worked for almost 8 years. She did not have benefits u n t i l the l a s t 8 months she was there which she f e l t was unfair. She also mentioned the lack of parental involvement, her plethora of cleaning duties which were done on her own time, and as discussed l a t e r , did not develop close re l a t i o n s h i p s with her co-workers. Overall, her experience i n a church-run center was not the best. Natasha, who worked i n a school-age care center a f f i l i a t e d with a larger organization, did not view her experience there i n a negative l i g h t . Because she had no experience i n a stand-alone nonprofit center though, i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to note i f her perceptions changed i f she ever worked i n a stand-alone center and could compare the two sit u a t i o n s . Lack of personal commitment. As mentioned previously, Pauline f e l t that the personal commitment of time, e f f o r t , and money by private owners elevated the q u a l i t y of private centers above nonprofit centers. She viewed nonprofit centers as i n f e r i o r to private centers even though throughout her t r a i n i n g one of her instructors taught her to believe that nonprofit centers were superior to private ones. Being i n the f i e l d negated that instructor's teachings, but when I asked Pauline why s p e c i f i c a l l y she f e l t nonprofit centers were worse than private ones, her answer was vague. She r e p l i e d : 110 I don't know and the non-profit one I s p e c i f i c a l l y think of has a group of people working at i t that are very secure about themselves and what they do and they come across with an a i r or arrogance and yet I've heard, and I've never gone to see, l i k e observe at the center but everything I hear about i t i s bad. So I don't even want to go look at the center because i t ' s l i k e "No you've got t h i s arrogant attitude and you thinlc you're better than me and yet I never hear anything good about i t . " So I think that's where my attitudes come from. And i t ' s only one center so I shouldn't even generalize but I have. What i s more, while P h y l l i s and Pamela f e l t grant support was a p o s i t i v e aspect of nonprofit auspice, Pauline disagreed and stated: I t gets me kind of ticked that they (nonprofit centers) always get the grants. You know, you need a new thing or that, 'Oh sure, no problem'. Whereas i n the private, they, i t comes r i g h t out the owners pockets and they're doing i t because they know i t would be, add to t h e i r program. Upon c a r e f u l consideration of Pauline's comments, I f e e l her r e j e c t i o n of nonprofit centers i s based on her awareness of the nonprofit sector's r e j e c t i o n of her, her employers, and t h e i r center because of t h e i r f o r - p r o f i t status. This i s consistent with her awareness of the debate over private c h i l d care, her and her employers activism regarding private c h i l d care i n a c h i l d care organization, and a comment she made to me that she wished i t was not nonprofit versus f o r - p r o f i t childcare, but rather just childcare. Therefore, i t seems Pauline f e e l s nonprofit care i s I l l i n f e r i o r to private care as a reaction to the nonprofit sector's view that private care i s i n f e r i o r . Regardless of t h i s commentary, Pauline considered the lack of involvement by a board to have negative e f f e c t s on nonprofit centers. Summary In these interviews, differences i n philosophical b e l i e f s about c h i l d care emerged. The nonprofit workers and one private owner, Peggy, believed that c h i l d care should not be operated f o r - p r o f i t and that making money was the f i r s t and sometimes only p r i o r i t y of a l l private centers. Three private workers f e l t that providing c h i l d care and making a l i v i n g could peacefully coexist without being a recipe for disaster. P o s i t i v e and negative perceptions of both nonprofit and private auspices were presented. P o s i t i v e aspects of private auspice were the ; owners and the structure which allowed decisions-to be made e a s i l y . Negative aspects were perceived to be less committed s t a f f , owners, the focus on making money, concerns over family daycare, and the private sector's advocacy f o r more public funding. Po s i t i v e aspects of nonprofit auspice were seen to be relat i o n s h i p s with boards of dire c t o r s , input from stakeholders, a v a i l a b i l i t y , and support through grants while negative aspects were relationships With boards of di r e c t o r s or parents, a f f i l i a t i o n with a larger organization, and lack of personal commitment. 112 Chapter Six r Job S a t i s f a c t i o n and Auspice This chapter presents the caregivers' perceptions of what factors influence t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Some factors were linked e x p l i c i t l y to auspice while other factors seemed unaffected by auspice as they were important to both nonprofit and private workers. Overall job s a t i s f a c t i o n seemed high for these p a r t i c i p a n t s . The findings below mirror the conclusions made by Lindsay and Lindsay (1987), Maslach and Pines (1977), Whitebook et a l . (1982), and Jorde-Bloom (1988). I t appears that the conditions of c h i l d care work rather than the nature of the work negatively a f f e c t job s a t i s f a c t i o n . This appears true regardless of auspice. Nature of the Work The nature of c h i l d care work was seen to p o s i t i v e l y a f f e c t job s a t i s f a c t i o n across auspices. Nicole said she r e a l l y l i k e d being with the children. She p a r t i c u l a r l y enjoyed "the sense of fun and watching them change and watching them r i s e to challenges, accomplish things." Natasha shared that having rel a t i o n s h i p s with the children i n her school-age center p o s i t i v e l y increased her job s a t i s f a c t i o n . "The connection and the bond that I have with these kids i s just tremendous," she said, i"I ju s t love being there and connecting." Naomi expressed that working with children was a joy because "they give you t h e i r unconditional love and they don't care i f your h a i r s t i c k s out or i f you skip a note here or there." 113 Regarding her work with sp e c i a l needs children, Pauline said " i t ' s very rewarding to see that a f t e r months of working on a s p e c i f i c s k i l l they f i n a l l y acquire i t . " P h y l l i s believed that everyone i n t h i s type of work, including h e r s e l f , l i k e d children and wanted to help them. Nina simply stated "I l i k e kids." Pamela said "I love just being with, watching the children when they're doing something that they're excited or they enjoy." She also expressed that her work as an owner/operator increased her job s a t i s f a c t i o n whether i t was through f e e l i n g good about the care her center provided, seeing families run more smoothly, or being there for her own children. For Peggy, the nature of her work as a private owner/operator was the most potent ingredient i n her job s a t i s f a c t i o n . She l i k e d the f l e x i b i l i t y of being her own boss and being able to combine jobs. "That's the one thing about being an owner/operator I think that's r e a l l y great. I have f l e x i b i l i t y unlimited...." She was able to work as an administrator, design her work day so she could also work as an in s t r u c t o r i n the.ECE programs, and also take time o f f to be there for her children. Conditions of the Work Status Their profession's lack of status i n society affected how the part i c i p a n t s i n both nonprofit and private centers f e l t about t h e i r work. Participants seemed frustrated by a lack of respect from parents and society and by the ste r e o t y p i c a l view that c h i l d care work i s just babysitting. Nicole expressed her d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with parents "seeing you not as a professional 114 and just seeing you as a babysitting service." Naomi shared how her friends reacted when she f i r s t entered the f i e l d : "They said, 'oh my gosh, you're going to be i n daycare, you j u s t babysit a l l day. Like I mean what do you do? Like how h o r r i b l e , l i k e why don't you be an elementary school teacher?'" Naomi saw a d i r e c t c o r r e l a t i o n between workers• low status i n society and the low wages prevalent i n the f i e l d . P h y l l i s commented that "some people think you're babysitting. You're hot babysitting. You're with children and you're helping them to learn and to grow and you're giv i n g them a good, safe environment to do that i n . " She believed turnover i n the f i e l d was related to workers not f e e l i n g valued by society. Nina was also d i s s a t i s f i e d with c h i l d care's low status. She stated that as women and children, who are present i n every daycare, "we are on the bottom rung of the s o c i a l ladder and i t ' s going to take a long time and a l o t of education" before that changes. Peggy recognized that women's work i s not valued. As well, she said "I think young children, you know, we pay l i p service that young children are our future." She understood that workers were frustrated and even depressed at times about being considered g l o r i f i e d babysitters. However, she said " I would put i t back to the people, though. What are they doing to make people not think that?" Pamela perceived that her status as a private owner/operator compounded the problem of lack of status as a c h i l d care worker. "I think the public perception i s that...we're making l o t s of money and as such our contribution i s not valued." Her 115 perception echoes those sentiments expressed by the f o r - p r o f i t providers i n Scurria and Kagan's (1994) focus group. As well, Pamela's feelings seem j u s t i f i e d a f t e r l i s t e n i n g to the nonprofit p a r t i c i p a n t s ' opinions on private owners and the profit-making motive which were expressed e a r l i e r . Lack of status was problematic for Pauline also. However, she dealt with lack of status i n society by emphasizing her association with a preschool rather than a daycare center: If someone says to you, 'oh you work i n a daycare', my back automatically goes up and I don't know i f that's my own [pause] own, I wouldn't say bias but [pause] I don't know what i t i s . Because they have the same t r a i n i n g but i t ' s , i t ' s so much more babysitting. They, and even when I did my practicum i n a daycare, that's what I hated. I t was l i k e you j u s t sat there and you baby sat them every day, and i t ' s l i k e no. So pre-school they're there to learn, they're learning s p e c i f i c s k i l l s , which daycares are supposed to do as well but a l o t of them out there don't. I r o n i c a l l y , even within the f i e l d of early childhood education c h i l d care workers cannot escape t h e i r stigma as g l o r i f i e d babysitters. Pauline's perception may have implications for the n o n p r o f i t / f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care debate. I t i s conceivable that she may disassociate herself from the daycare l a b e l , even though she and daycare workers have the same t r a i n i n g , because preschool teachers enjoy greater status i n society. Likewise, nonprofit workers may disassociate themselves from private workers and perhaps even perpetuate myths about the private sector i n hopes 116 of increasing t h e i r own s o c i e t a l status. These thoughts are int e r e s t i n g and future research should address the e f f e c t s and influences of low status on c h i l d care workers i n d i f f e r e n t kinds of daycare centers. Autonomy Autonomy at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s emerged as an important component of p a r t i c i p a n t s 1 job s a t i s f a c t i o n . From Pauline's and P h y l l i s ' perspectives, autonomy was important i n making programming decisions. Pauline admitted that making programming decisions for spe c i a l needs children was nerve wracking at f i r s t , but with support and encouragement from her employers, she now enjoyed the opportunity. P h y l l i s said "I l i k e the freedom to be able to sort of decide what I want to do." She mentioned that her employers encouraged s t a f f "to sort of i n a way