UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Client characteristics of the Family Service Centres of Greater Vancouver Akune, Bonnie Chizuko 1967

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1967_A5 A78.pdf [ 3.23MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093580.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093580-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093580-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093580-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093580-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093580-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093580-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093580-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093580.ris

Full Text

CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FAMILY SERVICE CENTRES OF GREATER VANCOUVER by Bonnie Chizuko Akune E l i o Amedeo Azzara Barbara Gai l Brett Asbjorg Sylvia Clemson Chun-duh Kuo Marjorie Donalda Martin Thesis submitted i n P a r t i a l Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK i n the School of Social Work Accepted as conforming to the standard required for the degree of Master of Social Work ,School of Social Work 1967 The University of B r i t i s h Columbia In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i 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 an advanced d e g r e e a t 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 , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and S t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my Depar tment o r by hi;s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Depar tmen t The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia Vancouver 8, Canada ABSTRACT The F a m i l y S e r v i c e C e n t r e s o f G r e a t e r Vancouver Area i s composed o f a M a i n and b r a n c h o f f i c e s . A t t h i s t i m e , t h e Agency i s a s k i n g whether t h e s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y p a t t e r n s i n t h e Main and b r a n c h o f f i c e s match t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c l i e n t s . As a r e s u l t , t h i s s t u d y was u n d e r t a k e n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l h y p o t h e s e s : t h a t t h e r e a r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e Main O f f i c e , N o r t h Shore and Burnaby b r a n c h e s o f t h e F a m i l y S e r v i c e C e n t r e s o f G r e a t e r Vancouver i n t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h o s e r e q u e s t i n g s e r v i c e , t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i r r e q u e s t and t h e t y p e o f approach t o t h e Agency. A c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l s u r v e y was made o f a l l p e r s o n s a p p r o a c h i n g t h e M a i n , Burnaby and N o r t h Shore o f f i c e s d u r i n g a f o u r week p e r i o d i n October/November, 1967. A d a t a s c h e d u l e was used by i n t a k e p e r s o n n e l t o s e c u r e i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e t o t a l o f 411 approaches. I n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g f o u r v a r i a b l e s was s o u g h t — s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , f a m i l y l i f e s t a g e , r e q u e s t f o r s e r v i c e , and t y p e o f approach. The B l i s h e n O c c u p a t i o n a l C l a s s S c a l e and t h e D u v a l l F a m i l y L i f e S t a g e s were used as models. A computer was used i n a n a l y s i n g t h e d a t a . The f i n d i n g s r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e r e were some d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e t h r e e o f f i c e s i n t h e f o u r v a r i a b l e s t e s t e d , and t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s were most marked i n s o c i o e c o n o m i c c l a s s . The g e n e r a l h y p o t h e s i s was t h e r e f o r e a c c e p t e d . F u r t h e r , i t was found t h a t g e n e r a l l y , t h e c l i e n t s came from t h e l o w e r s o c i o e c o n o m i c c l a s s e s , and t h a t t h e y were c h i l d r e a r i n g f a m i l i e s . S t r i k i n g l y few aged p e r s o n s approached t h e Agency f o r s e r v i c e . I n f o r m a t i o n / r e f e r r a l was t h e most r e q u e s t e d s e r v i c e i n t h e t o t a l sample, and s e l f - r e f e r r a l was found t o be t h e most common t y p e o f approach. I t i s c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e Agency s h o u l d c o n s i d e r v a r y i n g t h e s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y p a t t e r n s t o meet t h e u n i q u e c o n s t e l l a t i o n o f needs o f t h e c l i e n t s a p p r o a c h i n g each o f f i c e . There a r e i m p l i c a t i o n s a l s o f o r a g e n e r a l e v a l u a t i o n o f s e r v i c e s i n r e l a t i o n t o c l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as w e l l as f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The preparation of t h i s research project has required assistance from many sources. Grateful acknowledgement i s p a r t i c u l a r l y made to the s t a f f of the Family Service Centres of Greater Vancouver Area without whose cooperation t h i s project would not have been possible. We wish to acknowledge especially the assistance of Miss Florence V. Clayden, Intake Supervisor i n the Main Off i c e , Mrs. Margaret Jessup, D i s t r i c t Secretary of the North Shore o f f i c e , and Miss E. Mildred:i.Porter, Senior S o c i a l Worker, Burnaby o f f i c e . We are p a r t i c u l a r l y indebted to Mrs. Jean Assimakos, for her constant guidance and encouragement i n her ro l e as research i n s t r u c t o r ; and to Mr. Larry B e l l , Director of Research, United Community Services, for his valuable advice. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION 1 The Agency s e t t i n g and function. The rationale for the project. The previous i n t e r n a l studies of the Agency. The scope and l i m i t a t i o n s of the project. General hypothesis. II METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY 7 Sampling design. Data c o l l e c t i o n models. Operational procedures. Opera-t i o n a l assumptions. Plan of data analysis. I l l PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS 14 Description of the population. Analy-s i s of socioeconomic status. Analysis of family l i f e cycle stage. Analysis of re-quest f o r service. Analysis of type of approach. IV DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 28 General hypothesis findings. Overall c l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A p p l i c a b i l i t y of the models. V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34 Differences between the o f f i c e s and implications for service delivery patterns. Implications a r i s i n g out of c l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Appendix A B Data Schedule Blishen Occupational Class Scale 38 39 Appendix C Duvall Family L i f e Cycle Stages D Memo dated October 12, 1967 to A l l Staff of the Family Service Centres of Greater Vancouver Area regarding Research Project E Combining Classes i n the Blishen and Duvall Models F Memo dated October 19, 1967 to Staff of the Family Service Centres of Greater Vancouver involved i n f i l l i n g out Research Questionnaire. Bibliography TABLES IN THE TEXT Table Page 13 Type of Approach vs Family L i f e Cycle Stages Horizontal Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n 26 GRAPH IN THE TEXT Graph 1 Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Family L i f e Cycle Stages 3, 4, & 5 i n the three o f f i c e s 20 SECTION I INTRODUCTION Maximum effectiveness of a s o c i a l service agency i s not achieved without regular and careful studies of services, administrative structure, and r e a l and po t e n t i a l c l i e n t popu-l a t i o n . The Family Service Centres of Greater Vancouver Area, an agency committed to the use of research to improve services, i s presently undergoing a number of changes including the major one of increased decentralization. As a r e s u l t , there i s administrative concern about the need f o r information re-garding the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c l i e n t s . In p a r t i c u l a r , there i s the question of whether or not the service delivery patterns i n the Main O f f i c e match the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c l i e n t s ap-proaching the Agency and t h e i r service needs, and whether these factors d i f f e r between the Main and branch o f f i c e s . The Family Service Centres, established i n 1928, i s now composed of a Main O f f i c e , plus a number of branch and neighborhood o f f i c e s , o f f e r i n g service on a non-sectarian basis to families and individuals r e s i d i n g i n Vancouver proper, the University Endowment Lands, Burnaby, Richmond, and North and West Vancouver. As a member agency of the Family Service Association of America, i t s essential purpose i s to "contribute to harmonious family i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , to strengthen p o s i t i v e values i n family l i f e , and to promote healthy personality de-velopment and sa t i s f a c t o r y s o c i a l functioning of various family 2 members." ( 1 0 , p. 3) This general goal i s supported by the con s t i t u t i o n of the Agency. ( 8 ) Casework services, day-care, homemaker and camping services are the p r i n c i p a l tools used to help families d i r e c t l y . In addition, the Agency p a r t i c i -pates at various l e v e l s i n programs of a s o c i a l planning and neighborhood development nature. Three branch o f f i c e s have been established - the North Shore o f f i c e i n 1937, the Burnaby o f f i c e i n 1962, and the Richmond o f f i c e i n 1966. I t has been assumed that these of-f i c e s would not only have the advantages of being more v i s i b l e and accessible to the c l i e n t , but that agency personnel would more readi l y be able to understand and become involved i n the spec i a l features of t h e i r part of the community which enhanced or impinged upon family l i f e . At t h i s time, the Main and branch o f f i c e s o f f e r e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r services. However, the question now posed i s whether there are s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ferences i n the c l i e n t population which should be re f l e c t e d i n the nature of the service offered. Several previous i n t e r n a l studies have been undertaken by the Agency, which provide information related to the present project. Two research proj'ects were completed i n I 9 6 0 . "A Caseload Analysis," prepared under the auspices of the Agency, surveyed a l l cases open i n June, I 9 6 0 , i n which three or more interviews had been given. ( 6 ) This project made use of the "Multi-problem Check L i s t " devised by the Research Department of the Community Chest and Council for use i n a survey of the so-called "multi-problem" families i n the Greater Vancouver Area. ( 6 , p. 2) The res u l t s suggested that the Agency was "serving a representative cross section of occupations," as compared with the general population of the Province, although with a s l i g h t l y higher than average proportion of profession-a l s . ( 6 , Chart 2 f f . p. 2) In a Master of Social Work Thesis completed i n I 9 6 0 , Eva Mildred Porter studied "Intake P r i o r i t