Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of the social and economic conditions of child in care families Chan, Albert Wai-Yip 1982

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A5 C49.pdf [ 6.1MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095589.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095589-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095589-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095589-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095589-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095589-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095589-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095589-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095589.ris

Full Text

A STUDY OF THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF CHILD IN CARE F A M I L I E S by ALBERT WAI-YIP CHAN  A THESIS SUBMITTED  IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of S o c i a l  We a c c e p t t h i s to  thesis  the required  Work  as conforming standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA December  1982  © A L B E R T WAI-YIP CHAN, 1982  In  presenting  this  r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an Columbia,  I  available  for  permission  her  the  Library  reference  and  study.  for  extensive  be  g r a n t e d by  of  this  a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  D e p a r t m e n t of  partial  that  representatives.  publication  in  advanced degree at  agree  p u r p o s e s may or  thesis  thesis written  c o p y i n g of  permission.  British  it  for  Department or that  gain  the  freely  agree  thesis  understood financial  of  make  further  this  is  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia C a n a d a , V6T 1W5  1982  I  It  of  University  shall  h e a d of my  S o c i a l Work  D a t e : December 1 9 t h ,  the  the  for  fulfilment  that  scholarly by  copying  shall  not  his or be  i i  ABSTRACT This child Human  study  examined  i n care families  t h e s o c i a l and economic  i n Regions  Resources, Vancouver,  legal  addition, and legal  status  of  the  the  B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . The  between t h e s o c i a l and economic the  1 a n d 15 o f  children  of  families  and  i n c a r e were a n a l y z e d . I n the  social  c o n d i t i o n s of t h e f a m i l i e s and t h e changes  of the  s t a t u s of the c h i l d r e n A total  Ministry  relationships  c o n d i t i o n s of the  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e changes  economic  c o n d i t i o n s of  of s i x t y c h i l d  c a s e s from each of t h e l e g a l  i n c a r e were a l s o  of  examined.  i n c a r e c a s e s were u s e d , w i t h status  custody t o d i s c h a r g e , temporary  groups  -  from  twenty  temporary  c u s t o d y o r d e r e x t e n d e d , and from  temporary c u s t o d y o r d e r t o permanent c u s t o d y o r d e r . The child Among with  findings  illustrated  that  the  vast m a j o r i t y of the  i n c a r e f a m i l i e s were f r o m l o w s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c the  families  extreme  vulnerable  low  of the t h r e e l e g a l s t a t u s groups, social  and  economic  position  t o permanent removal of t h e i r  children.  f a m i l i e s t o w h i c h t h e c h i l d r e n were r e t u r n e d h a d and  economic  permanent ward  class. families  were  more  In contrast,  better  social  c o n d i t i o n s than t h e temporary c u s t o d y extended and families.  iii  TALBE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS L I S T OF TABLES L I S T OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PREFACE CHAPTER  i i i i i vi ix x x i i  I . INEQUALITY I N CHILD WELFARE  CHAPTER I I . ANALYSIS  1  THE INNOCENT V I C T I M S : A THEORETICAL  7  PSYCHOPATHOGICAL MODEL ECOLOGICAL MODEL CULTURAL MODEL SOCIO-ECONOMIC MODEL CRITIQUE ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORK CHAPTER  III.  8 8 10 11 12 14  SOCIAL AND EOCNOMIC CONDITIONS  17  CHAPTER I V . RESEARCH DESIGN HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND PURPOSE OF EMPIRICAL STUDY METHODOLOGY INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES SAMPLING METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION PRELIMINARY TESTING METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS MISSING DATA CHAPTER V. PROFILES OF THE CHILDREN I N CARE THEIR F A M I L I E S  21 21 22 21 23 24 26 27 28 29 AND  '  32  REGION ADMITTING REGIONS SUPERVISING REGIONS LEGAL STATUS OF CHILDREN I N CARE TIME OF ADMISSION TIME OF LEGAL STATUS REVISION  32 32 33 33 34 34  A. PROFILE OF CHILDREN I N CARE SAMPLE 1 . AGE 2. SEX 3. RACIAL ORIGINS 4. RELIGIOUS A F F I L I A T I O N 5. INDIAN STATUS 6. REASONS FOR ADMISSION SUMMARY  35 35 36 37 37 38 38 39  iv  B. PROFILE OF THE F A M I L I E S 1 . HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD 2. AGE OF THE HEADS OF THE HOUSEHOLDS 3. SEX OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS 4. MARITAL STATUS OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS 5. R A C I A L ORIGIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS 6. NUMBER OF CHILDREN WITH THE F A M I L I E S AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION 7. NUMBER OF CHILDREN WITH THE F A M I L I E S AT THE TIME OF LEGAL STATUS REVISION 8. LENGTH OF RESIDENCE SUMMARTY OF FAMILY PROFILE C h a p t e r V I . SOCIAL-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF THE F A M I L I E S OF CHILDREN I N CARE A. SOCIAL-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF THE F A M I L I E S AT APPREHENSION 1. LEVEL OF INCOME 2. SOURCES OF INCOME 3. OCCUPATION OF THE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS 4. TYPE OF HOUSING 5. DWELLING AREAS 6. LEVEL OF EDUCATION 7. LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT OR UNEMPLOYMENT 8. ASSOCIATION STRENGTH 9. FAMILY SOLIDARITY SUMMARY OF THE SOCIAL-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AT APPREHENSION B. SOCIAL-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF LEGAL STATUS REVISION 1. LEVEL OF INCOME AT STATUS REVISION 2. SOURCES OF INCOME AT STATUS REVISION 3. OCCUPATION OF THE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS AT STATUS REVISION 4. TYPE OF HOUSING AT STATUS R E V I S I O N 5. DWELLING AREA AT STATUS REVISION 6. L E V E L OF EDUCATION AT STATUS REVISION 7. LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT OR UNEMPLOYMENT AT STATUS REVISION 8. ASSOCIATION STRENGTH AT STATUS REVISION 9. FAMILY SOLIDARITY AT STATUS REVISION SUMMARY OF THE SOCIAL-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF LEGAL STATUS REVISION CHAPTER V I I . THE SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INFLUENCES I . CORRELATION BETWEEN THE SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INDICATORS A. CORRELATION AMONG THE SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INDICATORS AT APPREHENSION  40 41 41 42 42 43 44 44 45 46 47 47 47 48 49 50 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 56 57 57 57 60 61 62 63 64 65 67 69 69  V  B. CORRELATION AMONG THE SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INDICATORS AT STATUS R E V I S I O N C. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INDICATORS AT APPREHENSION AND AT STATUS REVISION 11 . ITEM ANALYSIS I I I . INDEX CONSTRUCTION •. I V . CORRELATION BETWEEN SOCIAL-ECONOMIC FACTORS AND LEGAL STATUS A. CORRELATION BETWEEN SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND LEGAL STATUS B. CORRELATION BETWEEN SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INDEXES AND LEGAL STATUS V. PATH DIAGRAM  70 72 74 75 77 77 79 80  CHAPTER V I I I . INEQUALITY R E V I S I T E D SOCIAL-ECONOMIC FACTORS RECONSIDERED  84 86  FOOTNOTES REFERENCES  90 92  APPENDIX I . LETTER TO CHILD WELFARE SOCIAL WORKERS APPENDIX I I . APPENDIX I I I .  QUESTIONNARIRES DATA RECORDING SHEET  APPENDIX I V . CONSENT FORM  102 104 117 118  vi  List  of T a b l e s  1. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n  by R e g i o n s  2. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n of A d m i s s i o n  by R e g i o n s  3. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n of S u p e r v i s i o n  by R e g i o n s  4. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n Legal Status  by  5. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n of A d m i s s i o n  by Time  6. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n  by Time o f  Legal  Status  32 33 33 34 34  Revision  35  7. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n  by Age  36  8. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n  by Sex  36  9. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n Racial Origin 10. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n Religious Affiliation  by  11.  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of C h i l d r e n Indian Status  by  12. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n Reasons of A d m i s s i o n  by  37 by 37 38 39  13. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by t h e Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s  41  14. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s by Age  42  15. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s by Sex  42  16. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n by M a r i t a l S t a t u s  43  o f Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s  17. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s by R a c i a l O r i g i n s  43  18. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by Number o f C h i l d r e n a t t h e Time o f A d m i s s i o n  44  vii  19.  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by Number o f C h i l d r e n a t t h e Time o f L e g a l S t a t u s R e v i s i o n  20. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n Length of Residence  o f F a m i l i e s by  21.  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n by L e v e l o f Income  of F a m i l i e s  22. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n by S o u r c e s o f Income  of F a m i l i e s  23. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n by O c c u p a t i o n  o f Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s  24. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n by Type o f H o u s i n g  o f Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s  25. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n by D w e l l i n g A r e a  of F a m i l i e s  45 45 48 48 49 50 51  26. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s by L e v e l o f E d u c a t i o n  52  27. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s by L e n g t h o f Employment o r Unemployment  53  28. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n  of F a m i l i e s  by A s s o c i a t i o n S t r e n g t h  53  29. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n  o f F a m i l i e s by S o l i d a r i t y  30. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n of Income a t t h e Time 31. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n Income a t t h e Time o f  o f F a m i l i e s by L e v e l of Status R e v i s i o n o f F a m i l i e s by S o u r c e s o f Status Revision  32. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n a t t h e Time o f S t a t u s  o f F a m i l i e s by O c c u p a t i o n Revision  ...54  33. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by Type o f H o u s i n g a t t h e Time o f S t a t u s R e v i s i o n 34. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by D w e l l i n g a t t h e Time o f S t a t u s R e v i s i o n 35. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by L e v e l o f E d u c a t i o n a t t h e Time o f S t a t u s R e v i s i o n  56 57 58 59  Area 60 61  vi i i  36.  37. 38.  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by L e n g t h o f Employment o r Unemployment a t t h e Time o f Status Revision  62  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by A s s o c i a t i o n S t r e n g t h a t t h e Time o f S t a t u s R e v i s i o n  63  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by a t t h e Time o f S t a t u s R e v i s i o n  64  Solidarity  39. Mean D i f f e r e n c e s Between t h e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c C o n d i t i o n s a t t h e Time o f A p p r e h e n s i o n a n d o f Status Revision 40. 41. 42.  C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x of the Nine I n d i c a t o r s at Apprehension  Social-Economic 70  C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x of the S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c Indicators at Status Revision C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x of t h e  71  Social-Economic  I n d i c a t o r s a t Apprehension and a t S t a t u s R e v i s i o n 43. W e i g h t s o f t h e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.  65  Frequency by L e g a l Frequency by L e g a l  .73  Variables  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Social-Economic Status at Apprehension D i s t r i b u t i o n of S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c Status at Status Revision  C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x of the S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c by L e g a l S t a t u s B i v a r i a t e C o v a r i a t i o n of Social-Economic and L e g a l S t a t u s  75 Positions 76 Positions 76 Indicators 78 Indexes  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n by L e g a l S t a t u s  of C h i l d ' s R a c i a l O r i g i n  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n by L e g a l S t a t u s  of F a m i l y ' s  83 87  Racial Origin  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of R e l i g i o s i t y by L e g a l S t a t u s  87 88  ix  List I . Path Diagram of C h i l d II.  of F i g u r e s  In Care Cases  Path Diagram of the S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c and L e g a l S t a t u s  23 Indexes 81  X  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT No this  e m p i r i c a l i n q u i r y c o u l d be c o n d u c t e d  study  was  isolation,  no e x c e p t i o n . A number o f p e o p l e  valuable c o n t r i b u t i o n s to t h i s study. t h e s i s a d v i s o r s - Dr. Kloh-Ann  in  Amacher.  John Crane,  They  I am  Dr.  mostly  Richard  h a v e g i v e n me  have  and  provided  indebted to Nann,  e x c e l l e n t and  and  my Dr.  invaluable  advices. T h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t w o u l d n o t have been were  without  the  support  and  if  it  c o o p e r a t i o n of the M i n i s t r y  of  Human R e s o u r c e s of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . C h r i s George, and  Family  fifteen  assistance.  During option, support  s h o u l d be  I must a l s o e x p r e s s s i n c e she had  distributing  thanked  my  U.B.C.  Patsy  time  a p p r e c i a t i o n to I r i s time  one and  Wendell  in typing  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .  the s c h o o l  year,  my  colleagues and  Akini  e n c o u r a g e m e n t . They made my  o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a more e x c i t i n g and My  and  for their  g i v e n so much of h e r  A l e x Kwan, B r u c e N o r t h e y , and  Reinhold  C h i l d S e r v i c e s C o o r d i n a t o r s of R e g i o n s  respectively,  o f R e g i o n one, and  and  possible  g r a t i t u d e a l s o t o K e v i n Lo, computer  system.  s p e n d so much o f h e r  I am  time  in  from  the  K i a n i , had  study at the  thesis given  me  University  stimulating.  who  showed me  t o use  the  a l s o indebted  to Joan F l y n n ,  who  editing  proof-reading  the  and  how  drafts. For difficult, me  myself, i f not  unreserved  the f o r my  support  transition  i n V a n c o u v e r w o u l d h a v e been  g i r f r i e n d , V a l e n c i a L o , who in  my  studying year.  had  given  I must e x p r e s s  my  xi  sincere gratitude to her. T h e r e a r e a g r e a t number o f p e o p l e the  research.  interviewed. collected.  I  am  Without I  am  grateful them,  to  the  who had a s s i s t e d  the s o c i a l  data  could  i n d e b t e d t o t h r e e o f my  are  Pete  Hudson,  Brad  t a u g h t me p r a c t i c a l encounter  in  kwowledge w h i c h theoretical There  are  contribution to  conduct  the f i n a l  casework  I gained of t h i s people  from  was  were  have  been  p r o f e s s o r s from Manitoba.  so t h a t a  in  They  total  my  had  initial  failure.  e x p e r i e n c e formed  The the  research project. who  I  fail  s t u d y . Of c o u r s e , I am  manuscript.  who  N e i l T u d i v e r , who  not  the working  i s as i m p o r t a n t ; I thank  this  and  of  k n o w l e d g e and t h e o r i e s ,  social  bases  MacKenzie,  not  former  t h e S c h o o l o f S o c i a l Work o f t h e U n i v e r i s t y  workers  me  t o mention  h e r e , and  their  a l l o f them f o r h e l p i n g me solely  responsible for  xi i  PREFACE This  study,  which  examined  the  social  c o n d i t i o n s of f a m i l i e s of c h i l d r e n i n c a r e , in  the  Family  w i n t e r o f 1980-81, w h i l e  and  Dryden,  Children's  my  brief  noticed that  encounter  the  vast  clients  who  with  majority  c h i l d r e n were f r o m l o w s o c i a l  social  of  the  economic  conceptualized worker w i t h the  District  of  Kenora,  Ontario.  In  were  was  I was a s o c i a l  Services  and  child protection clients, of  families  facing  had m a n a g e r i a l  many  of  and b u s i n e s s  these  families  and  them f i n a l l y In  e c o n o m i c c l a s s were a d m i t t e d  in  were  most  cases,  satisfactorily  children  from  low  i n t o c a r e , a n d many o f  became p e r m a n e n t w a r d s .  1980,  children  there  backgrounds, the  and  r e s o l v e d . In c o n t r a s t , a h i g h percentage of social  apprehended  and economic c l a s s . A l t h o u g h  w o r k e r ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n was m i n i m a l ,  problems  of  I  i t was  i n care  reported  i n the D i s t r i c t  that  ninety  percent  o f K e n o r a were N a t i v e  of  the  Indians.  Among many o f t h e s e N a t i v e c h i l d r e n , a g r e a t number o f them were a p p r e h e n d e d on t h e society'  of North  destitute.  Many  reserve.  of  had  occupational  skills,  and  to  the  them were u n e m p l o y e d , r e l i e d  low  educational  and they  a p p a r e n t t o me t h a t  social  comparison  'affluent  A m e r i c a , N a t i v e s on t h e r e s e r v e were l i v i n g i n  assistance,  was  In  Native  level  on g o v e r n m e n t  and  r e s i d e d i n substandard Indians  and  inadequate houses. I t  families  e c o n o m i c c l a s s were o v e r r e p r e s e n t e d  c a r e p o p u l a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y among p e r m a n e n t w a r d  of  low  i n the c h i l d i n cases.  xi i i  After  seeing  consequently,  a  number  parent-child  began t o s u r f a c e . The f i r s t and  economic  familial  separation, and f o r e m o s t  a  breakdowns,  and  number o f q u e s t i o n s  was t h e u n e q u a l  social  o f f a m i l i e s of whom t h e c h i l d r e n  were  a p p r e h e n d e d . I began t o s u s p e c t t h a t f a m i l i e s o f l o w s o c i a l  and  economic status,  conditions  of  status, were  at  as a  disadvantage, their removed kept  from  them,  compared t o t h o s e disadvantaged  f a m i l i e s who had h i g h e r  position.  answered.  these  to  their  c h i l d r e n were n o t o n l y more v u l n e r a b l e t o be but t h e i r c h i l d r e n  were a l s o s u b j e c t t o be  i n c a r e on a p e r m a n e n t b a s i s . T h i s s t u d y  address  Due  questions,  hoping  that  some  was  intended  to  o f them w o u l d be  CHAPTER I INEQUALITY I N CHILD WELFARE Man h a s l i v e d w i t h in  contemporary  i n e q u a l i t y f o r thousands of  Canada,  social,  economic  years,  and  i n e q u i t i e s a b o u n d . I n 1982, t h e new C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r and F r e e d o m s g u a r a n t e e s t h e r i g h t s a n d f r e e d o m s (section ideology the  1).  In  parliamentary to  conditions 1980s, only  of  the  democracy, compete  i n the Charter,  Canadian  f o r unequal  terms  society of  has  of  public  the Canadian p o l i t i c a l , In h i s c l a s s i c  Porter elite  pointed  out  1950's,  elite  wealth,  h a d been g r e a t l y  increasing the  the  (1975)  of  the  land.  advancement,  gap between  western  The V e r t i c a l the  the equal  In  and  the  of s o c i a l  increasing services i n  systems.  Mosiac  1  (1965),  Canadian p o l i t i c a l  John  and economic  and  Protestant  f u r t h e r showed t h a t , a s c o m p a r e d  to  power, and i n f l u e n c e o f t h e c o r p o r a t e in  the  1970's.  o f power among a s m a l l  t h e r i c h and poor  industrial  of  i n the i n t e n s i f i e d s t r a t i f i c a t i o n  intensified  concentration  forms and  without  was d o m i n a t e d by C a n a d i a n s w i t h A n g l o - S a x o n  backgrounds. Clemant the  that  system  but  s o c i a l , and economic  study,  which  become h i g h l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d , n o t  technological  s e c t o r s , but a l s o  and  the l i b e r a l  i n guaranteeing  rewards,  i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n and b u r e a u c r a t i z a t i o n the  Rights  of a l l Canadians  political  has succeeded o n l y  political of  of Locke and M i l l ,  and rewards f o r t h e c i t i z e n s  Canadian  in  tradition  which i s demonstrated  backbone  right  the  and  nations,  is  widening.  increasing  With  elitist As  with  the  group, many  i n e q u a l i t y h a s become a  2  general  phenomenon p e n e t r a t i n g  Canadian  society.  As  one  the  entire  recent  social  federal  structure  government  of  study  commented :  "Over t h e  e n t i r e 1951-1973 p e r i o d t h e r e  tendency  towards  generally u n i t of  true regardless analysis  surprising security  many  organizations the  political  Welfare,  light  programs  power  low-income  processes.  justice  f o r a l l c i t i z e n s of  such  as  only the  Quebec s t u d y 13%  will  in nature..." the  of  are  2  political  minority  or  social  system  groups  form  representation  in  the N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l  h a v e i n common a commitment bring  has  to  about  t h i s country"  to  of a  greater  fairness  and  (National  Council  of  f o r more humane  and  p.2). struggle  f o r t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e d , a number o f  the  is  certainly  women, t h e p o o r , e t h n i c m i n o r i t i e s , and  been v i c t i m i z e d by recent  in  of t h i s u p h i l l  equitable conditions  is  e x p a n s i o n of  o b s e r v e d by  Poor P e o p l e ' s Group, midst  This  r e c o g n i t i o n and  As  change  the  ....  and  t o seek b e t t e r  social  In  This  i n e q u a l i t y measure  of g r e a t e r  "these o r g a n i z a t i o n s  Welfare,  slight  o v e r t h e p e r i o d , most o f w h i c h  of  which  a  inequality.  the  redistributive  inequality  prompted  of  examined  i n the  s u p p o s e d t o be The  increasing  is  groups,  c h i l d r e n , have  u n e q u a l t r e a t m e n t s i m p o s e d upon  them.  