be your own dir e c t o r and you know we've found that works out pretty well because each person i s interested i n d i f f e r e n t things and they see something i n a d i f f e r e n t way." Philosophically, Peggy t o l d me i t was important that she established a work place i n her center that encouraged autonomy from her s t a f f . " I t ' s important for me that they own t h e i r programs so I don't, I t r y to at least stay out of making decisions about programming." As well, s t a f f had input into decisions that affected the group such as when everyone decided on what type of benefit package they wanted. Peggy also encouraged s t a f f to have a say i n t h e i r use of sick days. . Workers could use sick leave when they were sick or when they needed a day o f f , and they decided whether they wanted to be paid or save that pay for,another time. 117 Nicole and Nina perceived that small, stand-alone nonprofit centers such as t h e i r own were most l i k e l y to encourage autonomy from s t a f f , which they viewed as b e n e f i c i a l to job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Nicole l i k e d having clout, being heard by the parent board, and f e e l i n g she was an i n t e g r a l part of running the center. In a private center, though, she f e l t an owner/operator had too much control over the center's operation, excluding s t a f f from decisions. Nina also believed that autonomy was more l i k e l y to be present i n a stand-alone nonprofit center where workers had contact with boards and knew t h e i r voices would be heard. Also, as mentioned i n Chapter 5, Nicole and Nina d i d not perceive a nonprofit society's a f f i l i a t i o n with a larger organization as advantageous, mainly because autonomy was l o s t . Nicole said "my experience when I've worked with bigger organizations i s you don't have the say—you have the control over your own l i t t l e room and your own group—but [ i t ] kind of ends there." Nina expressed from her experience: There were p o l i c i e s i n place that I didn't agree with and the other s t a f f may not have agreed with but there was very l i t t l e recourse i n terms of making changes to those p o l i c i e s because i t was governed by a board that ran the [organization]. Nina l e f t that daycare to return to her current stand-alone nonprofit center because "I wanted to be i n that small personal environment where I knew I could r e a l l y make a difference and I could do things that were going to d i r e c t l y a f f e c t the center." In other words, Nina's desire for autonomy was a large factor i n why she returned to her current center. 118 Natasha offered a d i f f e r e n t perspective. She l i k e d the autonomy her center had as a separate e n t i t y while she appreciated the support that came from being a f f i l i a t e d with a larger organization. "We get the best of both worlds." Natasha also mentioned that she enjoyed autonomy i n her cla s s , her center, and i n her r o l e as an advocate for school-age care. Having a say i n the d i r e c t i o n of school-age care "gives me a l o t of s a t i s f a c t i o n because I have control of where I'm going and I think that for most people, thinking that they have no strength or no voice, or no one's l i s t e n i n g , i t ' s just, how do you f e e l pride i n anything you do?" For Natasha and the other p a r t i c i p a n t s autonomy i n the work place gave them a voice and gave them strength and s a t i s f a c t i o n . Autonomy was l i s t e d as a p o s i t i v e influence on job s a t i s f a c t i o n . However, Nicole and Nina perceived that autonomy was most l i k e l y to be found i n stand-alone nonprofit centers. From what the participants shared, though, i t appears that autonomy i s hot dependent on either f o r - p r o f i t or nonprofit sponsorship. Autonomy can be related to personal motivation, as evidenced by Natasha's advocacy i n school-age care groups, or dependant on a board, an owner, or a supervisor and the a b i l i t y of these people to encourage autonomy from the bottom up. Governments and Regulations Participants expressed varying degrees of discontent over regulations and the r o l e of governments. In Pamela's case, she found i t d i f f i c u l t dealing with the va r i e t y of regulations constantly being i n s t i t u t e d , which dampened her job s a t i s f a c t i o n . She even came close to shutting her center down because of 119 regulations "that make l i f e very d i f f i c u l t f o r us to provide the service that we want to and appear to have no understanding or do riot value our commitment to the f i e l d . " For instance: Our c h i l d care regulations require that c h i l d r e n have sleeping mats that are three inches thick. You can't buy sleeping mats that are three inches thick any more. I mean that's i n our regulations. I f you phone l i c e n s i n g depending on the d i s t r i c t you're i n , your l i c e n s i n g o f f i c e r can give you permission to buy the ones that the c h i l d care suppliers supply, but i n some areas they won't deviate from the regulations that f a r to allow you to buy a mat that's high density, better foam, covered properly that's two inches thick that's p e r f e c t l y a l r i g h t for the c h i l d r e n to sleep on. They don't f e e l . . . confident to do that or government people just w i l l not deviate from the regulations. And I f i n d that r e a l l y f r u s t r a t i n g . She understood and appreciated that regulations were made to protect children, but f e l t there needed to be more f l e x i b i l i t y i n enforcing or making regulations given c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s . As well, she f i r m l y believed that the government needed to spend more time and money on educating the public about c h i l d care rather than hindering trained, knowledgeable operators through more regulations. Her thoughts on education versus regulations mirror those expressed by the f o r - p r o f i t providers i n Scurria and Kagan's (1994) focus group. On the other hand, the other owner/operator, Peggy, was not fr u s t r a t e d by regulations but by the i n a b i l i t y of governments to f u l f i l l campaign promises regarding c h i l d care and create a 120 stable, continuously funded c h i l d care system. She said "they're not l i s t e n i n g to the people who work i n the f i e l d and so they're just throwing money away." This sentiment was echoed by other par t i c i p a n t s as well. Nina stated that bureaucrats who make decisions about early childhood "... forget what i t ' s l i k e to work with kids and sometimes make decisions that are i d e a l i s t i c and not p r a c t i c a l . " As well, Natasha complained about bureaucrats: The people that are administrators, the people that are head of finance or whatever, they r e a l l y don't know what i t ' s about. They're not there and t h i s i s such a r e a l s i t u a t i o n . So I think that, you know, so many people want to take control of [school-age care]. There are so many d i f f e r e n t associations or groups or government whatever that want, want control of i t and who want to say you know these are your l i c e n s i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s or these are the rules we've devised when they don't know what the need i s or the demand i s . That's so f r u s t r a t i n g . And Pamela was concerned that when an e f f o r t was made to t a l k to p r a c t i t i o n e r s , researchers or p o l i c y makers spoke to workers no longer on the f l o o r with children or to workers i n the best u n i v e r s i t y or college daycare programs rather than workers on the f l o o r with children i n t y p i c a l daycare centers. Across auspices, then, i t seemed that workers were frustrated by bureaucratic decisions made without taking workers' needs or s i t u a t i o n s into consideration. At the same time, the nonprofit workers generally expressed gratitude towards the government for the support they received. 121 Nina said "I have a l o t of respect for the e f f o r t that the c i t y has put into supporting daycare." Nicole agreed with Nina's assessment of Vancouver's government. "There's l o t s of i n i t i a t i v e s presently that the c i t y i s taking, undertaking to promote...child care i n general." Natasha conceded that B r i t i s h Columbia was "pretty l i b e r a l about the d i r e c t i o n that we're going, the expectations that are placed on the programs, the money that's given to the programs." On the other hand, three of the four p a r t i c i p a n t s from the private sector expressed concerns over how they f e l t the government treated them. Workers perceived that governments were suspicious of f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care and provided them with plenty of regulations to meet but no grants or other forms of support. Pauiine acknowledged that private workers and owner/operators were concerned that the government was t r y i n g to "squish them out",as happened to private centers i n other provinces. Pamela wanted the government's focus to s h i f t from regulating private centers to educating consumers. P h y l l i s commented that eliminating private centers was probably the government's idea so they could have control over a l l c h i l d care centers and how government money was spent. Peggy's opinion contradicted her fellow f o r - p r o f i t workers. She followed regulations to a tee and was perturbed because she claimed that many private operators did not. She also f e l t p r ivate centers should stop clamoring f o r government a i d or support just as any private business should not expect a i d from the government. Nonetheless, even Peggy had established a parent committee at her center with i t s own bank account so that 122 conversion to nonprofit status could be done i f regulations ever made i t too d i f f i c u l t for her to operate p r i v a t e l y . Workers i n private and nonprofit centers expressed f r u s t r a t i o n with regulations and the government. Considering Pamela's feelings along with P h y l l i s ' and Pauline's comments though, i t appears that workers i n private auspices expressed more concern and f r u s t r a t i o n with governmental bureaucracy which could lead to decreased job s a t i s f a c t i o n . The following discussion of B r i t i s h Columbia's Wage Supplement I n i t i a t i v e and i t s e f f e c t on job s a t i s f a c t i o n lends credence to t h i s statement. Wage Supplement I n i t i a t i v e Addressing the dismal wages, of c h i l d care professionals, the Wage Supplement I n i t i a t i v e (WSI) was established to increase the wages of employees working d i r e c t l y with childr e n i n licensed group c h i l d care centers (Ministry of Women's Equality, 1995). However, when the WSI was f i r s t available, only workers i n nonprofit centers were e l i g i b l e to receive i t . A f t e r an outcry from the private sector, the p o l i c y was changed and now both private and nonprofit workers can apply f o r the supplement. Not receiving the WSI when i t was f i r s t i n s t i t u t e d had negative repercussions for several private p a r t i c i p a n t s ' s e l f -esteem and ultimately t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Pauline said: It was t e r r i b l e . I was l i k e , 'What's going on here, what i s the reasoning behind this? And they didn't have any reasoning, which was the worst part. Like i t was j u s t 'Well we've decided nonprofit, they need to be paid more.1 Well what about us? 123 Pamela related that the government's decision "sent a r e a l l y c l e a r message to us, i n the private sector, that we were not valued, that our contribution was not equal to the contribution of those i n a nonprofit, and that the government was r e a l l y only going to support nonprofit." Even Peggy, who stated her center would not become nonprofit u n t i l a~good conversion system was established, expressed that "had the Wage Supplement not gone private, we would have converted,a couple of years ago." This comment i s i n t e r e s t i n g because i t seems i n c o n f l i c t with some of Peggy's e a r l i e r statements. She was the only private worker to decry the private sector's clamor for more government grants, yet here she indicated that the WSI was important