i e s and C r i t e r i a i n a Family Service Agency — A Survey of Waiting L i s t Cases and Administrative Implications." ( 1 9 ) Porter's sample included only the intake i n the Main O f f i c e . She analysed many factors, i n part looking at the socioeconomic class of the c l i e n t e l e . She does not use an instrument s i m i l a r to the one used i n the present study and therefore comparison i s not possible. How-ever, her res u l t s are as follows: Male c l i e n t s : White C o l l a r 20$ S k i l l e d 26.25$ Semi-skilled 30.25$ Unskilled 14.5$ Female c l i e n t s : Business or Professional 25$ C l e r i c a l and Sales 50$ Semi-skilled or unsk i l l e d 25$ ( 1 9 , p. 31 f f ) In September, 1964 , the Agency administration undertook an "Area Analysis" at the request of i t s Board of Directors i n order to as s i s t the Board i n future planning and l o c a t i o n of Agency services. ( 9 ) The monthly caseload s t a t i s t i c s provided 4 the data on which the study was based. The report analysed some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c l i e n t s served, and supports the pre-vious findings that the Agency serves low-income families as well as the middle and upper income groups. In a more recent informal study, e n t i t l e d "Survey of Main O f f i c e Intake - November, 1 9 6 6 , " Florence V. Clayden, M.S.W., Intake Supervisor, analysed that month's intake i n the Main O f f i c e , describing many c l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . ( 3 ) This study provided the Agency with considerable up-to-date i n f o r -mation about the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Main Of f i c e c l i e n t e l e , but did not provide any comparative information regarding the branch o f f i c e s . The present research project selects four character-i s t i c s of those approaching the Agency and examines them i n d e t a i l - socioeconomic status, stage i n the family l i f e cycle, 1 2 service requested, and type of approach. Data coverxng these items was secured from a l l persons approaching the Main Of f i c e , and Burnaby and North Shore branch o f f i c e s between October 1 6 , 1 9 6 7 and November 1 0 , 1 9 6 7 . The Richmond branch o f f i c e was not included i n the research project because i t i s recently established and has not b u i l t up a substantial c l i e n t body. x S e r v i c e requested i s divided into three categories: ( l ) Information-referral, ( 2 ) Concrete services, ( 3 ) Counsel-l i n g . ^Type of approach - d i r e c t , r e f e r r i n g to a personal approach and c o l l a t e r a l , r e f e r r i n g to an approach made on behalf of another person. 5 The project has a number of l i m i t a t i o n s , but most p a r t i c u l a r l y i t i s l i m i t e d i n scope. Because of the amount of time available, the s i z e of the sample i s r e l a t i v e l y small and i t was not possible to undertake exploration of c l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n any breadth or- depth. It must be regarded, therefore, as only a preliminary and e s s e n t i a l l y s t a t i s t i c a l overview of four c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the persons making an i n i t i a l approach to the Agency. No attempt was made to assess such important features as problem presented, capacity or motivation. A large body of l i t e r a t u r e exists regarding these very c r i t i c a l c l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For example, Ripple has explored motivation and capacity, and the problem-classifica-t i o n area, i n depth. (21) Other researchers and p r a c t i t i o n e r s have dealt with such c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as c l i e n t motivation and expectation.^ Such studies provide valuable background and insight about c l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a conceptual base for studies i n depth within i n d i v i d u a l agencies. I t i s hoped that although the present project i s l i m i t e d i n scope, i t w i l l provide a research pattern and a possible base on which further material can be developed. A general hypothesis f o r t h i s project was posed as follows: That there are s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the Main O f f i c e , North Shore and Burnaby branches of the Family Service Centres of Greater Vancouver i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 1-For examples of such material, see Oxley (17), Levinger (15), and Rosenfeld (23). 6 of those requesting service, the nature of t h e i r request and the type of approach to the Agency. While the main purpose of t h i s project i s the t e s t i n g of hypotheses, a secondary goal i s an evaluation of the ap-p l i c a b i l i t y of the two instruments used - the Blishen Occupational Class Scale and the Duvall Family L i f e Cycle Model - to t h i s Agency s e t t i n g . The report i s written i n f i v e sections: i n addition to t h i s f i r s t introductory section, Section II describes the methodology, Section III presents the findings i n d e t a i l , Section IV discusses the findings, i n d i c a t i n g l i m i t a t i o n s and possible d i s t o r t i o n s , and Section V contains conclusions and recommendations. SECTION II METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY This section describes the method used i n the project. I t includes statements about the se l e c t i o n of sample, the data schedule, the rationale regarding the instruments used, and the operational assumptions underlying the project. Sampling Design The research design i s a cross-sectional survey i n which an attempt i s being made to esta b l i s h associations be-tween several variables at one point i n time. I t does not allow firm inferences as to time order of variables, which, however, are not f e l t to be of s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h i s study. The study sample consisted of a l l approaches^ that were made to the Agency's Main, Burnaby, and North Shore of-f i c e s within a period of four weeks of working days from 9:00 a.m., Monday, October 16th to 5:00 p.m., Friday, November 10th, 1967. Agency s t a f f , and i n p a r t i c u l a r Miss F. V. Clayden, M.S.W., Intake Supervisor, and the two branch supervisors, considered that t h i s period would o f f e r a "typxcal" cross-section of intake, coming as i t does after the summer holiday ^"Approach" refers to a telephone contact, correspondence, and "drop-in," i . e . persons who c a l l i n at an o f f i c e without appointment. 2 Really no month i s " t y p i c a l " - there appear to be seasonal, public r e l a t i o n s and other variations i n intake. 8 i s over, and at a time when children have s e t t l e d into school. Agency s t a f f anticipated a sample of approximately 2 8 0 during t h i s period - Main O f f i c e , 2 0 0 ; North Shore, 5 0 ; Burnaby, 3 0 . I t was o r i g i n a l l y planned that enquiries answered by the receptionist at the switchboard i n the Main O f f i c e would be excluded from the sample. However, after considerable d i s -cussion and consultation with Miss Clayden, i t was decided to include these enquiries because of t h e i r p o t e n t i a l s i g n i f i -cance. A data schedule was drawn up for completion on the date the approach was made i n order to ensure accuracy and to eliminate possible errors, (see Appendix A) I t was i n i t i a l l y intended that t h i s schedule would be f i l l e d i n by Agency per-sonnel ( i . e . case aide or s o c i a l worker) taking the main intake r o l e . However, with the i n c l u s i o n of switchboard enquiries, schedules were also completed by the re c e p t i o n i s t s . Data C o l l e c t i o n Models The schedule provides a model for the study of socio-economic status of the c l i e n t e l e . For t h i s purpose, the Blishen Occupational Class Scale was selected.-'- The scale i s based on the 1 9 5 1 Canadian Decennial Census. "In t h i s scale, The scale i s divided into seven ranked categories, as follows: Class 1 - higher professionals, Class 2 - lower professionals, Class 3 - higher paid white c o l l a r and a few higher blue c o l l a r workers, Class 4 - higher paid blue c o l l a r s and lower paid white c o l l a r , Class 5 - s k i l l e d tradesmen, Class 6 - higher paid semi-skilled and labouring jobs, Class 7 -u n s k i l l e d and labouring jobs. ( 2 0 , p. 1 6 1 ) (Appendix B) 9 a s t a n d a r d s c o r e f o r each o f t h e 1951 o c c u p a t i o n s combines average income and average y e a r s o f s c h o o l i n g , and p r o v i d e s t h e b a s i s f o r a rank o r d e r o f t h e o c c u p a t i o n s and d i v i s i o n s i n t o seven c l a s s e s . " (20, p. 160) B l i s h e n p o i n t s out t h a t t h e rank o r d e r o f o c c u p a t i o n s c o r r e l a t e s h i g h l y w i t h t h e rank o r d e r o f p r e s t i g e a c c o r d i n g t o a v a i l a b l e p r e s t i g e s t u d i e s , ( l , p. 479) The S c a l e has p r o v i d e d r e s e a r c h e r s w i t h a u s e f u l i n s t r u m e n t and was used e x t e n s i v e l y by John P o r t e r i n h i s comprehensive a n a l y s i s o f s o c i a l c l a s s and power i n Canada i n 1964. (20) S i n c e i t was d e v e l o p e d as l o n g ago as 1951> i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y i s q u e s t i o n e d t o d a y i n view o f t h e r a p i d change d u r i n g t h e l a s t decade i n economic and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . B l i s h e n h i m s e l f p o i n t s out two p o s s i b l y l i m i t i n g f a c t o r s -s h i f t s i n t h e b a l a n c e between s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d w o r k e r s , and o t h e r s h i f t s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s between o c c u p a t i o n s , ( l , p. 480) N o n e t h e l e s s , s i n c e t h i s i s t h e o n l y Canadian measure-ment i n s t r u m e n t o f s o c i a l c l a s s a v a i l a b l e , i t was d e c i d e d t o use t h e S c a l e , d e s p i t e t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s . The s c h e d u l e makes use o f t h e D u v a l l F a m i l y L i f e C y c l e model. (Appendix C) T h i s model i s based on American r e s e a r c h and s t a t i s t i c s a p p l i e d i n a framework o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l t h e o r y . I n t h i s model, f a m i l i e s a r e c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o f a m i l y l i f e s t a g e s based on t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p o f e v o l u t i o n a r y sequences o f f a m i l y l i f e and t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l t a s k s f a c e d a t each s t a g e . The dynamics o f f a m i l y i n t e r a c t i o n a r e emphasized as t h e y change t h r o u g h o u t t h e l i f e c y c l e o f t h e n u c l e a r f a m i l y . The 10 i n t e r n a l Agency studies described i n Section I support the use of a family l i f e stage model. Both the "Caseload Analy-s i s " and the Porter thesis found that S0% of the families being served had children i n the home, (6, Chart 1 ; 19, p. 25) and the other two studies, "An Area Analysis" and the Clayden intake study, supported t h i s f i n d i n g . One disadvantage i n using t h i s model i s the overlapping of the stages. In addi-t i o n , as Rowe points out, t h i s i s a c h i l d focussed model which pre-supposes that any problems are related d i r e c t l y to the children. (24) Because the model has no