A  shows t h a t e v e n t h o u g h p o o r f a m i l i e s make  up  a l l Quebec h o u s e h o l d u n i t s , two  31,000 c h i l d r e n i n c a r e  throughout the  in every three  Province  came  of  from  3  families  with  of W e l f a r e , The classes  overrepresentation  discussions  the  child  of  children  (National Council  welfare  from  system  Generally  3  speaking,  issue  the  i n t o two camps. One g r o u p (Kempe e t Steele  &  P o l l a c k 1968) s u p p o r t e d  lower  ecomomic  has l e d t o a s e r i e s of  i n t h e U.S. a n d Canada on t h e  victimization.  1965,  line  1979:2).  in  divided  incomes below t h e p o v e r t y  of  systematic  participants al  were  1962,  Galdston  the idea that  problems  such a s c h i l d abuse and n e g l e c t  were  unique  s o c i o - e c o n o m i c b a c k g r o u n d s . The  other 1981)  to  children  with  group ( G i l , Horowitz insisted  that  the  lower &  Wolock  the  universal  1962,  the  causes  t o p i c s of study  socio-economic  are working Due the  i n the f i e l d  child  status  h a v e become m a j o r  s t u d i e s , and t h e c o l l e c t i v e  of B r i t i s h Columbia, the f o r t y years  law  p r o t e c t i n g those Paralleling  i n t h e d e l i v e r y of  1970s.  areas. f o r c e of  a d v o c a c y movement, numerous p r o v i n c i a l c h i l d  1980. The new A c t p r o v i d e s  in  s c i e n t i s t s a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l s who  C h i l d r e n ' s A c t was r e p l a c e d by t h e F a m i l y in  of the  The B a t t e r e d C h i l d Syndrome  a c t s were r e v i s e d o r r e w r i t t e n i n Canada i n t h e Province  Pelton  of c h i l d welfare, or i n r e l a t e d  t o the e f f e c t s of these  not  problems.  of c h i l d abuse and n e g l e c t  f o r many s o c i a l  were  1980, G a r b a r i n o ,  f a m i l i e s was s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s e S i n c e Kempe e t a l p u b l i s h e d  and  welfare In the  o l d P r o t e c t i o n of  and C h i l d S e r v i c e s A c t  a more up t o  date  and  effective  c h i l d r e n who a r e deemed t o be i n d a n g e r .  this  legislative  child  c h a n g e h a s been a  protection  services.  In  reformation 1975, t h e  4  seventy  year o l d C h i l d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t y system  Vancouver, B r i t i s h services  was  initially  B o a r d , a n d was Resources  Columbia.  of  later  The  delivery  replaced  taken  over  B r i t i s h Columbia.  was a b o l i s h e d i n  of  child  by  t h e Vancouver  by  the Ministry  and  new l i g h t  on t h e c h i l d  to provide better  legal  Resources of  Human  A l l of these recent changes, i f  t h e y were i n d e e d p r o g r e s s i v e s o c i a l m e a s u r e s , were shed  welfare  w e l f a r e system and  supposed  to  in British  Columbia,  networks  f o r the  supportive  d i sadvantaged. In  British  Columbia,  children admitted to agencies,  such  Resources  Board,  there  were  as  care  every by  a  variety  1978-79 s t u d y  1979:1).  A  that N a t i v e Canadians  Child  Welfare  comprised  i n care, particularly  alarming in  the Vancouver I n 1978,  tended  to  be p o o r ,  i n substandard  (National  Council  (Amacher & M a i r  of  1979) showed  a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e percentage of in  Vancouver East areas. In a d d i t i o n ,  living  services  10,415 c h i l d r e n a g e d e i g h t e e n a n d u n d e r i n t h e c a r e  Welfare  and  social  a n d t h e M i n i s t r y o f Human R e s o u r c e s .  of  children  of  the Children's A i d S o c i e t i e s ,  of t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t  children  y e a r t h e r e were t h o u s a n d s o f  the Vancouver  Downtown  f a m i l i e s of these  and  apprehended  u n e m p l o y e d , on S o c i a l A s s i s t a n c e ,  a c c o m m o d a t i o n . The most d i s t u r b i n g a n d  f a c t was t h a t 8 2 . 2 5 % o f t h e c h i l d r e n  t h e s t u d y , were remained  i n c a r e , as  i n c a r e , o r were back i n c a r e  shown after  r e t u r n i n g home f o r a s h o r t d u r a t i o n . As f o r t h e p r o b l e m s p r e s e n t the c h i l d r e n ' s admission  i n the f m a i l i e s a t the time  i n t o c a r e , such as e n v i r o n m e n t a l  of  stress  5  and  deprivation,  inadequate  unemployment, they c o m p r i s e d primary Grundy and  reasons  housing,  financial  o n l y t h r e e t o seven  f o r the c h i l d r e n ' s placement  1 9 7 5 ) . However, f a c t o r s r e l a t i n g  w i l l i n g n e s s to  implement  the  their  parental  for  70-80 p e r c e n t of t h e r e a s o n s  used  to  the  child's  home  from  p e r c e n t of  J.  to the p a r e n t s ' c a p a c i t y  adequately  removal  and  (D. F a n s h e l and  accounted explain  need,  the  by  role  researchers  (A.  Kadushin  1978:116). In  a  s t u d y on  in care, Jenkins  f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t i n g w i t h l e n g t h of  (1967)  c i r c u m s t a n c e s of l i v i n g , supported shorter  by  public  time  demographic  in  found  assistance,  care.  variables,  a l l of  believed  factors  associated .with  s u c h as b e i n g h o u s e d i n rooms and tended  Furthermore, age  to  related  observed  religion,  i n d i c a t o r s of  being to a that  and e t h n i c  duration  the f a c t o r s c o n s i d e r e d , reason  t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y  be  Jenkins  at placement,  group t o g e t h e r c o u l d s e r v e as Among  that  children  of  care.  f o r placement  r e l e v a n t t o the l e n g t h of time  was that  t h e c h i l d r e n were i n c a r e . David and  their  frequency  Fanshel, families  in a longitudinal (D.  Fanshel  of p a r e n t a l v i s i t i n g ,  the composite  index r e f l e c t i n g  c h i l d ' s m o t h e r , and  study of  1976),  foster  discovered  another  an  overall  e t h n i c i t y and age  study,  after  c a r e c a s e s , H. Maas ( 1 9 6 9 ) f o u n d  that  the  t h e amount of c a s e w o r k c o n t a c t , evaluation  of the c h i l d a t  were s t r o n g p r e d i c t o r s of t h e d e p a r t u r e o f c h i l d r e n In  children  examining that  for  551  the  placement,  from c a r e .  children  those  of  in foster  children  who  6  were  i n . l o n g - t e r m c a r e , as compared t o o t h e r c h i l d r e n  in care,  were i n t h e most d i s a d v a n t a g e d p o s i t i o n s . Most o f t h e s e  children  came f r o m  most  their  f a m i l i e s at the lowest economic  parents  maintained  no  contact  level, with  some had In about  irremediable physical the  sixties  and  discovered  child  abuse,  and  vulnerability decades  of  of  and  continuous  maltreatment,  in  publicized  young  a t a below-average  seventies  brought  to  North  the  economic  But  in  studies  (Amacher & M a i r  conditions, 1979,  S o c i a l work i n t e r v e n t i o n be e f f e c t i v e not c l e a r l y  from  which  The  as  mass  serious the  1980s, a f t e r children  from  resulted  from  demonstrated G i l 1976,  unequal  i n numerous Maas  1969).  i n c h i l d p r o t e c t i o n cases w i l l i n which the problems  were  economic f a c t o r s  in care.  develop a in  apprehended. I t w i l l and  not  emerged a r e  understood. This study w i l l  children  two  e x p e r i e n c i n g undue  e x p l o r e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e s e f a c t o r s s t a t u s of the c h i l d r e n  and  concern  attention  rescuing  d e s c r i p t i v e p r o f i l e of t h e s o c i a l and families  America.  i n the  P e l t o n 1981,  i f the c o n d i t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d and  growing  public's  h a r d s h i p . Many o f t h e s e e x p e r i e n c e s had and  long-  level  numerous i n c i d e n t s o f  children. effort  t h e r e was  many y o u n g c h i l d r e n were s t i l l  social  were i n  disabilities.  the w e l l - b e i n g of c h i l d r e n  media  of  the c h i l d w e l f a r e  a g e n c i e s . I n a d d i t i o n , most o f t h e s e c h i l d r e n who term c a r e f u n c t i o n e d i n t e l l e c t u a l l y  and  the  those also legal  7  CHAPTER I I THE In  INNOCENT VICTIMS : A THEORETICAL ANALYSIS  Canada,  every  year  there  apprehended from t h e i r n a t u r a l 80,000 c h i l d r e n the  country  P r o v i n c e of children Child  Council  in  the  c a r e of  (Ministry  families  various.  emotional  illness;  abuse  of  the  a l c o h o l i s m ; drug a d d i c t i o n ; The  phenomenon  of  adequate  The  to  interpretations.  of  crime"  model,  m o d e l , and  the  its  theoretical  own  interpretation  (A.  the  "the  parents'  1978:116).  their  failure  subject  to to  theoretical  these  four  Ecological  orientation. p r o b l e m s , but  natural and  provide various  explanations  unhappy s o c i a l phenomenon of  the  from  abandonment,  Kadushin  S o c i o - e c o n o m i c model. Each of  of  children  d e c a d e s numerous m o d e l s h a v e  of  Psychopathological  the  severe marital c o n f l i c t ;  are  and  Generally,  and  1980:33).  illness;  families'  l a s t two  the 8,584  disorganization  the  children.  1980,  familial  developed to provide  r e m o v a l of  In  from  children  this  across  children  the  were  S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of F a m i l y  been c r e a t e d and treatments  1979:1).  December 3 1 s t ,  children; and  'in care'  common o n e s a r e  their In  Welfare  physical  reflects  causes  care  The  children  alone, there  s e p a r a t i o n of  separating  environments generally breakdown.  of the  to the  are  or  1979  of Human R e s o u r c e s  reasons leading  neglect,  of  B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , as  were  m e n t a l and  homes. I n  t h o u s a n d s of  i n every hundred - l i v i n g  (National  Services The  their  - one  are  They also  models  model, the these vary,  in  forceful are  Cultural  models not  solutions  the  has  just  in  to  the  8  identified  problems.  PSYCHOPATHOLOGICAL MODEL The  psychopathological  model  which t r e a t s the i n a b i l i t y of the care  families  to  pathology  underlying  According was  i s seen a s d e v i a n t  disease  or  abnormal  behavior  psychological  up  of i n t r a p s y c h i c c o n f l i c t s  the parents'  mistreatment  and of v a r i o u s  and  personality  inflicted  upon  were  accepted  abuse  the children.  decisive  , a n d he saw e m o t i o n a l role  in  forms of  These  defects  as the causes of J.  t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r s were l a r g e l y  the c h i l d  process.  t o S t e e l e & P o l l a c k (1968) , t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l problem  made  claimed  1 9 6 8 ) . The  which i n d i c a t e  p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y on t h e p a r t o f t h e p r e p e t r a t o r s . in  proper  or a sickness  1965, Kempe, e t a l 1962, S t e e l e & P o l l a c k or sickness  approach  provide  t o t h e c h i l d r e n as a p s y c h o l o g i c a l pathology,  (Galdston  an  u s e s an u n i - c a u s a l  Brown  (1981)  responsible f o r  stress playing a  the pathology  of  child  crucial  abuse  (Brown  1981:36). The problems  psychopathological of  child  abuse  model rooted  sees  the origin  of  the  i n t h e p e r s o n a l i t y and mental  d i s o r d e r s of the p e r p e t r a t o r s . Therefore,  t h e s o l u t i o n s t o these  problems a r e c l i n i c a l c o u n s e l l i n g and p s y c h i a t r i c  treatment.  THE ECOLOGICAL MODEL Contrary model  adopts  t o the psychopathological a  multi-causal  model,  a p p r o a c h . The e c o l o g i s t s e e s t h e  f o r c e s l e a d i n g t o f a m i l i a l breakdown as b e i n g the  social,  the ecological  economic, and p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t i e s  partly of  embedded i n  the  family's  9  ecology  (Ziegler  Ecology, understand  1979).  according  the  &  of i n d i v i d u a l s  environment, Adaptation  Germain  reciprocal  environment(Germain ability  to  and  to  and  relations  Gitterman  Gitterman,  between  1980:4).  to  maintain  shape  their  i s an e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t  organism  The  The are  themselves  by  using  the the  needs w i t h o u t d e s t r o y i n g i t . of l i f e ,  i f the species  i s to  its  life-  properties.  environment  c o n s i s t s o f l a y e r s and t e x t u r e s . The  layers  t h e s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t , w h i l e t h e t e x t u r e s a r e  t i m e and  space.  maladaptation  Familial  of  the  breakdown  is  environment.  The  looked  of  the u s u a l a d a p t i v e b a l a n c e of the f a m i l y  of  f a m i l y b r e a k d o w n , and o f t h e f o r c e f u l conceptualized  c h i l d r e n and  the  layers  supportive systems. Since entrenched problems,  the in the  as  which  leading  environmental  ecologist  supportive  abilities. maladaptive  Also,  s y s t e m . The  removal  include  the  of the u p s e t s  of  problems children,  outcome o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n  puts  to  the  child  systems,  the  i n d i v i d u a l s t o a d a p t and t o a d j u s t t o develop  as  family  between and  the  apprehension  are  4  problems the  the  upon  reasons l e a d i n g to the  f a m i l y ' s d y s f u n c t i o n a r e b e l i e v e d t o be t h e r e s u l t  are  and  f o c u s i s on  i n c r e a s e t h e e n v i r o n m e n t ' s d i v e r s i t y , and t o e n h a n c e supporting  seeks to  to  resolve  o n u s on t h e m a l f u n c t i o n i n g the  environment,  mechanisms t o enhance t h e i r p r o b l e m the  individuals,  ecologist in  these  provides  or  solving  counselling  order that proper l i f e  to  skills  to may  10  develop.  CULTURAL MODEL The  cultural  determine parents  the  (Bahan  children.  In  model  hostile  suggests  American  condone t h e use of p h y s i c a l physical  disciplinary  characteristic has  observed,  cultural  societies,  force  in child  action  of c e r t a i n v i o l e n c e t h e use o f p h y s i c a l  the  of e x c e s s i v e physical  force  with  and  cultural  apprehension  of are  G i l (1970)  f o r punishing America.  children  The  a disciplinary objective  ready  results in  parents.  i s the value  conflict  t o t h e source of c h i l d  between  the  dominant  subordinate c u l t u r a l groups. In the Canadian context, of  Native  the  values of  society  Native  Anglo-Saxon parents,  customs,  Protestants. as  well  and v a l u e s .  b o t h , and t h e y a r e p a r a l y z e d search f o r c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y of  and  the values  a r e v a s t l y and s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from In  their  the  last  and  the  non-native  Many o f them e n d by r e j e c t i n g  by t h e i n s o l u b l e d i l e m m a 5  hundred  a s t h e i r c h i l d r e n , have been  c a u g h t b e t w e e n t h e new a n d o l d , t h e n a t i v e  traditions  attitudes  behavior  p r o n e g r o u p s . As  Another c u l t u r a l f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g  traditions,  the  r e a r i n g . T h i s use  violent  force  of  harm o f c h i l d r e n , a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e c h i l d r e n a r e  removed f r o m t h e i r a b u s i v e  years,  abusive  to the apprehension  i s a c c e p t e d a s a l e g i t i m a t e means i n N o r t h use  attitudes  a n d a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r o f many  1973), and t h u s l e a d North  that  in  . Those who want t o r e t u r n  ancestors  are  constantly  their to the  harassed  by  11  discriminatory  l a w s and  r e g u l a t i o n s . Many of them l i v e  shadow o f c u l t u r a l a l i e n a t i o n , and desire  to  conflict  create  created  an  the  i n the  Native people,  which r e s u l t e d  in  are preoccupied  essence of t h e i r  the  has  and  of  thousands  only  systems  b u t a l s o t h e b r e a k d o w n o f many apprehension  a  cultural  produced not  family structures  the  with  e x i s t e n c e . The  l a s t hundred years  the breakdown of the t r a d i t i o n a l of  they  under  families, of  Native  children. Regarding  the  numbers of c h i l d r e n i n c a r e  the c h i l d r e n i n c a r e 40%  in  Alberta,  (National children in  in British  50%  Council  in  of  Hepworth  care,  Welfare  population  of the  people  accounted  (Hudson & M c k e n z i e  for  60%  i n Manitoba Native  number of c h i l d r e n  Native  only  of  Indians,  Nationally,  total  of  37%  Native  and  1979:7).  20%  while  observed,  were  Saskatchewan,  c o m p r i s e more t h a n  substitute  Columbia  i n 1978,  6%  background, of  the  as  Canadian  1981:63).  SOCIO-ECONOMIC MODEL P r a c t i t i o n e r s adopting problems in  care  These  of  inadequate  f a m i l i e s , having may  include  unemployment, situations  and  are  powerlessness  Horowitz  and  those  model  f a c e d by  t o do w i t h a v a r i e t y o f  poor  crowded housing,  education. to  the  d e s p a i r , and  f a m i l y v i o l e n c e and  Socio-economic  c h i l d c a r e and  poverty,  linked  and  the  These  Wolock  low  the child  factors.  social  class,  subordinate  life  of the  t o t h e phenomena  of  (1981)  the  life  development  c h i l d n e g l e c t and  see  feeling  of  alcoholism,  abuse.  claimed  that  poverty  was  a  12  crucial  factor in child  nearly  half  the poverty  of the abusive line,  assistance during high proportion income  of  maltreatment.  and  their  unemployed f a t h e r  or b e f o r e  a higher  incidence  pointed  out  that  the  fathers  families i n the  An  year.  were  unemployed  was  low.  home was  engage  in  a  negative  study  by  c h i l d a b u s e . Low pressures  experiencing  and  G i l (May  contrary  that (1976),  Ziegler  existed  were  reason,  s t r o n g l y and  and  c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to  (1979)  between a abuse  discovered more  that  likely  to  substandand housing parents  were  who  were  Pelton  of  care  1979:4).  (1981) c o n c l u d e d  t o t h e myth o f c l a s s l e s s n e s s , t h e phenomenon  a b u s e , i n t e r m s of p r e v a l e n c e  the with  of c h i l d  of W e l f a r e ,  a  the  in providing consistent  f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n (Canadian C o u n c i l W i t h b o t h e v i d e n c e and  public  associated  1969)  problems f o r  difficulties  below  and  incidence  income and  earnings  Garbarino  correlation the  that  a l s o found t h a t  b e l i e v e d t o be  l a r g e r numbers of c h i l d r e n  found to i n c r e a s e already  For  He  found  received  of c h i l d abuse. In h i s s t u d y ,  earlier  families with  o f them had  study  f a m i l y ' s s o c i o - e c o n o m i c s t a t u s and (p.186).  (1970)  f a m i l i e s ( 4 8 . 4 % ) had  t h a t a b o u t 60%  of t h e  Gil  of  that child  s e v e r i t y of consequence, i s  poverty.  CRITIQUE The  psychopathological,  economic models p r o v i d e l e a d i n g to the  cultural  explanations  for  r e m o v a l of c h i l d r e n f r o m t h e i r  psychopathological d i s o r d e r s of  various  ecological,  model  focuses  t h e p e r p e t r a t o r s , and  mainly  on  and  the  socio-  problems  n a t u r a l homes. the  The  personality  t r e a t s t h e d i s o r d e r s as  being  13  largely  responsible  f o r i n a d e q u a t e c h i l d c a r e . Even though  generally accepted that emotional play  a  parental  crucial failure  medical  important r o l e  which  treatment  of  the  larger  p s y c h o l o g i c a l answers to  develop  is  and  problems  i n f a m i l y b r e a k d o w n , and i n  to  provide  counselling,  of  this  psychological  tends  to  or  ignore  psychopathologists could  the  sytems.  only  provide  t o complex  s o c i a l phenomena. They were n o t  comprehensive  u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f , and t h u s , t h e  s o l u t i o n s t o , those problems and  mental  p o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l and economic  W i t h an u n i c a u s a l m o d e l ,  able  and  to p r o v i d e f o r c h i l d r e n , the s o l u t i o n  approach,  psychiatric effects  and  stress  it is  w h i c h had  resulted  from  inequality  discrimination. The  ecological  model  provides  a  comprehensive  s y s t e m a t i c a n a l y s i s o f t h e phenomenon o f , and maladaptation  within  emphasis  i s on  the  system.  It  a  certain  maintainence  disadvantaged  the  system.  It  inabilities  to of  investigation  of  the  This  does  model's  equilibrium  not  advocate  to  blame  for,  of  the  rather  for  the  interests  victims  for  power, of  as  child  of  the  socio-economists  abuse.  In a s i t u a t i o n  between  two  groups  do of  in  they  have  no  desire  to  the  their  irresolvable or  classes,  t h e e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l w i l l be u n s y m p a t h e t i c  because  and  their  a d a p t , and d o e s n o t q u e s t i o n t h e s o u r c e s o f  contradiction  practitioners minorities,  environment.  n o r d o e s i t h e l p them t o seek t h e i r  r i g h t s . T h i s model has a tendency  ideolgical  reasons  p l a c e s t h e onus on t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t o a d a p t ,  than to d i s r u p t  inbalance  the  and  disrupt  to the  14  equilibrium, group.  for  the  sake of p r o t e c t i n g  the r i g h t s of a  6  The  cultural  traditional  model  differences  focuses  on  assimilate  minority  and  values  observed.  The strong  correlation  status.  and  their cultures  Generally,  socio-economic family  have not  been  t h i s model r e i n f o r c e s t h e over  model  between  identifies  family  that  problems,  the  values  studies  status  have  are  shown  that  not  problems e x i s t i n f a m i l i e s of h i g h e r  as  more  abuse,  socio-economic  families  comparatively  problems, however, i t does  there e x i s t s a  such  c h i l d a p p r e h e n s i o n , a n d low f a m i l y  Empirical  groups. I t  culture.  socio-economic  neglect,  the  w h i c h have been d e s i g n e d t o  d o m i n a t i o n of v a l u e s of t h e mainstream c u l t u r e the subordinate  and  g r o u p s i n t o t h e m a i n s t r e a m . The m i n o r i t i e s '  r i g h t s t o p r e s e r v e and t o p r a c t i c e respected  the  between dominant and m i n o r i t y  tends t o l e a d p r i m a r i l y t o s o l u t i o n s  of  small  with  vulnerable  explain  why  socio-economic  the  low to same  classes.  ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORK The p r o b l e m s p r e s e n t e d by t h e c r i t i c a l models the  analysis  of the four  i n d i c a t e a n e e d t o s e e k an a l t e r n a t i v e a p p r o a c h t o s t u d y  phenomenon o f e n f o r c e d c h i l d  exists  one  the  denominator  i n a l l cases,  ideological  o r i e n t a t i o n of the i n v e s t i g a t o r s . That i s , i n a l l of  phenomenon, i n  the the  there  studying  of  families,  apprehension,  In  phenomenon  these  child  separation.  regardless  of  the  common  theoretical  c h i l d r e n a r e a p p e a r e d t o be a t r i s k .  