enough for her to consider changing the sponsorship of her center. Perhaps she was concerned that she could not compete fo r workers when nonprofit centers would be able to pay better wages because of the WSI. The private workers unanimously agreed that the WSI increased job s a t i s f a c t i o n . P h y l l i s stated "I'm just thankful I got i t . I think for most people i t ' s a blessing." However, they also indicated that the supplement's contribution to t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n was not monumental. Pauline summarized t h e i r thinking: I t doesn't send a message that I think they would l i k e i t to send. I think they want i t to be 'you're r e a l l y appreciated and we value, we're t r y i n g to v a l i d a t e the job you do so here's some more money'. I don't get that from i t . Some people might but I just get we should be paid more anyways 124 but we're not being paid so here's an attempt to increase your wages. Natasha f e l t the WSI increased her job s a t i s f a c t i o n also and l i k e d receiving recognition i n the form of increased wages from the government. However, she was the only nonprofit p a r t i c i p a n t to believe the WSI increased job s a t i s f a c t i o n . When I asked Naomi i f the supplement increased her job s a t i s f a c t i o n , she r e p l i e d : I think that sort of money should be going to centers who are getting less than us to bring i t up to par with us i n our hourly rate and then any excess money that i s l e f t over be divided through a l l the centers equally. She gladly accepted the WSI but said " i t ' s not enough for the number of years that I've been [working], you know, and to get $1 and then income tax takes 60 cents o f f . " Nina said "[the WSI] increases my wages. I don't know i f i t increases my job s a t i s f a c t i o n . " She f e l t i t was a great idea, "but there's long, long waits between the a r r i v a l of the money and when you get i t . " I t should be noted that Nina belonged to a union and her wait was influenced more by the supplement being d i s t r i b u t e d to, and then through, her union than by any delay from the government i n sending out funds. However, she also perceived that the WSI did not support the team approach of her center. Because there were small differences between Nina's wages and the wages of others i n the center, her center accessed a l o t less money from the WSI and hence, everyone received smaller wage increases. Therefore, Nina f e l t the WSI almost punished them for working cooperatively without hierarchy. 125 Rather than increasing Nicole's job s a t i s f a c t i o n , the WSI "has caused big headaches" for her and the center, primarily because she and her fellow employees belong to a union. Indeed, when the supplement was f i r s t allocated, Nicole's center used the money to pay for the wage increase the s t a f f recently negotiated, "so i t did not r e s u l t i n an increase i n salary to the s t a f f . " When the next checks came i n , the disgruntled s t a f f asked that i t be r e v i s i t e d . While the workers negotiated a new contract, then, the money sat i n an in t e r e s t bearing account u n t i l a decision was made. As well, Nicole was troubled by the f a c t that there were no guarantees the supplement would continue. How were contracts supposed to be negotiated i f the money was not guaranteed? Plus, " i f the board negotiates a salary, they may not be able to support i t i n a year and i t could close daycares down." In the job s a t i s f a c t i o n l i t e r a t u r e , as well as the auspice and q u a l i t y l i t e r a t u r e , higher wages and better benefits were related to greater job s a t i s f a c t i o n and/or higher q u a l i t y . I t stands to reason that the WSI would p o s i t i v e l y influence job s a t i s f a c t i o n , yet t h i s was the case with private workers mainly. Perhaps the WSI increased private workers' job s a t i s f a c t i o n because t h e i r s a l a r i e s were lower to begin with than nonprofit workers. Perhaps i t increased t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n through increasing t h e i r self-esteem simply by giving them some recognition that was never denied to nonprofit workers. As well, i t should be remembered that part of Nina's and Nicole's d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the WSI was rooted i n t h e i r union membership and none of the private workers belonged to a union. However, Naomi, who also belonged to a union, simply f e l t the WSI 126 was not enough compensation for her work and Nina's d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with her center's access to less supplement money was not related to her union membership. In conclusion, i t i s i r o n i c that the nonprofit workers targeted f i r s t f o r the WSI were less convinced of i t s e f f e c t s than the private workers. Wages and Benefits How did workers f e e l about t h e i r wages and benefits and what impact did these factors have on job s a t i s f a c t i o n ? What emerged from the part i c i p a n t s was an o v e r a l l wish f o r higher wages and more benefits. However, what also emerged was the sense that wages and/or benefits were less important to workers' job s a t i s f a c t i o n than other factors, such as the nature of the work or even the lack of status. This appeared true regardless of auspice. P h y l l i s was s a t i s f i e d with both her pay and benefits. ' "Of course everybody would l i k e to make more but f o r me you know i t ' s enough and my job i s so rewarding, the people I work fo r are so good that to me i t ' s f i n e . The benefits, I think they're f a i r . " P h y l l i s also indicated that her age and years i n the f i e l d contributed to her contentment: When I started out i t was oh goodness...I think I made $168 a month and you got paid by the month. So f o r me, I mean being where I am at t h i s stage and being i n i t so long and have seen i t come so far, I'm very happy. Probably younger people coming along would...have d i f f e r e n t types of expectations and expenses, they probably would want more, but I'm s a t i s f i e d . 127 P h y l l i s mentioned that everyone i n her center received a r a i s e each year too. However, money was less important to her than the rel a t i o n s h i p s she had with her employers. Pauline's s i t u a t i o n was unique because she was a contract worker from the Ministry of Social Services at the preschool and public school kindergarten. What impacted on her wages was the government's decision to pay s p e c i a l needs assistants only for actual contact time with children: There's no way I'm going to be only paid for two and a half [hours] when I'm doing so much more. Gives no time at a l l for the i n t e r a c t i o n with the parents, the t r y i n g to f i n d out what's going on i n the family. There's j u s t none of that and i t ' s r i d i c u l o u s . She feared many spe c i a l needs workers would leave t h e i r jobs because of government cuts. Also, Pauline had no medical or dental benefits and received l i m i t e d sick days from the Ministry. Her young age seemed to lessen the impact of not receiving benefits however. "I mean sure, benefits would be great and i f I had a family, well I mean they would, I would d e f i n i t e l y need those, but r i g h t now i t ' s not a p r i o r i t y of mine." For a young woman i n good health at the beginning of her career, factors other than benefits were more i n f l u e n t i a l to her job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Peggy and Pamela as owner/operators did not share t h e i r s p e c i f i c wages and benefits. However, Peggy's earnings i n private care seemed to p o s i t i v e l y e f f e c t her job s a t i s f a c t i o n while Pamela's earnings did not. Peggy t o l d me her p r o f i t came from owning the center and the piece of property i t was on and 128 from various tax breaks. She l i k e d being able to pay her children for working i n the center, wages that were kept below a ce r t a i n amount and therefore were not taxed and wages the family put away for the children's education. What i s in t e r e s t i n g , though, i s the juxtaposition of what Peggy does arid what Peggy believes. She recognizes the f i n a n c i a l perks or security of being a private owner and how i t supports her family. At the same time, she advocates for a nonprofit c h i l d care system, p a r t l y because of private ownership situations l i k e her own: The r e a l i t y here i s that a l l of the families that come here are paying for the property which has increased here three times since we bought i t . .. i t - ' w i l l be my retirement money and that's not okay. I just, I don't think i t belongs i n c h i l d care. Even though Peggy ph i l o s o p h i c a l l y opposed private ownership, perhaps the perks of ownership or f i n a n c i a l advantages are so s a t i s f y i n g that they are a bigger reason why she has not converted to nonprofit system than the lack of an appropriate conversion system as she claimed. Pamela did not want to convert her center to nonprofit sponsorship, even though she stated she would make more money i n a nonprofit center. She also f e l t she would make more money working i n either a Montessori preschool or as an unregulated family daycare provider. As a private operator, she said "I have one and a hal f s t a f f people which leaves me with not an awful l o t of funds to pay myself for the work, the 50 hours of work a week that I do." Pamela said the money from her daycare paid the. 129 insurance on the van she uses for school pick ups and f i e l d t r i p s and i t also paid the Montessori preschool t u i t i o n for her two youngest children. As well, she could access various tax breaks. Pamela stated that c h i l d care workers deserved a decent wage. She r e l a t e d how poor wages r e f l e c t e d t h e i r value i n society. "There i s the sense that i f you are low paid you have no value. There i s a sense there." And there seemed to be a sense of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n or disappointment on Pamela's part about how much she earned. Nevertheless, as mentioned before, she would not change her status as a private operator simply to make more money, a sign that her job s a t i s f a c t i o n was rooted more>in other factors. I t was impossible to compare p a r t i c i p a n t s ' wages and benefits across auspices since Pauline was a contract worker, Peggy and Pamela had unique situations as owner/operators, and several nonprofit workers belonged to unions. However, comparing feelings about wages and benefits and t h e i r influence on job s a t i s f a c t i o n was f e a s i b l e . Nicole, who belonged to a union, was s a t i s f i e d with her pay and benefits but wished that the f i e l d i n general paid higher s a l a r i e s to r e t a i n q u a l i f i e d workers. Her d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n was apparent, though, when i t came to working overtime or doing things for the center on her own time. Nicole was the only p a r t i c i p a n t to receive double time for working over eight hours but said " i t i s taxing to work so many hours for so long." She related that working overtime was a catch-22 s i t u a t i o n because: You have to get the job done and there's not enough time i n the o f f i c e for me, or even on the f l o o r because we're with 130 the children 100% of the time when we're on the f l o o r . So there's no programming time or cleaning up time or organization time so we work a l o t of overtime on the weekends and we also have to work overtime to maintain the appropriate r a t i o . Therefore, even though Nicole l i k e d her salary and had the best overtime pay of a l l participants, working long hours was more detrimental to her job s a t i s f a c t i o n than making a decent wage was b e n e f i c i a l . Naomi appreciated her wages and benefits, e s p e c i a l l y i n comparison to those she received previously at a church-run center. Now she enjoyed benefits such as paid professional days, medical and dental coverage, and a pension whereas before she worked almost 8 years without any benefits. While she said the s i t u a t i o n at that center was unfair, Naomi's willingness to stay there for so long indicates that her job s a t i s f a c t i o n stems from factors such as the nature of the work rather than wages or benefits. "There's not a l o t of money i n i t , but at le a s t I can say I'm going to work and I l i k e . i t . " Naomi was vocal i n her d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n of the pay of a l l c h i l d care workers. She f e l t low wages r e f l e c t e d t h e i r low status i n society and advocated for a pay scale based on t r a i n i n g and experience l i k e those used i n school systems. As well, she thought wages should be increased because: The only way you're going to keep the good ones i n the f i e l d who have the true love i s by guaranteeing that they can have a job which they l i k e but f e e l that with what they're getting paid...is worthwhile. 