category for c h i l d l e s s persons, except those married le s s than two years, i t was necessary to add one to the data schedule. As indicated i n Section I (p. 4), a simple model for service requested was devised. Unlike the family l i f e stage and socioeconomic factors sought, t h i s model, rather than being based on concrete information, requires a judgement on the part of the respondent. I t was f e l t that the data gath-ered i n t h i s section would be p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant i n evalu-ating the appropriateness of the services offered i n the three o f f i c e s i n r e l a t i o n to the expectations of the c l i e n t e l e coming to them. The l a s t section of the schedule d i f f e r e n t i a t e s the type of approach - i . e . d i r e c t or c o l l a t e r a l . This variable was added after the tes t run following consultation with Miss Clayden, and other Agency s t a f f , who suggested that t h i s might be a point of difference between the three o f f i c e s . Informa-1 1 t i o n regarding t h i s variable i s of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to the Agency as a follow up to the Clayden study of November, 1 9 6 6 -which revealed a r a t i o of s e l f r e f e r r a l s to c o l l a t e r a l of two to one. ( 3 ) Operational Procedures Both before and during the data c o l l e c t i o n phase, members of the research team maintained close l i a i s o n with Agency s t a f f at a l l three o f f i c e s . Many pertinent suggestions and comments were received which have assisted the research team i n developing greater insight i n evaluating the data. I t i s believed that the maintenance of good communication between the research team and the three o f f i c e s increased the l i k e l i h o o d that the schedule would be completed i n a consis-tent and standardized manner. A memo (see Appendix D) was sent to a l l s t a f f i n the Agency explaining the purpose of the study, g i v i n g directions as to the completion of the schedule, and a b r i e f description of the rationale for each model. The branch o f f i c e super-visors and intake supervisor i n the Main O f f i c e were requested to be responsible f o r d i s t r i b u t i n g and c o l l e c t i n g the sched-ules and for g i v i n g consultation. A one day t e s t run of the schedule was made at the three o f f i c e s . As a r e s u l t , a number of problems were located and suggestions were received from the respondents. Subse-quently some minor changes were made. 12 The unstructured approach was used - thus allowing the intake workers to exercise t h e i r own interviewing tech-niques and to use t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n i n obtaining the informa-t i o n . Operational assumptions The research project i s based on the following assumptions: (a) that under supervision of the intake supervisor and d i s t r i c t supervisors, a l l s t a f f involved would be equally-able to complete the data schedule competently. (b) that a l l s t a f f at the Main and branch o f f i c e s would follow instructions regarding the completion of the data schedule i n a consistent manner. Plan of Data Analysis The schedule was so set up that i t s data could be easi l y coded f o r a computer run. The computer assisted by breaking the data down into (a) frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n , (b) horizontal and v e r t i c a l percentage tables and (c) calculated values. A f t e r a careful analysis of the computer r e s u l t s i t was thought that c e r t a i n manipulations of data were per-tinent as some expected frequencies i n some contingency tables were le s s than 5. In order to increase those expected f r e -quencies l e s s than 5 the data was s t a t i s t i c a l l y manipulated by combining categories. (Appendix E) In the investigation of the major hypothesis under which t h i s study i s conducted, information from a l l three o f f i c e s was grouped under four major variables. The basic plan was to run the three o f f i c e s against each other within each of these variables and further attempt to run the v a r i -ables against each other to te s t for interdependence. SECTION I I I PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS The t o t a l population of t h i s study included 411 ap-proaches made to the Agency during the data c o l l e c t i o n period. This number was much higher than the Agency expectation of 280 and t h i s , i n i t s e l f , constitutes a s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g f o r the p r a c t i t i o n e r . In addition, i t was found that intake at the Main O f f i c e accounted for a l i t t l e more than half (53.28/o) of a l l approaches to the Agency, while Burnaby intake accounted for 1 3 . 6 3 $ and North Shore, for 3 3 - 0 9 $ . 241 of a l l approaches were completely c l a s s i f i a b l e , and the remaining number were applicable only i n s p e c i f i c areas of the analysis because of incomplete information. TABLE I TOTAL SAMPLE OF COMPLETED AND INCOMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES Completed Incompleted No. Main 151 122 273 Burnaby 33 16 49 North Shore 57 32 89 Total 241 170 411 The large number of incomplete schedules, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the Main Of f i c e , can be explained i n terms of the ro l e of the switchboard . A further breakdown of the data revealed that the switchboard i n the Main O f f i c e received 76 of the 122 approaches for which incomplete schedules were f i l l e d out. In assessing the value of the trends that appeared i n the data, each variable w i l l be: discussed i n turn, as they appear on the schedule. (Appendix A) Socioeconomic Status TABLE 2 DISTRICT vs SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS - SWITCHBOARD INCLUDED Socioeconomic Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No. Main 3 22 21 9 28 31 37 151 Burnaby 1 6 1 2 5 11 7 33 North Shore 1 11 14 4 14 8 5 57 Total 5 39 36 15 47 50 49 241 % 2.07 16.18 14.94 6.22 19.50 20.75 20.33 100$ In considering socioeconomic status, i t can be stated generally that the population coming to the Agency during the period of data c o l l e c t i o n f e l l predominantly into the lower socioeconomic classes. This d i s t r i b u t i o n i s evident i n the frequency table presented above. Furthermore, the three o f f i c e s show some differences i n the socioeconomic status of the c l i e n t e l e they serve. Bur-naby serves a very small number of persons i n classes 3 and 4, while the North Shore serves a small number i n classes 6 and 7. (See Appendix B) On the basis of the general impressions of the p r a c t i t i o n e r s that such differences may be meaningful, 16 a further test of interdependence of the variables socio-economic status and the three o f f i c e s was carr i e d out. TABLE 3 DISTRICT vs SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS COMBINED CATEGORIES* SWITCHBOARD INCLUDED Socioeconomic Classes 1 & 2 3 & 4 5 6 7 No. o Main 25 30 28 31 37 151 Burnaby 7 3 5 11 7 33 North Shore 12 18 14 8 5 57 Total 44 51 47 50 49 241 or 18.25 21.16 19.50 20.75 20.33 100$ X 2 = 15.90 P < .05 8 d.f. I t w i l l be seen from the table above that after com-bining classes, t h i s hypothesis was supported. The difference was p a r t i c u l a r l y evident i n the lower proportion of responses obtained i n Classes 6 and 7 i n the North Shore o f f i c e as con-trasted with those i n the Main and Burnaby o f f i c e s . Converse-l y , i n the Main O f f i c e , the larger proportion of c l i e n t s are i n the lower socioeconomic classes i n comparison to the North Shore o f f i c e . The Burnaby o f f i c e c l i e n t e l e are rather evenly spread throughout the seven classes. These findings support the p r a c t i t i o n e r s ' assumptions about the socioeconomic differences i n the c l i e n t e l e coming to *See Appendix E for rationale of combining tables. 17 the three o f f i c e s , and i n p a r t i c u l a r , the impression that the c l i e n t e l e coming to the North Shore o f f i c e are of a higher socioeconomic c l a s s . Further tests therefore were conducted to see i f the socioeconomic status of the c l i e n t population of the North Shore w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than that i n the Main O f f i c e and Burnaby o f f i c e . TABLE 4 DISTRICT GROUP vs SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS COMBINED CATEGORIES Socioeconomic Classes 1 & 2 3 & 4 5 6 7 No. Main and Burnaby 32 33 33 42 44 18 4-, North Shore 12 18 14 8 5 57 Total 44 51 47 50 49 241 X 2 = 12.944 P < .02 4 d.f • This hypothesis was c l e a r l y supported, therefore, i t can be said that the socioeconomic variable i s a discriminating one i n i d e n t i f y i n g c l i e n t differences i n the three o f f i c e s . Family L i f e Cycle Stages Table 5 which follows indicates that the greatest num-ber of approaches made to the agency were made by those fami-l i e s with school aged or adolescent children. I t indicates further that the largest number are from stage 5 (adolescents) p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the North Shore, and the le a s t , from stage 1 18 TABLE 5 DISTRICT vs FAMILY LIFE CYCLE STAGES SWITCHBOARD INCLUDED Family L i f e Cycle Stages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No. Main 10 17 19 35 35 19 10 16 19 180 Burnaby 0 1 1 9 8 5 1 3 2 36 North Shore 2 10 11 18 22 5 1 3 2 74 Total 12 28 37 62 65 29 12 22 23 290 % 4.14 9.66 12.76 21.38 22.41 10 4.14 7.59 7.93 100% X 2 = 20.978 P < .2 16 d.f. (married l e s s than two years) and stage 7 (middle years). In comparison, the Main O f f i c e receives a large number of c a l l s from those i n stage 9> (families without children, single per-sons) a category which i s not included i n the o r i g i n a l Duvall model. (See Appendix C) It was wondered, then, whether there might be s i g n i f i -cant differences i n the l i f e cycle stages of the c l i e n t e l e population among the three o f f i c e s . (Table 6) This hypothesis, however, was rejected when a l l three o f f i c e s were run independently against one another. However, there seemed to be some differences i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n between the North Shore o f f i c e and the other two o f f i c e s . The s i g n i f i -cance of t h i s was tested also. (Table 7) 19 TABLE 6 DISTRICT vs FAMILY LIFE CYCLE STAGES COMBINED CATEGORIES, SWITCHBOARD INCLUDED Family L i f e Cycle Stages 1&2&3 4 5 6 & 7 8 & 9 No. Main Burnaby North Shore 46 8 23 35 9 18 35 8 22 29 6 6 35 5 5 180 36 74 Total % 77 26.56 62 21.38 65 22.41 41 14.14 45 15.52 290 100% X 2 = 12. 