eyes  of  society,  is  undesirable  ,  and  This and  15  consequently  t h e c h i l d r e n h a v e t o be  i s g e n e r a l l y accepted c h i l d r e n who The  that society  a r e deemed t o be  problems  s e p a r a t i o n c a n be  result  is  responsible  i n n e e d of  leading a  removed. By c o n v e n t i o n , i t  to of  to  protect  protection.  the  enforced  numerous  parent-child  factors.  These  may  i n c l u d e the parent's psychopathology;  f e e l i n g s of a l i e n a t i o n  and  anomie  to  the  among  family  maladaptation additional  of  members,  due  parents  in  a  experienced  by  the  the  stress  deprived socio-economic of  these  children  factors. from  situational.  cultural conflict; crisis  situation;  the  h e a d s of h o u s e h o l d s  c o n d i t i o n s ; or i t can  be  a  in  combination  I n s h o r t , t h e d i r e c t c a u s e of t h e r e m o v a l  their There  natural is  no  homes one  is  cause  of  multi-dimensional  and  f o r the apprehension  of  children. C h i l d apprehension phenomenon.  Contrary  can  suggested  be  reduced  regarded  occur  in  psychological,  avoided. Therefore, a d i s t i n c t i o n  the  complex  a  linear  causal  by G i l ( 1 9 7 5 ) , t h e f a l l a c i o u s t e n d e n c y  biological,  levels  a  at  which  social social  dimension,  to a simple c a u s e - e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p .  t h e d y n a m i c s of c h i l d a b u s e a l o n g as  as  t o t h e s t u d y of n a t u r a l phenomena,  phenomena do n o t a l w a y s which  must be  of  interpreting  s i n g l e c a u s a l dimensions s o c i a l , and should  such  economic, should  be  t h e p r o b l e m s o c c u r , and  As  7  made  the  between  be the  forces underlying  occurrance. In the  manifestation  case of  of the  child  apprehension,  the  level  of  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p b r e a k d o w n s h o u l d be t r e a t e d  16  separately mistreat  from the the  objective  the  children.  conditions  emerged. are  forces  The  inseparable  or  the  from  apprehension The  These  conditions  s o c i a l and  which  that  in  this  which  are  which  are  s e t t i n g s i n which the  of  child  believed  similar  a p p r e h e n s i o n of and  variations and  f a m i l i e s of  low  t o - b e more v u l n e r a b l e  the  i n the  on  parent-child  investigate  of  the  conditions.  s o c i a l and  the the  impacts  families  child  temporary takes  with  the  are  the  crucial,  two  manifest.  They a r e  such as F a m i l y are Index.  s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s are  variables.  In  this  and  the  in  the  study  economic  study, the  to  are the  d i r e c t causes  t r e a t e d as  socio-  important  as  social variables,  S o l i d a r i t y , Association Strength, included  major  these conditions  not  the  phenomenon  although this  social  and  families'  are  the  to  the  s o c i o - e c o n o m i c model -  However, t h e r e  of  up  l e v e l s at w h i c h the problems l e a d i n g  separation  economic  Economic  be  economic  c h i l d r e n ' s r e m o v a l . S e c o n d l y , as d i f f e r e n t t o t h e  Education,  to  universal  study  children is correlated  the  economic model, the the  that  is  t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  that  a c c e p t e d o n l y as  the  the  problems  phenomena of  to the  outcome of c h i l d a p p r e h e n s i o n . F i r s t l y ,  recongnizes  of  to  economic  conditions  are  believed  apprehension  permanent removal of t h e i r c h i l d r e n . T h i s  social  these  to  occurred.  phenomenon  position  perpetrators  study chooses to  economic,  the  the  l e v e l s of m a n i f e s t a t i o n  settings  f a m i l i e s of a l l c l a s s e s , but status  drive  construction  and of  Level  of  the S o c i a l -  17  CHAPTER I I I SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS In  any g i v e n  survive.  They  society,  people  transform  must  their  produce  adaptive  in  order  behavior  into  i n s t r u m e n t a l a c t i o n , and c r e a t e c a p a c i t i e s t o produce t h e i r means  of  subsistance.  economy, s u c h by  the  exchange  of  skills of  a  society  the  must s e l l  wages,  which  market  place.  their  Businessmen i n v e s t c a p i t a l  profit  may  by  The s u c c e s s  t h e amount o f p r o f i t  relationships  determines  their  social  determined who have no  the  fortheir economy  of t h e investment  returned. In  this  between  daily  so  that  i s determined  capitalist  economic  not o n l y t h e nature of  various  relationships,  f o r the  classes,  and  i t also  consequently,  the  s t a t u s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s . S o c i a l and economic c o n d i t i o n s  surrounding and  social  upon  into  s y s t e m , t h e mode o f p r o d u c t i o n d e t e r m i n e s economic  Laborers  depend  living.  accrue.  are  raw p h y s i c a l t a l e n t s  they  own  d o m i n a t e d by t h e m a r k e t  a s Canada, t h e v a l u e s of p r o d u c t s  demands  marketable  In  to  people  to affect  t e n d t o i n t e r p o s e upon t h e i r  individual perceptions of,  and  relationships,  actions  i n , the  world. From into social  the  b a s i s of t h e i r  economic c o n d i t i o n s , people  r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h one a n o t h e r .  enter  The l i v e s o f p e o p l e ,  a c c o r d i n g t o M a r x , a r e an " e x p r e s s i o n a n d c o n f i r m a t i o n o f s o c i a l life" social  (Marx  1969:138). Thus, people  beings.  Other than  food, s h e l t e r , and sex,  are  economic,  as  well  as  t h e n a t u r a l o r i n n a t e needs, such as  people  also  have  a  multiplicity  of  18  needs,  including  knowledge  (Albert  fulfilling the  the &  these  economic  conditions  needs  for creative  Hahnel  1978:95).  The  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p e o p l e , a n d by surrounding  the  meeting t h e i r needs. F o r status,  the  comparatively positions.  people  opportunities lower  The  than  of to  among  differences  for  a r e s h a p e d by the  i n d i v i d u a l s . In western  e t h n i c i t y , t e n d t o have v a r i o u s  love, or  opportunities  needs, b o t h n a t u r a l and s o c i a l ,  society, people with d i f f e r e n t a f f i l i a t i o n s and  activity,  economic industrial  of c l a s s ,  religion,  degree of o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n low  social  fulfill  people  their  in  between  and  more  the  economic  needs  are  advantageous  two  groups  are  q u a n t i t a t i v e as w e l l as q u a l i t a t i v e . In c a s e s o f c h i l d a p p r e h e n s i o n , conditions  (Young  affecting  1964, N u r s e their  1964)  behaviors  s t r e s s , l a c k of immediate support  be  poor,  & Mair  1979) showed  unemployed,  on  substandard accommodation. these  families  were  Thus t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s  showed  were  and  economic  that  social  the  major  and economic  from extended f a m i l i e s , s o c i a l  i s o l a t i o n , h i g h m o b i l i t y a n d unemployment (Amacher  social  of t h e f a m i l i e s a r e dynamic and c o n s t a n t l y c h a n g i n g .  Some s t u d i e s factors  the  .  A  Vancouver  study  t h a t many N a t i v e f a m i l i e s t e n d e d t o Social  Assistance,  The q u a l i t i e s o f  and  life  living  in  f o r many  of  worse than f o r a v e r a g e C a n a d i a n f a m i l i e s . of these f a m i l i e s t o f u l f i l l  their  needs  lower q u a l i t y of l i f e  a p p e a r s t o have n o t i c e a b l e  impact  performance  child  were s u b s t a n t i a l l y l o w e r . The on  the  of  the  i n c a r e f a m i l i e s . Thus, t h e  19  a s s u m p t i o n c a n be made t h a t terms  of  t h e changes of t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s ,  t h e f a m i l i e s ' s o c i a l and economic s t a t u s , should  e f f e c t s on t h e i r  behavior  patterns.  improvement o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s of  their  unsatisfied  the  r e t u r n of t h e i r c h i l d r e n . The n i n e  economic  For  should  these  have  families,  the  e n a b l e them t o f u l f i l l  many  needs, and t o enhance t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f  indicators selected to i l l u s t r a t e  conditions  in  the  social  and  o f t h e f a m i l i e s a r e : 1. A n n u a l Income, 2.  S o u r c e o f Income, 3. O c c u p a t i o n o f t h e  Head  House  o f E d u c a t i o n o f t h e Head  of  T y p e , 5. D w e l l i n g  A r e a , 6. L e v e l  of  4.  t h e H o u s e h o l d , 7. L e n g t h o f Employment o r Unemployment o f t h e  Head o f t h e H o u s e h o l d , 8. F a m i l y ' s A s s o c i a t i o n Family  of  conditions families'  these  which  variables  are  believed  -  to  a specific  have  was u s e d by H o l l i n g s h e a d  s t u d y on S o c i a l C l a s s  scales  depict  ways o f a c t i o n . One o f t h e n i n e  Education  their  Strength,  and  9.  Solidarity.  Each  of  Household,  and M e t a l  aspect of t h e  influence  upon  the  i n d i c a t o r s - the Level and R e d l i c h  Illness  .  They  (1958) i n developed  o f measurement f o r a number o f i n d i c a t o r s , a n d u s e d them  t o c o m p i l e an I n d e x o f S o c i a l P o s i t i o n t o occupational  situations  in  the  estimate  status  individuals  structure  of  their  communities. An e a r l i e r Occupation, the  four  Status  s t u d y by W a r n e r , M e e k e r a n d  Source  of  Eells  (1949)  Income, House Type a n d D w e l l i n g  status characteristics  in  constructing  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , w h i c h was i n t e n d e d  an  to assign  used  Area as  Index  of  individuals  20  and  families  to social classes.  Family Association  ( f o r m a l and  i n f o r m a l ) a n d F a m i l y S o l i d a r i t y were two o f t h e v a r i a b l e s Geismar-Ayres Family Functioning Scale As w e l l Annual  as these seven v a r i a b l e s  Income  and  the  Length  H o u s e h o l d . T h e s e two v a r i a b l e s believed  The variables their  their  project variable,  and t o have e f f e c t s  definitions generally  and  Some the  various levels variables  included  o f t h e Head o f  because  they  are  on t h e  families'  way  of  children.  origins.  purpose  Employment  of  t o r e f l e c t t h e s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s of t h e c h i l d  in care f a m i l i e s , treating  1965).  are the Family's Level  of  are  (Geismar & Ayres  i n the  were  of  each  of  the  nine  followed the d e f i n i t i o n s minor use  revisions  for this  of t h e Length of created  and  from t h e sources of made  to  suit  s t u d y . The d e f i n i t i o n s Employment  and  of t h e  levels  the  of the  Annual  designed only f o r t h i s  ( f o r d e t a i l s of the d e f i n i t i o n s see Appendix I I ) .  were  social-economic  Income  particular of  each  21  CHAPTER I V RESEARCH DESIGN HISTORICAL AND THEORECTICAL Research psychology  in ,  discipline.  social  and  work,  political  But s i m i l a r  8  BACKGROUND as  compared  science  t o these  is a  social  to  sociology,  relatively  new  sciences, social  work  r e s e a r c h h a s c r e a t e d i t s own u n i q u e a p p r o a c h e s a t v a r i o u s of d e v e l o p m e n t . The t h e o r e t i c a l a n d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l of  these  approaches a r e determined  the p r a c t i t i o n e r s . Early  by  represented along  political social  the  by t h e  with  social  social  work  research  was  s u r v e y movement. The 1930s was an e r a  problem-centered  s c i e n c e , the normative research.  functionalists,  approach.  In  studies  uncovering  flaws  political  and  a p p r o a c h began t o  Contrary  to  the  the  1960s,  i n the late in  the  observed  by  larger  social  processes  I t i s w i t h The New L e f t t r a d i t i o n In a d d i t i o n ,  critical  assessment  the aim of of  the  d e s c r i p t i o n and e x p l o r a t i o n , apprehension.  Geismar  1 1  this  social  systems affecting 1 0  in  of the  1960's b r o u g h t and  1960s were h e a v i l y w e i g h t e d  administrative  conducted.  flourish  conservatism  t h e new l e f t movement o f t h e l a t e  new i d e a s i n t o s o c i a l w o r k . As  clients.  by t h e p a r a d i g m s a d o p t e d by  t h e r i s e of f u n c t i o n a l i s m i n American s o c i o l o g y and  work  (1982),  orientations  9  i n the twentieth century,  dominated  stages  and  Wood toward  i n the  the l i v e s of  that t h i s study i s  study reality  i s to as  well  o f t h e outcome o f e n f o r c e d  give  a  as  a  child  22  PURPOSE OF EMPIRICAL  STUDY  The p u r p o s e o f c o n d u c t i n g an e m p i r i c a l the  social-economic  families,  and  characteristics  child  in  care  The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e c h a n g e s  the social-economic conditions  children  the  i s to identify  t o e x p l o r e t h e a s s o c i a t i o n between t h e f a m i l i e s '  social-economic conditions. of  of  study  i n care w i l l  and t h e l e g a l  status  of the  be e x a m i n e d .  METHODOLOGY This  study  utilized  (Tripodi, F e l l i n ,  a n d Meyer  design. of  A retrospective  an  exploratory-descriptive  1969:25-26) w i t h  an  l o o k was n e c e s s i t a t e d  ex  permanent  custody  cases  took  post  facto  by t h e l i m i t a t i o n  t i m e . I t d i d n o t seem t o be f e a s i b l e f o r t h e  f o l l o w t h e development and outcomes o f c h i l d  method  researcher  to  i n c a r e c a s e s . Some  one t o two y e a r s b e f o r e a  final  c o u r t o r d e r was o b t a i n e d . As an e x p l o r a t o r y - d e s c r i p t i v e of  this  study  in  cases  of  quantitative separation  conditions in  i s t o r e f i n e and develop concepts child  and  apprehension.  qualitative  This  study  objective  and hypotheses provides  both  d e s c r i p t i o n s of the p a r e n t - c h i l d  phenomena. T h e s e i n c l u d e q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s o f t h e  social-economic influences  study, the primary  of  conditions  of  the q u a l i t a t i v e  the  families,  and  of  the  changes of t h e s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c  upon t h e r e v i s i o n o f t h e l e g a l s t a t u s  of the c h i l d r e n  care. As s t a t e d  i n Chapter  I I , social-economic  conditions  are  23  seen  as  the  l e v e l of m a n i f e s t a t i o n of t h e problems  the apprehension direct  causes  of of  children. the  These  removal  conditions  of c h i l d r e n  leading to  are  not the  from t h e i r  natural  study, the s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s a r e the l e g a l  status  environments. INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT V A R I A B L E S In t h i s of  the  children  (L.S.), the nine social-economic variables at  the time of apprehension first  change  or  (S.E.S.T1),  extension order  of  and  the  expired  at  the  legal  temporary  custody  economic  v a r i a b l e s a r e : the Family's Annual  time  status  (S.E.S.T2).The  of  after  nine  the the  social-  Income, S o u r c e s o f  Income, O c c u p a t i o n , House T y p e , D w e l l i n g A r e a , E d u c a t i o n , L e n g t h of  Employment,  Solidarity.  Family  Association  Strength,  and  Family  The g r a p h i c p r e s e n t a t i o n i n F i g u r e 1 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e  i n t e r r e l a t i o n s among t h e s e  variables. Figure I  PATH DIAGRAM OF CHILD I N CARE CASES S.E.S.T1  > . S. <  I  The  S.E.S.T1  >S.E.S.T2  L  is  the independent  1 v a r i a b l e and t h e L.S. i s  t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e . The S.E.S.T2 i n r e l a t i o n  t o t h e S.E.S.T1  i s t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s , but i t i s t h e independent of L.S..  variables  24  Other  than  the  v a r i a b l e s , a number providing their  a  independent  variables  o f d a t a were c o l l e c t e d  f o r the  d e s c r i p t i v e p r o f i l e of t h e c h i l d r e n  f a m i l i e s . The p r o f i l e s o f t h e c h i l d r e n  their  age,  and t h e dependent  sex, r a c i a l  origin,  purpose  i n c a r e and of  in  care  included  religious affiliation,  S t a t u s , d a t e of l a s t a d m i s s i o n , d a t e o f t h e l a s t change last  extension  of  legal  R e g i o n s , and t h e reasons families marital  included status  residing  with  f o r admission.  The  or the  profiles  racial  origin,  the  of t h e  t h e i r age, s e x ,  numbers  of  children  t h e f a m i l i e s a t t h e time of a d m i s s i o n and a t t h e  time of the c h i l d ' s  l a s t change o r e x t e n s i o n  and  l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e i n the Region  the  Indian  s t a t u s , t h e a d m i t t i n g and s u p e r v i s i n g  t h e heads o f t h e h o u s e h o l d s ,  and  of  families'  c h i l d r e n ' s admission  of  legal  status,  before the-  into care.  SAMPLING A combination of p r o p o r t i o n a l l y (Matyntz, adopted  in this  was u s e d two  et  al  1976:77)  and  purposive  s t u d y . The p r o p o r t i o n a l  i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e number  Regions,  purposefully  stratified  and  the  s e t a t twenty  number  sample  stratified  of cases of  sample  legal  f o r each of t h e  method were s a m p l e method  selected status three  method  from  the  cases  was  legal  status  groups. A Regions  total  of  sixty  child  1 a n d 15 o f t h e M i n i s t r y  Columbia.  i n c a r e c a s e s were c h o s e n f r o m o f Human R e s o u r c e s  The M i n i s t r y o f Human R e s o u r c e s  i sdivided  in into  British twenty  25  Regions.  Five  both s o c i a l people which  and  these  Regions  Region  Downtown a n d Hornby  Boundary Road,  S t r a t h c o n a a r e a and  s a m p l e p o p u l a t i o n was availability  of  to  i s bounded  by  restricted the  Drive,  15 i s t h e  Burrard  G r e a t N o r t h e r n Way  Inlet,  and C l a r k D r i v e .  t o 60 c a s e s , b e c a u s e o f  social  the  Vancouver  Clark  the B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n R a i l w a y . Region  S t r e e t , F a l s e Creek,  limited  programs  1 c o v e r s t h e a r e a of E a s t  i s b o u n d e d by B u r r a r d I n l e t , and  are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r o v i d i n g  Income A s s i s t a n c e s e r v i c e s and  of Vancouver.  Broadway  The  of  workers'  time  for  the the  interviews. The more  numbers o f c h i l d r e n  than  in  Region  c a s e s s e l e c t e d was Region Region  1.  1 2  1, a n d  collecting sibling picked  Out  than  the c h i l d  There  of f a m i l i y the  from  15. I n o r d e r t o p r e v e n t in  care  cases,  broader  by R e g i o n s , t h e  selected  into  different  i n c a r e c a s e s . These t h r e e groups temporary  legal  status  s t a t u s changes f o r  were :  custody  and  who  become p e r m a n e n t w a r d s , 2.  c h i l d r e n who  was  of  were t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s o f l e g a l  in  for  background. cases  subdivided  were  were  the o l d e s t c h i l d of the s i b l i n g s  dividing  1. c h i l d r e n who  i n care  i n f a v o r of  cases  study. T h i s design ensured s e c u r i t y  s a m p l e s were f u r t h e r groups.  fourty-two  i n f o r m a t i o n on c h i l d  groups,  and g r e a t e r v a r i e t i e s Other  cases,  e i g h t e e n were from R e g i o n  for this  three times  15. T h e r e f o r e , t h e r a t i o o f c h i l d  of s i x t y  care  1 was  k e p t a t t h e r a t i o o f t h r e e t o one  identical  in  i n care i n Region  were i n t e m p o r a r y  c u s t o d y and who  had  26  their  legal  status  extended,  3. c h i l d r e n who were i n t e m p o r a r y  custody  a n d who were  discharged.  The  sample d e s i g n a l l o w e d t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o d e v e l o p  analysis  of  the  different  legal  social-economic  i n the f o l l o w i n g  the c h i l d  TOTAL  cases  i n care  REGION 1  Gp. 1 T e m p o r a r y t o P e r m a n e n t Gp. 2 T e m p o r a r y E x t e n d e d Gp. 3 T e m p o r a r y t o D i s c h a r g e d  60  the  three  cases  are  fashion :  L e g a l S t a t u s Groups  The  of  s t a t u s groups of the f a m i l i e s .  B a s e d on t h e s a m p l e c r i t e r i a , distributed  conditions  comparative  14 14 14  6 6 6  42  18  were s e l e c t e d r e t r o a c t i v e l y .  most r e c e n t a n d met t h e s a m p l i n g  REGION 15  criteria  The c a s e s w h i c h  were  were  this  used  in  study. METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION The  data  s o c i a l workers and  Child  Ministry  f o r t h i s s t u d y were c o l l e c t e d by i n t e r v i e w i n g t h e i n charge  Services of  identified  Human the  of the c h i l d  Coordinators Resources  names  of  the  of  cases  Regions  selected social  r e f e r e n c e s . The C o o r d i n a t o r s i n f o r m e d their  i n c a r e c a s e s . The  the  1 a n d 15 o f t h e 60  workers  the  Family  social  cases, through  and cross  workers  that  h a d been c h o s e n f o r t h e s t u d y , a n d t h a t t h e y  would  27  be  interviewed. A t o t a l o f 27 s o c i a l  notified  about  (Appendix  this  I I ) and t h e  workers study.  from  the  Copies  Introductory  of  two  Regions  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  letter  (Appendix  f o r w a r d e d t o them t h r o u g h t h e C o o r d i n a t o r s * o f f i c e s week  prior  to  the  interview.  This  for  the i n t e r v i e w . A l i s t  the  C o o r d i n a t o r s and t h e s o c i a l  to  arrange  sought  (Appendix  in the s o c i a l  at least  and  to  one  gather  of names was p r o v i d e d by  w o r k e r s were c o n t a c t e d by  phone  their  consents  I V ) . A l l o f t h e i n t e r v i e w s were  conducted  worker's  i n the  study,  and  offices.  During the i n t e r v i e w s , the s o c i a l same  were  i n t e r v i e w s . Of t h e 27 s o c i a l w o r k e r s c o n t a c t e d , a l l  were w i l l i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e were  I)  was i n t e n d e d t o g i v e t h e  s o c i a l w o r k e r s ample t i m e t o p r e p a r e t h e m s e l v e s information  were  q u e s t i o n s as those that appeared  workers  were  asked  the  on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . I f  they experienced d i f f i c u l t i e s  i n understanding the questions  definitions  of t h e v a r i a b l e s , e x p l a n a t i o n s and  of  the  c l a r i f i c a t i o n s were provided  by  the  levels provided  social  were  recording  sheet  recorded  them.  None  of  the  answers  w o r k e r s were g i v e n i n an a m b i g i o u s o r  c o n f u s i n g manner. A l l t h e workers  to  or  responses  by  provided  by  the  social  t h e i n t e r v i e w e r on a p r e p a r e d d a t a -  (Appendix I I I ) .  