131 Regardless of low wages, though, Naomi did not want to leave her job. "I can't see myself going, leaving t h i s job j u s t to get more money elsewhere and riot being happy. I think l i f e i s too short and I r e a l l y enjoy what I'm doing." Natasha had just received a promotion to a s a l a r i e d p o s i t i o n at her school-age care center when we spoke. With her promotion, she received a benefits package. "That gives me a sense of security that I didn't have before." She also appreciated how the center's management p r i o r i t i z e d s t a f f t r a i n i n g and education. The center was paying for her t r a i n i n g at Langara College as well as other t r a i n i n g workshops. Management also paid f o r small things l i k e s t a f f hats and jackets and dinners during s t a f f meetings. "I mean things l i k e that, i t gives us a sense of belonging." However, she f e l t that these benefits were a necessary trade of f for the center since her pay was so low. " I t ' s nothing r e a l l y . " What i s more, she had mixed feel i n g s about being on salary. Having benefits was b e n e f i c i a l , but now she was being paid for fewer hours than previously: Before, when I was working the extra hours I knew I was getting paid for i t . I was doing the job and I was doing the job r e a l l y , r e a l l y well even i f I put i n ten hours. But I was getting some sort of compensation f o r i t . Now what happens i s , I'm only getting paid f o r seven and a h a l f hours, no matter how many I work, and there i s n ' t any sort of extra bonus that's given and because you're now salary you have so many more r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s than you did before. I t seems kind of a punishment for the more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 132 Like Naomi, Natasha wished wages were better and,felt " i f you want i t to become more of a profession, you've got to pay people more." Nonetheless, while d i s s a t i s f i e d with her pay, she was committed to her job, i n d i c a t i n g that once again job s a t i s f a c t i o n seems more influenced by factors other than wages and benefits. On the other hand, Nina t r u l y believed benefits played a large r o l e i n her job s a t i s f a c t i o n : If we get good benefits then we're not going to go looking elsewhere for work. If our needs are met within the center, we're, you know, we're more l i k e l y to stay than we are to leave as long as we're happy with our job. But that i s a big part of i t , i s having decent benefits. As a mother, Nina was g r a t e f u l that her center supported her through medical benefits and paid vacation. She received 32 paid days holiday a year which she c a l l e d wonderful "because i t means I can take a whole month of f i n the summer and spend i t with my daughter and not have to pay for daycare." She was thankful for her sick days as well. "I think i t ' s very important that we be able to take the time o f f work when our kids are s i c k . " Nina recognized her wages would not make her r i c h and mentioned how many opportunities existed f o r the center to get unpaid work from her, whether through u n b i l l e d overtime or simply returning l i b r a r y books on her own time. However, Nina's job s a t i s f a c t i o n was affected more by the lack of a pension plan. After years and years of valuable work, Nina thought she and other workers deserved a pension rather than worrying i f they would become bag ladies . In fact, not having a pension was so 133 worrisome to Nina that she was considering, leaving daycare for other work which would ensure a better retirement f o r he r s e l f . Nina would consider leaving daycare because of a lack of a pension, even though she enjoyed the work and her other benefits. Peggy continued to operate her center p r i v a t e l y , although she was at odds with t h i s p hilosophically, perhaps because of the f i n a n c i a l security i t provided for her and her family. While wages and benefits seemed to influence these workers 1 job s a t i s f a c t i o n , d i f f e r e n t factors or a combination of wages and benefits with d i f f e r e n t factors seemed more pertinent to the other participants* job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Indeed, not making enough money or having decent benefits may have fru s t r a t e d many, but not to the extent that they were d i s s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r work. Relationships with Staff In Jorde-Bloom's (1988) study of the job s a t i s f a c t i o n and commitment of 629 early childhood workers i n 25 states, she found that facets such as co-workers r e l a t i o n s were found to be sources of both f r u s t r a t i o n and s a t i s f a c t i o n . Some of the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the current study viewed co-worker r e l a t i o n s l i k e Jorde-Bloom's sample. However, for the most part, r e l a t i o n s h i p s with s t a f f were seen as a very p o s i t i v e influence on job s a t i s f a c t i o n across auspices. Naomi related that her stand-alone nonprofit center's s t a f f worked well together and enjoyed spending time together outside of work. She mentioned that the support she received from co-r workers made her f e e l much better about her work than at her previous center. She explained that while the children and equipment had been nice at the church-run center, "there j u s t 134 wasn't the closeness and the openness that I f e e l here." ;She saw the binding force as her head supervisor, Ashley. Naomi c a l l e d her a " f a n t a s t i c person" and admitted that her r e l a t i o n s h i p with Ashley was the main reason she would l i k e to continue working at the center. "I would never leave unless i t closes...and again I must say i t ' s due to the fact of my head supervisor's openness and dedication and the way she f e e l s about i t . " Natasha c a l l e d her school-age care-center's s t a f f "amazing" and "diverse" and was thankful that the administrators worked hard to unify the s t a f f : They've done a l o t of leadership s k i l l s with us and i t r e a l l y makes us a u n i f i e d group. We d i d l i k e a r e t r e a t at the beginning of the summer. We have s t a f f meetings every week so the communication has r e a l l y evolved. The program coordinators...they are just super, making sure that there are teams and projects that we a l l work on and r e a l l y understanding what drives each type of person and how to make everyone work together. And I think that makes a r e a l l y big difference. What also made a difference to Natasha was the support, encouragement, t r a i n i n g and guidance she received from the supervisor who hired her. Although Natasha had no t r a i n i n g when she interviewed for the job, the supervisor believed she could succeed, "and that's the best thing r i g h t . I mean someone that has some f a i t h i n you." Nina shared what she l i k e d about her co-workers: I've met a l o t of women there at the center who are s e l f r e l i a n t , who work r e a l l y hard to support t h e i r f a m i l i e s . A 135 l o t of single moms who, who've b a s i c a l l y held t h e i r families together and have a l o t of strengths and they're the kinds of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that I r e a l l y admire -in, i n anybody and i t ' s great to have that, that friendship, that fellowship with other women. And there's a l o t of support f o r one another. Nina also enjoyed sharing head supervisor duties with another worker at the center who has become one of her best friends. "She's j u s t got a great s t y l e and she's got g i f t s that I don't have and I r e a l l y admire her for that." As well, Nina l i k e d how the s t a f f worked as a team, sharing r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and keeping wage differences to a" minimum. Nina t o l d me "I think that when there i s not a huge wage discrepancy among people that there i s more job s a t i s f a c t i o n because you don't get into developing t h i s i ncredible hierarchy." At her center, though, hierarchy had become a problem. Over a year ago, Nina's center petitioned the c i t y government for assistance i h administration and the c i t y responded by providing a part time administrator who works there two days a week. Nina rel a t e d "what I thought was going to be a good and p o s i t i v e move for the center—and I supported i t f u l l y — I f e e l that a c t u a l l y that i t hasn't worked out that way." Nina t o l d me "the daycare s t a f f have always been d i r e c t l y involved i n the running of the center. There are times when the daycare s t a f f ran the center over the years, many, many times...." Now however: This [administrator] has a very authoritarian s t y l e and thinks that i f she says something then that should be the 136 way i t is...but i n our center we have a l l been there for a long time and we know the ins and outs of daycare and we're not about to just lay down and, or r o l l over or s i t up or whatever. So that's caused a l o t of d i f f i c u l t y . Also, Nina said the administrator made decisions without consulting the s t a f f and "that kind of one up man kind of behavior can r e a l l y alienate the s t a f f at times." Nina believed that she and the s t a f f were not being valued or l i s t e n e d to and that the administrator was making decisions based on her input alone and her p r i o r i t y to balance the books. Nina's job s a t i s f a c t i o n was p o s i t i v e l y affected by the support and camaraderie she shared with her co-workers, but not by the c o n f l i c t s she experienced with the administrator. While Nina wanted to work as a team, she f e l t the administrator fed hierarchy among the s t a f f . I r o n i c a l l y , Nicole, who also worked i n a small stand-alone center, believed such hierarchy was more l i k e l y to be found i n a private center. "Most nonprofit places work from a team perspective," she said without "the hierarchy hanging over one's head where you know i t has to be someone's, the top person's way or the highway." Nicole also thought that women, who compose the vast majority of workers i n the f i e l d , preferred working cooperatively and were more l i k e l y to be s a t i s f i e d i n nonprofit work places which promoted teamwork rather than hierarchy. Nicole f e l t her s t a f f worked well as a team and respected one another. She was the only participant, though, who mentioned she did not s o c i a l i z e with her co-workers outside of work. She also said that sometimes working with the s t a f f was f r u s t r a t i n g 137 "because my goals may not always be t h e i r goals." Co-workers r e l a t i o n s seemed to be a source of both f r u s t r a t i o n and s a t i s f a c t i o n for Nicole, just as they did for Nina. Nicole's thoughts on hierarchy being more prevalent i n private centers a c t u a l l y r e f l e c t what Jorde-Bloom (1988) found. When job s a t i s f a c t i o n surveys were compared across auspices, f o r -p r o f i t workers s i g n i f i c a n t l y rated t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n with supervisors lower than did nonprofit workers. However, P h y l l i s and Pauline i l l u s t r a t e d that i n t h e i r cases, s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r supervisors, the owners, was high and a meaningful factor i n why they l i k e d t h e i r work. Pauline chose to work at the preschool mainly because of the owner/operators. "They're very motherly and I think that's what I was drawn to, and they were very supportive and helped me a l o t . " They a l l shared the same philosophies about s p e c i a l needs children which made Pauline's job easier and moire pleasant. As well, she valued t h e i r perspective as more experienced workers i n the f i e l d and enjoyed friendships with them. "They're very easy to t a l k to, love to listen...and they're very relaxed. I think our p e r s o n a l i t i e s have obviously just c l i c k e d . " As mentioned previously, P h y l l i s appreciated the consideration her bosses show to her and a l l the s t a f f . She f e l t l i k e an i n d i v i d u a l whose needs were addressed rather than simply an employee. She thought of her employers as friends and enjoyed the C h r i s t i a n atmosphere which they encouraged. With her co-workers, P h y l l i s l i k e d how everyone exchanged ideas and supported one another. "Right now we have an excellent s t a f f and...we work i n d i v i d u a l l y and we work as helpers." 