27 P < .2 8.d.f. TABLE 7 DISTRICT GROUP vs FAMILY LIFE CYCLE STAGES COMBINED CATEGORIES, SWITCHBOARD INCLUDED Family L i f e Cycle Stages 1&2&3 4 5 6 & 7 8 & 9 No. Main and Burnaby 54 44 43 35 40 216 North Shore 23 18 22 6 5 74 Total 77 62 65 41 45 290c X 2 =11.08 P < .05 4 d.f. These findings demonstrate that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the c l i e n t e l e coming to the North Shore o f f i c e . This gives some support for the general hypothesis of d i f f e r -20 ences i n the l i f e cycle stages of those approaching the three o f f i c e s . The differences, i n p a r t i c u l a r , seem to l i e i n stage 5, with the North Shore receiving a larger number of families with adolescents than the other two o f f i c e s . GRAPH 1. Percentage 100$ 35 -I 5 -0 3 4 5 FAMILY LIFE CYCLE STAGES PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY LIFE CYCLE STAGES 3, 4, and 5 IN THE THREE OFFICES History: Total Percentages for Stages: Main Main = 49.04$ Burnaby Burnaby = 66.66$ North Shore o — o — o — North Shore = 68.91$ 21 The graph above i n d i c a t e s how l a r g e a p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n f a l l s i n t o s t a g e s 3> 4, and 5. I n a d d i -t i o n , t h i s c l u s t e r i n g i s b r o k e n down t o i n d i c a t e t h e d i f f e r -ences i n t h e p e r c e n t a g e f i g u r e s o f t h e c l i e n t e l e i n t h e s e c l a s s e s f o r t h e t h r e e o f f i c e s . I t may be noted t h a t i n terms o f l i f e c y c l e s t a g e s , t h e c l i e n t e l e coming t o t h e F a m i l y S e r v i c e C e n t r e s a r e p r i -m a r i l y f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n s t i l l i n t h e home. I n t e r e s t -i n g l y , t h e aged do not seem t o be s e e k i n g o u t t h e Agency's s e r v i c e s . A g a i n , t h e s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e between t h e N o r t h Shore o f f i c e and t h e o t h e r two o f f i c e s i s apparent i n terms o f t h i s model. S e r v i c e Requested TABLE 8 DISTRICT vs SERVICE REQUESTED - SWITCHBOARD INCLUDED S e r v i c e Requested I n f o r m a t i o n and/or R e f e r r a l C o n c r e t e C o u n s e l l i n g No. Main Burnaby N o r t h Shore 168 18 33 36 9 11 69 22 45 273 49 89 T o t a l % 219 53.28 56 13 .63 136 33.09 411 100$ X 2 = 26.662 P< .001 4 d.f. The frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n above indicates that the requests from the t o t a l population were l a r g e l y for informa-t i o n / r e f e r r a l . In addition, counselling services were reques-ted more often than concrete services when the switchboard i s included. I t i s also evident from t h i s table that the Main O f f i c e received proportionately more c a l l s for information/ r e f e r r a l than the other two o f f i c e s . In contrast, the North Share and Burnaby o f f i c e s received proportionately more c a l l s f o r counselling. I t can be seen from t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n , that the assumption of s i g n i f i c a n t differences e x i s t i n g i n the kinds of requests received by the three o f f i c e s was c l e a r l y supported. The frequency table above indicates where these differences occurred, i . e . there were more requests to the North Shore fo r counselling. TABLE 9 DISTRICT GROUP COMBINED CATEGORIES vs SERVICE REQUESTED Service Requested Information and/or Referral Concrete Counselling Main & Burnaby 110 45 91 248 North Shore 33 11 45 89 Total 143 56 136 335 X 2 = 5.233 P < .1 2 d.f. As can be seen, with the switchboard excluded the r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis are l e s s c l e a r cut. In order to examine f u r t h e r , t h e i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s change i n s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l , a f u r t h e r t e s t was pr o p o s e d r e l a t i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e q u e s t f o r s e r v i c e i n t h e N o r t h Shore o f f i c e t o t h a t o f t h e Main O f f i c e and Burnaby o f f i c e w i t h t h e e x c l u s i o n o f t h e Main O f f i c e s w i t c h b o a r d . The r e a d e r w i l l n o t e t h a t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s has been a c c e p t e d , a l t h o u g h t h e r e s u l t s a r e somewhat i n c o n c l u s i v e . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t i n t h e f i r s t week o f d a t a c o l l e c t i o n , a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n t h e N o r t h Shore O f f i c e about t h e r o l e o f t h e s w i t c h b o a r d r e s u l t e d i n t h e o m i s s i o n o f some c a l l s made t o them f o r i n f o r m a t i o n / r e f e r r a l . These o m i s s i o n s may have skewed t h e d a t a somewhat, and i t i s f e l t t h a t a f u r t h e r t e s t i n g w i t h a l a r g e r sample and more r e f i n e d i n s t r u m e n t s may y i e l d more s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s . The f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n above i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e were a h i g h number o f i n f o r m a t i o n / r e f e r r a l c a l l s coming t o t h e Main O f f i c e . Because o f t h e p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d r o l e o f t h e s w i t c h b o a r d i n t h e Main O f f i c e , i t was wondered whether t h i s p r o p o r t i o n of r e q u e s t s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t i n t h e o t h e r two o f f i c e s , when t h e s w i t c h b o a r d was e x c l u d e d . ( T a b l e 10) No s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g a r o s e from t h i s , a g a i n p o i n t -i n g up t h e u n i q u e r o l e o f t h e s w i t c h b o a r d i n t h e Main O f f i c e . Because o f t h e number o f c o u n s e l l i n g c a l l s coming t o t h e N o r t h Shore o f f i c e , i t was p o s t u l a t e d t h a t t h e r e would be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r number o f r e q u e s t s f o r c o u n s e l l i n g from t h e c l i e n t s o f r e l a t i v e l y h i g h e r s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s . ( T h i s t a b l e i s n o t i n c l u d e d . ) 24 TABLE 10 DISTRICT GROUP COMBINED CATEGORIES vs SERVICE REQUESTED SWITCHBOARD EXCLUDED Service Requested Information and/or Referral Concrete Counselling No. Main 92 36 69 197 Burnaby and North Shore 51 20 65 138 Total 143 56 136 335 X 2 = 5-447 P < . 1 2 d.f. The X derived from t h i s was s i g n i f i c a n t at only the . 5 l e v e l , and i t can be seen from t h i s information that there appears to be l i t t l e interdependence between these two v a r i -ables. This f i n d i n g i s i n d i r e c t contradiction to the assump-tions of the p r a c t i t i o n e r s , for there i s a strong f e e l i n g at the Agency that c l i e n t s of a higher socioeconomic status w i l l request counselling services. Noting that there were no relationships between re-quests for service and socioeconomic status, i t was held that there would be a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between request for service c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and the family l i f e cycle stages c l a s -s i f i c a t i o n . (Table 11) The r e s u l t s of t h i s test indicate that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship evidenced between these two variables, and i t may be noted that t h i s f i n d i n g contradicts impressions held by some agency s t a f f that persons i n c e r t a i n family l i f e c ycle stages w i l l request c e r t a i n kinds of services. TABLE 11 FAMILY LIFE CYCLE STAGES COMBINED CATEGORIES vs SERVICE ; REQUESTED 1 & -2 & 3 4 5 6 & 7 8 & 9 Information and/or Referral 28 27 19 10 21 105 Concrete 10 13 9 7 11 50 Counselling 39 22 37 24 13 135 Total 77 62 65 41 45 290 X 2 = 15.058 P < .1 8 d.f. At t h i s point, no statements can be made about the r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h i s variable to the other two variables d i s -cussed above. The s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t emerging from t h i s analysis i s the high number of information/referral c a l l s coming into the Main O f f i c e , and the ro l e of the switchboard i n processing these c a l l s . Type of Approach A large proportion of approaches to the agency are s e l f - r e f e r r a l s . The s i g n i f i c a n t factor i s that t h i s pattern i s consistent i n a l l three o f f i c e s , i n varying proportions. However, the f i n d i n g that the North Shore o f f i c e has propor-26 TABLE 12 DISTRICT vs TYPE OF APPROACH Type of Approach Direct C o l l a t e r a l No. Main 227 46 273 Burnaby 42 7 49 North Shore 69 20 89 Total 338 73 411 % 83.24 17.76 100$ X 2 = 1.912 P < .5 2 d.f. tion a t e l y more c o l l a t e r a l c a l l s than the other two o f f i c e s , l e d to a questioning of the rel a t i o n s h i p between the type of approach and socioeconomic status. No relationship was found between these two variables. However, some i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d -ings appeared when t h i s variable, type of approach, was com-pared to the family l i f e cycle stages model. TABLE 13 TYPE OF APPROACH vs FAMILY LIFE STAGES HORIZONTAL PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION Family L i f e Stages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 $ N o . 56 D i r -ect 3.98 10.62 14.16 22.57 23.01 10.62 3.54 2.21 9.29 226 100 C o l l a -t e r a l 4.69 6.25 7.81 17.19 20.31 7-81 6.25 26.56 3 .13 64 100 % 4.14 9.66 12.76 21.38 22.41 10.00 4.14 7.59 7.93 290 100 The percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n table above indicates that while the general d i s t r i b u t i o n f a l l s heavily i n category 2, i . e . s e l f - r e f e r r a l , a s t r i k i n g discrepancy exists i n stage 8, i . e . aged persons. The aged seem to approach the Agency through a c o l l a t e r a l r e f e r r a l process. SECTION IV DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS The data analysis i n the previous Section indicates that, i n support of the general hypothesis, there tends to be some differences between the Main and branch o f f i c e s i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c l i e n t populations they serve. These differences are most c l e a r l y seen i n socioeconomic status. While there are marked s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the c l i e n t s approach-ing the Main and Burnaby o f f i c e s , those who approach the North Shore o f f i c e are of a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher c l a s s . In terms of the second c h a r a c t e r i s t i c studied, namely family l i f e stage, there are proportionately more persons from stages 3 (families with preschool children), 4 families with school children), and 5 (families with teenagers) coming to the North Shore o f f i c e than i s the case i n the other two o f f i c e s . This f i n d i n g supports the assumptions of most Agency workers. At the same time, the North Shore o f f i c e receives markedly fewer requests from stage 8 (aging f a m i l i e s ) , that i s , 4-05% of a l l requests, than the Main and Burnaby o f f i c e s which receive 8.89% and 8.33% respectively. Regarding request for service, each o f f i c e r e f l e c t s a unique c o n s t e l l a t i o n of approaches - information/referral predominates i n the Main Off i c e ; counselling i n the North Shore; and a combination of counselling and concrete services i n Burnaby. 