PRELIMINARY TESTING A preliminary determine especially  the  test  was  conducted  applicability  the d e f i n i t i o n s  of  of the  the seven  in  January,  1982  questionnaires, levels  of  the  to and nine  28  social-economic  variables.  f o l l o w e d t h e same p r o c e d u r e s s i x c a s e s were u s e d , social Other  workers than  The  four  of  as i n the a c t u a l  w i t h two f r o m  from  method  each l e g a l  district  data  study. A t o t a l  o f f i c e s were i n t e r v i e w e d .  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , t h e s o c i a l workers  responses,  remainder  one  were  were a s k e d After  to  reviewing  m i n o r c h a n g e was made i n a d e f i n i t i o n . The  of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  collection  of  s t a t u s group. F i v e  comment on t h e programme d e s i g n a n d d e f i n i t i o n s . the  collection  and  the  method  of  the  data  static.  METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS All  of the responses  given  i n t h e i n t e r v i e w s were c o d e d on  t h e d a t a - r e c o r d i n g s h e e t s , a n d were e n t e r e d  into the  stored  analysis,  on  magnetic  disc.  A l l data  data  including  u n i v a r i a t e s , b i - v a r i a t e s , a n d m u l t i - v a r i a t e s , were done Statistical  Package  For  the  ( N i e , e t a l 1975, a n d K i t a  Social  Sciences  1980).  d e s c r i p t i o n s of the s p e c i f i c  conditions  of  the  c a t o g o r i e s were p l a c e d i n an o r d e r o f f r o m  from  poor  categories,  to  good.  In  accordance  with  class,  the  categorical  families.  low t o h i g h o r order  of the  variable  of  Level  I n c o m e , a v a l u e number o f 1 was a s s i g n e d t o l o w e r and  The  a v a l u e s c a l e o f 1 t o 7 was a s s i g n e d t o t h e s o c i a l -  economic v a r i a b l e s . F o r example, i n t h e Annual  i n the  (SPSS) p r o g r a m s  For each o f t h e n i n e v a r i a b l e s t h e r e were seven  seven  file  a  7  s c a l e was c o n v e r t e d  t o upper c l a s s .  In t h i s case,  i n t o an i n t e r v a l  L e g a l s t a t u s p e r se was a n o m i n a l  of  poverty  the c a t e g o r i c a l  scale. variable,  but the s u b j e c t  29  of t h i s legal  study  was  status  of  not o n l y children  c o n d i t i o n s of t h e i r relationships economic  on  the  relationships  i n c a r e and t h e s o c i a l and  f a m i l i e s . T h i s study a l s o  between  between  the  changes  c o n d i t i o n s and t h e  changes  of  economic  focussed  of t h e f a m i l i e s ' the  the  on  the  social  children's  and  legal  status. Among  the  three  legal  s t a t u s group - Temporary in  legal  legal  status unit,  status  O r d e r E x t e n d e d - was  status  unit,  so  d i s c h a r g e d group, which  value  of  "1"  s e e n as no  was  legal change  g i v e n . The  first  t o P e r m a n e n t - had r e g r e s s e d  t h a t a v a l u e of  was  given.  legal  status unit,  In order  to simplify  units  therefore, the u n i t  group to  from  of  temporary  to  legal  v a r i a b l e was  result  permanent  t o " 1 " , t h e t e m p o r a r y e x t e n s i o n g r o u p grom  " 2 " , and t h e d i s c h a r g e d g r o u p f r o m " 1 " t o " 3 " . S i n c e  the  status  u n i t s had n u m e r i c a l  t r e a t e d as i n t e r v a l  descriptive  v a l u e s , the l e g a l  status  variable.  i n n a t u r e , a s was  part provided background their  families.  social-economic  The  conditions  part of  first  o r i g i n a l l y designed. This  i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e c h i l d r e n  second  "0"  a l l of  T h e r e were t h r e e main p a r t s o f t h e d a t a a n a l y s i s . The p a r t was  of  legal  were g i v e n an a d d i t i o n a l v a l u e o f " 2 " . The  of t h i s a d d i t i o n brought the v a l u e  The  order  measurement and t o a v o i d u s i n g n e g a t i v e v a l u e , a l l o f t h e status  one  assigned.  , when c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e t e m p o r a r y  e x t e n s i o n g r o u p , had moved up one a  the second  t h u s , a v a l u e o f "0" was  s t a t u s group - Temporary  legal  groups,  comprised  a  i n care  profile  of  and the  the f a m i l i e s at the time of the  30  child  apprehensions, or a t t h e time of t h e  revision.  Other  than  the  quantitative  families'  social-economic conditions,  the  legal status  three In  was  the  last  first  legal  description  of  part  , the Pearson's c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t strength  between t h e s o c i a l -  of  Social-Economic  positons  Furthermore, the Economic  addition,  t h e n i n e s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c v a r i a b l e s were u s e d t o  c o m p i l e an Index comparative  of  g r o u p s was c o n d u c t e d .  used t o examine t h e a s s o c i a t i o n  scales  of t h e  a comparative a n a l y s i s  economic v a r i a b l e s and t h e l e g a l s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s . I n the  status  so  of t h e i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l i e s c o u l d  relationship  Position  Positions,  between  and t h e l e g a l s t a t u s  were i n v e s t i g a t e d a n d  the  that  the  be known.  families'  of the c h i l d r e n  Sociali n care  explored.  MISSING DATA The  unavailable  calculated  on  the  economic v a r i a b l e s was  d a t a on a n y s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c v a r i a b l e s base  of  the  values  of the other  were  social-  f r o m t h e same c a s e . The method o f c a l c u l a t i o n  as f o l l o w s : All  of t h e t o t a l  s c o r e s on s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c s t a t u s  transformed  into  In o b t a i n i n g  t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f maximum, t h e t o a t a l  were  t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e maximum t o t a l .  c a l c u l a t e d a s a p e r c e n t a g e o f maximum p o s s i b l e  was  total.  ie a d j u s t e d t o t a l ADJUSTED TOTAL =  becomes :  TOTAL SCORE FOR A L L KNOWN VARIALBES POSSIBLE MAXIMUM TOTAL FOR THE KNOWN VARIABLES  32  CHAPTER V PROFILES OF THE CHILDREN IN CARE AND THEIR F A M I L I E S Part  of the f u n c t i o n  to develop q u a n t i t a t i v e study.  descriptions  of  the  This chapter provides information  of c h i l d  apprehension.  t h e phenomena the  of a d e s c r i p t i v e - e x p l o r a t o r y  of p a r e n t - c h i l d  characteristics  composition  These i n c l u d e  of  study i s  phenomena  under  on t h e v a r i o u s a s p e c t s  t h e time and p l a c e a t  separation  o c c u r r e d . In  which  addition,  t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e f a m i l i e s , and t h e  o f t h e f a m i l i e s were a l s o  provided.  REGION Seventy were  p e r c e n t , o r 42, o f t h e 60 c h i l d r e n  selected  from  c l i e n t s of Region  Region  in  1, a n d t h e r e m a i n i n g  care  cases  30% ( 1 8 ) were  15.  Region  (N)  %  1 15  (42) (18)  70 30  Total  (60)  1 00  ADMITTING REGIONS With  t h e e x c e p t i o n o f one c a s e , a l l o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n c a r e  were a d m i t t e d 68.3%  i n the Region  i n which  the  (41) of t h e c h i l d r e n under temporary  into care  i n Region  cases  were  custody  were  selected. admitted  1, a s c o m p a r e d t o 31.7% ( 1 9 ) i n R e g i o n  15.  33  SUPERVISING Of  REGIONS  the  60  child  in  c a r e c a s e s , 66.7% ( 4 0 ) o f them were  T a b l e 2. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n by R e g i o n s o f A d m i s s i o n . Region  (N)  %  1 15  (41) (19)  68.3 31.7  Total  (60)  100.0  under t h e s u p e r v i s i o n of Region  1, 3 0 . 0 % (18) by R e g i o n  15,  and  T a b l e 3. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n by R e g i o n s o f S u p e r v i s i o n . Region  t h e r e m a i n i n g 3.4%  (N)  1 9 15 16  (40) ( 1 ) (18) ( 1 )  Total  (60)  66.7 1.7 30.0 1.7 100.0  (2) were s u p e r v i s e d by R e g i o n s 9 a n d 16.  LEGAL STATUS OF CHILDREN I N CARE The  selection  o f t h e 60 t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y c a s e s was  on t h e c r i t e r i a  of l e g a l  groups  of  cases  percent  ( 2 0 ) o f t h e c h i l d r e n were d i s c h a r g e d f r o m t e m p o r a r y c a r e  20  s t a t u s changes.  were  chosen.  In  this  study,  based three  T h i r t y - t h r e e and o n e - t h i r d  and were r e t u r n e d home ( g r o u p 3 ) . A n o t h e r 3 3 . 3 % ( 2 0 ) o f them had their  temporary order extended  ( g r o u p 2 ) , and t h e s t a t u s  of  the  r e m a i n i n g 3 3 . 3 % ( 2 0 ) were r e v i s e d , a n d t h e y had become p e r m a n e n t  34  wards (group TIME OF  1).  ADMISSION Table  4. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n by L e g a l S t a t u s .  Legal Status  (N)  D i s c h a r g e from temporary c u s t o d y Temporary custody extended Temporary c u s t o d y t o permanent  (20) (20) (20)  33.3 33.3 33.3  Total  (60)  100.0  Eight  and  three-tenth  apprehended b e f o r e care  between  1980,  January  Table  and  and  percent 11.7%  J u n e of  (7) o f them were 1980.  80 80 81 81  Total  into  (20)  were  of  the  100.0  between  admitted  %  (60)  children  1980,  January  (6) were a p p r e h e n d e d i n t h e l a s t  36.7% and  (22)  J u n e of  s i x months of  1981,  and  1981.  LEGAL STATUS REVISION  Only  one  and  u n d e r s t u d y was percent  33.3%  8.3 11.7 33.3 36.7 10.0  December o f  TIME OF  were  taken  ( 5) ( 7) (20) (22) ( 6)  a d m i t t e d b e t w e e n J u l y and  10%  Another  (N)  B e f o r e 1980 J a n . t o June J u l y t o Dec. J a n . to June J u l y t o Dec.  only  of the c h i l d r e n  5. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n by Time o f A d m i s s i o n . Time  were  (5)  %  seven-tenth percent  (1) o f t h e t e m p o r a r y  r e v i s e d between J a n u a r y  (3) o f t h e c h i l i d r e n ' s  temporary  and J u n e o f  1980.  cases Five  o r d e r were r e c o n s i d e r e d  35  between their  July  status  and  December  revised  1980,  and  b e t w e e n J a n u a r y and  15%  (9)  June  of  the  1981.  them  The  had  majority  T a b l e 6. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n of C h i l d r e n by Time of L e g a l S t a t u s R e v i s i o n . Time  (N)  Jan. July Jan. July Jan.  to to to to to  June Dec. June Dec. March  80 80 81 81 82  them, 58.3%  revised  (60)  (35)  of  the  b e t w e e n J u l y and  (12)  of  the  1982.  In the  1 .7 5.0 15.0 58.3 20.0  ( 1) ( 3) ( 9) (35) (12)  Total of  %  case  children's  temporary  December of  1981,  were reexamined  c u s t o d y h e a r i n g s , the  100.0  and  i n the  wardships the  first  were  remaining four  20%  months  of  o r d e r s were e i t h e r c h a n g e d  or  extended. PROFILES OF  CHILDREN IN CARE SAMPLE  In t h i s religious  section,  the  affiliation,  children's  age,  Indian Status,  and  sex,  racial  reasons for  origin, admission  were p r e s e n t e d . 1.  Age The  years. 48.3% was  mean age Most  (29)  under, smallest  the  years  i n c a r e . The which age  was  children  them, 51.7%  were e l e v e n o r  fifteen  children  of  of  old,  (31),  older.  i n t h i s sample  were u n d e r t e n  The  largest  (9)  groups were the  largest of  a l l of  four  and  group the  was  years o l d ,  single  w h i c h c o m p r i s e d 26.7%  second 15%  in care  age  (16)  was  one  children  f i v e year o l d ,  of  9 and  group a l l the  year  or  in care.  The  with  each  36  constituting  1.7%  ( l ) of the s e l e c t e d  the ages of the c h i l d r e n Table  child  i n c a r e c a s e s . When  were l u m p e d i n t o t h r e e g r o u p s ,  7. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n  Age  (N)  1 & under 2 3 4 5 7 8 9  ( 9) ( 5) ( 3) ( 1) ( 1) ( 6) ( 4) ( 2)  of C h i l d r e n  % 15.0 8.3 5.0 1 .7 1 .7 10.0 6.7 3.3  Mean = 9 .00  31.7% of  by A g e .  Age  (N)  %  1 1 12 13 14 15 16  ( 2) ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) (16) ( 2)  3.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 26.7 3.3  Total  (60)  1 00.0  S.D. == 5.569  them were u n d e r s i x y e a r s , 2 8 . 3 % w e r e b e t w e e n s e v e n and and  the  remaining  40%  were  between  eleven,  t h e age o f t h i r t e e n  and  sixteen. 2. SEX Table  8. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n Sex  (N)  Male Female  (33) (27)  55.0 45.0  Total  (60)  100.0  F i f t y - f i v e percent and  of C h i l d r e n %  (33) of t h e c h i l d r e n  t h e o t h e r 4 5 % ( 2 7 ) were  by S e x .  i n c a r e were  boys,  girls.  3. RACIAL ORIGINS Caucasian which  constituted  had 43.3% (26) of t h e c h i l d  I n d i a n was t h e s e c o n d Native  the  children,  single in  largest  care  cases.  racial The  most numerous g r o u p , t h e r e b e i n g  or 28.3% of a l l of t h e s e l e c t e d  child  group, Native  seventeen i n care  37  cases.  Ten  percent  extraction.  Negro  (6)  of  the  children  and M e t i s r e p r e s e n t e d o n l y  T a b l e 9. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n  (1)  were  Asiatic  3.3% ( 2 ) a n d  by R a c i a l  Racial Origin  (N)  Caucasian Native Asiatic Metis Negro Mixed Origins  (26) (17) ( 6) ( 1) (2) ( 8)  43.3 28.3 10.0 1.7 3.3 13.3  Total  (60)  100.0  r e s p e c t i v e l y . The r e m a i n i n g  of  1.7%  Origin.  %  13.3% (8) were o f  mixed  racial  origins. 4. RELIGIOUS A F F I L I A T I O N For or  22,  t h o s e c h i l d r e n who were i n c a r e , were  known t o p r a c t i c e  Table  10. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f by R e l i q i o u s A f f i l i a t i o n .  Religious  affiliation  Affiliation  (N) ( 7) (11) ( 4) (26) (12)  Total  (60)  or  The  largest  any r e l i g i o n .  The  r e m a i n i n g 2 1 . 7 % ( 1 3 ) was unknown.  36.7%  Children  % 1 1.7 18 .3 6 .7 . 43 .3 20 .0 100 .0  18.3% ( 1 1 ) w e r e C a t h o l i c s , a n d 6.7%  Muslems. with  a minority,  r e l i g i o n . Among them, 11.7% ( 7 )  Protestant Catholic Other A f f i l i a t i o n No R e l i g i o n Not Known  were P r o t e s t a n t s , Buddhist  only  group, religious  (4)  were  4 3 . 3 % ( 2 6 ) , had no identity  of  the  38  5. INDIAN STATUS Although care cases,  Native children  represented  28.3% (17) of c h i l d i n t o have I n d i a n  Status.  The o t h e r  29.4% (5) o f t h e I n d i a n c h i l d r e n had no I n d i a n  Status,  and  S t a t u s o f one o f t h e I n d i a n c h i l d r e n , o r 5.9%, was n o t  the  6 4 . 7 % (11) o f them were known  known.  Table  11. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n by I n d i a n S t a t u s .  Indian  64.7 29.4 5.9  Total  (17)  100.0  ADMISSION  them  f o r the c h i l d r e n ' s apprehension had  a number  of reasons  c a r e . From t h e i n t e r v i e w s , t h e number social  workers  cases, a t o t a l The failure,  %  (11) ( 5) ( 1)  The r e a s o n s of  (N)  Have S t a t u s Have No S t a t u s Not Known  6. REASONS FOR  Some  Status  of C h i l d r e n  one  per  ranged  o f 97 r e a s o n s which  29.9%  case  (29)  was of  were  f o r being admitted  of reasons  given  constituted 6.19%  represented  11.34%  the  were g i v e n .  most the  frequently  used  children admitted  f o r them. The s e c o n d most u s e d r e a s o n  n e g l e c t , which  by  into  f r o m one t o t h r e e . Of t h e 60  was  19.59%  (11), emotional  ( 6 ) , p h y s i c a l a b u s e 5.15%  parents  f o r apprehension  (19). Delinquent a b u s e 7.22%  ( 5 ) , and  parental  into care  b e l i e v e d t o have s u f f e r e d from t h e f a i l u r e of t h e i r care  numerous.  were to was  behavior  (7),desertion  failure  to  provide  39  medical  care  was  parental  mental  3.09%  Reasons of  10. 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15.  Each  illness, parental  of  physical illness,  Admission  P h y s i c a l Abuse D e s e r t i o n o r Abandonment Emotional Disturbance Parental I l l n e s s , Mental Parental Illness, Physcial Delinquent Behavior Transient Unmarried Mother Parental F a i l u r e to provide M e d i c a l Care Parental Failure Lack of Housing S e x u a l Abuse by N e i g h b o r E m o t i o n a l Abuse Neglect S e x u a l Abuse by P a r e n t  by  parent,  apprehension. transient, by  The  consitituted remaining  unmarried  2.06  four  sexual  by  %  ( 5) ( 6) ( 7) ( 2) ( 2) (11) ( 1) ( 1)  5. 1 5 6. 19 7. 22 2. 06 2. 06 1 1 .34 1 . 03 1 . 03  ( 3) (29) ( 1) ( 1) ( 7) (19) ( 2)  3. 09 29. 90 1 . 03 1 . 03 7. 22 1 9 . 59 2. 06  (97)  100. 00  (2)  groups  claims,  and  (N)  Total abuse  the f o l l o w i n g  T a b l e 12. D i s t r i b u t i o n of the C h i l d r e n Reasons of A d m i s s i o n .  Frequency  1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  (3).  of  the reasons  of  1.03%  m o t h e r , l a c k of h o u s i n g , and  (1)  for were  s e x u a l abuse  neighbor.  SUMMARY The  age  represented m a l e , and were  and by  sex  of  the  most o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s .  45% were f e m a l e . As  u n d e r s i x y e a r s o l d , 1/3  were b e t w e e n t h e age origins,  the  children  color  about  between seven  groups  care  Fifty-five  f o r t h e i r age,  of t h i r t e e n and racial  in  and  sixteen. were  were  well  p e r c e n t were 1/3  of  them  t w e l v e , and  Regarding  1/3  racial  overrepresented,  the  40  m a j o r i t y of  the  children  (56.7%)  l a r g e s t non-white group being 28.3%  of  the  represented Canada, care  children  a very  but t h i s  were  the Native  i n care.  s m a l l segment study  believed  being  to  have  and t h e  Indian, which  comprised  Children with Indian  of  found that  non-white,  the c h i l d  population  Indian  Status.  Regarding  of t h e c h i l d r e n i n c a r e , o n l y about  were  practice religion,  to  known t o h a v e no a f f i l a t i o n According parental  apprehensions. most  common  and n e a r l y h a l f  was t h e most common r e a s o n  Neglect  and d e l i n q u e n t  factors.  1/3 o f them o f them w e r e  of  the  in  this  constituted admission B.  study,  behavior  were  A b u s e h a d been c o n s i d e r e d  physical,  the  second  by many  social  s e x u a l and e m o t i o n a l  14.43% o f a l l t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n  cases,  f o rthe children's  w o r k e r s a s one o f t h e m a j o r p r o b l e m s i n c h i l d p r o t e c t i o n but  the  w i t h any r e l i g i o n .  t o the s o c i a l workers i n charge  failure  in  18.3% (11) of t h e c h i l d r e n i n  religious belief known  Status  cases,  abuse  only  f o r the c h i l d r e n ' s  to care.  PROFILE OF THE F A M I L I E S The  family  profile  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  the  children  at  time  at  home  of the l e g a l  presented  heads  of  the time  households,  c h i l d r e n were t a k e n  into  residence care.  includes the  of the apprehension,  s t a t u s r e v i s i o n . Other  l e n g t h of the f a m i l i e s '  here  i n the  number  the of  and a t t h e  information include the Region  i n which  the  41  1. HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD Sixty-three Households were  and  three-tenth  percent  - t h e p e r s o n s who h a d t h e main  the children's b i o l o g i c a l Table  mothers.  the  Biological Biological Biological Relat ives Others  (17) (38) ( 1) ( 1) ( 3)  Father Mother Grandparents  (17) of  Both  family  financial  Twenty-eight  (N)  represented  of  income and t h r e e -  13. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by t h e Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s .  Total  fathers.  source  Head o f H o u s e h o l d  tenth percent  ( 2 8 ) o f t h e Head o f  the  them  were  biological  28.3 63.3 1 .7 1 .7 5.0  (60)  100.0  the  children's  biological  grandparents and o t h e r  1.7% ( 1 ) o f t h e f a m i l i e s ' were  %  relatives  bread winners. F r i e n d s  of  c o n s i d e r e d t o r e p r e s e n t 5% ( 1 ) o f t h e c h i l d ' s  support.  2. AGE OF THE HEADS OF THE HOUSEHOLDS The four  a v e r a g e age o f t h e h e a d s o f t h e h o u s e h o l d s  years.  Among  a l l of  them,  there  was  thirty-  was o n l y 1 t e e n a g e r .  T h i r t y - t h r e e and t h r e e - t e n t h p e r c e n t (20) of t h e h o u s e h o l d were b e t w e e n t h e age o f t w e n t y - o n e group, The  45%  group  one  to  household  The  largest  age  ( 2 7 ) , was b e t w e e n t h e age o f t h i r t y - o n e a n d f o r t y . between  represented  and t h i r t y .  heads  and  fifty-one  17.0% ( 1 0 ) o f a l l o f t h e h o u s e h o l d h e a d s .  The f i f t y -  fifty-six heads.  t h e age  of  fourty-one  y e a r g r o u p c o n s t i t u t e d o n l y 3% ( 2 ) o f a l l t h e  42  3. SEX OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS In  an  Table  industrial  society  dominated  14. F r e q u e n c y  Distribution by A q e .  Age  (N)  under 21 t o 31 t o 41 t o 51 t o  20 30 40 50 56  Total  by  o f Heads o f  men,  i t  was  Households  % 1 .7 33.3 45.0 16.6 3.4  ( 1) (20) (27) (10) ( 2) (60)  100.0  Mean = 34.0 interesting Table  to  see t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y of heads of households of  15. F r e q u e n c y  families, only  heads  o f Heads o f  Sex  (N)  Male Female  (20) (40)  33.3 66.7  Total  (60)  1 00.0  the f a m i l i e s of c h i l d r e n household  D i s t rbyi b Sex ution  were  Households  %  i n c a r e were f e m a l e . T w o - t h i r d women.  This  meant  that  i n every three  two o f them r e l i e d on t h e income o f a f e m a l e ;  one i n e v e r y t h r e e f a m i l i e s were r e l i e d  of the  whereas  on t h e income o f a  male. 4. MARITAL STATUS OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS Among a l l o f t h e f a m i l i e s  s t u d i e d , only a small m i n o r i t y of  t h e p a r e n t s ( 1 6 . 7 % o r 10) were m a r r i e d . tenth  percent  Twenty-six  ( 1 6 ) o f t h e p a r e n t s were s i n g l e ,  and  seven-  10.0% ( 6 ) were  43  separated, About  15.0% ( 9 ) were d i v o r c e d , a n d 1.7% ( 1 )  1/3  Table  of  was  a  widow.  t h e h o u s e h o l d h e a d s were known t o c o h a b i t w i t h a  16. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s by M a r i t a l S t a t u s . Marital  Status  (N)  %  S i n g l e Parent Married Separated L i v i n g Together Widow o r Widower Divorced  (16) (10) ( 6) (18) (1) ( 9)  26.7 16.7 10.0 30.0 1.7 15.0  Total  (60)  100.0  l e g a l o r common-law s p o u s e . 5. RACIAL ORIGIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS The  distribution  households Table  half,  were  of  similar  the  racial  origins  of  heads  of  t o t h a t o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n c a r e . About  17. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s by R a c i a l O r i g i n s . Racial Origins  (N)  Caucasian Native Indian Asiatic Black Mixed O r i g i n s  (29) (21) ( 8) (1) (1)  48.3 35.0 13.3 1.7 1.7  Total  (60)  100.0  48.3% ( 2 9 ) , of t h e household  compared  to the r a c i a l  heads  %  were  Caucasian.  o r i g i n s of the c h i l d r e n , a higher  number  of t h e p a r e n t s  were b e l i e v e d t o be N a t i v e I n d i a n s . I n f a c t ,  than  the  1/3  extraction.  