138 As employees i n private centers, P h y l l i s and Pauline indicated that relationships with co-workers and supervisors boosted t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n . However, private owner/operator Peggy did not associate her job s a t i s f a c t i o n with relationships with her s t a f f . "I would c e r t a i n l y consider some of the women here r e a l l y good frie n d s , " she said. Nonetheless, what was more important to Peggy was creating professional r e l a t i o n s h i p s with her s t a f f where they knew they had input into group decisions, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to use t h e i r sick leave or switch s h i f t s , and where personnel problems were talked about and solved c o l l e c t i v e l y . Pamela's job s a t i s f a c t i o n as a private owner/operator was much more influenced by her relationships with s t a f f than was Peggy's, perhaps because of the differences i n t h e i r job duties and the s i z e of t h e i r centers. While Peggy worked as the administrator and 14 other s t a f f members cared for over 100 children, Pamela worked as both administrator and teacher i n a center out of her home. She employed one f u l l - t i m e and one part-time s t a f f member and together they cared for 10 children. Pamela appreciated the contributions her f u l l - t i m e assistant, S a l l y , made to the center and f e l t t h e i r working re l a t i o n s h i p was good. Over the years a number of ECE students worked i n the part-time position, but S a l l y and Pamela had worked alongside for almost 6 years. However, Pamela was frustrated by t h e i r c o n f l i c t i n g d i s c i p l i n e , guiding and caring s t y l e s which stemmed from Sall y ' s lack of formal c h i l d care t r a i n i n g . Pamela did not f e e l t h e i r c o n f l i c t i n g s t y l e s affected the children 139 because "that's l i f e with the kids you know. They're going to run across d i f f e r e n t people." Nonetheless, those d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s did a f f e c t Pamela. " I t would be easier for me working with someone who's d i s c i p l i n e s t y l e i s r e a l l y close to mine. And I had that when S a l l y was on burn-out leave." Indeed, when S a l l y took leave, Pamela hired a trained substitute and enjoyed that working r e l a t i o n s h i p . " I t was r e a l l y smooth. I t was r e a l l y nice you know." I believe Pamela's job s a t i s f a c t i o n was negatively affected by working with an untrained assistant, regardless of how well they got along personally. However, Pamela's status as a private owner kept her from remedying the s i t u a t i o n . She said she simply could not afford a trained worker, even though she stated that "there's a big co r r e l a t i o n between the education of the caregiver and the qu a l i t y of care delivered," S a l l y would never be asked to leave and Pamela f e l t q u a l i t y was not s a c r i f i c e d because of the increasing l e v e l s of knowledge she herself attained and the fa c t that S a l l y "absorbed my philosophy over the years as well." What was not clear, though, was how t h e i r c o n f l i c t i n g s t y l e s altered Pamela's job s a t i s f a c t i o n , or Sa l l y ' s f o r that matter, and possibly t h e i r behavior around the children. Time Not enough time to accomplish tasks or spend with children emerged as a factor that caused d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . Surprisingly, only one private worker, Pamela, mentioned lack of time while a l l of the nonprofit workers f e l t there was not enough time to do t h e i r job as they would l i k e . Nina said "there's only so much you can do i n a day and when you are responsible f o r the care of 140 children your days are long and you sometimes f e e l l i k e there's not enough hours to do a l l the things that need to be done." Naomi shared that "as much as I love my job there are days where i t becomes hec t i c when you have 25 children. Sometimes I ' l l go home and I ' l l say 'well did I hug such and such, did I have any contact?'" • More time was the biggest wish of Pamela, Nicole and Natasha. Pamela expressed her wish to have someone do the administration work so she could spend more time with the children i n her center. Natasha related: There aren't enough hours i n the day and aside from just the basic things I need to do each day, to make sure that the planning's done, the supplies are there, lunch and snack and whatever, there's also each i n d i v i d u a l . I have 22 kids that I deal with every day that need a part of me and I want to give them that, and then on top of that I want to implement the new goals, the new ideas and there just i s n ' t enough time for i t . So being able to j u s t stop and take a breather, be able to, that would j u s t be l i k e my biggest, wish. Nicole echoed Natasha's sentiments. She wished f o r : More time to do the programming, do the organization, do the shopping and that sort of thing....Better r a t i o so we wouldn't have to work the overtime and there would j u s t be more time for the q u a l i t y kind of one to one time sort of thing. And for the administration side, j u s t more time to do i t too. And more time to take, f o r the t r a i n i n g . 141 Nicole emphasized not what she would l i k e to do, but simply having enough time to do i t a l l . Since every nonprofit worker mentioned the lack of time, i t appears that not having enough time i s related to nonprofit rather than private auspice. This i s a f i n d i n g not reported by previous research that has studied differences between auspices. Future research could assess i f some aspect of the t r a d i t i o n a l nonprofit center causes a lack of time. Perhaps the absence of an owner i n nonprofit centers, the v a r i e t y of job r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s which nonprofit workers have, or the stringency of nonprofit centers' budgets creates too much to do i n too l i t t l e time. Indeed, Peggy, as a private owner, overstaffs her center to have more f l e x i b i l i t y i n i t s operation. As well, while P h y l l i s ' center was experiencing low enrollment, the private owners absorbed any losses themselves rather than l e t go any s t a f f and consequently, time pressures were not a factor i n P h y l l i s ' job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Summary The nature of child,care work was seen as a p o s i t i v e influence on the job s a t i s f a c t i o n of a l l workers. I t was the conditions of work, though, which d i f f e r e d i n how they impacted pa r t i c i p a n t s . Autonomy on the job and r e l a t i o n s h i p s with co-workers were seen as p o s i t i v e , although a few problems arose from dealing with s t a f f . Governments and regulations were both praised and cursed. Private workers seemed more influenced by the Wage Supplement than nonprofit workers. A lack of time emerged as negative for nonprofit workers while a lack of status was problematic for a l l workers. Meanwhile, the emphasis 142 p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h put on the e f f e c t s of wages and b e n e f i t s on job s a t i s f a c t i o n seemed o v e r r a t e d s i n c e the job s a t i s f a c t i o n of these p a r t i c i p a n t s appeared grounded i n ot h e r f a c t o r s . 143 Chapter Seven Conclusions and implications T h i s q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h e x p l o r e d c a r e g i v e r s 1 p e r c e p t i o n s of p r i v a t e and n o n p r o f i t a u s p i c e through i n - d e p t h i n t e r v i e w s . In p a r t i c u l a r , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a u s p i c e and the p r o v i s i o n of c h i l d c a r e was c o n s i d e r e d as w e l l as the f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e c h i l d c a r e workers' j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n and how those f a c t o r s r e l a t e t o a u s p i c e . The p e r c e p t i o n s which emerged from the c a r e g i v e r s add much needed data from a new p e r s p e c t i v e t o the ongoing debate over a u s p i c e and c h i l d c a r e and p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t s i n t o c a r e g i v e r s ' j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n . A b r i e f summary of the p e r c e p t i o n s o f a u s p i c e and f a c t o r s t h a t impact on j ob s a t i s f a c t i o n i s p r o v i d e d below. As w e l l , the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s study f o r theory, p r a c t i c e and r e s e a r c h are prese n t e d along w i t h my r e f l e c t i o n s on the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s . Summary of F i n d i n g s P h i l o s o p h i c a l b e l i e f s about c h i l d c a r e and the p r o f i t - m a k i n g motive d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between the p r i v a t e and n o n p r o f i t workers. The b e l i e f t h a t c h i l d c a r e should not be a bu s i n e s s appeared t o a f f e c t a l l p e r c e p t i o n s of p r i v a t e a u s p i c e h e l d by the n o n p r o f i t p a r t i c i p a n t s . Indeed, n o n p r o f i t p a r t i c i p a n t s p e r c e i v e d t h a t making money was the g o a l of p r i v a t e c e n t e r s . Consequently, i n order t o make a p r o f i t , p r i v a t e owners were thought t o c u t co r n e r s , s a c r i f i c e q u a l i t y and e x p l o i t workers through paying them low wages. The n o n p r o f i t workers b e l i e v e d t h a t some p r i v a t e c e n t e r s were grounded i n good e a r l y c h i l d h o o d p r a c t i c e s , but i n g e n e r a l , they viewed p r i v a t e c e n t e r s as p r o v i d i n g lower q u a l i t y ' 144 care that was offered by less committed or less q u a l i f i e d s t a f f who worked for p r o f i t - d r i v e n owners. 