2 9 The data concerning type of approach also revealed some differences between the three o f f i c e s . The i n t e r e s t i n g factor emerging here i s that the North Shore o f f i c e i s receiv-ing a greater proportion of c o l l a t e r a l r e f e r r a l s than the other two o f f i c e s with Burnaby r e c e i v i n g a preponderance of di r e c t approaches. The general l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study - time and sample s i z e - have been discussed i n Section I, and as well, s p e c i f i c l i m i t a t i o n s and possible d i s t o r t i o n s are outlined i n Section I I I i n conjunction with the variables to which they pertain. Allowing for these factors, the research team consider that the general hypothesis can be accepted. Further c l a r i f i c a t i o n and reinforcement of these f i n d -ings could no doubt be achieved i n a follow-up research study using a longer time span and therefore securing a larger sample. A future study, i n which the in c l u s i o n of the Rich-mond branch o f f i c e would be more f e a s i b l e , would y i e l d a f u l l e r comparative analysis of differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s of the c l i e n t s coming to the Family Service Centres. This study also yielded data showing a general picture of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those persons approaching the Agency. F i r s t l y , the c l i e n t s are large l y from the lower socioeconomic classes. V a l i d comparison with previous Agency studies (out-l i n e d i n Section I ) , i s not possible because of the d i s -s i m i l a r i t i e s of the instruments used. 30 Secondly, i t was found that most persons coming to the Agency for service are engaged i n the process of c h i l d rearing, that i s , they have children ranging i n age from pre-schoolers to adolescents. This f i n d i n g f u l l y confirms that of the pre-vious i n t e r n a l Agency studies. (3,6,19) I t should be p a r t i c u -l a r l y noted that aged persons constitute only 7.59$ of a l l approaches, contrary to the opinions expressed by Agency s t a f f . With regard to the t h i r d variable studied,that of request for service, a most s t r i k i n g f i n d i n g emerged, that i s , that there was a high proportion of information/referral c a l l s coming to a l l the o f f i c e s of the Agency i n contrast to c a l l s requesting either concrete services or counselling. I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y of inte r e s t to note the key r o l e the switchboard plays i n the Main Of f i c e i n processing a very large percentage of these information/referral approaches. The study revealed that s e l f - r e f e r r a l i s the most common type of approach to the Agency, except for the aged who were more frequently referred by a c o l l a t e r a l person. Allowing for differences i n d e f i n i t i o n and implication, t h i s confirms Miss Clayden fs 1966 f i n d i n g of t h i s pattern i n the Main O f f i c e . (3) A p p l i c a b i l i t y of models (a) The Blishen Occupational Class Scale I n i t i a l l y , some d i f f i c u l t i e s were encountered i n apply-in g the Blishen Occupational Class Scale to the sample data. 31 Because of the changes i n occupational system i n the years since t h i s was compiled, some occupations were found i n the sample that were not l i s t e d i n the Scale. In other cases, i n s u f f i c i e n t q u a l i f y i n g information was available to enable c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as the Scale presented several alternate c l a s -s i f i c a t i o n p o s s i b i l i t i e s . For these cases, the researchers u t i l i z e d a two-judge team who c l a s s i f i e d on the basis of simi-l a r i t y to occupations l i s t e d on the scale, or i n accordance with present knowledge of the r e l a t i v e prestige, economic and educational factors involved.-*" In addition to t h i s d i f f i c u l t y , the researchers found the application of t h i s Scale time-consuming. Some of t h i s could be overcome by separating the male and female categor-i e s and l i s t i n g them alphabetically. A Scale based on the Metropolitan Vancouver area would be more meaningful. A p a r t i a l analysis of Blishen fs groupings compared to the 1961 Metropolitan Vancouver Area Census i n d i -cates that the percentage of persons f a l l i n g into Classes 1 and 2 i s higher i n Vancouver than i n the 1951 national sample. (2) For example, while John Porter found 1% i n Class 1 and 10$ i n Class 2, the r e s u l t s of the p a r t i a l analysis i n -*-For example, one occupation encountered twelve times i n the sample data was that of "salesman." This occupation was c l a s s i f i e d as Class 3 on the basis of s i m i l a r i t y to "commer-c i a l t r a v e l l e r , " rather than i n Class 5 as "salesclerk," and t h i s was an attempt to eliminate possible sources of error or omission i n the judgement of the team. Vancouver area showed 1.5% i n Class 1, and 17% i n Class 2. (20, p. 163) This gives a beginning i n d i c a t i o n of some of the changes that must be incorporated to cope with the prob-lems of urbanization and increased i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , and to provide for the unique d i s t r i b u t i o n of socioeconomic classes i n Metropolitan Vancouver. (b) The Duvall Family L i f e Cycle I t was found that the eight-stage Duvall Family L i f e Cycle model, with the addition of one other class to encom-pass c h i l d l e s s persons, could be applied to the sample data with a minimum amount of time or d i f f i c u l t y by the respon-dents. There was only one borderline case which could not be c l a s s i f i e d . That the model f , f i t " the sample data so well suggests that i t might be a useful model for Family Service Centres to adopt i n c l a s s i f y i n g c l i e n t e l e during the intake procedure. The stages i n the model incorporate "developmental tasks" or global ideas of the problems postulated to exist within each FairuLy L i f e Stage. These could be used as des-c r i p t i v e and diagnostic guidelines for the provision of over-a l l services to meet the needs of the family. (c) Request for Service Model After the f i r s t week of data c o l l e c t i o n , i t was found that some confusion had arisen among intake s t a f f with regard to c l a s s i f y i n g on t h i s variable i n borderline cases where more than one kind of request seemed to be involved. Further 33 c l a r i f i c a t i o n was requested and accordingly a memo o u t l i n i n g the basis f o r making the judgement on t h i s variable was directed to s t a f f . (Appendix F) SECTION V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Previous sections have outlined i n d e t a i l the findings of t h i s study, and have made some s p e c i f i c proposals for fu r -ther research. At t h i s point, however, some implications could be drawn regarding present Agency policy and procedures. Of p a r t i c u l a r importance i s the general f i n d i n g that there are differences between the c l i e n t s of the three o f f i c e s . The research team believes that at l e a s t three factors may be influe n c i n g these differences. F i r s t l y , the s o c i a l and eco-nomic features of the area served may well be decisive, as i s assumed by Agency s t a f f . In p a r t i c u l a r , the North Shore might well be drawing a higher socioeconomic group situated, as i t i s , i n an area of somewhat higher socioeconomic standing. A second consideration may be the degree of Agency involvement i n the community. That the North Shore o f f i c e reveals the most marked difference i s thought to be a consequence of the fact that t h i s O f f i c e - one of long standing i n the community -i s more f u l l y involved and integrated into the community. A t h i r d factor, suggested by the fact that the Main O f f i c e re-ceives the highest proportion of requests for information/ r e f e r r a l services, may be that the rol e s of the o f f i c e s are perceived d i f f e r e n t l y by the community, with the Main O f f i c e carrying a more general r o l e , and the branch o f f i c e s more s p e c i f i c r o l e s . 3 5 The extent of differences between o f f i c e s and t h e i r underlying causes could well be explored further. However, present r e s u l t s point to the need to look at service delivery patterns with a view to varying them according to the p a r t i -cular c l i e n t e l e being served i n order to provide more e f f e c t i v e service. In terms of the general c l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n a l l three o f f i c e s , a number of implications for Agency po l i c y might be suggested. With a preponderance of c l i e n t s i n the lower socioeconomic bracket, the Agency might ask i f services now available are meeting the needs of t h i s c l i e n t group. Are some changes c a l l e d f o r , such as an increase i n concrete services? Do such c l i e n t s continue to p a r t i c i p a t e i n casework plans? Would further decentralization a s s i s t i n making ser-vices more accessible? The researchers believe that i t would be of i n t e r e s t to undertake a study i n three to four months to follow up those persons requesting counselling services, i n order to determine the extent to which applicants of d i f -ferent socioeconomic l e v e l s become c l i e n t s of the Agency. From a d i f f e r e n t point of view, i t might be asked whether the Agency as a whole i s now reaching the c l i e n t e l e i t believes i t i s best equipped to serve. The suggestion here i s that the main service offered by the Agency, counselling, may be more e f f e c t i v e with c l i e n t s of middle and higher socio-economic classes. I f t h i s i s the case, perhaps the Agency should consider more e f f e c t i v e ways of making i t s services 3§ known and available by undertaking some form of public information program aimed at these classes. The preponderance of applicants with children coming to a l l o f f i c e s suggests that some consideration might be given toward further expansion and supplementation of services for t h i s group, such as increased Family L i f e Education Services. I t i s of special i n t e r e s t to note the minor proportion of aged persons who seek service, as well as the fact that, i n most instances, service was sought by c o l l a t e r a l persons on t h e i r behalf. I t seems then, that i f the aged are to be more f u l l y included i n the Agency's service umbrella, consideration must be given to more e f f e c t i v e ways and means of reaching t h i s group. In terms of service being requested, as was pointed out, a most s t r i k i n g f i n d i n g i s that of the o v e r a l l high pro-portion of information/referral enquiries received. Family Service Centres appears to play an important r o l e i n the com-munity i n providing information about, and r e f e r r a l to, various health, welfare and l e g a l services. The number of these c a l l s seems to point to the need for the Agency to consider what i t s appropriate r o l e as an information-giving Agency should be. What function does information-referral serve i n respect to the purpose of the Agency? I f i t i s appropriate, should i t be incorporated into the structure of the Agency as a f i r s t l i n e function equal to homemaker and day care services. As part of t h i s question, but s p e c i f i c a l l y i n respect to the Main Office, the study has pointed up the large r o l e of the receptionist i n handling information/ r e f e r r a l enquiries. This study i s r e s p e c t f u l l y presented i n the hope that these findings w i l l add to the growing body of knowledge concerning c l i e n t s and service patterns of the Family Service Centres of Greater Vancouver Area. A P P E N D I X A DATA SCHEDULE SUBJECT NUMBER 38 1 2 3 CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FAMILY SERVICE CENTRES OF GREATER VANCOUVER U.B.C. STUDENT RESEARCH PROJECT Please complete this form for every approach to the agency, either by telephone or "drop-in", from 9 a.m., Monday, October 16, to Friday, Nov.10, 1967. Please do so on the day the approach to the agency is made. Please consult your supervisor i f necessary. Thank you very