of  household  heads  In contrast, A s i a t i c s  were  of  represented  Native only  As  more  Indian  13.3% ( 8 ) o f  44  the f a m i l y identical  household  heads,  and t h e B l a c k and mixed  o r i g i n s were  a t 1.7% ( 1 ) .  6. NUMBERS OF CHILDREN WITH THE F A M I L I E S AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION Less than h a l f child  families.  Table  of the c h i l d r e n  I t meant t h a t  i n care  by  Numbers o f C h i l d r e n  (N)  One c h i l d Two c h i l d r e n Three c h i l d r e n Four c h i l d r e n Five children  (28) (14) ( 7 ) ( 8) ( 3)  46.7 23.3 11.7 13.3 5.0  Total  (60)  100.0  the f a m i l i y a t the time of the  the  admission, another  two c h i l d r e n ,  11.7% ( 7 ) h a d t h r e e ,  (3) h a d f i v e c h i l d r e n  with  single  Children  %  S.D. = 1.260  c h i l d was w i t h of  from  i n 4 6 . 7 % o f t h e c a s e s , o n l y one  18. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s a t t h e Time o f A d m i s s i o n .  Mean = 2.067  time  were  apprehension.  At  23.3% (14) of t h e f a m i l i e s had 13.3% (8) had f o u r ,  and  5.0%  them.  7. NUMBER OF CHILDREN WITH THE F A M I L I E S AT THE TIME OF LEAGL STATUS R E V I S I O N At  t h e time of the temporary  2/3 o f t h e s i x t y at  home.  f a m i l i e s - 65% ( 3 9 ) , d i d n o t have any  Fifteen  percent  f a m i l i e s had f i v e c h i l d r e n  revi sion.  nearly  children  ( 9 ) o f them h a d o n l y one c h i l d , 6.7%  (4) h a d t w o , 10.0% ( 6 ) h a d t h r e e , the  custody order reviews,  and t h e remaing  3.3%  (2) of  a t home a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o r d e r  45  8. LENGTH OF RESIDENCE The m a j o r i t y o f t h e f a m i l i e s Table  in  the  19. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by C h i l d r e n a t t h e Time o f L e g a l S t a t u s R e v i s i o n . Numbers o f C h i l d r e n  (N)  None One c h i l d Two c h i l d r e n Three c h i l d r e n Four c h i l d r n  (39) ( 9) ( 4) ( 6) ( 2)  65.0 15.0 6.7 10.0 3.3  Total  (60)  100.0  Mean = 0 . 7 1 7 Regions  ,53.3% ( 3 2 ) h a d l i v e d  in  which  S.D  =  1.166  t h e c h i l d r e n were a p p r e h e n d e d f o r a p e r i o d o f  T a b l e 20. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by L e n g t h o f R e s i d e n c e . Length of  Residence  (N)  %  U n d e r 6 months From 6 t o 12 months From 1 t o 2 y e a r s From 3 t o 5 y e a r s From 6 t o 10 y e a r s O v e r 10 y e a r s Not Known  ( 6) ( 4) (19) (13) ( 3) (10) ( 5)  10. 0 6. 7 31 . 6 21 . 7 5. 0 16. 7 8. 3  Total  (60)  100. 0  one t o f i v e y e a r s b e f o r e t h e c h i l d r e n were r e m o v e d . Ten (6)  of  t h e f a m i l i e s had r e s i d e d  i n the areas f o r l e s s than s i x  m o n t h s , 5% ( 3 ) o f them f r o m s i x t o t e n y e a r s , a n d a n o t h e r (10)  of  them  had  been  percent  i n the Region  l e n g t h o f r e s i d e n c e o f t h e r e m a i n i n g 8.3%  16.7%  f o r o v e r t e n y e a r s . The (5) was n o t known.  46  SUMMARY OF FAMILY  PROFILE  As f o r t h e f a m i l i e s o f t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m status  groups,  most  of  the  heads  the  of h o u s e h o l d  f e m a l e . The a g e , b e t w e e n t w e n t y a n d f o r t y  years,  t o e i g h t y p e r c e n t of t h e h o u s e h o l d heads t o t a l small all  minority  p a r e n t s or l i v i n g  comprised sample.  of  them  were  ethnic minority  Indians,  who c o n s t i t u t e d 3 5 . 0 % o f  either  a Of  single  in  h a l f of t h e f a m i l i e s , 46.7%, had o n l y  one  child  a t home a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a p p r e h e n s i o n , a n d  them had r e s i d e d  care.  Only  child  f a m i l i e s . Nearly  t h a n two y e a r s ,  close  g r o u p among t h e t h e n o n - w h i t e  care  of  ( 6 6 . 7 % ) were  i n common-law r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  largest  was t h e N a t i v e  legal  - 16.7%, o f t h e h o u s e h o l d h e a d s were m a r r i e d .  o f t h e f a m i l i e s s t u d i e d most  The  three  the  nearly  i n t h e R e g i o n s f o r m e r e l y two y e a r s ,  at the time that  half  or l e s s  t h e c h i l d r e n were a d m i t t e d  into  47  CHAPTER V I SOCIAL-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF THE F A M I L I E S OF CHILDREN IN CARE The  analyses  objectives.  The  presented  first  objective  p r o f i l e s of t h e f a m i l i e s ' of  the  legal  children's  in  to  provide  serve  admission  s t a t u s groups.  stated  i n an e a r l i e r  whose  children  i n t o c a r e , and a t t h e time of t h e objective i s  to  compare  The  first  permanent c u s t o d y  was  legal  status  and  from t h e  group,  as  c h a p t e r , was c l a s s i f i e d a s t h e f a m i l i e s f o r  g r o u p was t h e t e m p o r a r y group  two  descriptive  the social-economic c o n d i t i o n s of the f a m i l i e s  three l e g a l  third  is  chapter  s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s a t the time  s t a t u s r e v i s i o n . The s e c o n d  examine  this  the  custody  o r d e r s were g i v e n . The extension  families,  second  and  the  f a m i l i e s whose c h i l d r e n w e r e r e t u r n e d t o  them. A. SOCIAL-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF THE F A M I L I E S AT APPREHENSION 1. LEVEL OF INCOME The  m a j o r i t y o f f a m i l i e s were f r o m  Lower-middle and middle "child  i n care  As  the lower p o v e r t y  c l a s s e s comprised  only  class.  13.3% (8) of  the  families".  compared t o t h e g r o u p 1 (Temporary-Permanent) and group *>  2 families  (Temporary  (Discharged)  Extended),  h a d fewer  the  number o f f a m i l i e s was 2 0 % l o w e r  In  contrast,  families  from  group  3  f a m i l i e s who were i n a s t a t e o f p o v e r t y .  The  There  families  were  than  t h e o t h e r two  more l o w e r m i d d l e  groups.  and middle c l a s s e s  i n g r o u p 3, 2 0 % ( 4 ) o f t h e g r o u p 3 f a m i l i e s b e l o n g e d  to  48  e i t h e r one o f t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s , b u t i t was o n l y 5% ( 1 ) i n  group  2 a n d 10% ( 2 ) i n g r o u p 1.  Table 21. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n Level of Income  A l l (N)  1 2 3 4 5  L. P o v e r t y C I . Poverty Class Lower C l a s s L. M i d d l e C I . Middle Class  Total  o f F a m i l i e s by L e v e l o f Income.  Group 1 (N) %  Group 2 (N) %  Group 3 (N) %  ( 4 1 ) 68.3 ( 4) 6.7 ( 7) 11.7 ( 6) 10.0 ( 2) 3.3  ( 1 5 ) 75.0 ( 0) 0.0 ( 3) 15.0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 1) 5.0  ( 1 5 ) 75.0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 3) 15.0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 0) 0.0  ( 1 1 ) 55.0 ( 3) 15.0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 4) 20,. 0 ( 1) 5.0  (60)100.0  (20)100.0  %  Mean=1.733 S.D.=1.205  Mean=1.650 S.D.=1.226  (20)100.0 Mean=1.500 S.D.=0.946  (20)100.0 Mean=2.050 S.D.=1.375  2. SOURCES OF INCOME More  than  2/3  of  the  welfare agencies f o r their obtained t h e i r In  income  comparing  families  (70.0%) r e l i e d  income. Only 26.7%  of  the  on p u b l i c families  f r o m wages o r s a l a r i e s .  the  Sources  of  Income  of the three  legal  Income. Level o f Income  All (N)  2 3 4 5  P u b l i c Sources P r i v a t e So. Wages Salaries  Total  Group 1 (N) %  Group 2 (N) %  Group 3 (N) %  (42) 70. 0 ( 2) 3. 3 (10) 16. 7 ( 6) 10. 0  (16) 8 0 . 0 ( 0) 0.0 ( 2) 10.0 ( 2) 10.0  (15) 75. 0 ( 1) 5. 0 ( 3) 15. 0 ( 1) 5. 0  (11) 5 5 . 0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 5) 2 5 .0 ( 3) 15.0  (60)100.0  (20)100.0  Mean=2.667 S.D.=1.084  %  Mean=2.500 S.D.=1.051  (20)100.0 Mean=2.500 S.D.=0.946  (20)100.0 Mean=3.000 S.D.=1.214  s t a t u s groups, group 1 had t h e h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e of f a m i l i e s 80%  (14)  -  obtaining  their  income  from p u b l i c  s o u r c e s . The  49  p e r c e n t a g e was 55% f o r t h e g r o u p  3 f a m i l i e s . Wages a n d  c o m p r i s e d 2 0 % o f t h e s o u r c e s o f income f o r g r o u p s the  f i g u r e was d o u b l e a t 4 0 % f o r g r o u p  salaries  1 a n d 2, w h i l e  3.  3. OCCUPATION OF THE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS Less  than  1/4  o f t h e h o u s e h o l d h e a d s were e i t h e r  laborers  or p r o f e s s i o n a l s .  largest  o c c u p a t i o n a l g r o u p among t h e f a m i l i e s , w i t h  Another  23.3% (14)  remaining  20%  of  (12)  Unskilled  them of  were  the  laborers  constituted  semi-skilled  household  skilled  heads  the  33.3% ( 2 0 ) .  laborers. had  never  The been  employed. T a b l e 23. Frequency  Occupation  All (N)  1 2 3 4 6  (12) (20) (14) (13) ( 1)  Never Employed Unskilied Semi-ski l i e d Skilled Professional  Total  % 20 .0 33 .3 23 .3 21 .7 1 .7  ( 6 0 ) 1 0 0 .0 Mean =2.533 S.D. =1.142  Group 3 had t h e contrast,  families  this  i n group  Group 1 (N) %  Group 2 (N) %  Group 3 (N) %  ( 2) (10) ( 3) ( 4) ( 1)  ( ( ( ( (  ( ( ( ( (  Mean=2.650 S. D.=1.226  i n groups The  skilled  group.  5) 5) 8) 2) 0)  25.0 25.0 40.0 10.0 0.0  (20)100.0  Mean=2.350 S .D.=0.988 laborer  5) 5) 3) 7) 0)  largest  25.0 25.0 15.0 35.0 0.0  (20) 100.0 Mean=2.600 S.D.=1.231 population.  2 and 3 headed t h e never  2, w h i c h c o m p r i s e d  legal status  10.0 50.0 15.0 20.0 5.0  (20)100. 0  largest  and u n s k i l l e d c a t e g o r i e s . fell  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Heads o f H o u s h o l d by O c c u p a t i o n .  semi-skilled  In  employed  population  40% (8) of a l l t h e f a m i l i e s i n  50  4. TYPE OF HOUSING F o r t y p e r c e n t (24) of families  lived  a l l of  the  houses  i n which  a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a p p r e h e n s i o n were  c o n s i d e r e d t o be i n f a i r  c o n d i t i o n . A n o t h e r 1/4 were b e l i e v e d t o  be e i t h e r a v e r a g e o r g o o d . P o o r h o u s i n g amounted t o (10),  the  only  16.7%  a n d v e r y p o o r h o u s e s were 15% ( 9 ) .  T a b l e 2 4 . F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Heads o f H o u s e h o l d by Type o f H o u s i n g . Type o f H o u s i n g  All (N)  1 Very Poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Average 5 Good Not Known  ( 9) 15.0 (10) 16. 7 (24) 40. 0 (11) 18. 3 ( 4) 6.7 ( 2) 3.3  ( ( ( ( ( (  2 0 .0 2 5 .0 3 5 .0 15.0 0.0 5.0  ( 4) 20.0 ( 1) 5.0 (11) 5 5 . 0 ( 3) 15.0 ( 0) 0.0 ( 1) 5.0  ( ( ( ( ( (  Total  (60)100. 0  (20)100. 0  (20)100. 0  (20)100. 0  Mean=2.845 S.D.=1.342 Average  and  good  Group (N)  %  Mean=2.632 S.D.=1.744 houses  houses of t h e group 3 f a m i l i e s , composed  only  4) 5) 7) 3) 0) 1)  1 %  Group (N)  2 %  Group 3 (N) %  Mean=2.684 S.D.=1.146  constitued  45%  w h i l e t h e same  15% ( 3 ) o f a l l o f t h e h o u s e s  Mean=3.200 S.D.=1.005 (9) of a l l t h e  type  i n g r o u p 1 a l s o h a d t h e h i g h e s t number o f  very  h o u s e s - 4 5 % ( 9 ) , a s compared  houses 1 and  poor  and  t o 2 5 % ( 5 ) i n g r o u p 2,  and 30% ( 6 ) i n g r o u p 3. The m a j o r i t y o f t h e h o u s e s 5 5 % ( 1 1 ) were c o n s i d e r e d t o be i n f a i r  of  i n both groups  2. F a m i l i e s poor  1) 5.0 4) 2 0 .0 6) 30.0 8) 4 0 .0 1) 5.0 0) 0.0  in  group  2,  condition.  5. DWELLING AREAS Half  of the r e s i d e n t i a l areas of the c h i l d  i n care  were o f a v e r a g e s t a n d a r d . Among t h e s e f a m i l i e s , o n l y them  was  believed  to  live  in  an  above  average  families  1.7% ( 1 ) o f a r e a . The  51  r e m a i n i n g 3 5 % ( 2 1 ) were r e s i d i n g  either  in  low  or  very  low  areas. T a b l e 25. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n D w e l l i n g Area  All (N)  1 V e r y Low 2 Low 3 Below A v e r a g e 4 Average 5 Above A v e r a g e Not Known  (10) (11) ( 7) (30) (1) (1)  Total  (60)100.0  % 16.7 18.3 11.7 50.0 1.7 1.7  Mean=3.0l7 S.D.=1.262 With  regard  to  o f F a m i l i e s by D w e l l i n g A r e a .  Group 1 (N) %  Group (N)  ( 5) ( 2) ( 4) ( 9) (0) (0)  ( 3) ( 4) ( 2) (10) (0) (1)  25.0 10.0 20.0 45.0 0.0 0.0  (20)100.0  Mean=2.850 S.D.=1.268  group  2  Group 3 (N) %  15.0 20.0 10.0 50.0 0.0 5.0  ( 2) 10.0 ( 5) 25.0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 1 1 ) 55.0 ( 1 ) 5.0 ( 0 ) 0.0  (20)100.0 Mean=3.000 S.D.=1.348  (20)100.0 Mean=3.200 S.D.=1.196  t h e d w e l l i n g a r e a , 25% (5) of t h e group 1  f a m i l i e s were i n t h e v e r y l o w c a t e g o r y , the  2 %  families  in  comparison,  15%  a n d 10% o f t h e g r o u p 3 f a m i l e s l i v e d i n  a r e a w h i c h were c o n s i d e r e d t o be v e r y l o w . None o f t h e from groups of  of  1 and 2 r e s i d e d  i n an above  families  a v e r a g e a r e a , b u t 5% ( 1 )  t h e g r o u p 3 f a m i l i e s was f o r t u n a t e enough t o l i v e  i n s u c h an  area. 6. LEVEL OF EDUCATION The e d u c a t i o n a l low.  level  o f t h e h o u s e h o l d h e a d s was  generally  S e v e n t y - t h r e e a n d t h r e e - t e n t h p e r c e n t ( 4 4 ) o f them d i d n o t  g r a d u a t e f r o m h i g h s c h o o l , 3.3% ( 2 ) education.  Among  the  d i d not  non-graduates,  56.8%  have  any  (25) had seven t o  e l e v e n y e a r s o f s c h o o l i n g . Of a l l t h e h o u s e h o l d h e a d s , (3)  h a d some c o l l e g e When c o m p a r e d  formal  only  5%  experience.  t o t h e h o u s e h o l d heads of groups  1 a n d 2, t h e  52  level  of  slightly  education  of  the  h i g h e r . In group  All (N)  Area  heads  i n group  3 were  3, 3 0 % ( 6 ) were h i g h s c h o o l g r a d u a t e s ,  T a b l e 26. F r e q u e n c y  Dwelling  household  Distribution Group 1 (N) %  %  o f Heads o f  Group 2 (N) %  Group 3 (N) %  1 No F o r m a l E d . ( 2) 3. 3 2 Under 7 y r s . (17) 28. 3 3 7 t o 11 y r s . (25) 41 . 7 4 H i g h S c h . G r a d . ( 1 0 ) 16. 7 5 College ( 3) 5. 0 Not Known ( 3) 5. 0  ( ( ( ( ( (  5.0 30.0 40.0 10.0 5.0 10.0  ( 1) 5.0 ( 5) 2 5 .0 (11) 5 5 . 0 ( 2) 10.0 ( 0) 0.0 ( 1) 5.0  ( ( ( ( ( (  Total  (20)100. 0  (20)100. 0  (20)100. 0  (60)100. 0 Mean=2.9l2 S.D.=1.340  and  Mean=2.778 S.D.=1.838  Mean=2.737 S.D.=0.940  10% ( 2 ) had r e c e i v e d some c o l l e g e  secondary and  1) 6) 8) 2) 1) 2)  0) 6) 6) 6) 2) 0)  0.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 10.0 0.0  Mean=3.200 S.D.=1.005  education. Regarding  e d u c a t i o n , t h e p e r c e n t a g e s were l o w e r  post-  i n both groups 1  2.  7. LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT OR UNEMPLOYMENT Most o f t h e h o u s e h o l d  heads,  5 5 . 0 % ( 3 3 ) h a d been u n e m p l o y e d  f o r more t h a n one y e a r . I n c o n t r a s t ,  less  than  1/5 o f  them  had  been e m p l o y e d f o r more t h a n two y e a r s . For group higher  those  who h a d been u n e m p l o y e d f o r more t h a n one y e a r ,  1 had t h e h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e a t 65% ( 1 3 ) , than group  3 a n d 10% h i g h e r t h a n g r o u p  a h i g h e r number o f t h e g r o u p more  3 f a m i l i e s had  t h a n two y e a r s , f o r t h e g r o u p  a s v e r s u s 20% ( 4 ) f o r g r o u p  which  20%  2. I n c o m p a r i s o n ,  been  3 families,  was  employed  for  i t was 2 5 % ( 5 ) ,  2, a n d 10% ( 2 ) f o r g r o u p  1.  53  8. ASSOCIATION  STRENGTH  Fifty-eight Table  and  three-tenth  All (N)  1 Unemp > 1 y r . 2 Unemp 6-11 mo. 3 Unemp < 6 mo. 4 Emp < 6 mo. 5 Emp 6-11 mo. 6 Emp 1-2 y r s . 7 Emp > 2 y r s . Not Known Total  the  Association  Group 1 (N) %  Group 2 (N) %  Group 3 (N) %  (33) 55. 0 ( 5) 8. 3 ( 4) 6. 7 ( 3) 5. 0 ( 2) 3. 3 ( 1) 1 .7 (11) 18. 3 ( 1) 1 .7  (13) 6 5 . 0 ( 2) 10.0 ( 0) 0.0 ( 0) 0.0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 2) 10.0 ( 1) 0.0  (11) 5 5 . 0 ( 3) 15.0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 0) 0.0 ( 0) 0.0 ( 4) 20.0 ( 0) 0.0  ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (  (60)100. 0  (20)100. 0  (20)100. 0  (20)100. 0  %  Mean=2.712 S.D.=2.455 of  than m a r g i n a l . Table  the  Mean=2.2l0 S.D.=2.503  families  The o t h e r  Mean=2.600 S.D.=2.393  were a t t h e m a r g i n a l  41.7%  were  considered  9) 0) 3) 2) 1) 0) 5) 0)  45.0 0.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2 5 .0 0.0  Mean=3.300 S.D.=2.515 level to  o r worse  be  either  2 8 . F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by Association Strength  Assoc i a t ion Strength 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  of  27. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s by L e n g t h o f Employment o r Unemployment.  Length of Emp. o r Unemp.  Strength  percent  All (N)  Poor Inadequate Below M a r g i n a l Marginal Above M a r g i n a l Adequate Good  Total  5) ( 7) (10) (13) (17) ( 7) ( 1) (  Group 1 (N) % 8.3 11.7 16.7 21.7 28.3 11.7 1 .7  (60)100.0 Mean=3.9l7 S.D.=1.522  Group 2 (N) %  ( 3) 15.0 2) 10.0 5) 25.0 4) 20.0 5) 25.0 1 ) 5.0 ( 0) 0.0  1 ) 5.0 2) 10.0 2) 10.0 6) 30.0 7) 35.0 1 ) 5.0 1 ) 5.0  (20)100.0  (20)100.0  Mean=3.450 S.D.=1.504  Mean=4.150 S.D.=1.424  Group 3 (N) % ( 1 )  3) 3) 3) 5) 5) 0) (  5.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 0.0  (20)100.0 Mean=4.l50 S.D.=1.599  above m a r g i n a l , a d e q u a t e , o r good. As  f o r the  group  1  f a m i l i e s , h a l f of t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n  54  s t r e n g t h s were c o n s i d e r e d same  t o be w o r s e t h a n m a r g i n a l ,  the  c a t e g o r i e s c o n s t i t u t e d o n l y 25% (5) i n group 2 and 35% (7)  i n g r o u p 3. G r o u p 3 h a d t h e h i g h e s t adequate and  while  numbers o f f a m i l i e s who  had  s t r e n g t h ( 2 5 % ) , w h i l e m e r e l y 5% ( 1 ) o f t h e g r o u p 1 a n d  10% (2) o f t h e g r o u p 2 f a m i l i e s h a d s i m i l a r  strength.  9. FAMILY SOLIDARITY The than  solidarity  marginal  Only  10%  Table  a t t h e time  (6)  solidarity,  of the m a j o r i t y of the f a m i l i e s  of  them  of the c h i l d r e n ' s admission were  w h i l e another  believed  A l l (N)  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  Poor Inadequate Below M a r g i n a l Marginal Above M a r g i n a l Adequate Good  Total  group  1  care.  marginal  (11) 18. 3 (11) 18. 3 ( 9) 15.0 (13) 2 1 . 7 ( 6) 10.0 ( 9) 15.0 ( 1) 1.7  ( ( ( ( ( ( (  ( ( ( ( ( ( (  ( ( ( ( ( ( (  (60)100. 0  (20) 100. 0  7) 5) 3) 3) 1) D 0)  As  o f F a m i l i e s by S o l i d a r i t y . Group 3 (N) %  3 5 .0 2 5 .0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 0.0  Mean=2.450 S.D.=1.504  3) 3) 2) 7) 3) 2) 0)  15.0 15.0 10.0 3 5 .0 15.0 10.0 0.0  (20)100. 0  1) 3) 4) 3) 2) 6) 1)  5.0 15.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 30.0 5.0  (20)100. 0  Mean=3.500 S.D.=1.573  Mean=4.200 S.D.=1.765  i t was a t 1.7% ( 1 ) .  In c o m p a r i s o n , t h e s o l i d a r i t y both  t o have above  Group 2 (N) %  f o r good f a m i l i y c o h e s i o n ,  worse than  into  Group 1 (N) %  %  Mean=3.382 S.D.=1.748  worse  15% ( 9 ) were a t t h e a d e q u a t e l e v e l .  29. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n  Family Solidarity  were  of the group  1  familes  g r o u p s 2 a n d 3. S e v e n t y - f i v e p e r c e n t  f a m i l i e s had l e s s than m a r g i n a l  cohesion.  was  (15) o f t h e In f a c t , 35%  o f them had p o o r s o l i d a r i t y . As f o r t h e f a m i l i e s who were a t t h e marginal in  group  level,  g r o u p 2 h a d t h e l a r g e s t number. I t was  2, a n d 15% ( 3 ) i n b o t h  g r o u p s 1 a n d 3. The  35%  (7)  solidarity  55  o f t h e g r o u p 3 f a m i l i e s was c o m p a r a t i v e l y  b e t t e r . More t h a n  1/3  of  while w i t h another  10%  them h a d a d e q u a t e o r g o o d s o l i d a r i t y ,  o f them h a d more t h a n m a r g i n a l  cohesiveness.  SUMMARY OF THE SOCIAL-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AT APPREHENSION The families lived  social-economic  conditions  were  rated  generally  i n a s t a t e of p o v e r t y  families  counted  on  of  poor.  the  jobs.  The  o r of extreme p o v e r t y . Most  the  occupational  1/3  of  majority  the  level  of  them h a d l e s s t h a n  of  could  them  education  between  most  of  l e s s than d e s i r a b l e . N e a r l y average  an  not  skilled have  any  acceptable  heads  of  family  above  apprehension,  average and  members  The were  duties. i n care  families  were  7 5 % o f them were b e l i e v e d t o l i v e i n such  p o o r s h o w i n g i n most o f  c o n d i t i o n s , t h e o n l y c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h were levels  Strength.  the  t o each o t h e r , and t h e m a j o r i t y of  accommodation. With  social-economic  Association in  the  from h i g h s c h o o l , and  The c o n d i t i o n s o f h o u s e s o f t h e c h i l d  more  did  of  the  them c o u l d n o t c a r r y o u t d a i l y h o u s e h o l d  at  find  seven years of f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n .  d i s r u p t i v e . They were h o s t i l e  their  of  government f o r f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e .  7 3 . 3 % o f them d i d n o t g r a d u a t e  relationships  below  care  training.  Ragarding households,  vast  in  O v e r 2/3 o f t h e f a m i l i e s  O n l y a s m a l l m i n o r i t y o f them, a mere 2 5 % , labor  child  were  the  Exactly half area  63.7%  at  Dwelling  Areas  o f t h e f a m i l i e s were  the  time  of  the  and living  children's  o f them were c o n s i d e r e d t o be a b l e t o  a s s o c i a t e w i t h s u p p o r t i v e systems a t  the  marginal,  or  better  56  than m a r g i n a l , In legal  levels.  comparing  the c o n d i t i o n s of the f a m i l i e s  s t a t u s groups,  performance, slightly  with  t h e permanent ward f a m i l i e s had the  h i g h e r than  returned.  The  from t h e t h r e e the  worst  e x c e p t i o n of t h e i r o c c u p t i o n , which  i n the f a m i l i e s  conditions  of  the  i n which  the children  temporary  were  custody extension  f a m i l i e s were n o t much b e t t e r o f f t h a n t h e f a m i l i e s o f g r o u p Three  of  their  1.  n i n e s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s were a t l e v e l s  l o w e r t h a n t h e p e r m a n e n t w a r d f a m i l i e s . Among t h e s e t h r e e groups,  was  the families  i n which  t h e c h i l d r e n were  family  discharged  had  the best r e c o r d s i n term of s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s . B. SOCIAL-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF LEGAL STAUTS REVISION 1. LEVEL OF INCOME AT STATUS REVISION The  Level  of  Income o f t h e f a m i l i e s a t t h e t i m e o f l e g a l  s t a t u s r e v i s i o n was s i m i l a r  to the l e v e l  at  the  time  of  the  T a b l e 30. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by L e v e l o f Income a t t h e Time o f S t a t u s R e v i s i o n . L e v e l o f Income  All (N)  1 2 3 4 5  (34) ( 6) (11) ( 7) ( 2)  Lower P o v e r t y Poverty Class Lower C l a s s L. M i d d l e C I . Middle Class  Total  Group 1 (N) %  Group 2 (N) %  Group 3 (N) %  56 .7 10 .0 18 .3 1 1.7 3 .3  (13) 6 5 . 0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 4) 2 0 .0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 1) 5.0  (11) 5 5 . 0 ( 1) 2 5 .0 ( 6) 3 0 .0 ( 2) 10.0 ( 0) 0.0  (10) 50. 