1 In contrast, private workers saw that a c o n f l i c t between p r o f i t and q u a l i t y could e x i s t i n some private centers, but claimed that t h i s was not the case i n t h e i r centers. Private owner/operators were viewed not as money hungry, but as valuable supports who p r i o r i t i z e d the needs of children and s t a f f . The personal commitment of time, money, and e f f o r t by private owners was noted. Moreover, the a b i l i t y to make decisions and implement ideas quickly without the hassle of going through a board was seen as a b e n e f i c i a l aspect of private auspice. The notion of making a p r o f i t seemed i r o n i c to private p a r t i c i p a n t s who pointed out how much of themselves and t h e i r own resources they gave to t h e i r centers, the f a c t that no one made money i n the f i e l d , or that reasons other than money (such as f l e x i b i l i t y , family, or health concerns) were the main reasons they operated p r i v a t e l y . Participants seemed c l e a r l y divided i n t h e i r philosophical b e l i e f s and t h e i r perceptions of private auspice,"but i t was su r p r i s i n g that p a r t i c i p a n t s across both auspices also held some negative perceptions of nonprofit sponsorship. These aspects included the need to deal with inexperienced or c o n t r o l l i n g boards of d i r e c t o r s and making decisions i n consultation with many d i f f e r e n t people. Also, a d i s l i k e for nonprofit centers a f f i l i a t e d with larger organizations was voiced because of increased bureaucracy. However, there were more p o s i t i v e perceptions of nonprofit centers than negative ones. Nonprofit workers f e l t they had more input or control over decisions that were made i n nonprofit centers and they appreciated support from 145 boards, parents, and even the government. Nonprofit workers argued that these factors worked together to create more favorable working conditions and better q u a l i t y care than i n private centers. In addition, nonprofit centers were viewed p o s i t i v e l y by nonprofit workers because these centers operated as a service to children, not a business. While caregivers' perceptions of auspice d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between nonprofit and private workers, there was o v e r a l l agreement on the factors which influenced t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n . The nature of the work and the supportive r e l a t i o n s h i p s with s t a f f p o s i t i v e l y influenced job s a t i s f a c t i o n i n both nonprofit and private work places. Wages and benefits were viewed as important by a l l participants, but less important than supportive re l a t i o n s h i p s with co-workers or working with children. The p a r t i c i p a n t s ' perceived lack of status as early childhood professionals emerged as one of the most potent detriments to job s a t i s f a c t i o n . This finding i s consistent with Lindsay and Lindsay (1987) who found that lack of status was s i g n i f i c a n t l y associated with burnout. Some private workers, though, recognized that assumptions about the profit-making motive i n private centers resulted i n even lower status f o r them. S i g n i f i c a n t differences i n opinion according to auspice were found on three other factors. Private workers f e l t the Wage Supplement I n i t i a t i v e i n B r i t i s h Columbia increased t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n while nonprofit workers were not convinced of i t s worth to how they f e l t about t h e i r jobs. At the same time, private workers seemed wary of government regulations, much as those f o r - p r o f i t providers i n Scurria and Kagan's (1994) focus-146 group did, while nonprofit workers were more appreciative of government support. F i n a l l y , time pressures emerged as detrimental to the job s a t i s f a c t i o n of a l l four of the nonprofit workers, but only one of the private workers. In general, these p a r t i c i p a n t s ' job s a t i s f a c t i o n seemed high. Regardless of some differences across auspices, i t appeared that the conditions of work, including lack of status or lack of time, were harmful to job s a t i s f a c t i o n while the nature of the work was b e n e f i c i a l . This f i n d i n g concerning the negative impact of the conditions of work was consistent with the findings of Maslach and Pines (1977), Whitebook, Howes, Darrah, and Friedman (1982), and Jorde-Bloom (1988) . Implications of the Results for Theory. Practice, and Research One of the most important findings to emerge from t h i s study was that participants who worked i n or owned private centers held p o s i t i v e perceptions of private auspice. Peggy, Pauline, Pamela and P h y l l i s enjoyed working i n t h e i r private centers and f e l t they provided excellent care. These perceptions provide an i n t e r e s t i n g contrast to the body of research which associates higher q u a l i t y care and/or better working conditions with nonprofit auspice. In the current study, the reported findings were p a r t i c i p a n t s 1 perceptions and not standardized assessments of q u a l i t y and working conditions. They do, however, add a novel perspective on the q u a l i t y l i t e r a t u r e and demonstrate the need for caution i n making generalizations about q u a l i t y or working conditions based on auspice-alone. As much as the private workers l i k e d t h e i r centers, i t was i n t e r e s t i n g that they also perceived that some aspects of private c 147 auspice could have a negative influence on the operation of other f o r - p r o f i t centers. Further research i s needed, therefore, to. understand from the workers 1 perspectives the factors which d i f f e r e n t i a t e the high from the low q u a l i t y private centers. That i s , research would be h e l p f u l i n further exploring what caregivers i n f o r - p r o f i t centers deem as the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of private centers which provide excellent care for children and good working conditions for s t a f f . P a r t i c i p a n t s ' perceptions i n t h i s study suggest that these factors include an owner's demonstrated commitment to putting children and s t a f f f i r s t , as well as the a b i l i t y of s t a f f to have autonomy or input into decisions, and the development of supportive, even f a m i l i a l , r e l a t i o n s h i p s with co-workers. Even i f research i d e n t i f i e d the key c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of private centers that provided high q u a l i t y care and good working environments, i t i s doubtful that t h i s would end the philosophical disagreements over f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care. Indeed, i t appears as i f some p r a c t i t i o n e r s or p o l i c y makers could never accept private c h i l d care, even i f every center under f o r - p r o f i t auspices was shown to be excellent, simply because f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care does not operate as a nonprofit service. However, the continued existence and operation of both private and nonprofit c h i l d care centers within the market model i s expected i n the near future. Hence, one important question for future research to address i s under what conditions c h i l d care becomes commodified. That i s , when i s c h i l d care treated s o l e l y as a commodity to be bought and sold rather than as something which can meet the various 148 needs of children, families, and adults who work i n c h i l d care. Many nonprofit advocates, and even the nonprofit workers i n . t h i s study, perceived that the la b e l " f o r - p r o f i t " automatically meant that c h i l d care was commodified i n private centers. However, the perceptions held by the private workers i n t h i s study are si m i l a r to Friesen's (1995) finding that i t i s the organizational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a center, which are influenced to varying degrees by auspice, rather than auspice alone which commodify c h i l d care. I t seems exaggerated, therefore, to assume that a l l private operators and workers i n private centers do not care about program q u a l i t y and meeting children's and adults' needs, but are concerned exclusively with how much money they can make from s e l l i n g t h e i r c h i l d care services. In exploring how and where c h i l d care becomes commodified, future research i s needed to study the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r o f i t s , c h i l d care fees, expenses, s a l a r i e s , and the welfare of children and s t a f f i n nonprofit and private centers. As well, p r a c t i t i o n e r s and consumers of c h i l d care would benefit from research that i d e n t i f i e s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of programs, including the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of people who operate these programs, which focus on p r o f i t s . The data from t h i s study suggest that factors such as hierarchy, a lack of input from s t a f f , and a lack of supportive relationships or d a i l y contact with employers or owners are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n d i c a t i v e of centers which commodify c h i l d care and place p r o f i t s f a r and above the needs of children, families, and caregivers. As well, I f e e l another implication of t h i s study regards the use of the term " f o r - p r o f i t . " I do not think t h i s term 149 adequately describes or captures the centers operating within the private sector and may perpetuate a bias against such centers. Indeed, what does i t even mean to make a p r o f i t i n c h i l d care? Paying-oneself a l i v i n g wage as an owner/operator, which was the salary that Pamela and Peggy indicated they received, does not seem to f i t what i s commonly understood as " p r o f i t . " Further, i t did not appear that Peggy and Pamela as owner/operators were drawn to " f o r - p r o f i t " auspice because they wanted to make money. Rather, i t seems they were drawn to "private" auspice instead, drawn to the organization and structure of c h i l d care that was not under the control of a board of d i r e c t o r s . Theoretically, then, i t may be an important step i n healing the acrimony and misunderstanding between private and nonprofit sectors to create more h e l p f u l discourse or language i n which to t a l k about c h i l d care that i s operated under private auspice. Peggy and Pamela also chose to operate private centers because they viewed private auspice as a space where they could meet t h e i r needs as well as the needs of children. Nonprofit auspice may have been able to meet the needs of children, but for various reasons i t was unable to meet Pamela•s and Peggy•s adult needs for an accommodating work place, a f l e x i b l e work schedule, and more time with t h e i r own children. Their s i t u a t i o n s provide another perspective into why some p r a c t i t i o n e r s or p o l i c y makers may hold negative perceptions of private auspice. Indeed, i t seems that society often views women's needs, including the need to work, as oppositional to children's needs, with the p r e v a i l i n g attitude being that children's needs should 150 always come f i r s t . I t i s possible that private auspice i s viewed i n a negative l i g h t because society disapproves of women building and/or operating centers to meet t h e i r needs. The data from the current study do not address t h i s problem. However, future research, such as a feminist c r i t i q u e of auspice and c h i l d care centers as a place of women's work, could explore t h i s issue further. Such research would be invaluable both i n shedding new l i g h t on the debate over f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care and i n further exploring the rel a t i o n s h i p between women and c h i l d care work. Another implication of these r e s u l t s f o r future research stems from p a r t i c i p a n t s ' perceptions of owner/operators. In t h i s study, private workers pointed out the p o s i t i v e aspects of private owners while nonprofit workers saw only the negative aspects. What i s more, a l l of the private workers recognized that owners could have harmful e f f e c t s on a center's operation. However, Pamela and Pauline believed that a c e r t a i n type of owner was more l i k e l y to have negative e f f e c t s . They perceived that an owner who did not p a r t i c i p a t e i n the d a i l y operation of the center and who simply owned the program was much more l i k e l y to have problems with s t a f f , s a c r i f i c e q u a l i t y , or be motivated by p r o f i t s than an owner who worked i n the center. Pamela's and Pauline's insights about private owners deserve to be explored i n future research as t h e i r perceptions may be c r u c i a l i n understanding what separates excellent from poor private centers. Future research, then, i s needed to compare o f f - s i t e and on-s i t e owners. Issues addressed i n such research should include exploring the work and personal backgrounds of d i f f e r e n t owners as well as determining the differences or s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the 151 working conditions, s t a f f s a l a r i e s , and q u a l i t y of care between centers owned from afar and those owned by an operator involved i n d a i l y operation. These issues need to be addressed because research has t r a d i t i o n a l l y separated private centers according to whether or not they were part of a chain. Dividing private centers i n t h i s way does not adequately assess the e f f e c t s that d i f f e r e n