much. D: DISTRICT Main Office ( ) IDENTIFYING DATA Date • . . Name Burnaby ( ) North Shore ( ) Worker's I n i t i a l Surname SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS Christian names Who is the head of the household? Note; Definition of Head of Household - member of family living together under one roof, who is the main source of economic support. IF a woman is separated or divorced, she counts as the head of of the household. Separation must appear to be long-term. What is his or her occupation? . Note; Be sure to get the exact job, not the name of the employer. IF not working now, e.g. unemployed, retired, housewife, state last job. IF a woman has never worked, get the husband's occupation. FAMILY LIFE CYCLE Please put enquirer into one of the following categories: (1) couple without children a, together under two years ( ) b. together over two years ( ) (2) family unit in which the eldest child of either partner is under twenty years of age, living at home or with other parent or relative ( ) IF so, exact birthdate of eldest child Year. Day Mouth (3) family unit in which the eldest child is over twenty and/or has l e f t home but there are younger children living at home ( ) (4) family unit in which a l l children have l e f t home but couple have not yet reached retirement ( ) (5) retired couple or person (6) persons who have never had children IF unable to categorize, state family circumstances SERVICE REQUESTED Please make a judgment of v/hat client wanted o o Information ( ) and/or Referral F: TYPE OF APPROACH Direct approach by ( ) potential applicant Concrete ( ) e.g. homemaker financial Counselling ( ) Collateral approach ( ) CODE 4 - 1 1 2 3 6 -7 -1 2 3 1 2 An Occupational Class Scale [481] APPENDIX B Table 1—Occupations Ranked and Grouped 'According to Combined Standard Scores for Income and Years of Schooling, by Sex, Canada, 1951 ° Occupofion Clots I Sox Scon J u d g e s M 9 0 . 0 D e n t i s t s M 8 2 . 5 P h y s i c i o n s a n d s u r g e o n s M 8 1 . 2 L a w y e r s M 7 8 . 8 E n g i n e e r s , c h e m i c a l M 7 7 . 8 A c t u a r i e s M 7 7 . 6 E n g i n e e r s , m i n i n g M 7 7 . 4 E n g i n e e r s , e l e c t r i c a l M 7 5 . 2 E n g i n e e r s , c i v i l M 7 5 . 0 A r c h i t e c t s M 7 3 . 2 C f a s s 2 S t a t i s t i c i a n s f 7 2 . 9 E n g i n e e r s , m e c h a n i c a l M 7 2 . 6 P r o f e s s o r s M 7 2 . 0 S t o c k a n d b o n d b r o k e r s M 7 0 . 9 V e t e r i n a r i a n s M 6 9 . 8 B u s i n e s s s e r v i c e o f f i c e r s M 6 9 . 5 S t a t i s t i c i a n s M 6 8 . 8 M i n i n g m a n a g e r s M 6 7 . 9 F i n a n c e m a n a g e r s M 6 7 . 7 O s t e o p a t h s a n d c h i r o p r a c t o r s M 6 7 . 3 D i e t i t i a n s F 6 7 . 0 P r o f e s s o r s F 6 6 . 7 C h e m i s t s a n d m e t a l l u r g i s t s M 6 5 . 8 O f f i c e r s , a r m e d f o r c e s M 6 5 . 1 A i r p i l o t s M 6 5 . 0 C h e m i s t s a n d m e t a l l u r g i s t s F 6 4 . 8 A g r i c u l t u r a l p r o f e s s i o n a l s M 6 4 . 8 E l e c t r i c i t y , g a s , a n d w a t e r o f f i c i a l s M 6 4 . 7 O t h e r p r o f e s s i o n s M 6 4 . 0 C o n s t r u c t i o n m a n a g e r s M 6 3 . 8 W h o l e s a l e t r a d e m a n a g e r s M 6 3 . 5 L i b r a r i a n s F 6 3 . 4 A u t h o r s , e d i t o r s , a n d j o u r n a l i s t s M 6 3 . 4 M a n u f a c t u r i n g m a n a g e r s M 6 3 . 0 C o m m u n i t y s e r v i c e w o r k e r s M 6 2 . 4 S o c i a l w e l f a r e w o r k e r s F 6 2 . 2 O s t e o p a t h s a n d c h i r o p r a c t o r s F 6 2 . 2 S : h o o l t e o c h e r s M 6 2 . 2 l i b r a r i a n s M 6 2 . 0 O c c u p a t i o n S e x «. b A c c o u n t a n t s a n d a u d i t o r s M 6 1 . 8 A u t h o r s , e d i t o r s , a n d j o u r n a l i s t s F 6 1 . 4 C l e r g y m e n M 6 1 . 0 D e s i g n e r s , c l o t h i n g M 6 0 . 6 G o v ' t , s e r v i c e o f f i c i a l s M 6 0 . 6 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n m a n a g e r s M 6 0 . 1 F a r m e r s F 5 9 . 4 C o m m u n i t y s e r v i c e w o r k e r s F 5 9 . 1 D i s p a t c h e r s , t r a i n M 5 8 . 5 D e s i g n e r s , c l o t h F 5 8 , 2 I n s u r a n c e a g e n t s M 5 8 . 2 F o r e m e n , c o m m u n i c a t i o n M 5 8 . 1 A d v e r t i s i n g a g e n t s M 5 8 . 0 M a n a g e r s N . E . S . ' M 5 7 . 7 S c h o o l t e a c h e r s F 5 7 . 6 A r t i s t s a n d t e a c h e r s o f a r t M 5 7 . 6 N u r s e s , g r o d u a t e F 5 7 . 4 R e a l e s t a t e a g e n t s a n d d e a l e r s M 5 7 . 0 S o c i a l w e l f a r e w o r k e r s M 5 7 . 0 R e t a i l t r a d e m a n a g e r s M 5 7 . 0 C f a s s 3 A c t o r s F 5 6 . 9 C o m m e r c i a l t r a v e l l e r s M 5 6 . 7 A d v e r t i s i n g a g e n t s F 5 6 . 6 F o r e s t r y m a n a g e r s M 5 6 . 5 A r t i s t s , c o m m e r c i a l F 5 6 . 4 R a d i o a n n o u n c e r s M 5 6 . 4 l a b o r a t o r y t e c h n i c i a n s N . E . S . ' F . 5 6 . 0 A r t i s t s , c o m m e r c i a l M 5 6 . 0 D r a u g h t s m e n M 5 6 . 0 B r o k e r s , a g e n t s , a n d a p p r a i s e r s M 5 6 . 0 I n s p e c t o r s , c o m m u n i c a t i o n M 5 5 . 0 A r t i s t s a n d t e a c h e r s o f a r t ' F 5 5 . 0 S u r v e y o r s M 5 5 . 0 R e c r e a t i o n s e r v i c e o f f i c e r s M 5 4 . 3 P u r c h a s i n g a g e n t s M 5 4 . 8 A g e n t s , t i c k e t s t a t i o n M 5 4 . 3 L a b o r a t o r y t e c h n i c i a n s N . E . S . 6 M 5 4 . 2 S t e n o g r a p h e r s a n d t y p i s t s F 5 4 . 1 C o n d u c t o r s , r a i l w a y M 5 4 . 1 R a d i o o p e r a t o r s M 5 4 . 0 L o c o m o t i v e e n g i n e e r s M 5 4 . 0 P h o t o - e n g r a v e r s M 5 4 . 0 ( c o n t i n u e d ) [482] PAHT VII / SOCIAL S Table 7 — (Con t i nued ) Occupation S . x S c o r e ^ C / a s s 3 ( c o n t i n u e d ) M u s i c t e a c h e r s M 5 3 . 7 T e a c h e r s N . E . S . ' F 5 3 . 6 O f f i c e a p p l i a n c e o p e r a t o r s F 5 3 . 4 T e a c h e r s N . E . S . ' M 5 3 . 4 R e t a i l t r a d e m a n a g e r s F 5 3 . 3 T e l e g r a p h o p e r a t o r s F 5 2 . 9 F o r e m e n , m i n i n g M 5 2 . 8 W i n d o w - d e c o r a t o r s F 5 2 . 3 N u r s e s , g r a d u a t e M 5 2 . 2 A c t o n M 5 2 . 1 S t e n o g r a p h e r s M 5 2 . 0 C f a s s 4 B o o k - k e e p e r s a n d c a s h i e r s F 5 1 . 9 F o r e w o m e n , c o m m u n i c a t i o n F 5 1 . 8 F o r e m e n , m a n u f a c t u r i n g M 5 1 . 8 P h o t o g r a p h e r s M 5 1 . 8 I n s p e c t o r s , c o n s t r u c t i o n M 5 1 . 7 W i n d o w - d e c o r a t o n M 5 1 . 6 T e l e g r a p h o p e r a t o r s M 5 1 . 6 P e t r o l e u m refiners M 5 1 . 6 T o o l m a k e r s M 5 1 . 6 E n g r a v e r s , e x c e p t p h o t o - e n g r a v e r s M 5 1 . 4 U n d e r t a k e r s M 5 1 . 3 O f f i c e c l e r k s F 5 1 . 2 L o c o m o t i v e f i r e m e n M 5 1 . 2 B o o k - k e e p e r s a n d c a s h i e r s M 5 1 . 2 B r a k e m e n , r a i l w a y M 5 1 . 1 P o w e r s t a t i o n o p e r a t o r s M 5 1 . 0 O f f i c e a p p l i a n c e o p e r a t o r s M 5 1 . 0 D o c t o r , d e n t i s t a t t e n d a n t s F 5 0 . 8 M o t i o n p i c t u r e p r o j e c t i o n i s t s M 5 0 . 8 R a d i o r e p a i r m e n M 5 0 . 8 C a p t a i n s , m a t e s , p i l o t s M 5 0 7 F o r e m e n , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n M 5 0 . 7 F o r e m e n , c o m m e r c i a l M 5 0 . 6 P e r s o n a l s e r v i c e o f f i c e r s M 5 0 . 5 C f a s s 5 P a t t e r n m a k e r s M 5 0 . 4 C o m p o s i t o r s M 5 0 . 4 I n s p e c t o r s , m e t a l M 5 0 . 4 P a p e r - m a k e r s M 5 0 . 4 P h o t o g r a p h e r s F 5 0 . 2 P o l i c e m e n M 5 0 . 2 O f f i c e c l e r k s M 5 0 . 2 M e c h a n i c s , a i r p l a n e M 5 0 . 1 I n s p e c t o r s , m e t a l p r o d u c t s F 5 0 . 0 FICATION O c c u p a t i o n Sex S c o r e ' 1 M u s i c t e a c h e r s F 5 0 . 0 F i r e m e n , f i r e d e p o r t m e n t M 4 9 . 8 P r e s s m e n a n d p l o t e p r i n t e r s M 4 9 . 8 T e l e p h o n e o p e r a t o r s . F 4 9 . 6 E l e c t r i c i a n s M 4 9 .6 M a c h i n i s t s , m e t a l M 4 9 .6 L i n e m e n a n d s e r v i c e m e n M 4 9 .4 E n g i n e e r i n g o f f i c e r s ( o n s h i p s ) M 4 9 .4 B a g g a g e m e n M 4 9 .4 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n s p e c t o r s M 4 9 .4 R o l l i n g m i l l m e n M 4 9 .4 A u c t i o n e e r s M 4 9 . 3 I n s p e c t o r s a n d g r a d e r s M 4 9 . 2 F a r m e r s M 4 9 . 2 P h o t o g r a p h i c o c c u p a t i o n s N . E . S . ' M 4 9 . 2 C o l l e c t o r s M 4 9 . 1 D e n t a l m e c h a n i c s M 4 9 . 1 S u l p h i t e c o o k e r s M 4 9 . 0 W i r e d r a w e r s M 4 6 .9 O t h e r r a n k s , a r m e d forces - M 4 6 . 8 E l e c t r o p l a t e's M 4 6 . 8 P l u m b e r s M 4 6 . 8 M o t o r m e n M 4 6 . 7 Q u a r r i e r s M 4 6 .6 M a c h i n e o p e r a t o r s , m e t a l M 4 6 . 3 P o i n t m a k e r s M 4 6 .4 F i l e r s M 4 6 .4 U p h o l s t e r e r s M 4 6 . 3 K n i t t e r s M 4 6 . 3 W o o d i n s p e c t o r s . M . 4 6 . 3 B a r b e r s f 4 6 . 2 M i l l i n e r s F 4 6 . 2 T o b a c c o p r o d u c t s w o r k e r s f 4 6 . 2 F u r n d c e m e n M 4 6 . 2 F u r r i e r s M 4 6 . 2 B r o t h e r s M 4 6 . 1 P a p e r b o x m a k e r s M 4 6 . 1 O t h e r b o o k b i n d i n g workers N . E . S . ' F 4 6 . 0 C o r e m a k e r s M 4 6 . 0 V u l c a n i z e r s M 4 6 . 0 l i q u o r a n d b e v e r a g e w o r k e r s M 4 6 . 0 P o s t m e n M 4 5 . 9 M e a t c a n n e r s f 4 5 . 9 O t h e r u p h o l s t e r i n g w o r k e r s N . E . S . ' f 4 5 . 8 B o o k b i n d e r s f 4 5 . 8 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , s t o r a g e . c o m m u n i c a t i o n w o r k e r s f 4 5 . 8 P o l i s h e r s , m e t a l M 4 5 . 8 ( c o n t i n u e d ) I An Occupational Class Scale [483] Table 1—(Continued) O c c u p a t i o n S e x , b S c o r e O c c u p a t i o n S e x S c o r e ^ C l a s s 5 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S h e e t m e t a l w o r k e r s M 4 7 . 1 F u r r i e r * F 4 5 . 6 S h i p p i n g c l e r k s M 4 7 . 0 S t r u c t u r a l I r o n w o r k e r s M 4 5 . 6 L o g g i n g f o r e m e n M 4 5 . 4 M e c h a n i c s , m o t o r M 4 5 . 6 L a b e l l e r s M 4 5 . 3 T e x t i l e i n s p e c t o r s M 4 5 . 6 N u r s e s , i n t r a i n i n g F 4 5 . 2 C a b i n e t a n d f u r n i t u r e m a k e r s M 4 5 . 5 M e a t c a n n e r s M 4 5 . 2 L o o m f i x e r s M 4 5 . 5 F a r m m a n a g e r s M 4 5 . 2 W e a v e r s , t e x t i l e f 4 5 . 4 P l a s t e r e r s * M B u t c h e r s M 4 5 . 4 T e x t i l e i n s p e c t o r s M 4 5 . 1 M i n e r s M 4 5 . 4 O t h e r p u l p a n d p a p e r w o r k e r s F 4 5 . 1 A s s e m b l e r s , e l e c t r i c a l e q u i p m e n t F 4 8 . 9 O p e r a t o r s , e l e c t r i c s t r e e t Clan 6 r a i l w a y M 4 8 . 8 W i n d e r s a n d w a r p e r s F 4 5 . 0 S t a t i o n a r y e n g i n e e r s M 4 8 . 7 C a r d e r s a n d d r a w i n g f r a m e B o o k b i n d e r s M 4 8 . 6 w o r k e r s F 4 5 . 0 T i r e a n d t u b e b u i l d e r s F 4 8 . 4 S a l e s c l e r k s F 4 5 . 0 C a n v a s s e r s M 4 8 . 2 M o u l d e r s , m e t a l M 4 5 . 0 T e l e p h o n e o p e r a t o r s M 4 8 . 2 N u r s e s , p r a c t i c a l M 4 5 . 0 S w i t c h m e n a n d s i g n a l m e n M 4 8 . 2 C u t t e r s , t e x t i l e g o o d s F 4 4 . 9 O p t i c i a n s M 4 8 . 2 E l e v a t o r t e n d e r s F 4 4 . 8 J e w e l l e r s a n d w a t c h m a k e r s M 4 8 . 2 T a i l o r e s s e s F 4 4 . 8 P e r s o n a l s e r v i c e w o r k e r s F 4 8 . 