0 ( 4) 2 0 .0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 4) 2 0 .0 ( 1) 5.0  ( 6 0 ) 1 0 0 .0  (20)100. 0  (20)100. 0  (20)100. 0  %  Mean=1.950 S.D.=1.241 children's  apprehension.  Mean=1.800 S.D.=1.240 Over  Mean=1.950 S.D.=1.146  Mean=2.l00 S.D.=1.373  2/3 o f t h e f a m i l i e s l i v e d a t o r  57  below  the  poverty  improvement  of  line.  the  The  overall  only level.  Income a t t h e t i m e o f a p p r e h e n s i o n up  to  1.950  at  the  positive The  sign  was  the  mean o f t h e L e v e l o f  was 1.733, b u t t h e  time of s t a t u s r e v i s i o n . There  mean  was  was a n e t  i n c r e a s e o f .217 i n t h e mean. In  c o m p a r s o n , t h e L e v e l o f Income  families  of  the  permanent  was l o w e r t h a n t h e l e v e l s o f t h e o t h e r two g r o u p s . The  p e r m a n e n t ward f a m i l i e s had t h e h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e 65%  ward  ( 1 3 ) , of lower poverty c l a s s .  families,  I n c o n t r a s t , group  l a r g e s t number o f l o w e r m i d d l e c l a s s c o m p a r e d t o 5% ( 1 ) i n g r o u p  of  families  -  20%  1 a n d 10% ( 2 ) i n g r o u p  3 had t h e ( 4 ) , as  2.  2. SOURCES OF INCOME AT STATUS R E V I S I O N Like at  the  t h e time of s t a t u s  condition of  L e v e l o f Income, t h e S o u r c e s  at  revision  slightly  better  condition than  the  t h e t i m e o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a p p r e h e n s i o n . The mean  a l l o f t h e f a m i l i e s was  before,  was  o f Income  public  up  source remained  to  2.817  from  2.667,  by f a r t h e p r e d o m i n a n t  but  as  source of  T a b l e 3 1 . F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by S o u r c e s o f Income a t t h e Time o f L e g a l S t a t u s R e v i s i o n . Sources . of Income  All (N)  2 3 4 5  P u b l i c Source P r i v a t e Source Wages Salaries  Total  Group 1 (N) %  Group 2 (N) %  Group 3 (N) %  (37) 61 .7 ( 2) 3 .3 (16) 26 .7 ( 5) 8 .3  (15) 7 5 . 0 ( 0) 0.0 ( 3) 15.0 ( 2) 10.0  (11) 55. 0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 7) 3 5 .0 ( 1) 5.0  (11) 55.0 ( 1 ) 5.0 ( 6) 30.0 ( 2) 10.0  ( 6 0 ) 1 0 0 .0  (20)100. 0  (20)100. 0  (20)100.0  %  Mean =2.817 S.D. =1.097 income f o r t h e f a m i l i e s -  Mean=2.600 S. D.=1.095 61.7%  Mean=2.900 S .D.=1.071  ( 3 7 ) . The  Mean=2.950 S.D.=1.146  other  26.7%  (16)  58  relied  on wages, a n d t h e r e m a i n i n g 8.3% ( 5 ) on s a l a r i e s .  Group  1  had  the largest  number o f f a m i l i e s , 7 5 % ( 1 5 ) ,  public  assistance,  Wages  a n d s a l a r i e s c o m p r i s e d 4 0 % ( 8 ) o f t h e s o u r c e o f income o f  the  groups 2 and 3 f a m i l i e s ,  families 3.  a s c o m p a r e d t o 55% ( 1 1 ) i n g r o u p s  i n contrast  2  and  on  t o o n l y 25% (5) of  3.  the  f r o m g r o u p 1.  OCCUPATION OF THE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS AT STATUS REVISION Regarding  their  while the children .05.  At  occupation,  were i n c a r e , t h e d i f f e r e n c e  t h e time of s t a t u s  heads were e i t h e r  t h e r e was n o t much  variation  o f t h e mean  was  r e v i s i o n , 60% (12) o f t h e h o u s e h o l d  u n s k i l l e d or s e m i - s k i l l e d  laborers.  T a b l e 32. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s by O c c u p a t i o n a t t h e Time o f L e g a l S t a t u s R e v i s i o n . Occupation  All (N)  1 2 3 4 5  (10) (21) (15) (13) ( 1)  Never Employed Unskilled Semi-skilled Skilled Professional  Total  % 16 .7 35 .0 25 .0 21 .7 1 .7  ( 6 0 ) 1 0 0 .0 Mean =2.583 S.D. =1.109  The change.  skilled  Group 2 (N) %  Group 3 (N) %  ( 2) (10) ( 3) ( 4) ( 1)  ( ( ( ( (  ( ( ( ( (  10.0 50. 0 15.0 20.0 5.0  (20)100. 0  Mean=2.650 S. D.=1.226  4) 5) 9) 2) 0)  20.0 25.0 45.0 10.0 0.0  (20)100.0  Mean=2.450 S .D.=0.945  4) 6) 3) 7) 0)  Mean=2.650 S.D.=1.182 1  H a l f o f them were s t i l l  The  laborer  group stayed  unskilled with  laborers.  the  temporary  f a m i l i e s , and group 3 a g a i n had t h e l a r g e s t laborers.  20.0 30.0 15.0 35.0 0.0  (20)100.0  o c c u p a t i o n of t h e h o u s e h o l d heads i n group  semi-skilled extension  Group 1 (N) %  d i d not largest custody number o f  59  4. TYPE OF HOUSING AT STATUS R E V I S I O N The  g e n e r a l c o n d i t i o n of t h e houses  resided  h a d shown c e r t a i n  improvement  i n which  families  a t t h e time of t h e s t a t u s  revision.  Since the time that t h e c h i l d r e n  care,  higher percentage of t h e f a m i l i e s ,  a  the  were  admitted  15% ( 9 ) , moved  into into  T a b l e 3 3 . F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by Type o f H o u s i n g a t t h e Time o f L e g a l S t a t u s R e v i s i o n . Type o f H o u s i n g  All (N)  1 2 3 4 5  ( 6) (12) (18) (18) (6)  V e r y Poor Poor Fair Average Good  Total  Group (N)  % 10.0 20.0 30.0 30.0 10.0  (60)100.0 Mean=3.l00 S.D.=1.145  ( ( ( ( (  4) 5) 6) 1) 4)  1 %  Group (N)  20.0 25.0 30.0 5.0 20.0  (20)100.0  Mean=2.800 S.D.=1.399  ( ( ( ( (  2) 5) 6) 6) 1)  2 %  Group 3 (N) %  10.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 5.0  (20)100.0 Mean=2.950 S.D.=1.099  a v e r a g e o r good h o u s e s . H o w e v e r , t h e m a j o r i t y o f 60%  ( 3 6 ) , were  average  still  living  in  (20)100.0 Mean=3.550 S.D.=0.759 the  families,  h o u s e s w h i c h were b e l o w t h e  standard.  S e v e n t y - f i v e p e r c e n t (15) o f living  ( 0) 0.0 ( 2) 10.0 ( 6) 30.0 ( 1 1 ) 55.0 ( 1 ) 5.0  in  the  group  1  families  b e l o w a v e r a g e h o u s e s when t h e s t a t u s o f t h e c h i l d r e n  were b r o u g h t up f o r r e v i e w . A s f o r t h e g r o u p 3 f a m i l i e s , them  were  families, standard,  in. the  same  type  6 0 % ( 1 2 ) , were r e s i d i n g as  and 2 f a m i l i e s , living  were  compared  of  h o u s e s . Most  of  of the group 3  i n houses of average  or  good  t o 25% (5) and 35% (7) f o r t h e groups 1  r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e r e was no  i n a v e r y poor  40%  house.  family  in  group  3  60  5. DWELLING AREA AT STATUS REVISION Similar  to  other  Social-Economic  upward m o v e m e n t ' i n t h e f a m i l i e s ' of  legal  status  conditions,  areas of residence a t the  average  Table  category.  D w e l l i n g Area  All (N)  1 2 3 4 5  (9) (10) ( 6) (29) (6)  Total  % 15.0 16.7 10.0 48.3 10.0  (60)100.0 Mean=3.217 S.D.=1.277  apprehension, of  the t o t a l  up area  At  the  the  time  increase  of  Group 3 (N) %  ( ( ( ( (  ( ( ( ( (  (2) ( 2) ( 2) (12) (2)  (20)100.0  Mean=3.050 S.D.=1.538  1 ) 5.0 7) 35.0 2) 10.0 9) 45.0 1 ) 5.0  (20)100.0  i n care  10.0 10.0 10.0 60.0 10.0  (20)100.0  Mean=3.l00 S.D.=1.119  Mean=3.500 S.D.=1.147  t h e above a v e r a g e a r e a c o n s t i t u t e d o n l y child  Area  Group 2 (N) %  30.0 5.0 10.0 40.0 15.0  the  the c h i l d r e n ' s  Group 1 (N) % 6) 1) 2) 8) 3)  from  of  34. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by D w e l l i n g a t t h e Time o f L e g a l S t a t u s R e v i s i o n .  V e r y Low Low Below Average Average Above A v e r a g e  time  r e v i s i o n . The mean was moved up t o 3.217  3.017. The most n o t i c e a b l e c h a n g e was i n above  t h e r e was  1.7%  (1)  f a m i l y p o p u l a t i o n , b u t t h e f i g u r e was  t o 10% ( 6 ) a t t h e t i m e o f l e g a l r e m a i n e d t h e most p o p u l a r  status revision.  type of d w e l l i n g  The a v e r a g e  area  at  48.3%  (29). The percentage  permanent  ward  families  i n the lowest category.  again  had  3 0 % ( 6 ) o f them were  i n v e r y low d w e l l i n g a r e a s , a s c o m p a r e d t o 5% ( 1 ) and  10%  (2)  in  the  in  highest residing  group  2,  g r o u p 3. I n c o n t r a s t , g r o u p 3 h a d t h e l a r g e s t  number o f f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n a v e r a g e  areas  -  60%  c o m p a r e d t o 4 0 % ( 8 ) i n g r o u p 1, a n d 4 5 % i n g r o u p 2.  (12)  -  as  61  6. LEVEL OF EDUCATION AT STATUS REVISION The  level  of  the  household  heads'  education  improved  slightly  d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were i n c a r e .  of  the  household  two  y e a r s o f c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n . However, t h e  h e a d s , an i n c r e a s e o f 6.7%, h a d g a i n e d vast  Four one t o  majority  of  them, 7 0 % ( 4 2 ) , d i d n o t c o m p l e t e h i g h s c h o o l . Table  35. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n  L e v e l of Education  All (N)  Total  Group 1 (N) %  %  1 No F o r m a l E d . ( 2) 2 Under 7 y r s . (16) 3 7 t o 11 y r s . (24) 4 H i g h S c h . G r a d .( 8) 5 College ( 7) Not Known ( 3)  3 .3 26 .7 40 .0 1 3.3 1 1.7 5 .0  ( 6 0 ) 1 0 0 .0 Mean =3.035 S.D. =1.412  The  level  c h i l d r e n were families  of  of  Group 2 (N) %  Group 3 (N) %  5.0 2 5 .0 4 0 .0 10.0 10.0 10.0  ( 1 ) 5.0 ( 5) 2 5 .0 (11) 5 5 . 0 0 ( 1 ) 5. 0 ( 1 ) 5. ( 1 ) 5.0  ( ( ( ( ( (  (20)100. 0  (20)100. 0  (20)100.0  ( ( ( ( ( (  discharged 1  1) 5) 8) 2) 2) 2)  Mean=2.944 S. D.=1.849  education  groups  o f Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s by  was  of  Mean=2.790 S .D.=1.040 the  the  group 1 household  to  better  which the than  a n d 2. 4 5 % ( 9 ) o f t h e g r o u p 3  h e a d s had c o m p l e t e d h i g h s c h o o l o r h a d c o l l e g e heads, the percentage  0.0 30.0 25.0 25.0 20.0 0.0  Mean=3.350 S.D.=1.137  families  comparatively  0) 6) 5) 5) 4) 0)  the  household  experience.  For  was 2 0 % ( 4 ) , a n d i t  was 10% ( 2 ) f o r g r o u p 2. Most o f t h e h o u s e h o l d seven  to  comprised household  eleven  years  h e a d s i n g r o u p 2, 5 5 % ( 1 1 ) ,  received  o f f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n . The same  category  40% (8) of t h e group 1 f a m i l i e s , and 25% h e a d s i n g r o u p 3. A l l o f t h e h o u s e h o l d  3 h a d some f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n . On t h e  contrary,  (5)  of  the  heads i n group 5%  (1)  of  the  62  household  heads  in  groups  1  and  2 ' d i d n o t h a v e any f o r m a l  education whatsoever. 7. LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT OR UNEMPLOYEMNT During  the  time  that  additional  10%  (6)  of  f o r c e , but  the  unemployment  the  the  AT STATUS REVISION  children  household rate  were  in  care,  an  heads j o i n e d t h e l a b o r  of  the  families  remained  T a b l e 36. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Heads o f H o u s e h o l d s by L e n g t h o f Employment o r U n e p l o y m e n t a t t h e Time o f Legal Status Revision. Length of Emp. o r Unemp.  A l l (N)  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  Unemp > 1 y r . Unemp 6- 11 mo. Unemp < 6 mo. Emp < 6 mo. Emp 6-• 1 1mo. Emp 1 •2 - yrs. Emp > 2 y r s .  Total  Group 1 (N) %  Group 2 (N) %  Group 3 (N) %  (31) 51 .7 ( D 1 .7 ( 4) 6.7 ( 7) 11 .7 ( 4) 6.7 ( 3) 5.0 (10) 16 .7  (14) 70. 0 ( 0) 0.0 ( 0) 0.0 ( D 5.0 ( 2) 10.0 ( 1) 5.0 ( 2) 10.0  ( ( ( ( ( ( (  ( ( ( ( ( ( (  ( 6 0 ) 1 0 0 .0  (20)100. 0  (20)100. 0  %  Mean=3.0l7 S.D.=2.383 extremely  high.  Sixty  Mean=2.400 S.D.=2.280 percent  9) 4 5 .0 1) 5.0 1) 5.0 3) 15.0 1) 5.0 0) 0.0 5) 2 5 .0  Mean=3.300 S.D.=2.536  (36)  8) 0) 3) 3) 1) 2) 3)  40.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 10.0 15.0  (20)100. 0 Mean=3.350 S.D.=2.323  o f them were u n e m p l o y e d .  Among t h e u n e m p l o y e d , 8 6 . 1 1 % ( 3 1 ) o f them  had  not  worked  for  more t h a n one y e a r . The heads o f unemployed  unemployment group  1.  f o r more  r a t e was t h e h i g h e s t among t h e h o u s e h o l d  Seventy  percent  of  them  (14) had  t h a n one y e a r . The u n e m p l o y e d  constituted  55% ( 1 1 ) o f b o t h t h e g r o u p 2 a n d g r o u p 3 f a m i l i e s . G r o u p the  best  employment  record,  2  had  2 5 % o f them h a d been w o r k i n g f o r  o v e r two y e a r s , a s c o m p a r e d t o 10% a n d 15% i n respectively.  been  groups  1  and  3  63  8. ASSOCIATION STRENGTH AT The  A s s o c i a t i o n S t r e n g t h of the  t h e mean o f adequate 11.7%  3.917  t o 4.383. The  category,  (7) t o 21.7%  Table  in  which  ( 1 3 ) . The  All (N)  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  ( 3) ( 4) ( 7) (18) (12) (13) ( 3)  Poor Inadequate Below Marginal Above M a r g i n a l Adequate Good  Total  % 5 .0 6 .7 1 1.7 30 .0 20 .0 21 .7 5 .0  ( 6 0 ) 1 0 0 .0 Mean=4.383 S.D.=1.497  level  f a m i l i e s had  was  nearly  f a m i l i e s had  b i g g e s t change o c c u r r e d t h e p e r c e n t a g e was  number o f  Group 2 (N) %  ( ( ( ( ( ( (  ( ( ( ( ( ( (  2) 2) 4) 6) 2) 4) 0)  10.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 0.0  (20)100. 0  Although  i m p r o v e d , most of t h e  the  expanded  from  adequate  comparison,  or worse than the  3.  marginal (9)  Only  30%  (6)  the  (20)100. 0  ( ( ( ( ( ( (  0) 1) 1) 5) 6) 7) 0)  0.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0.0  (20)100. 0  Mean=4.550 S.D.=1.638  Mean=4.800 S.D.=1.105  the g e n e r a l  s t r e n g t h of  a s s o c i a t i o n s of t h e p e r m a n e n t the  f a m i l i e s of  o f t h e g r o u p 1 f a m i l i e s had supportive  g r o u p 2 f a m i l i e s , and  f a m i l i e s , c o u l d perform  5.0 5.0 10.0 35.0 15.0 15.0 15.0  a t t h e same  the 53.4%  marginal.  strength in associating with of  1) 1) 2) 7) 3) 3) 3)  Group 3 (N) %  families associations,  f a m i l i e s were c o n s i d e r a b l y w o r s e t h a n  45%  from  in  f a m i l i e s at the  Group 1 (N) %  Mean=3.800 S.D.=1.576  double.  were m a r g i n a l , In  and  improved  37. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n of F a m i l i e s by A s s o c i a t i o n S t r e n g t h a t t h e t i m e of L e g a l S t a t u s R e v i s i o n .  Assoc i a t i o n Strength  (32),  LEGAL STATUS REVISION  65%  level.  (13)  custody  groups  2  better  than  systems,  but  of the group 3  64  9. FAMILY SOLIDARITY AT LEGAL STATUS REVISION At  t h e t i m e o f a p p r e h e n s i o n , 26.7%  solidarity  above  revision,  it  (16) o f t h e f a m i l i e s  the m a r g i n a l l e v e l , but a t the time  was  43.3%  ( 2 6 ) . The b i g g e s t  adequate l e v e l , i n which 23.3% of the  of  status  i n c r e a s e was  families  were  had  i n the  known  to  T a b l e 38. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l i e s by S o l i d a r i t y a t t h e Time o f L e g a l S t a t u s R e v i s i o n . Family Solidarity  All (N)  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  ( 8) ( 8) ( 8) (10) (10) (14) (2)  Poor Inadequate Below M a r g i n a l Marginal Above M a r g i n a l Adequate Good  Total  % 13.3 13.3 13.3 16.7 16.7 23.3 3.3  (60)100.0 Mean=3.933 S.D.=1.821  perform the  adequately,  problems percent  Group (N)  3 %  ( 7) ( 3) ( 3) ( i) ( 3) ( 3) (0)  ( 1) ( 4) ( 1) ( 6) ( 5) ( 2) (1)  ( 0) ( 1) ( 4) ( 3) ( 2) ( 9) (1)  0.0 5.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 45.0 5.0  35.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 0.0  (20)100.0  Mean=2.950 S.D.=1.932  while  only  of the group 1 f a m i l i e s in  fulfilling  5.0 20.0 5.0 30.0 25.0 10.0 5.0  (20)100.0 Mean=4.000 S.D.=1.589  (20)100.0 Mean=4.850 S.D.=1.461  15% (9) o f them c o u l d do so a t  them  had  poor  were  found  to  have  t h e i r proper f a m i l i a l r o l e s .  (13) o f them were w o r s e  group 3 f a m i l i e s the  Group 2 (N) %  time of apprehension. Most  of  Group 1 (N) %  than m a r g i n a l .  Sixty-five  I n f a c t , 35%  (7)  s o l i d a r i t y . None o f t h e c o h e s i v e n e s s o f t h e  were c o n s i d e r e d t o be p o o r , a n d o n l y 5%  (1)  of  g r o u p 2 f a m i l i e s were p o o r i n t e r m o f t h e i r s o l i d a r i t y . The  solidarity  was  b e t t e r among t h e g r o u p 3 f a m i l i e s , n e a r l y h a l f  whom were a d e q u a t e . R e g a r d i n g s o l i d a r i t y a t t h e a d e q u a t e only  serious  15% (3) o f t h e g r o u p  1 f a m i l i e s , and  10%  of  level,  (2) o f t h e g r o u p 2  65  families  were  at t h i s l e v e l .  In g e n e r a l ,  g r o u p 1 f a m i l i e s was c o n s i d e r a b l y two  the s o l i d a r i t y  worse than t h a t of  of the  the  other  groups.  SUMMARY OF THE STATUS  SOCIAL-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF  REVISION  During  the  time that the c h i l d r e n  government, the g e n e r a l improvement.  c o n d i t i o n s of  showed  t h e most v a r i a t i o n was F a m i l y  with  the fact that  the  families  Most o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s c h a n g e d o n l y  b e t w e e n t h e mean o f .050 a n d .550.  a t home d u r i n g  were.in the care  the  varied  from  LEGAL  was  the  shown  slightly.  They which  S o l i d a r i t y . T h i s may  result  65% o f t h e f a m i l i e s d i d n o t  change  had  indicator  the time that the c h i l d r e n  least  The  of the  were  have any  children  i n c a r e . The  occupational  status  one  of the  household heads. T a b l e 39. Mean D i f f e r e n c e s and  of L e g a l  Between t h e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c Status  Revision  Soc i a l - E c o n o m i c Conditions  All  Group 1  Group 2  Group 3  L e v e l o f Income S o u r c e o f Income Occupation Type o f H o u s i n g D w e l l i n g Area L e v e l of Education L e n g t h o f Emp.or Unemp. Associaion Strength Family S o l i d a r i t y  .217 . 1 50 .050 .255 .200 .113 .305 .466 .550  . 1 50 .100 .000 . 1 68 .200 .166 .190 .350 .500  .450 .400 .100 .400 .250 .190 .700 .400 . 500  .050 .050 .050 .350 .300 . 1 50 .050 .650 .650  3.390  2.200  Total  2.306  1 .724  In comparison, changes i n S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s of the g r o u p 1 f a m i l i e s were s u b s t a n t i a l l y  lower than changes i n groups  66  2 a n d 3. G r o u p 1 was t h e g r o u p mobility  in  improvement  seven in  of  the  the  the  nine  Sources  were b e t t e r t h a n e i t h e r groups,  of f a m i l i e s w i t h the l e a s t Although  the  o f Income a n d t h e L e v e l o f Income  one  performance  conditions.  upward  of  of  the  other  t h e group  two  legal  status  3 f a m i l i e s on t h e s e two  c o n d i t i o n s were a t l o w e r l e v e l s t h a n were t h e o t h e r two g r o u p s . In c o n t r a s t , higher  the c o n d i t i o n s of t h e group  l e v e l s than both groups  1 and 2 f a m i l i e s . D u r i n g t h e time  t h e c h i l d r e n were i n c a r e , t h e f a m i l i e s they  were  most  improved  had  f o r the group  nine conditions mean  the  counterparts  mean t o t a l i n group  2 families  time  the  temporary  : Dwelling Area,  t h e y were t h e most m o b i l e  of  upward  mobility.  s t a t u s r e v i s i o n was  the group of  that  and  Their  aggregate  from t h e time of t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a p p r e h e n s i o n t o  the time of l e g a l twice  showed  i m p r o v e m e n t r e c o r d . They l e d i n s i x o f t h e  i n terms  differnce  3  Solidarity.  2 families,  the best o v e r a l l  i n group  i n three conditions  A s s o c i a t i o n S t r e n g t h , and F a m i l y As  3 f a m i l i e s were a t  of group  3.390,  about their  s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c s t a n d i n g of  l a y between groups  order hearings.  was  1, a n d was 5 4 % h i g h e r t h a n  3. The o v e r a l l  children's  which  apprehension,  1 and  3,  both  at the  and a t t h e time of t h e  67  CHAPTER V I I THE SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INFLUENCES This study economic  depicted specific  aspects  of  l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s of the f a m i l i e s  the  social  from t h e t h r e e  and legal  s t a t u s g r o u p s . T h e s e c o n d i t i o n s were s e e n a s t h e l e v e l s a t w h i c h many o f t h e d i r e c t children in  causes l e a d i n g t o  manifested,  and as i n l i f e  a s t a t e o f f l u x . The  conditions,  as  changes  shown  the  itself,  in  i n previous  apprehension  the  social  status  when  they  were  analyses. F i r s t l y , economic  the  conditions  Compared w i t h t h e families  with  same t i m e ,  had  economic  minimal,  classified  in a  by t h r e e  among  were more collective  separate  legal  groups.  T h e r e were t h r e e g e n e r a l  the  and  a n a l y s e s , were e v i d e n t  a p p a r e n t when t h e f a m i l i e s were e x a m i n e d e i t h e r or  the  t h e c o n d i t i o n s were  some o f t h e f a m i l i e s . T h e s e c h a n g e s , a l t h o u g h  group,  of  the  best  of  other  n o t i c e a b l e f i n d i n g s i n the i n i t i a l  results  showed  the  child  two  groups,  that  i n care the  c h i l d r e n i n permanent custody  the  social  f a m i l i e s were l o w . conditions  performance  in  of  the  were t h e w o r s t . A t  t h e f a m i l i e s t o w h i c h t h e c h i l d r e n were overall  and  returned  n e a r l y a l l of the nine  categories. Secondly, social  and  d u r i n g the time  economic  t h e c h i l d r e n were  in  c o n d i t i o n s of f a m i l i e s of the three  s t a t u s g r o u p s h a d i m p r o v e d . The i m p r o v e m e n t o c c u r r e d the  f a m i l i e s whose c h i l d r e n w e r e  where  the  children  care,  became  returned,  but  the legal  not only i n  aso  in  those  p e r m a n e n t w a r d s . T h i r d l y , when t h e  68  upward m o b i l i t y improvement o r d e r s had  of the  was  three  demonstrated  been e x t e n d e d ;  f a m i l i e s whose c h i l d r e n In  an  attempt  social-economic indicators analyses were  using  and  legal  the  compared,  the  most  f a m i l i e s where t e m p o r a r y  improvement  the  also  was  correlation  between the  status  among  the  between  the  of  the  social-economic  children,  a number o f s t a t i s t i c a l  interest  f o r e x p l a n a t i o n s and  the  examine  were r e q u i r e d and The  was  became p e r m a n e n t w a r d s .  to  the  in  the l e a s t  indicators  and  taken.  groups  i n these analyses  predictions  social-economic  of  legal  indicators,  measurements  lies  i n the  status  and  the  further  search  changes,  by  Social-Economic  Indexes. In s e a r c h economic Pearson  indicators Correlation  statistical 134),  f o r the c o r r e l a t i o n  and  legal status,  Coefficient,  analyses, path  McTavish,  and  such  diagram  1974:321-328,  c o e f f i c i e n t s between  r . In  as  study  addition,  item a n a l y s i s  (Babbie, and  this  Nie,  et  al,  employed  the  number  of  a  (Doby,  1975:132-134,  social-  1954:132-  Loether  and  1975:383-387) were  conducted. The First,  statistical the  a n a l y s e s were o r g a n i z e d  strength  of  economic i n d i c a t o r s  was  performed  nine  Third,  the  dissected.  variables,  families  were  five  parts.  the  nine  social-  item  analyses  were  t o a s s i g n l o a d i n g s to each.  scores  the Social-Economic constructed.  among  Second,  indicators  by u s i n g t h e l o a d i n g s and  economic care  on  correlation  into  The  of  the  nine  social-  Indexes of the c h i l d Indexes  would  in  provide  69  empirical  d a t a on t h e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c P o s i t i o n s o f t h e f a m i l i e s  both a t t h e time of t h e c h i l d r e n ' s apprehension, and a t the time of t h e l e g a l  status  revision.  