t types of owners have on private centers. For example, the owner of two c h i l d care programs within the same area may share her work time between her centers, operating as an on-site owner. However, i n research, her centers would be studied as part of the "chain f o r - p r o f i t " category which includes franchised centers that may be owned by someone s i t t i n g i n a corporate o f f i c e . Hence, research i s needed s p e c i f i c a l l y on the differences between and e f f e c t s of numerous types of owners. In exploring the differences among private owners another question would be whether or not they belonged to a c h i l d care professional organization or advocacy group. Both of the owner/operators i n my sample were i d e n t i f i e d through and belonged to ECEBC. I t i s possible that owner/operators who belong to such organizations are less concerned with p r o f i t s and have a greater commitment to c h i l d care than owners who do not j o i n such groups. Consequently, future research on d i f f e r e n t types of owners, as well as research that,continues to explore auspice, should consider the e f f e c t s or influence that membership to c h i l d care groups has on an owner and her center. In assessing the implications of t h i s study, i t i s also important to include a discussion of family daycare. In t h i s study, Nina was more worried by family daycare than by private 152 group care and Pamela f e l t that family daycare providers could earn more than she did as an owner/operator because they d i d not have to meet as many regulations. These perceptions are inte r e s t i n g , e s p e c i a l l y because both Nina and Pamela viewed family daycare as f o r - p r o f i t daycare. However, none of the studies which have addressed auspice and q u a l i t y have included family daycare i n t h e i r samples at a l l , much less considering family daycare as part of the f o r - p r o f i t sector. This may be because family daycare has an anomalous po s i t i o n within the c h i l d care community. That i s , family daycare i s often 7viewed as d i s t i n c t or separate from both the nonprofit and f o r - p r o f i t sectors. Nonetheless, research i s needed which explores family daycare within the context of the f o r - p r o f i t sector and assesses the reasons for, and consequences of, leaving family daycare out of the debate over f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care. Indeed, such research i s needed because i t appears that considering family daycare as separate from the private sector i n both research and the c h i l d care community has negative repercussions for private group centers. The public p o l i c i e s promoted by national advocacy groups, such as the Chi l d Care Advocacy Association of Canada (CCAAC), exemplify the e f f e c t s of t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n . The CCAAC does not consider family daycare to be equivalent to f o r - p r o f i t daycare, even though family daycare operators can generate revenue that exceeds the operating costs of t h e i r programs. The CCAAC admits that i n d i f f e r e n t parts of the country family daycare can be considered as part of the f o r -p r o f i t sector, but they point out that i n other areas family 153 daycare i s regulated through nonprofit agencies and therefore part of the nonprofit sector. Although family daycare i s considered f o r - p r o f i t i n some parts of Canada, the CCAAC (1995) c a l l s for the development of p o l i c y that supports a l l licensed family daycare through public funding. At the same time, the CCAAC advocates that public funding should not be directed towards private group c h i l d care centers because the government should not support and encourage the growth of f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care services. Consequently, the perception that family daycare i s separate from the private sector r e s u l t s i n the possible exclusion of f o r - p r o f i t daycare from government funds which would be av a i l a b l e to family daycare. I t seems that the CCAAC, other groups, and some pr a c t i t i o n e r s perceive that private c h i l d care i s more of a profit-making business than family daycare, which, although able to make a p r o f i t as well, i s viewed as a service. However, the truthfulness of t h i s perception and the accuracy of t r e a t i n g the two types of care as d i s t i n c t from one another has not been established. There are obvious s t r u c t u r a l differences between large f o r - p r o f i t centers and family daycare homes, but what differences e x i s t between private owner/operators such as Pamela, who employs one f u l l - t i m e s t a f f member and cares f o r 10 children i n her home, and a family daycare operator who cares f o r s i x children i n her home? As well, what differences e x i s t between a l l people who can make a p r o f i t i n c h i l d care, whether that be through operating family daycare or a large private center? Research i s needed which asks these questions and compares the p r o f i t margins, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of owner/operators, philosophies, 154 and organizational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of private group centers and family daycare homes. There are implications of t h i s research for early childhood education t r a i n i n g programs as well. Most pa r t i c i p a n t s indicated that auspice was not a top i c that was discussed during t h e i r t r a i n i n g . However, Pauline related that one of her instru c t o r s touched upon auspice, but only to pass along to students her bias against f o r - p r o f i t auspice. Neither of these approaches works to create more understanding of the d i f f e r e n t types of auspices under which centers may operate or the influence that auspice may have on c h i l d care programs. Potential early childhood professionals need to be educated about and encouraged to examine auspice, i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to q u a l i t y and other factors which a f f e c t q u a l i t y , the debate over f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care, and the d i f f e r e n t philosophical b e l i e f s about c h i l d care. A l l of t h i s information enables students to make strategic 1, educated decisions about where they work and how they can address factors that could improve t h e i r work places. Training programs could also educate students about auspice by ensuring that students are exposed to practicum experience i n both nonprofit and private centers. I t i s conceivable that both Nina and Nicole, who had p r a c t i c a i n nonprofit centers only, may not have viewed private centers so negatively i f they had been exposed to private centers during t h e i r t r a i n i n g . Requiring practicum experience i n both nonprofit and private centers, then, along with the examination and discussion of auspice and other factors that impact on qu a l i t y and working conditions, would give students a better education about a l l auspices. This could 155 possibly lead to increased understanding rather than increased acrimony between the private and nonprofit sectors. Another implication of t h i s research f o r future study stems from the finding that some participants perceived that there was not enough time i n t h e i r work days to accomplish everything they would l i k e to do. This perceived lack of time fr u s t r a t e d workers and was detrimental to t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n . This f i n d i n g was in t e r e s t i n g and deserves consideration i n future research because i t seems s i g n i f i c a n t that only one private worker, Pamela, expressed a desire for more time on the job while a l l of the nonprofit participants wished for more time. On the one hand, the fac t that a l l of the nonprofit workers i n t h i s study would l i k e more time may be coincidental and not relat e d to auspice i n any way. On the other hand, t h i s f i nding may indicate that some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of nonprofit auspice may l i m i t the amount of time workers have to attend to t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , consequently a f f e c t i n g t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n . The data from t h i s study suggest that i t may be the organization of nonprofit centers, which workers viewed as p o s i t i v e , which also makes i t harder for them to f e e l as though they have enough time. Indeed, although workers may be involved i n the decision-making process of a nonprofit center, i t also takes a l o t of time to make so many decisions with the various people responsible for the operation of nonprofit centers. As well, the sheer number and vari e t y of job duties for nonprofit workers may also contribute to a perceived lack of time. In nonprofit centers, e s p e c i a l l y stand-alone centers, job duties may include everything from organizing fundraisers to 156 attending board meetings to planning c i r c l e time. In private centers, though, workers may not be faced with as many demands on t h e i r time because of the presence of an owner who i s usually responsible for administrative and other duties. In any case, the r e s u l t s of t h i s study i l l u s t r a t e the need f o r future research to explore time as an influence on workers' job s a t i s f a c t i o n and how, and i f , a lack of time i s rel a t e d to auspice. This study also i l l u s t r a t e s the need f o r more q u a l i t a t i v e research on auspice, caregivers' perceptions of auspice, and caregivers' perceptions of t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n . In t h i s study, just eight women contributed so much valuable information to the problems surrounding auspice. I t i s important that we hear from the voices of other caregivers as well. One way to give more caregivers a voice would be to conduct s i m i l a r q u a l i t a t i v e , in-depth interviews with a larger number of par t i c i p a n t s . On the other hand, concentrating more in-depth on a smaller number of participants, through l i f e h i s t o r y f o r example, would also contribute invaluable data about the relat i o n s h i p s between auspice, c h i l d care and job s a t i s f a c t i o n . As the parti c i p a n t s i n t h i s study belonged to various c h i l d care organizations, perhaps using p a r t i c i p a n t s not involved i n such associations would y i e l d new perspectives or information. As well, an ethnographic study of a f o r - p r o f i t or nonprofit center would be useful. Through.observations, interviews and even document analysis, an ethnography could provide a r i c h description of what i t means to work i n a nonprofit or private center and what i s the day to day influence of auspice on a 157 daycare center. The need for more q u a l i t a t i v e research i s there and the p o s s i b i l i t i e s are endless. F i n a l l y , i t i s important to remember that t h i s study took a novel approach to exploring auspice through q u a l i t a t i v e methodology. The down side to t h i s approach i s that the findings cannot be generalized to a l l c h i l d care workers. However, t h i s research was able to f u l l y capture and explore the perceptions of eight women and the context within which t h e i r views were shaped. This was a feat not captured by s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s and measures used i n the quantitative studies that compose the body of research on auspice. I f e e l t h i s study i l l u s t r a t e s the need for and usefulness of q u a l i t a t i v e research and how important i t i s that q u a l i t a t i v e and quantitative methodology be used to inform each other and address research problems from every angle. Reflections on the Research Process Over a period of many months, I f i l l e d two journals with what I learned from conducting my research. In these journals I detailed everything from how excited I was to develop rapport with a p a r t i c i p a n t to how I both enjoyed and agonized over data analysis. My journal pages are f i l l e d with many more lessons and experiences, but below I mention the two things I learned which are the most meaningful to me personally. F i r s t , I learned how e x c i