1 T e x t i l e i n s p e c t o r s F 4 4 . 8 A s s e m b l e r s , e l e c t r i c a l P o t m e n M 4 4 . 8 e q u i p m e n t M 4 8 . 1 T i m b e r m e n M 4 4 . 7 T i r e a n d t u b e b u i l d e r s M 4 8 . 1 P r o s p e c t o r s M 4 4 . 7 M i l l w r i g h t s M 4 8 . 0 O i l e r s , p o w e r p l a n t M 4 4 . 7 R e l i g i o u s w o r k e r s N . E . S . C M 4 8 . 0 L i q u o r a n d b e v e r a g e w o r k e r s F 4 4 . 6 F i t t e r s , m e t a l F 4 7 . 9 P a p e r b o x ' m a k e r s F 4 4 . 6 M i l l i n e r s M 4 7 . 8 K i l n b u r n e r s M 4 4 . 6 C o n s t r u c t i o n f o r e m e n M 4 7 . 7 B r i c k a n d s t o n e m a s o n s M 4 4 . 6 O p t i c i a n s F 4 7 . 6 C o n s t r u c t i o n m a c h i n e o p e r a t o r s M 4 4 . 5 B u s d r i v e r s M 4 7 . 6 C a n v a s s e r s F 4 4 . 4 H e a t t r e a t e r s M 4 7 . 6 S e r v i c e s t a t i o n a t t e n d a n t s M 4 4 . 4 R e l i g i o u s w o r k e r s N . E . S . ' F 4 7 . 5 P a i n t e r s a n d d e c o r a t o r s M 4 4 . 4 P h o t o g r a p h i c w o r k e r s N . E . S . ' F 4 7 . 4 H a t a n d c a p m a k e r s M 4 4 . 4 M a c h i n e o p e r a t o r s , m e t a l F 4 7 . 4 B l e a c h e r s a n d d y e r s M 4 4 . 4 B o i l e r m a k e r s M 4 7 . 3 S p i n n e r s a n d t w i s t e r s F 4 4 . 3 J e w e l l e r s a n d w a t c h m a k e r s F 4 7 . 2 R u b b e r s h o e m a k e r s F 4 4 . 2 O t h e r b o o k b i n d i n g w o r k e r s P o r t e r s M 4 4 . 2 N . E . S . ' M 4 7 . 2 T o b a c c o p r o d u c t s w o r k e r s M 4 4 . 2 S a l e s c l e r k s M 4 7 . 2 M i l l e r s M 4 4 . 2 K o i s t m e n , c r a n e m e n M 4 7 . 2 N u r s e s , p r a c t i c a l F 4 4 . 1 W e l d e r s M 4 7 . 2 F i n i s h e r s , t e x t i l e F 4 4 . 0 M e c h a n i c s N . E . S . ' M 4 7 . 2 B l a c k s m i t h s M 4 4 . 0 M e c h a n i c s , r a i l r o a d M 4 7 . 2 T a i l o r s M 4 4 . 0 F i t t e r s , m e t a t M 4 7 . 2 B a k e r s M 4 3 . 8 C u t t e r s , t e x t i l e g o o d s M 4 7 . 2 W e a v e r s M 4 3 . 8 M i l l m e n M 4 7 . 2 R u b b e r s h o e m a k e r s M 4 3 . 8 W i r e d r a w e r s F 4 7 . 1 l a b e l l e r s F 4 3 . 7 C o r e m a k e r s F . 4 7 . 1 O t h e r p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e w o r k e r s F 4 3 . 6 R i g g e r s M • 4 7 . 1 • B a r b e r s ' M 4 3 . 6 [484] PART VII / SOCIAL STRATIFICATION ' Table 1—(Continued) Occupation S e x . b S c o r e O c c u p a t i o n \ 5 t x . b S c o n t Class 6 ( c o n t i n u e d ) C a r d e r s a n d d r a w i n g f r o m e T r u c k d r i v e r s M 4 3 . 6 t e n d e r s M 4 2 . 3 P a c k e r s a n d w r a p p e r s M 4 3 . 6 B o x a n d b a s k e t m a k e r s F 4 2 . 2 F i n i s h e r s , w o o d M 4 3 . 6 C o o p e r s M 4 2 . 2 F i n i s h e r s , t e x t i l e M 4 3 . 6 S a i l o r s • M j 4 2 . 1 T a n n e r s M 4 3 . 6 H a r n e s s a n d s a d d l e m a r k e r s M < 4 2 . 0 H a t a n d c a p m a k e r s F 4 3 . 5 N u n s F , 4 1 . 8 C u t t e r s , l e a t h e r M 4 3 . 5 C o m m e r c i a l p a c k e r s a n d Class 7 w r a p p e r s F 4 3 . 4 T e a m s t e r s M 4 3 . 4 C o o k s M 4 1 . 8 S t o n e c u t t e r s M 4 3 . 4 J a n i t o r s M 4 1 . 6 R i v e t e r s a n d r i v e t h e a t e r s ' M 4 3 . 4 l a u n d r e s s e s , c l e a n e r s , a n d B u t t e r a n d c h e e s e m a k e r s M 4 3 . 3 d y e r s F 4 1 . 4 C h a u f f e u r s M 4 3 . 3 S e c t i o n m e n a n d t r a c k m e n M 4 1 . 4 B o i l e r f i r e m e n M 4 3 . 3 C h a r w o r k e r s a n d c l e a n e r s M 4 1 . 3 S p i n n e r s M 4 3 . 3 P a p e r b o x , b a g , a n d e n v e l o p e 1 I n s p e c t o r s N . E . S . , g r a d e r s * F 4 3 . 2 m a k e r s M 4 1 . 3 P o s t m e n F 4 3 . 2 S a w y e r s M 4 1 . 2 W a i t e r s M 4 3 . 2 L o n g s h o r e m e n M 4 1 . 2 C a r p e n t e r s M 4 3 . 2 W a i t r e s s e s F 4 1 . 2 S e w e r s a n d s e w i n g m a c h i n e G l o v e m a k e r s F 4 1 . 2 o p e r a t o r s M 4 3 . 2 . l a b o u r e r s M 4 0 . 8 F o r e s t r a n g e r s M 4 3 . 2 C o o k s F 4 0 . 5 l o c k k e e p e r s , c a n o l m e n M 4 3 . 1 M e s s e n g e r s M 4 0 . 2 W o o d t u r n e r s M 4 3 . 1 S h o e m a k e r s M 4 0 . 2 l a b o u r e r s , m i n e s a n d q u a r r i e s M 4 3 . 1 U s h e r s M 4 0 . 1 S e w e r s a n d s e w i n g m a c h i n e J a n i t o r s F 4 0 . 0 o p e r a t o r s F 4 3 . 0 H a w k e r s M 3 9 . 3 B r i c k a n d s t o n e m a s o n s M 4 3 . 0 H o u s e k e e p e r s a n d m a t r o n s F 3 8 . 9 T e x t i l e i n s p e c t o r s F 4 2 . 8 H o t e l c a f e a n d h o u s e h o l d M a c h i n e o p e r a t o r s , b o o t a n d w o r k e r s M 3 8 . 8 s h o e F 4 2 . 8 N e w s b o y s M 3 8 . 7 K n i t t e r s F 4 2 . 8 G u i d e s M 3 7 . 8 G u a r d s M 4 2 . 8 H o t e l c a f e a n d h o u s e h o l d W i n d e r s , w a r p e r s , r e e i e r s M 4 2 . 8 w o r k e r s F 3 7 . 8 G l o v e m a k e r s M 4 2 . 7 F a r m l a b o u r e r s M 3 7 . 5 ' C u t t e r s , l e a t h e r F 4 2 . 6 L u m b e r m e n M 3 7 . 4 E l e v a t o r tenders M 4 2 . 5 C h a r w o r k e r s a n d c l e a n e r s F 3 7 . 4 B a k e r s F 4 2 . 4 F i s h e r m e n M ' 3 6 . 9 M a c h i n e o p e r a t o r s , b o o t a n d B o o t b l a c k s M 3 6 . 8 s h o e M 4 2 . 4 F i s h c a n n e r s , c u r e r s a n d l a u n d e r e r s M 4 2 . 4 p a c k e r s M 3 6 . 2 F i r e m e n , o n s h i p s M 4 2 . 4 F i s h c a n n e r s , c u r e r s a n d C e m e n t a n d c o n c r e t e f i n i s h e r s M 4 2 . 4 p a c k e r s F 3 6 . 0 D r e s s m a k e r s a n d s e a m s t r e s s e s F 4 2 . 3 H u n t e r s a n d t r a p p e r s M 3 2 . 0 o . C a n a d a , D o m l r J i n o f S t a t i s t i c s , C e n s u s o f Canada. 1 9 5 1 , V , T o b l e 2 1 , a n d I V , T a b l e 11 ( O t t a w a , 1 9 5 3 ) ; Cc-^-ia, D e p t . o f I n t e r n a l R e v e n u e , l o c a t i o n Slalidics, 1951 ( O t t a w a , 1 9 5 3 ) . A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d b y D . B . S . , C e n s u s A n a l y s i s S e c t i o n . b . T h e m e a n o f t f < s c o r e s = 5 0 ; t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n =z 10 ( c a l c u l a t e d s e p o r o l e l y f o r e o c h s e x ) . c N . E . S . r= n o t « ! i * - . » h t r « s p e c i f i e d . ( c o n t i n u e d ) 41 APPENDIX C D u v a l l ' s F a m i l y L i f e C y c l e S t a g e s S t a g e I B e g i n n i n g F a m i l i e s ( c o u p l e m a r r i e d u n d e r two y e a r s , w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n ) S t a g e I I C h i l d b e a r i n g F a m i l i e s ( o l d e s t c h i l d , b i r t h t o 30 m o n t h s ) S t a g e I I I F a m i l i e s w i t h P r e s c h o o l C h i l d r e n ( o l d e s t c h i l d l\ t o 6 y e a r s ) S t a g e I V F a m i l i e s w i t h S c h o o l C h i l d r e n ( o l d e s t c h i l d 6 t o 13 y e a r s ) S t a g e V F a m i l i e s w i t h T e e n a g e r s ( o l d e s t c h i l d 13 t o 30 y e a r s ) S t a g e V I F a m i l i e s a s L a u n c h i n g C e n t e r s ( f i r s t c h i l d g one t o l a s t c h i l d ' s l e a v i n g home) S t a g e V I I F a m i l i e s i n t h e M i d d l e Y e a r s ( e m p t y n e s t t o r e t i r e m e n t ) S t a g e V I I I A g i n g F a m i l i e s ( r e t i r e m e n t t o d e a t h o f one o r b o t h s p o u s e s ) S t a g e I X C h i l d l e s s P e r s o n s , ( C o u p l e s w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n , m a r r i e d o v e r 2 y e a r s ) -«-Note: Age o f c h i l d r e n s h o u l d be i n c l u s i v e . F o r e x a m p l e , i n S t a g e I I I , t h e a c t u a l a ge o f t h e o l d e s t c h i l d s h o u l d b e l\ t o 5 i n c l u s i v e . 42 APPENDIX D FAMILY SERVICE CENTRES OF GREATER VANCOUVER AREA 12 October, 1967 Memo to: A l l S t a f f From: Study Unit Re: Research Project - C l i e n t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the  Family Service Centres of Greater Vancouver Next Monday, October 16, 1967, we w i l l begin c o l l e c t i n g the data for the above research project. Data w i l l be c o l l e c t e d for a four week period, ending on Friday November 10. Our aim i s to measure cert a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c l i e n t s approaching the Main O f f i c e , Burnaby o f f i c e and North Shore o f f i c e for service. Because of our need for as large a sampling as possible, we are requesting that the information be obtained for every approach made to the Agency during t h i s period, however minimal t h i s may be. We have developed a one page schedule or questionnaire for t h i s purpose. Although most of the information we need w i l l be obtained f o r us by the s t a f f members on switchboard or intake duty, i t i s possible that any s o c i a l worker could be approached f o r service, p a r t i c u l a r l y by former c l i e n t s who are returning for further service. Again, to help increase the s i z e of our sample, we would ask your help i n completing a schedule i n any instance where you are approached for ser-vice, e.g. former c l i e n t s approaching former worker d i r e c t l y . The branch o f f i c e supervisor or intake supervisor i n each o f f i c e w i l l be responsible for g i v i n g out and c o l l e c t i n g the forms. In order to help i n completing the schedule, the follow-ing information may c l a r i f y what we are looking f o r . There are s i x sections to the schedule. The f i r s t two are straightforward, involving only i d e n t i f i c a t i o n items, e.g. name of case, o f f i c e , date etc. In the l a s t four sections we are v i t a l l y concerned with gaining exact information as our analysis of c l i e n t charac-t e r i s t i c s depends on t h i s . Here i s the rationale behind Sec-tions C. D and E. We hope that Section F i s self-explanatory. 43 C. S o c i o - e c o n o m i c S t a t u s - I n t h i s s e c t i o n we a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o a s c e r t a i n t h e e x a c t o c c u p a t i o n o f t h e h e a d o f t h e h o u s e h o l d . T h i s w i l l e n a b l e u s t o p l a c e t h e f a m i l y o n a r a n k e d s o c i a l c l a s s s c a l e a s d e v i s e d by B l i s h e n . T h i s i s why, a s y o u w i l l s e e i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s o n t h e s c h e d u l e , i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o a s c e r t a i n t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e p e r s o n i s a c t u a l l y e m p l o y e d now, e . g . r e t i r e d p e r s o n on p e n s i o n - g e t l a s t j o b . D. F a m i l y L i f e C y c l e - We a r e u s i n g t h e D u v a l l F a m i l y L i f e C y c l e M o d e l . T h i s m o d e l a s s u m e s t h a t a l l f a m i l i e s go t h r o u g h s u c c e s s i v e s t a g e s o f d e v e l o p m e n t and t h e p r o b l e m s t h e y e n c o u n t e r a r e c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e s e s t a g e s . One o f t h e b e s t ways o f p l a c i n g t h e f a m i l y w i t h i n t h i s m o d e l i s by o b t a i n i n g t h e e x a c t age o f t h e e l d e s t c h i l d . T h e r e a r e c a t e g o r i e s a l s o f o r c o u p l e s whose c h i l d r e n a r e i n t h e p r o c e s s o r h a v e l e f t home. We h a v e a d d e d a c a t e g o r y t o t h e D u v a l l m o d e l f o r p e r s o n s who h a v e n e v e r h a d c h i l d r e n . A s t h i s i s a f a m i l y a g e n c y , one o f o u r a i m s i s t o t e s t t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h i s m o d e l f o r p r