Fourth, the c o r r e l a t i o n economic  indicators  and  S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c Indexes Finally, indirect  path  coefficient  the  legal  and t h e  diagram  was  legal  utilized  between  status, status,  the  and  social-  between t h e  were  examined.  t o d e p i c t t h e d i r e c t and  e f f e c t s o f t h e s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c v a r i a b l e s upon t h e l e g a l  status. I . CORRELATION BETWEEN THE SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INDICATORS : A. CORRELATION AMONG THE SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INDICATORS AT APPREHENSION Among t h e n i n e s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c i n d i c a t o r s a t apprehension, thirty-six,  only  half  of  the c o r r e l a t i o n s ,  were f o u n d t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y  the  time  of  eighteen out of  significant  at  the  l e v e l of e i t h e r  .05 o r . 0 1 . F i v e o f t h e n i n e i n d i c a t o r s , n a m e l y ,  the  Income,  Level  of  Sources  o f Income, O c c u p a t i o n , Type o f  H o u s i n g , a n d D w e l l i n g A r e a , were s i g n i f i c a n t l y each  other.  The  strongest  L e v e l o f Income a n d S o u r c e s  correlation  and  Dwelling  o f Income.  the  with  Type  of  A r e a . The L e n g t h o f Employment h a d t h r e e  c o r r e l a t i o n s w h i c h were s t a t i s t i c a l l y between  with  was f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e  E d u c a t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d o n l y Housing  correlated  significant;  these  L e n g t h o f E m p l o y m e n t , t h e L e v e l o f Income,  were  Sources  o f Income, a n d O c c u p a t i o n . The c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e r e m a i n i n g two i n d i c a t o r s - A s s o c i a t i o n S t r e n g t h a n d F a m i l y S o l i d a r i t y  -i f  70  compared were  with their correlations  strongly  correlated.  w i t h most  of  the  T h e s e two i n d i c a t o r s  indicators,  were a l s o  found  T a b l e 40. C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x o f t h e N i n e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c Indicators at Apprehension. (2) ( 1 ) L . o f I n c . . 84** X (2)So. of I n . (3)Occup. (4)Housing (5)D. A r e a (6)Education (7)Employment (8)Association (9)Solidarity  (3) .56** .43** X  (4) .36** .28* . 38** X  (5) (6) .40** NS .29* NS . 34** NS .62** .34** X . 31 ** X  (7) (8) .70** NS .82** NS .49** NS NS NS 37** NS NS NS X NS X  (9) NS NS NS NS .40** NS NS .59** X  * S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .o5 l e v e l . ** S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l . NS = Not S i g n i f i c a n t . N = 60 t o be c o r r e l a t e d  w i t h D w e l l i n g A r e a a t t h e .01  Among a l l o f t h e i n d i c a t o r s , D w e l l i n g consistent of  the  variable,  w h i c h was  indicators,  with  level.  Area  was  the  significantly correlated  the  exception  of  the  most  with a l l  Length  of  Employment. B. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE  SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INDICATORS AT STATUS  REVISION The  number  coefficients  of  either  significant at  the  .01  inter-variable  l e v e l o r a t t h e .05 l e v e l h a d  i n c r e a s e d t o t w e n t y - s i x a t the time of The  variables  Association  which  most  legal from  status the  correlated  revision.  changes  S t r e n g t h a n d F a m i l y S o l i d a r i t y . They were  o n l y t o be c o r r e l a t e d also  benefitted  correlation  found  were not  w i t h a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t o f .72, b u t  w i t h Type o f H o u s i n g , D w e l l i n g A r e a , a n d  Level  71  of E c u a t i o n ,  e i t h e r at the  correlation  coefficients  .05  or  at  the  level.  Their  r a n g e d f r o m .21 t o .49. None o f  variables correlated with either S o l i d a r i t y apprehension.  .01  or  these  Association  at  I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s between A s s o c i a t i o n  and O c c u p a t i o n ,  a n d between  S o l i d a r i t y and  were a c c e p t a b l e  a t t h e l e v e l o f .05.  Sources  of  Income,  T a b l e 41. C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x of Social-Economic Indicators at Status Revision. (2) (3) (4) ( 1 ) L . o f I n c . .83** .55** .36** (2)So.of I n . X .51 ** .37** X (3)Occup. 45** (4)Housing X (5)D. A r e a (6)Educat ion (7)Employment (8)Association (9)Solidarity * S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l . ** S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l NS = Not S i g n i f i c a n t The similar no  (7) .80** .85** .53** . 37** . 32** NS X  (8) NS NS .25* . 49** .32** .25* NS X  (9) NS .21* NS .42** . 38** . 24** NS . 72** X  •  N = 60  a s s o c i a t i o n s t r e n g t h between most o f t h e v a r i a b l e s was t o t h e s t r e n g t h a t t h e time of a p p r e h e n s i o n . There  drastic  c h a n g e s . The most n o t i c e a b l e c h a n g e o c c u r r e d  A s s o c i a t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y . w h i c h was t h e h i g h e s t Sources  of  coefficient which  (6) (5) . 38** NS .37** NS .27* NS .66** .22* . 32** X X  ,  Income  T h e r e was a  net  increase  between of  and  L e n g t h o f Employment  had a c o r r e l a t i o n  Sources  of  of  Income,  Income, were t h e v a r i a b l e s w i t h t h e  s t r o n g e s t c o r r e l a t i o n a t .84 a t t h e t i m e t h e c h i l d r e n were into  .13,  i n c r e a s e o f s t r e n g t h among t h e i n d i c a t o r s .  o f .85, r e p l a c i n g t h e p o s i t i o n o f L e v e l  with  were  taken  care. The most c o n s i s t e n t v a r i a b l e s , i n t e r m s o f c o r r e l a t i n g  with  72  o t h e r v a r i a b l e s , were D w e l l i n g A r e a a n d Type o f H o u s i n g . B o t h o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h a l l o f t h e v a r i a b l e s a t t h e .01 l e v e l , and  of  with the e x c e p t i o n of D w e l l i n g Area  Type  of  Housing  and  Level  and  Occupation,  of E d u c a t i o n , which  were  c o r r e l a t e d a t t h e .05 l e v e l . C. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INDICATORS AT APPREHENSION AND AT STATUS REVISION As shown  i n T a b l e s 40 a n d 4 1 , a p a t t e r n d e v e l o p e d among t h e  c o r r e l a t i o n s of the nine social-economic pattern  reappeared  in  Table  42.  With  c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n S o u r c e s o f Income  and  indicators, the  and  this  e x c e p t i o n of the  Dwelling  Area,  the  c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s among f i v e o f t h e i n d i c a t o r s - L e v e l o f Income,  Sources  of  Income,  O c c u p a t i o n , Type o f H o u s i n g  D w e l l i n g Area - both a t the time of apprehension status  review,  l e v e l of e i t h e r  and  at  , and legal  were p r o v e d t o be a c c e p t a b l e a t t h e s i g n i f i c a n t .05 o r . 0 1 .  W i t h a l l o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s between a l l o f t h e  indicators  a t a p p r e h e n s i o n and a t s t a t u s r e v i s i o n , A s s o c i a t i o n S t r e n g t h and Solidarity  again  had  very  low  c o e f f i c i e n t s w i t h most o f t h e  social-economic variables. Association, at status significantly  revision  c o r r e l a t e d only with Association at apprehension,  and w i t h S o l i d a r i t y a t a p p r e h e n s i o n a n d a t s t a t u s r e v i s i o n . correlation  was  between  The  S o l d i a r i t y a t s t a t u s r e v i s i o n and D w e l l i n g  A r e a was c o m p a r a t i v e l y weak, b u t w i t h t h e c o e f f i c i e n t o f .25 i t was a c c e p t a b l e a t t h e .05 l e v e l . One  salient  feature  among  the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the  73  i n d i c a t o r s was  t h e e x i s t e n c e of s t r o n g c o r r e l a t i o n s between at  two  different  the  same  indicators  Table  42. C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x o f t h e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c I n d i c a t o r s at A p p r e h e n s i o n and a t S t a t u s R e v i s i o n . Social-Economic  at Status Revision  p o i n t s i n t i m e . Of t h e n i n e  Indicators at  (1)L. I n c . (2)So.Inc. (3)Occup. (4)Housing (5)D. Area (6)Edu. (7)Employ. (8)Assoc. (9)Solid.  Apprehension  (1)  (2)  (3)  (4)  (5)  (6)  (7)  (8)  .84** .64** .51** .40** .39** .33** .62** NS NS  .68** .72** . 47** .37** .34** .27* .73** NS NS  .55** .42** ^ g7** .54** .32** .44** .49** NS NS  .37** .26* .40** .72** .40** NS .29* NS NS  .33** NS .26* .45** .69** .30* .22* NS .25*  .27** .22* .23* Ns NS .75** NS NS NS  .66** .70** .45** .30* NS .28* .81 ** NS NS  NS NS NS NS .27* NS . 43**.36** .39**.45** NS .28* NS NS .63**.40** . 40**.60**  (9)  * S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l . ** S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l . NS = Not S i g n i f i c a n t N = 60 p a i r s of  social-economic  coefficient  was  .60,  indicators,  which  was  between  v a r i a b l e s . The h i g h e s t c o e f f i c i e n t was at at  apprehension  and O c c u p a t i o n  the  found  time  of the c h i l d r e n ' s a d m i s s i o n ,  their  c o u n t e r p a r t s a t the time The  i n t i m e had v e r y  social-economic strong  the  correlation  two  Solidarity  between  Occupation  a t s t a t u s r e v i s i o n , which peaked  .97. T h i s showed t h a t t h e s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c  revision.  lowest  indicators  at  the  were s t r o n g l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h  of the  children's  legal  v a r i a b l e s a t two d i f e r e n t  association.  status points  74  II.  ITEM ANALYSIS I t e m a n a l y s i s , a s one  to  find  the  c o m p a r a t i v e p r e d i c t i v e w e i g h t s of the  v a r i a b l e s . The dependent  o f s c a l i n g t e c h n i q u e s , was  association  variables  was  strength  of  taken i n t o account  Item a n a l y s i s would a s s i g n the w e i g h t s social-economic because  status  indicators.  A  with  the  dependent  of t h e c h i l d r e n  between  the  in  dependent  and  If  the non-weighted  real  between  accumulated  scores  i t e m a n a l y s i s was  the  and  was  different namely,  actual  the  nine  required  degree  s c a l e would  dependent  of  the l e g a l  relationships  i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s were n o t  into consideration, correlations  the  of  system  variable,  care.  independent  independent  each  weighting  here  i n the c a l c u l a t i o n .  for  some o f t h e i n d i c a t o r s m i g h t have  association  the  used  taken  not r e f l e c t  variable  and  the the  o f t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s . The method o f  choosen  because  i t  was  comparatively  simple  and d i r e c t . The  weights  social-economic amount  of  of the i t e m s , i n t h i s c a s e the w e i g h t s of the  i n d i c a t o r s , were  obtained  by  subtracting  the  a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h l e g a l s t a t u s , the square of r , from  1, and t a k i n g  the r e c i p r o c a l of the  equation f o r f i n d i n g the weight  result.  i s as f o l l o w s  Symbolically,  the  :  1 W = 1 - r  By  2  u s i n g t h i s e q u a t i o n , the r e s u l t s from the c a l c u l a t i o n of the  n i n e v a r i a b l e s a t a p p r e h e n s i o n and a t l e g a l s t a t u s  r e v i s i o n were  75  shown  i n T a b l e 4 3 . The r e s u l t s showed t h a t t h e w e i g h t s o f a l l o f  t h e i n d i c a t o r s were s i m i l a r , the  little  variation  r a n g i n g from  1.00 t o 1.23.  o f t h e l o a d i n g s , t h e v a l u e o f 1 was  a s s i g n e d t o a l l of the weights of the i n d i c a t o r s , time o f a p p r e h e n s i o n , and a t s t a t u s T a b l e 43. W e i g h t s at  Apprehension ( W )  thus  at  the  Variables  at S t a t u s R e v i s i o n ( W )  1.02 1.04 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.21  1.01 1.01 1 .00 1 .08 1 .02 1 .00 1 .03 1 .08 1 .23  INDEX CONSTRUCTION A  composite  created which  index  f o r the purpose would  child  show  for  the social-economic v a r i a b l e s  of d e v e l o p i n g  the o v e r a l l  the  indicators. because  In  the  scales this  of study,  the  of  items  index  a l l of simple  the  nine  addition  by  adding  social-economic was  sufficient  w e i g h t s o f a l l o f t h e i n d i c a t o r s were i d e n t i c a l a t  scores  the aggregate  score  thus  o f t h e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c I n d e x e s . The s c o r e s ,  compared t o each o t h e r , would Positions  multiple  were c o n s t r u c t e d  When t h e s c a l e s were a c c u m u l a t e d ,  became  a  was  Social-Economic P o s i t i o n s of the  i n c a r e f a m i l i e s . The I n d e x e s  together  one.  both  to  revision.  of t h e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c  (1) L e v e l o f Income (2) S o u r c e o f Income ( 3)Occupation (4) Type o f H o u s i n g (5) D w e l l i n g A r e a (6) L e v e l o f E d u c a t i o n (7) L e n g t h o f E m p l . (8) A s s o c i a t i o n (9) S o l i d a r i t y  III.  Due  thus r e f l e c t  the f a m i l i e s within  the c h i l d  the  Social-Economic  i n care population.  76  If  t h e s c o r e s were c o m p a r a t i v e l y h i g h , t h e y  positions Table  o f t h e f a m i l i e s were g e n e r a l l y  44. F e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c by L e g a l S t a t u s a t A p p r e h e n s i o n  Low 13 t o 21 (N) %  Legal Status  Gp.1 Perm. C u s t o d y ( 9) Gp.2 Temp. E x t e n s i o n ( 7) Gp.3 D i s c h a r g e d ( 3) Total  (19)  100 .0  (21 ) 100. 0  (20) 100.0  45. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c by L e g a l S t a t u s a t L e g a l S t a t u s R e v i s i o n  Low 13 t o 21 (N) %  Legal Status  Gp.1 Perm. C u s t o d y ( 9) Gp.2 Temp. E x t e n s i o n ( 7) Gp.3 D i s c h a r g e d ( 2) Total  (18)  the f a m i l i e s of c h i l d r e n The r e s u l t s the  families  of l e g a l  Medium 22 t o 28 (N) %  50 .0 38 .9 1 1. 1  ( 5) ( 6) (10)  1 00.0  were  Positions  Position High 29 t o 42 (N) %  23 .8 28 .6 47 .6  (21 ) 100 .0  ( 6) ( 7) ( 8)  28.6 33.3 38.1  (21) 100.0  i n care.  showed t h a t t h e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c  c h i l d r e n ' s apprehensions,  was  High 29 t o 42 (N) % ( 5) 25.0 ( 5) 25.0 (10) 50.0  Social-Economic  of  Positions  28. 6 38. 1 33. 3  ( 6) ( 8) ( 7)  the  Position  Medium 22 t o 28 (N) %  47 .4 36 .8 1 5.8  that  f a v o r a b l e among a l l o f  Social-Economic  Table  indicated  between  13  and ranged  and from  Scores  of  a l l  42 a t t h e t i m e o f t h e 13 t o 46 a t  the  time  s t a t u s r e v i s i o n . The mean s c o r e f o r a l l o f t h e f a m i l i e s  25.683  at  apprehension,  and  28.083  at status revision.  D u r i n g t h e p e r i o d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were i n c a r e ,  the  average  77  i n c r e a s e was 2.40 f o r a l l o f t h e f a m i l i e s . The S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c S c o r e s o f t h e f a m i l i e s were lumped three  categorical  levels  l e v e l composed o f a b o u t  1/3 o f a l l o f  intended  to  Positions  of the f a m i l i e s  shown  i n Tables  families 15.8% had  draw  had  comparative  45  and  low  same  position  the  families.  This  each was  a n a l y s e s of t h e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c  f r o m t h e t h r e e l e g a l s t a t u s g r o u p s . As 46,  half  of  Social-Economic  (3) o f t h e f a m i l i e s the  - l o w , medium, a n d h i g h - w i t h  into  t o which  the  permanent  Position. the  In contrast,  children  at apprehension  custody  were  only  returned  and 11.1% (2) a t s t a t u s  revi sion. With  respect to those f a m i l i e s  Position families  at  the  high  from t h e d i s c h a r g e d group belonged  at  38.1%  children's  Social-Economic  time of the c h i l d r e n ' s a d m i s s i o n , h a l f  the time of s t a t u s lower  with  revision, ( 8 ) . The  families,  their  number  was  terms  of  the  comparatively  of the discharged social-economic  performance,  were  t o b o t h t h e permanent ward  families  and  c u s t o d y e x t e n s i o n f a m i l i e s . The p e r m a n e n t  custody  temporary  families,  both  overrepresented  at  superior  t o t h i s c a t e g o r y . At  overall positions  in  of the  apprehension  and  at status revision,  were  i n the low c a t e g o r y .  I V . CORRELATION BETWEEN SOCIAL-ECONOMIC'FACTORS AND LEGAL STATUS A. CORRELATION BETWEEN SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND LEGAL STATUS W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f two i n d i c a t o r s Solidarity  -  the c o r r e l a t i o n  - Type o f H o u s i n g  c o e f f i c i e n t s between l e g a l  and  status  78  and  a l l of the other  status of  i n d i c a t o r s , both  r e v i s i o n , could  at  apprehension  n o t be a c c e p t e d a t t h e s i g n i f i c a n t  .05. When t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e s e  legal  status  was  and  examined,  two  Solidarity  level  indicators at  the  at  time  and of  a p p r e h e n s i o n had a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t o f . 4 1 , a n d t h e r was .22 f o r Type o f H o u s i n g . T a b l e 46. C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x o f S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c by L e g a l S t a t u s .  Indicators  Legal Status  (1)  (2)  (3)  (4)  (5)  (6)  (7)  (8)  (9)  At Apprehen.  .14  .19  -.02  .22*  .12  .20  .19  .19  .41**  At S t a t u s Revision  .10  .13  .0  .27*  .15  .11  .16  .28*  .43**  * S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l . ** S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l . N = 60 ( l ) L e v e l o f Income ( 2 ) S o u r c e s o f Income (3)Occupation (4)Type of Housing (5)Dwelling Area (6)Education (7) L e n g t h o f Employment o r Unemployment (8) A s s o c i a t i o n S t r e n g t h (9)Family S o l i d a r i t y The a s s o c i a t i o n s b e t w e e n indicators in care. legal  were  strengthened during  The most n o t i c e a b l e  status.  legal  status  and  c h a n g e was b e t w e e n A s s o c i a t i o n  The r was up t o .28 a t s t a t u s  r e v i s i o n , from  the  and .19  o f .09.  The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s shown i n T a b l e  46,  indicated  t h e a s s o c i a t i o n between l e g a l s t a t u s and seven o f t h e n i n e  i n d i c a t o r s a t a p p r e h e n s i o n , and s i x o f t h e status  of  t h e t i m e t h e c h i l d r e n were  a t a p p r e h e n s i o n . T h e r e was a n e t i n c r e a s e  that  four  revision,  significantly  were weak. The o n l y  correlated  with  legal  nine  indicators  at  two i n d i c a t o r s w h i c h were status  at  the  time  of  79  apprehension, association time  of  B.  Solidarity  status  revision.  - was f o u n d  status  to  Type  were  shown  in  addition,  be  significantly  previous  most o f t h e i n d i c a t o r s correlation  another  the  indicators  indicators.  different the  were  When  status.  and Indexes  legal  Sixteen  -  with  LEGAL STATUS between  status  aggregate  of  the  The  score  In comparison,  the  were s t r o n g e r t h a n and  most  of  the  c o e f f i c i e n t s between t h e Indexes  c o e f f i c i e n t s of l e g a l s t a t u s l e s s than  indicator  correlated  .303 and .296 a t a p p r e h e n s i o n  respectively.  the  were n o t s t r o n g .  between t h e  legal  the  The c o r r e l a t i o n  status  revision  between  at  a n a l y s e s , the c o r r e l a t i o n s  between l e g a l s t a t u s  the a s s o c i a t i o n s  legal  and  The  revision.  and t h e l e g a l s t a t u s  was somewhat  associations  and a t  eighteen  and  status  correlation  and s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c i n d i c a t o r s  were  .30. t h e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c S c o r e s were a g g r e g a t e d  categories  -  low,  medium,  and  high  c o e f f i c i e n t s b e t w e e n t h e new c a t e g o r i c a l were  Housing.  strengthened  In  a t t h e t i m e of s t a t u s  of  CORRELATION BETWEEN SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INDEXES AND As  of  and  between t h e s e v a r i a b l e s  Association legal  were  l o w e r . The new c o e f f i c i e n t s w e r e  .238 a t s t a t u s  w i t h most o f  Social-Economic  apprehension significantly  the  three  correlation  s c o r e s and l e g a l  status  .279 a t a p p r e h e n s i o n , and  revision.  In c o n t r a s t composite  -  into  and  at  individual  Indexes,  status  correlated  the  revision,  both were  with l e g a l status.  indicators, at  the  the  time  of  to  be  In comparison,  the  found  80  a c c u m u l a t e d s c o r e seemed t'o be a b e t t e r explaining  the  conditions  and t h e c h i l d r e n ' s  Similar economic  correlation  to  between legal  the ,c o r r e l a t i o n s  indicators  at  indicator, in  the  the  the  Index  coefficient  at status  of  social-economic  status. among  a l l of  the  two d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s  c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c and  terms  Index a t  social-  i n time, the apprehension,  r e v i s i o n , were n o t i c e a b l y  strong.  The  b e t w e e n t h e two I n d e x e s was .792.  V. PATH DISGRAM This  study,  theoretical child  as  mentioned  p o s i t i o n that  in  to  the  children's  were n o t t h e d i r e c t c a u s e s  children.  The s t r e n g t h  analyses. known,  had  influences,  not  yet  knowledge gap, t h e examine on  both  The and  indirect  emerged, the  problems but these  removal  of  examined  had  and on  path  between previous  indirect,  the  investigated. of  in  the  diagram  that the  children's  In  light  was  were  legal  of  this  utilized  of t h e composite S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c  to  Indexes  status.  objective  legal  the  between t h e s e v a r i a b l e s  direct  had  been  method  the influences  the l e g a l  of  a n d t h e l e g a l s t a t u s were  social-economic conditions status,  which  the  of the  and d i r e c t i o n of t h e a s s o c i a t i o n  Although the associations the  at  apprehensions  conditions  conditions  I I , adopted  the social-economic conditions  i n c a r e f a m i l i e s were t h e l e v e l s  leading  the  Chapter  status  of u s i n g  p a t h d i a g r a m on t h e  variables  was  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e s e  to  compare  variables,  social-economic the and  d i r e c t and to  build  81  theoretical child  explanations  of  t h e phenomena o f e n f o r c e d p a r e n t -  s e p a r a t i o n . The g r a p h i c d i a g r a m , a s shown  F i g u r e I I . Path Diagram  i n Figure I I ,  on t h e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c I n d e x e s a n d Legal Status. r=.79  X-  ->X'  r=.30  r=.28  I  >X 1 <  X'=Legal S t a t u s of X =Social-Economic X =Social-Economic P =.79 P =.15 2 3  2 3  presented  a  1 2  theoretical  Indexes and t h e l e g a l status  variable,  influenced  by  13  The m o d e l i n d i c a t e d  being  1  the  C h i l d r e n I n Care Index a t S t a t u s R e v i s i o n . Index a t A p p r e h e n s i o n . P =.18  model o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s  status.  