t i n g i t was to come to know eight very d i f f e r e n t participants and have them share t h e i r l i v e s with me. I was never t i r e d of l i s t e n i n g to t h e i r perceptions or hearing about t h e i r experiences. I f e l t honored that they would entrust me with t h e i r s t o r i e s and I came to respect them a l l as 158 ind i v i d u a l s , even i f I personally did not agree with t h e i r perceptions or opinions. The opportunity to know and l i s t e n to my pa r t i c i p a n t s was in e x t r i c a b l y linked to my second most meaningful lesson, which was learning the value of q u a l i t a t i v e research. Indeed, the body of research on auspice and q u a l i t y i s composed of studies that are predominantly quantitative. In the beginning, then, i t was ex c i t i n g simply to recognize the need for q u a l i t a t i v e research which would explore auspice from the caregiver's point of view. However, i t was even moire ex c i t i n g to see how my r e s u l t s could inform future studies arid how my r e s u l t s added new, r i c h data to the debate over f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care. I f e e l confident that t h i s research allowed the perceptions and experiences shared by my par t i c i p a n t s to be heard c l e a r l y , valuable perceptions and experiences that would not have been v i v i d l y or adequately portrayed through the use of quantitative methodology. F i n a l Thoughts I f e e l i t i s appropriate to conclude where I began, l i s t e n i n g to the perceptions of a caregiver. In the following quote I believe Natasha, who worked i n a school-age care center, alludes to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a center or program which have the most impact on the qual i t y of care that i s offered and how workers f e e l about t h e i r work: Whether [a center i s ] I would have to say non-profit or p r o f i t , as long as everyone who's involved, everyone that i t af f e c t s i s involved i n the goal making, l i k e that process, the development of the program, the decision of whether i t ' s orange j u i c e or milk that's being served, or whether they go 159 on f i e l d t r i p s , a l l these things. I f the people are involved and they take ownership for the program, then the qu a l i t y of care i s going to be higher, the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the parents, the s t a f f and everyone, i t ' s going to be there r i g h t , because they're involved i n i t . So i f i t ' s run by someone who doesn't give a hoot about what's going on, whether that's i n a non-profit or p r o f i t , I don't think i t r e a l l y matters. I think i t ' s how you set the place up so that people f e e l responsible. There's an action reaction for what they do and they can be a part of changing things or moving things ahead. As Natasha points out, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as giv i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the s t a f f and encouraging input from a l l stakeholders make a difference i n how a center i s run. I f e e l t h i s research indicates that these' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , together with the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which other part i c i p a n t s mentioned such as the .development of supportive relationships or the i n t e g r i t y of owners, are paramount to whether a center operates under private or nonprofit auspices. 160 Bibl iography Arnett, J . (1989). Caregivers i n day care centers: Does t r a i n i n g matter? Developmental Psychology. 10, 541-552. Berk, L.' (1985) . Relationship of caregiver education to child-oriented attitudes, job s a t i s f a c t i o n , and behaviors towards children. Child Care Quarterly. 14(2), 103-129. Bernard, H.R. (1994). Research methods i n anthropology: Qu a l i t a t i v e and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Q u a l i t a t i v e research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: A l l y n & Bacon. Cameron, B. (1992). Structure and management. Paper presented at A c h i l d care agenda for the 1990s: Putting the pieces together, Ottawa, October 15-19. Toronto: Ontario C o a l i t i o n for Better Child Care. The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. (1995, Spring). The issue of auspice. Vision, 20, 1-4. Canadian Child Care Federation/Canadian C h i l d Care Advocacy Association. (1992). Caring for a l i v i n g . Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Ch i l d Care Federation. Doherty-Derkowski, G. (1995). Quality matters: Excellence i n early childhood programs. Don M i l l s , Ontario: Addison Wesley. Fiene, R. & Melnick, S. (1989). Licensure and program qu a l i t y i n c h i l d care and early childhood programs. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania State Department of Public Welfare. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 308 978) Friendly, M. (1995). Child care p o l i c y i n Canada: Putting the pieces together. Don M i l l s , Ontario: Addison Wesley. Friesen, B. (1995). A s o c i o l o g i c a l examination of the c h i l d care auspice debate (Occasional Paper No. 6). Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto, The Childcare Resource and Research Unit, Centre for Urban and Community Studies. Goelman, H. (1992). Day Care i n Canada. In M. Lamb, K. Sternberg, C. Hwang, & A. Broberg (Eds.), C h i l d care i n context: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 223-263). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goetz, J.-, & LeCompte, M. (1984) . Ethnography and q u a l i t a t i v e design i n educational research. San Diego: Academic Press. 161 Harms, T. & C l i f f o r d , R.M. (1980). Earlv childhood environment r a t i n g scale. New York: Teachers College Press. Harms, T., Cryer, D., & C l i f f o r d , R.M. (1990). Infant/Toddler environment r a t i n g scale. New York: Teachers College Press. Jorde-Bloom, P. (1989). The I l l i n o i s d i r e c t o r ' s study. Report submitted to the I l l i n o i s Department df Children and Family Services. Evanston, IL: National College of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 305 167) Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988). Factors influencing o v e r a l l job s a t i s f a c t i o n and organizational commitment i n early childhood work environments. Journal of Research i n Childhood Education, 3(2), 107-122. Kagan, S. L. & Newton, J. W. (1989). F o r - p r o f i t and nonprofit c h i l d care: S i m i l a r i t i e s and differences. Young Children. 45. 4-10. Keyserling, M. D. (1972). Windows on day care: A report based on findings of the National Council of Jewish Women. New York: National Council of Jewish Women. Kontos, S. & Stremmel, A.J. (1988). Caregiver's perceptions of working conditions i n a c h i l d care environment. Earlv Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 77-90. Lero, D, & Johnson, K. (1994). 110 Canadian s t a t i s t i c s on work and family. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Lindsay, P. & Lindsay, C. (1987). Teachers i n preschools and c h i l d care centers: Overlooked and undervalued. C h i l d and Youth Care Quarterly, 16, 91-105. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1989). Designing q u a l i t a t i v e research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Maslach, C , & Pines, A. (1977). The burn-out syndrome i n the day care setting. Child Care Quarterly. 6(2). 100-113. Ministry of Women's Equality, Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. (1995). The wage supplement i n i t i a t i v e . [Brochure]. V i c t o r i a , BC: Author. Robinson, B. (1979). A two year follow up study of male and female caregivers. Child Care Quarterly, 8(4), 279-294. P h i l l i p s , D. (Ed.). (1987). Quality i n c h i l d care: What does research t e l l us? Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. 162 P h i l l i p s , D., Howes, C , & Whitebook, M. (1991). C h i l d care as an adult work environment. Journal of Soc i a l Issues. 47(2). 49-70. Pierce, W. (1975). " P r o f i t i n g from day care." In S. Auerbach & J.A. Rivaldo (Eds.), Rationale for c h i l d care services: Programs vs. p o l i t i c s . Volume 1 i n the series "Child Care: A comprehensive guide." New York: Human Sciences Press. Schumacher, S. & McMillan, J . (1993). Research i n education: A conceptual introduction. New York: Harper C o l l i n s . Scurria, K. & Kagah, S. (1994). Finding common ground i n the early childhood f i e l d : An examination of the f o r - p r o f i t sector's views of government roles i n early care arid education (Quality 2000 Working Paper). New Haven, CT: Yale University, Bush Center i n C h i l d Development and Social P o l i c y . Seidman, I.E. (1991). Interviewing as q u a l i t a t i v e research: A guide f o r researchers i n education and the s o c i a l sciences. New York: Teachers College Press. SPR Associates (198 6). An exploratory review of selected issues i n f o r - p r o f i t versus n o t - f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care. Paper prepared for the Special Committee on Chi l d Care, Toronto, Ontario. Toronto, Ontario: Author. Stremmel, A. (1991). Predictors of intention to leave c h i l d care work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 6. 285-298. Tuominen, M. (1991). Caring for p r o f i t : The s o c i a l , economic, and p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of f o r - p r o f i t c h i l d care. Social Service Review. 65. 450-467. West, S. (1988). A study on compliance with the Day Nurseries Act at fu l l - d a y c h i l d care centers i n Metropolitan Toronto. Prepared for the Toronto Area O f f i c e , Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. Whitebook, M., Howes, C , Darrah, R., & Friedman, J . (1982). Caring f o r the caregivers: Staff burnout i n c h i l d care. In L. Katz (Ed.), Current topics i n early childhood education. Vol. IV. (pp. 211-235). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & P h i l l i p s , D. (1989). Who cares? Child care teachers and the qual i t y of care i n America (Final report, National Child Care S t a f f i n g Study). Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project. 166 APPENDIX B Reciprocity Information Activity/Song Sheet # 1: Hoppers This a c t i v i t y i s fun for 3-5 year olds when learning about frogs, rabbits, kangaroos or anything that hops! Materials Styrofoam cups Ice cream s t i c k s Glue or tape Pens and paper to draw animals -or-Scissors and pictures of animals to cut out Construction 1. Poke the ice cream s t i c k through the bottom of a cup and then take i t out. 2. After cutting out or drawing a picture of an animal that hops, glue or tape i t to the top of' the s t i c k . Make sure that the animal w i l l f i t inside the cup when the s t i c k i s pulled down. 3. Glue shapes or g l i t t e r onto the styrofoam cup or use markers to decorate them anyway you l i k e . 4. Insert the bottom of the s t i c k through the bottom of the cup and p u l l i t up and down to make your animal hop! 167 Activity/Song Sheet # 2: Ram Sam Sam **The O r i g i n a l Version** A Ram Sam Sam A Ram Sam Sam Gooley Gooley Gooley Gooley Gooley Ram Sam Sam A Ram Sam Sam A Ram Sam Sam Gooley Gooley Gooley Gooley Gooley Ram Sam Sam A r a f f i , A r a f f i Movements Ram Sam Sam: Alternate pounding f i s t s on top of each other. Gooleys: C i r c l e f i s t s around each other while singing through the Gooleys ( l i k e a tr a v e l i n g motion made by referees i n basketball) A r a f f i : For each a r a f f i , s t a r t by b e l l y button, twinkle fingers upward and then down again i n the shape of a big M or l i k e water flowing from a fountain. Gooley Gooley Gooley Gooley Gooley Ram Sam Sam «r **The Fast Food Version** Fast Food Version Movements A Pizza Hut A Pizza Hut Kentucky Fried Chicken and a Pizza Hut Pizza Hut: Hold arms above head and touch fingers together, making a Hut! A Pizza Hut A Pizza Hut Kentucky Fried Chicken and a Pizza Hut Kentucky F r i e d Chicken: Flap arms l i k e a chicken! McDonald's, McDonald's Kentucky Fried Chicken and a Pizza Hut! McDonald's: Make the same motions as A r a f f i s , twinkling fingers up and over i n the shape of the Golden Arches! 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054833/manifest

Comment

Related Items