a c t i c e p u r p o s e s i n t h e A g e n c y . E. S e r v i c e R e q u e s t e d - H e r e we a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o o b t a i n a v e r y b r o a d i d e a o f t h e t y p e s o f s e r v i c e e x p e c t e d by t h e c l i e n t . F. S o u r c e o f R e f e r r a l - s e l f o r c o l l a t e r a l . W h i l e a t t h i s p o i n t i t i s r a t h e r e a r l y t o s a y , we a r e h o p i n g t h a t we w i l l o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t w i l l p r o v e o f v a l u e t o y o u i n y o u r d a i l y p r a c t i c e . B. A k u n e E. A. A z z a r a B. B r e t t A. C l e m s o n C. D. Kuo 44 APPENDIX E Combining Classes i n the Blishen and Duvall Models In analyzing the data with regard to the Blishen and Duvall models, i t became clear that because of the small sample gathered for the study, and the range of these two variables, there were some expected frequencies occurring i n the tables which equalled l e s s than f i v e , thus making the chi-square score for these tables l e s s meaningful. In order to make the data more meaningful i n r e l a t i o n to the hypotheses, i t was decided to apply s t a t i s t i c a l manipulations to the frequency tables which involved these variables. The text of the presentation of findings indicates where these manipulations were done. The procedure followed was to combine classes i n order to decrease the degrees of freedom and determine whether a more s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square score could be obtained. With regard to the Blishen scale, classes one and two were combinedj classes three and four were combined; and c l a s -ses f i v e , s i x and seven were l e f t d iscrete. The rationale for these combinations ivas as follows: the p r o f i l e of Blishen's occupational scale, as i n Porter's V e r t i c a l Mosaic places eleven percent of the labour force i n classes three and four; t h i r t y - f o u r percent of the labour force i n class f i v e ; twenty percent i n class s i x ; and twenty-one percent i n class seven. (20, p. 163) There therefore seemed to be some basis for combining the classes at the upper end of the scale and leaving the bottom three classes d i s c r e t e . J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s manipulation can also be obtained i n that presently there i s very l i t t l e d i s t i n c t i o n between class one and class two as both classes contain professional occupations. The r a t i o n a l e followed i n combining classes i n the Duvall model follows a s i m i l a r pattern of reasoning. On the basis that beginning families (class one), childbearing fami-l i e s (class two), and preschool families (class three), share s i m i l a r developmental problems these three classes were com-bined. Families with school age children (class four), and families with adolescents (class five) were kept discrete as i t was f e l t that these two family stages experience unique developmental tasks i n modern urban s o c i e t i e s , and i t was therefore f e l t to be desirable not to merge these two classes. Classes s i x and seven were combined with the rationale that families as launching centres and families i n middle years were not markedly d i s s i m i l a r i n the family developmental tasks facing them. The combining of class eight (aging families) and class nine ( c h i l d l e s s persons) was decided upon because these two classes accounted for a small percentage of the t o t a l sample; and again, i n terms of D u v a l l T s developmental tasks, are faced with s i m i l a r problems of adjustment to a more s o l i t a r y way of l i f e . 46 APPENDIX F 1 9 t h O c t o b e r , 1967 Memo t o : S t a f f i n v o l v e d i n f i l l i n g o u t R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n n a i r e F r om: E l i o A z z a r a , B. A k u n e , B. B r e t t , A. C l e m s o n , C-D. Kuo Re: C a t e g o r y E - SERVICE REQUESTED A l t h o u g h we w o u l d l i k e t h e c a t e g o r i e s t o be m u t u a l l y -e x c l u s i v e and t h u s i n t e n d e d , t h e y a r e n o t e n t i r e l y s o . T h i s may b e i m p o s s i b l e , i . e . t h e r e i s an i n f o r m a t i o n a s p e c t t o any r e q u e s t f o r s e r v i c e . A t t h e same t i m e i t a p p e a r s v a l i d t o make d i s t i n c t i o n s o n t h e b a s i s o f c l i e n t e x p e c t a t i o n s , and t h e amount o f i n v o l v e -ment w i t h s e r v i c e f r o m t h i s A g e n c y i n h e r e n t i n t h e r e q u e s t . The i n f o r m a t i o n / r e f e r r a l c a t e g o r y a p p e a r s t o encompass s e v e r a l g r o u p s o f c l i e n t s : 1. C l i e n t s who by i n t e n t , t h i n k o f u s o n l y a s s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e r e i s o f t e n a t h i n l i n e b e t w e e n t h e s e a n d c o u n s e l l i n g c a s e s , e i t h e r b e c a u s e c l i e n t i s a l s o s e e k i n g t h i s u n c o n s c i o u s l y , o r b e c a u s e w o r k e r t h i n k s he s h o u l d . We a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e c l i e n t ' s v i e w r a t h e r t h a n t h e w o r k e r ' s . The w o r k e r i s a s k e d t o make a d i s t i n c t i o n when h e makes a " j u d g e m e n t . " However, he s h o u l d f e e l f r e e t o s e e k c o n s u l t a t i o n a n d we w o u l d a p p r e c i a t e d i s -t r i c t s u p e r v i s o r b e i n g i n v o l v e d i n m a k i n g s u c h j u d g e m e n t s . 2. C l i e n t s r e q u e s t i n g a s e r v i c e we do n o t g i v e ( w h e t h e r c l i e n t knew t h i s o r n o t ) . 3. C l i e n t s who r e q u e s t a s e r v i c e we g i v e b u t who do n o t l i v e w i t h i n t h e c o r r e c t g e o g r a p h i c a l b o u n d a r i e s and who t h u s must a l s o b e r e f e r r e d e l s e w h e r e . /JW 47 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. B l i s h e n , B e r n a r d R., "The C o n s t r u c t i o n & Use o f an Occupa-t i o n a l C l a s s S c a l e , " Canadian S o c i e t y - S o c i o l o g i c a l  P e r s p e c t i v e s , (Eds.) B l i s h e n , B e r n a r d R., J o n e s , F r a n k E., Naegele, Kaspor E., and P o r t e r , John. The M a c m i l l a n Company o f Canada L t d . , 1964, pp. 449 - 458. 2. Canada, Dominion Bureau o f S t a t i s t i c s , 1961 Census o f Canada, Labour F o r c e O c c u p a t i o n s by S i x M e t r o p o l i t a n A r e a s . B u l l e t i n 3-1-4, 19-7-1963. 3. C l a y d e n , F l o r e n c e V., Survey o f Main O f f i c e I n t a k e -November, 1966, F a m i l y S e r v i c e Agency o f G r e a t e r Vancouver. ( U n p u b l i s h e d ) 4. D e t t w i l e r , Werner & S o k o l , Andrew. GI UBC MUTAB ( M u l t i V a r i a t e C o n t i n g e n c y T a b u l a t i o n s ) , R e v i s e d i n August 1966 by B j e r r i n g , James and Hogan, Ruth, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Computing C e n t e r . 5. D u v a l l , E v e l y n M., F a m i l y Development, J . B. L i p p i n c o t t Company, P h i l a d e l p h i a & New Y o r k , 1957, pp. 1 - 25. 6. F a m i l y S e r v i c e Agency o f G r e a t e r Vancouver, A C a s e l o a d A n a l y s i s , June, I 9 6 0 . ( U n p u b l i s h e d ) 7. F a m i l y S e r v i c e Agency o f G r e a t e r Vancouver, A R e f e r e n c e Manual f o r The Board o f D i r e c t o r s , R e v i s e d 1962. ( U n p u b l i s h e d ) 8. F a m i l y S e r v i c e Agency o f G r e a t e r Vancouver, C o n s t i t u t i o n . ( U n p u b l i s h e d ) 9. F a m i l y S e r v i c e Agency o f G r e a t e r Vancouver, An A r e a Analy-s i s p r e p a r e d f o r The Board o f D i r e c t o r s , September, 1964-10. F a m i l y S e r v i c e A s s o c i a t i o n o f A m e r i c a , Scope and Methods o f t h e F a m i l y S e r v i c e Agency, 1953-11. F o w l e r , I r v i n g A., " F a m i l y Agency C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and C l i e n t C o n t i n u a n c e , " S o c i a l Casework, May, 1967, pp. 271 - 277. 12. G o l d s t e i n , H a r r i s K., R e s e a r c h S t a n d a r d s and Methods F o r S o c i a l Workers, The Hauser P r e s s , New O r l e a n s , 1963. 13. G u i l f o r d , J . P., Fundamental S t a t i s t i c s i n P s y c h o l o g y & E d u c a t i o n , M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company I n c . , New Y o r k , 1954. 48 14. H a y s , W i l l i a m L., S t a t i s t i c s f o r P s y c h o l o g i s t s , H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , New Y o r k , 1963. 15. L e v i n g e r , G e o r g e , " C o n t i n u a n c e i n C a s e w o r k a n d O t h e r H e l p i n g R e l a t i o n s h i p s : A R e v i e w o f C u r r e n t Re-s e a r c h , " S o c i a l Work, J u l y I960, p p . 40 - 51. 16. M c C o l l o u g h , C e l e s t e & V a n , A t t a L., S t a t i s t i c a l C on-c e p t s A P r o g r a m f o r S e l f - I n s t r u c t i o n , M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company I n c . , 1963. 17. O x l e y , G e n e v i e v e B., "The C a s e w o r k e r ' s E x p e c t a t i o n s and C l i e n t M o t i v a t i o n , " S o c i a l C a s e w o r k , J u l y , 1966, PP. 432 - 437. 18. P o l a n s k y , Norman A., ( e d . ) S o c i a l Work R e s e a r c h . The U n i -v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s , I960. 19. P o r t e r , E v a M., I n t a k e P r i o r i t i e s and C r i t e r i a i n a Fam-i l y S e r v i c e A g e n c y - A S u r v e y o f W a i t i n g L i s t C a s e s  and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e I m p l i c a t i o n s , t h e s i s s u b m i t t e d i n p a r t i a l 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 S o c i a l Work, S c h o o l o f S o c i a l Work, 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 , I960. 20. P o r t e r , J o h n , The V e r t i c a l M o s a i c , An A n a l y s i s o f S o c i a l C l a s s and Power i n C a n a d a , U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1965. 21. R i p p l e , L i l l i a n , M o t i v a t i o n , C a p a c i t y and O p p o r t u n i t y -S t u d i e s i n C a s e w o r k T h e o r y & P r a c t i c e , U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o , 1964. 22. R o s e n f e l d , J o n a M., " S t r a n g e n e s s B e t w e e n H e l p e r and C l i -e n t : A P o s s i b l e E x p l a n a t i o n o f Non-use o f A v a i l a b l e P r o f e s s i o n a l H e l p , " S o c i a l S e r v i c e R e v i e w , M a r c h , 1964, p p . 17 - 25. 23. Rowe, G e o r g e P., "The D e v e l o p m e n t a l C o n c e p t u a l Framework t o t h e S t u d y o f t h e F a m i l y , " E m e r g i n g C o n c e p t u a l  F r a m e w o r k s i n F a m i l y A n a l y s i s , ( E d s . ) Nye, F. I . , and B e r a n d o , F. M. The M a c m i l l a n Company New Y o r k , 1966, p p . 198 - 222. 24. S k i p p e r , James K., J r . , G u e n t h e r , A n t h o n y L., & N a s s , G i l b e r t , "The S a c r e d n e s s o f .05: A N o t e C o n c e r n i n g The U s e s o f S t a t i s t i c a l L e v e l s o f S i g n i f i c a n c e i n S o c i a l S c i e n c e , " The A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i s t , F e b r u a r y , 1967. p p . 16 - 18. 25. W a l k e r , H e l e n M., & L e v , J o s e p h , S t a t i s t i c a l I n f e r e n c e , H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , New Y o r k , 1953. 

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.831.1-0093580/manifest

Comment

Related Items