X ,  two  1  the  dependent  between t h e  that the legal variable,  social-economic variables.  was  The S o c i a l -  E c o n o m i c I n d e x a t a p p r e h e n s i o n , X , was t h o u g h t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e 3  Index a t l e g a l the  dependent  which  were  calculation, to  status revision. variables  symbolized  for X X 1  3  by  correlation  the  r e p r e s e n t e d by p a t h  the  letter  P.  impact  on  coefficients  In  statistical  P, was f o u n d t o be i d e n t i c a l  1 3  coefficient  for X X 2  was .30. T h e s e c o e f f i c i e n t s ,  overall  effects  of X  of  effects  was  the  was  the path c o e f f i c i e n t ,  the b c o e f f i c i e n t . The  The s t r e n g t h o f  3  on X , X 1  3  3  was .79, X ' X  .28, a n d  h o w e v e r , d i d n o t show  on X , a n d X  illustrated  2  2  i n Table  2  the  on X . The d e t a i l 1  47.  The  effect  82  coefficient,  C, was c a l c u l a t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g f a s h i o n  C  23  C  13  =  c  i 2  =  =  When  P  23  +  <  7  P  the  2  =  m  1 4  9  ( 23)(p12) pi  :  +  pis  =  (79X.15) + .18 = .30  !5  relationships  b e t w e e n t h e v a r i a b l e s were  broken  down i n b i v a r i a t e d r e l a t i o n s , t h e d i r e c t a n d i n d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e s of  the independent  that  the  change  v a r i a b l e s were a p p a r e n t . The of  S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c Index as  much  l e g a l s t a t u s was m o s t l y  by t h e  a t a p p r e h e n s i o n , X . The e f f e c t was  twice  the noncausal  3  at status  that  nearly  r e v i s i o n , X , i t was .13,  which  2  h a l f o f t h e o r i g i n a l c o v a r i a t i o n betweeen t h e r e v i s i o n and  legal  status  was  by p r i o r v a r i a b l e s .  The  path  diagram  Economic Indexes  results illustrated  had a g e n u i n e  independent  of the f i r s t .  t h a t whereas S o c i a l -  e f f e c t upon l e g a l s t a t u s  time of a p p r e h e n s i o n , t h e second  indirect  2  1  S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c Index a t s t a t u s accounted  r e v i s i o n , X , w h i c h was a t .15.  f a c t o r between l e g a l s t a t u s , X , and t h e  S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c Index a t s t a t u s means  showed  influenced  as t h e Index  Regarding  results  at  Index measure had l i t t l e  the  effect  T h i s f i n d i n g i n d i c a t e d t h e d i r e c t and  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c and t h e l e g a l  status variables.  The  apprehension  stronger  had  results  suggested  that  the  Index  i n f l u e n c e s on l e g a l s t a t u s  at  than had  the Index a t s t a t u s r e v i s i o n . Although the r e s u l t s of the path diagram that  the  total  apprehension  on  influence legal  of  status  study  illustrated  the Social-Economic P o s i t i o n at was  greater  than  the  Social-  83  Economic the  Position  at  status  r e v i s i o n , no c a u s a l  inferences of  S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c P o s i t i o n on t h e l e g a l s t a t u s c o u l d  be d r a w n .  T a b l e 47. B i v a r i a t e C o v a r i a t i o n o f S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c I n d e x e s and L e g a l S t a t u s .  Decomposition of B i v a r i a t e C o v a r i a t i o n Bivariate  relation  of concern  (A) O r i g i n a l C o v a r i a t i o n (B)  X ,X 2  = r  In  X ,X  3  1  .30  .28  b1 : d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e b2 : i n d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e  .79 0  .18 .12  .1 5 0  Total  .79  .30  .1 5  0  0  .1 3  .62  .09  Influence  = (b1)+(b2)=C  square of r  f a c t , no i n f e r e n c e  implied  1  .79  (C) N o n c a u s a l = (A) - ( B ) = r - C (D)  X ,X  3  or  t o , or test o f , a causal  permitted,  because  the  values  .08  model of  could  legal  status  v a r i a b l e , w h i c h was t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e , was f i x e d when were be  they  s e l e c t e d . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s p a t h d i a g r a m s t u d y c o u l d n o t  taken as anything fixing  more t h a n  contrary  t o t h e a s s u m p t i o n s o f model t e s t i n g s i n analysis.  values  of  since  by  regression  the  descriptive,  method,  and  be  the  sample  t h e dependent v a r i a b l e , i s path  analysis  84  CHAPTER V I I I INEQUALITY The  power  to  o r d e r s of s o c i e t y feudal  or  ideology  control  the s o c i a l ,  i s entrenched within  communal.  The  o f t h e d a y , and  s t a t u s , and p o l i t i c a l Man's  REVISITED  modes  i t s own  power t o c o n t r o l  is  based  on  affiliation.  of  e c o n o m i c , and  living  structure,  social  and  of p r o d u c t i o n , economic  given h i s t o r i c a l the  chance t h a t  control  is  are  economic  class,  of p r o c r e a t i o n , and  e r a , t h e more open  regulates  the s o c i a l ,  people.  For  social  1 6  and  the  of  of  of a s s o c i a t i o n ,  and  r e d i s t r i b u t i o n . I n any  t h e s y s t e m was,  families  of  conditions  economy. Due  the  in  better  t h e i r needs.  democratic states,  t h e power  t h e m a r k e t economy, w h i c h  economic, and, p o l i t i c a l  economic  Canadian p o l i t i c a l economic  means  i n d i v i d u a l s would have t o f u l f i l l  embedded  social  d e t e r m i n e d by t h e s o c i a l and  distribution  deeply  i t  1 5  In Canada, as i n o t h e r l i b e r a l to  be  i s r e f l e c t e d by t h e  e c o n o m i c means o f h i s d a y . T h i s means emcompasses t h e organization,  political  apprehended  activities  of i t s  children,  their  were t h e v e r y p r o d u c t s o f t h e  to the  a c t i v i t i e s and i n f l u e n c e s ,  lack  of  political  and  t h e s e f a m i l i e s became p r e y s  the system. The  s a l i e n t feature  economic c o n d i t i o n s families  .from  unemployed,  of  this  of the c h i l d  study  is  the  poor  social-  i n c a r e f a m i l i e s . Most of t h e s e  V a n c o u v e r Downtown a n d V a n c o u v e r E a s t were p o o r ,  financially  dependent  on g o v e r n m e n t  aid,  had  less  85  than  adequate  association  strength  lived  i n h o u s e s w h i c h were b e l o w t h e a v e r a g e I t was e n c o u r a g i n g t o s e e  families,  in  the  improved w h i l e  This  study  three  families' the  status  groups,  permanent  ward's  overrepresented  with  the  of  Indexes the  (r  of 2  did  families  from  the not  the  i n terms of the among  Although their  these sociallower  i n d i c a t o r s used i n t h i s  in  were  contrast,  i n the higher  the  the  the  legal  the  study  status.  When  i t was o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e  overrepresented discharged  in  the  families  low were  catagories.  Indexes c o u l d  only  explain  a  limited  v a r i a t i o n o f l e g a l s t a t u s . The r e s u l t s f r o m  p a t h d i a g r a m s t u d y showed t h a t  variations  conditions  mobile,  legal status  families  The S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c percentage  but u n f o r t u n a t e l y ,  families.  upwardly  the social-economic  and  i n t e r v e n t i o n , had  children's families.  tabulated  categories,  these  were most n o t i c e a b l e  were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h were  of  a t t h e t i m e o f l e g a l s t a t u s c h a n g e were  than the discharged  they  work  improvement  extension  comparatively  economic s t a n d i n g s  of  the  conditions  custody  were  and  standard.  conditions  t h a t w i t h a l l of t h e  social-economic  Most  social  solidarity,  t o t h e change of t h e c h i l d r e n ' s l e g a l s t a t u s .  illustrated  temporary  families  of  the  f a m i l i e s ' , social-economic  lead  legal  that  t h e c h i l d r e n were i n c a r e ,  changes of the necessarily  process  and f a m i l y  legal  = . 0 9 and . 0 8 ) .  over n i n e t y  status could Since  no  percent  of  n o t be e x p l a i n e d  causal  inference  s o c i a l and eocnomic v a r i a b l e s and t h e l e g a l s t a t u s  the  by t h e between  variables  86  c o u l d be drawn i n t h i s social  study, the r e a l e f f e c t s of the i n d i v i d u a l  and economic v a r i a b l e s , o r t h e composite  Indexes,  on t h e l e g a l  further  study which  s t a t u s v a r i a b l e , c o u l d o n l y be r e v e a l e d by  will  use a d i f f e r e n t  This study, a f t e r adopting the social  and  economic  influences,  r e l a t i o n s between t h e f a m i l i e s ' the  children's  legal  of  the c h i l d  consistently  social-economic  status.  The  findings the  identified  the  i n c a r e f a m i l i e s . Among  economic  families,  those  at  many  conditions from  and  this  study model.  t o be i n t h e l o w this  study  stratification  of  of  f o c u s s e d on t h e  In a d d i t i o n ,  existence of i n t e r n a l  the c h i l d  assumption  socio-economic  i n c a r e f a m i l i e s were f o u n d  s o c i a l and economic s t r a t a of s o c i e t y . had  s a m p l e method.  theoretical  g e n e r a l l y echoed the d i s c o v e r i e s of Most  Social-Economic  these  low  among social-  t h e e x t r e m e l o w s c a l e s were more  v u l n e r a b l e t o permanent removal  of t h e i r  children.  SOCIAL-ECONOMIC FACTORS RECONSIDERED Of only  a l l of the social-economic  two  indicators  were f o u n d  indicators  at  apprehension,  t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  with legal  s t a t u s , a n d t h e number o f i n d i c a t o r s was up  three  the  at  time  of  legal  status  composite  index - the Social-Economic  most  the  of  status,  indicators,  had  i t c o u l d not account  variation  of  legal  status.  choice  of  these  nine  Index  -  as  to  only  Although the compared  stronger c o r r e l a t i o n with  f o r over Due  i n d i c a t o r s on t h e c h a n g e o f l e g a l  revision.  correlated  to  ninety the  status,  social-economic  percent  absence  i t appeared indicators  legal  of  of  to  the  strong  that should  the be  87  e v a l u a t e d , a n d o t h e r p o s s i b l e i n d i c a t o r s s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d . In  reconsidering the p o s s i b i l i t y Table  Legal  two  ( 8) ( 9) ( 9)  Total  (26)  30 .8 34 .6 34 .6  Native (N)  %  ( 7) ( 6) ( 4)  41 .2 35.3 23.5  (17)  100 .0  Others (N) % ( 5) ( 5) ( 3)  100.0  (13)  49. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f H o u s e h o l d R a c i a l O r i g i n s by L e g a l S a t u s . Caucasian (N) %  Status  Perm. Ward Temp. E x t . Discharged  ( 9) (11) ( 9)  Total  (29)  factors  illustrated  The  Native (N) %  31 .0 37 .9 31 .0  ( 9) ( 6) ( 6)  emerged.  tabulation  42 .9 28 .6 28 .6  These  1 00.0  Head's  ( 2) ( 3) ( 5) (10) were  20 .0 30 .0 50 .0 1 00.0  ethnicity  t h a t appeared i n Tables  that the Native Canadians  permanent ward c a t e g o r y .  38.5 38.5 23.0  Others (N) %  (21 ) 100 .0  100 .0  immediately  religiosity.  the  Caucasian (N) %  Perm. Ward Temp. E x t . Di scharged  Legal  indicators,  48. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n ' s R a c i a l O r i g i n s by L e g a l S t a t u s .  Status  Table  of using other  were  and  48 a n d 49  overrepresented  in  41.2% of those N a t i v e c h i l d r e n  who  were i n c a r e h a d become p e r m a n e n t w a r d s . As f o r r e l i g i o s i t y , t h e p a t t e r n shown religion were  were  in  Table  indicated  underrepresented  overrepresented  comparison,  50  in  the  that  children  with  no  i n t h e d i s c h a r g e d c a t e g o r y , and custody  children with practicing  extension  religion,  group.  In  be t h e y C a t h o l i c s  88  o r P r o t e s t a n t s , were u n d e r r e p r e s e n t e d In  order Table  to  explore  more  i n the extension  related variables, a further  study  50. F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n ' s R e l i g i o s i t y by L e g a l S t a t u s  Legal Status  Christian (N) %  Non-Rel. (N) %  Others (N) %  Perm. Ward Temp. E x t . Discharged  ( 6) ( 4) ( 8)  ( 8) (12) ( 6)  ( 6) ( 4) ( 6)  Total  (18) 100.0  would  category.  be  required  to  33.3 28.2 44.5  30.8 46.2 23.1  ( 2 6 ) 100.0 .  identify  37.5 25.0 37.5  ( 1 6 ) 100.0  additional  social-economic  var i b l e s . INEQUALITY AND  SOCIAL WORK  Inequality  of  conditions,  p r o v e d t o be r e l a t e d their  homes,  admission  to  and  as  i n part t o the to  care.  the  Of  shown removal  changes  the  in this  nine  of  of  children  the l e g a l  and  intervention, develop  Association.  Therefore,  i t w o u l d seem a p p r o p r i a t e f o r  strategies  aimed a t i m p r o v i n g  the g o a l i s t o r e t u r n the c h i l d r e n  in  this  partial  and t h e changes of l e g a l  study.  Social-economic  understanding  separation.  Further  social  were  process  of  workers  to if  n a t u r a l homes.  l e a d i n g t o the c h i l d r e n ' s s t a t u s were  not  revealed  interpretation provides only a  o f t h e phenomena study  conditions  indicators the  from  t h e s e two c o n d i t i o n s ,  to their  A l a r g e percentage of the f a c t o r s apprehension  in  were  status after  social-economic  choosen f o r t h i s study, the s t r o n g e s t i n d i v i d u a l Solidarity  study,  is  of e n f o r c e d  required  in  parent-child order  that  89  comprehensive  plans  for  p r o t e c t i o n c a s e s c o u l d be  social  work  constructed.  intervention  in  child  90  Footnotes j_ 1. See t h e C a n a d i a n C l a s s S t r u c t u r e , by D e n n i s F o r c e s e , McGraw H i l l , 1975, a n d S o c i a l S t r a t i f i c a t i o n : C a n a d a , e d i t e d by J . E. C u r t i s a n d W. G. S c o t t , O n t a r i o : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1979. 2. P.74 R. L o v e a n d M. C. W o l f s o n , Income I n e q u a l i t y : S t a t i s t i c a l Methodology and Canadian I l l u s t r a t i o n , p u b l i s h e d by Mininstry of Industry T r a d e a n d Commerce ( O t t a w a : S t a t i s t i c s Canada M a r c h , 1 9 7 6 ) . E x c e r p t e d f r o m L e o A. J o h n s o n 1979:141. 3. F o r a d e t a i l e d r e c o r d on t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f c h i l d abuse i n the 1960s a n d 1970s, s e e D. W e l l s , C h i l d Abuse : An A n n o t a t e d B i b l i o g r a p h y , S c a r e c r o w P r e s s , 1980. 4. The d y n a m i c s of f a m i l y interaction was illustrated in "Conceptual F r a m e w o r k s F o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g F a m i l i e s " , by L. S. Dodson, i n John R. M a c D o n a l d , T r a i n i n g Program, Ontario : Ministry o f Community a n d S o c i a l S e r v i c e s , A u g . 1980, p p . 1 0 9 1 17. 5. See The I n d i a n I d e n t i t y C r i s i s , : S t r a y e r P u b l i s h i n g L t d . , 1979.  by H. Z e n t n e r  (ed.),  Calgary  6. The i s s u e of i d e o l o g i c a l conflict was a d d r e s s e d t o D r . Germain i n a workshop a t Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, on May 2 5 , 1981. D r . G e r m a i n recognized that the i d e o l o g i c a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n among s o c i a l a n d p o l i t i c a l g r o u p s was a dilemma f o r s o c i a l w o r k e r s , but she d i d not o f f e r any s o l u t i o n to t h i s p r o b l e m . 7. The i s s u e on c o n f o r m i n g s o c i a l study t o a n a t u r a l i s t i c m e t h o d o l o g y was r a i s e d by D. Thomas, i n N a t u r a l i s m a n d S o c i a l Science : A P o s t - E m p i r i c i s t P h i l o s o p h y of S o c i a l S c i e n c e s , Cambridge P r e s s , 1979. D i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s were p r e s e n t e d by C h a r l e s T a y l o r i n " I n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d The S c i e n c e s o f Man", i n R e v i e w o f M e t a p h y s i c s , V o l . 2 5 , 1971-1972, p p . 3 - 5 1 , a n d by Theodor W. Adorno, "Sociology and E m p i r i c a l Research", i n C r i t i c a l S o c i o l o g y , e d . by P a u l C o n n e r t o n , P e n g u i n , 1978. 8. F o r i n s i g h t f u l analysis on t h e h i s t o r y o f s o c i a l work r e s e a r c h , s e e S i d n e y E. Z i m b a l i s t , H i s t o r i c Themes a n d L a n d m a r k s i n S o c i a l W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h , New Y o r k : H a r p e r a n d Row, 1977. 9. The m e a n i n g o f p a r a d i g m r e f e r s to the followed by t h e p r a c t i t i o n e r s . The v a r i o u s were d i s c u s s e d i n "The P a r a d i g m Concept C r i t i c a l R e v i e w " , by D. L. E c k b e r y a n d L. H i S o c i o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , 1979, V o l . 44, ( D e c ) ,  disciplinary matrix meanings of paradigm and S o c i o l o g y : A l l , J r . , i n American pp.925-937.  10. New L e f t i s m i s a p h i l o s o p h i c a l i d e a l i s m o f human e s s e n c e . I t is a dialectical t h e o r y o f e s s e n c e a n d a p p e a r a n c e , a n d when  91  transformed i n t o s o c i a l theory, i t has the idea of human practical-critical activity, or p r a x i s . New leftism , as a b e l i e f , s t r i v e s to l i b e r a t e the i n i t i a t i o n s of solidarity and the p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s of the p e o p l e . For a d e t a i l d i s c u s s o n on the p h i l o s o p h i c a l and p r a c t i c a l a s p e c t s of New L e f t i s m , see The O r i g i n s of Modern L e f t i s m , by Richard Gombin, Pelican Book, 1975. 11. The aim of critical a s s e s s m e n t of s o c i a l r e a l i t y i s t h e basic p h i l o s o p h i c a l assumptions of the dialectical/critical school. Critical assessment involves not only stating p r o p o s i t i o n s and g i v e n e x p l a n a t i o n s , but a l s o o f f e r i n g critical judgments, which transcend experience i n t h a t t h e y not o n l y r e f e r t o what e x i s t s , b u t a l s o t o what d o e s n o t , but should, exist (see M a y n t z , e t a l 1 9 7 6 : 2 4 ) . F o r a t h o r o u g h s t u d y on t h e o r i g i n and d e v e l o p m e n t of c r i t i c a l t h e o r y , see M a r t i n Jay, The D i a l e c t i c a l I m a g i n a t i o n : A s t u d y o f t h e F r a n k f u r t S c h o o l and t h e I n s t i t u t e of S o c i a l R e s e a r c h , B o s t o n : L i t t l e , Brown, 1973. 12. As o f M a r c h 31, 1980, t h e numbers o f c h i l d r e n u n d e r t h e c a r e of the Superintendent of C h i l d Welfare were 233 and 69 i n R e g i o n s 1 and 15 r e s p e c t i v e l y . See M i n i s t r y o f Human R e s o u c e s , A n n u a l R e p o r t , 1980, p.76. 13. The method of p a t h a n a l y s i s was i l l u s t r a t e d i n D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s F o r S o c i o l o g i s t s , by L o e t h e r and M c t a v i s h , Boston : A l l y n & B a c o n , 1974, p p . 3 2 0 - 3 2 8 . 14. Nie,  For d e t a i l s on t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t , e t a l , 1975, p p . 3 8 4 - 3 9 2 .  see  15. Max Weber, i n h i s s t u d y on p o w e r , i d e n t i f i e d c l a s s , s t a t u s , and p a r t y as t h e t h r e e m a j o r s o u r c e s of power. See Max Weber : E s s a y s i n S o c i o l o g y , t r a n s l a t e d and e d i t e d by H. H. G e r t h and C. Wright M i l l s , Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1976. 16. L. J o h n s o n ( 1 9 7 9 a ) , i n h i s a n a l y s i s o f t h e c a p i t a l i s t l a b o r market of Canada, c l e a r l y illustrated the e f f e c t s of the c o l l a p s e o f t h e p r e c a p i t a l i s t e c o n o m i c o r d e r had on t h e C a n a d i a n p o p u l a t i o n . The i n c r e a s e o f unemployment was b e i n g p a r t of i t . For a t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s on t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n s o c i e t y and production, see "Toward a Reconstruction of Historical Materialism," by Jurgen. H a b e r m a s , i n C o m m u n i c a t i o n and t h e E v o l u t i o n o f S o c i e t y , B o s t o n : B e a c o n , 1979, p p . 1 3 0 - 1 7 7 .  92  REFERENCES : A l b e r t , M i c h a e l and R o b i n Hahnel 1978 U n Q r t h o x M a r x i s m : An E s s a y On C a p i t a l i s m , S o c i a l i s m and R e v o l u t i o n , B o s t o n : S o u t h End P r e s s . A m a c h e r , K l o h - A n n a n d Ken M a i r 1 979 "Apprehensions of N a t i v e C h i l d r e n i n Vancouver: 1978 t h r o u g h June 3 0 , 1 9 7 9 . An E x p l o r a t o r y P r i v a t e paper. B a b b i e , E a r l R. 1 979 The P r a c t i c e o f S o c i a l R e s e a r c h , Cali fornia. B a i l e y , Roy a n d M i k e B r a k e ( e d . ) 1 975 R a d i c a l S o c i a l Work, New Y o r k  W a d s w o r t h Pub. Comp.,  : Pantheon  B o u r n e , R i c h a r d a n d E l i H. N e w b e r g e r ( e d . ) 1 979 C r i t i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s on C h i l d A b u s e , Company. Brown, J . 1981  Bryant, 1963  J u l y 1, Study,"  Books,  D.C:  Health  &  "Some E t i o l o g i c a l F a c t o r s and Treatment C o n s i d e r a t i o n i n C h i l d Abuse." i n E x p l o r i n g t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p between C h i l d Abuse a n d D e l i n q u e n c y , e d i t e d by R. J . H u n t e r a n d Y. E. W a l k e r , New J e r s e y : A l l a n h e l d , Osmun & Comp. 1981 .  H. D. " P h y s i c a l Abuse o f C h i l d r e n : C h i l d W e l f a r e 42, pp.125-130.  An  Agency  Study,"  C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s And F r e e d o m s 1981 I n f o r m a t i o n C a n a d a , Queen's P r i n t e r , O t t a w a , 1981.  in  93  Clement, 1980  Clement, 1979  Wallace "Searching For Equality : The S o c i o l o g y o f John Porter," in Canadian J o u r n a l o f P o l i t i c a l and S o c i a l T h e o r y , V o l . 4, No. 2, p p . 9 7 - 1 1 4 . Wallace "Access t o the Canadian Corporate E l i t e , " i n Social S t r a t i f i c a t i o n : C a n a d a , e d i t e d by J . E . C u r t i s & W.G. S c o t t , O n t a r i o : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1979.  Compton, B e u t a h R. a n d B u r t G a l a w a y 1979 S o c i a l Work P r a c t i c e , D o r s e y P r e s s . Connerton, Paul 1978 Critical  S o c i o l o g y , Penguin.  Cunningham, R o s s a l l a 1 979 C h i l d Abuse a n d F a m i l y - c e n t e r e d C a r e , U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto.  Toronto  C u r t i s , J . E. and W. G. S c o t t ( e d . ) 1 979 S o c i a l S t r a t i f i c a t i o n : Canada, Toronto Toronto.  : U n i v e r s i t y of  Dodson, L.S. 1980 " C o n c e p t u a l Frameworks F o r U n d e r s t a n d i n g F a m i 1 i e s , " i n T r a i n i n g Program: I n t r o d u c t i o n & Readings, Vol. I, pp.109-117, edited by J . R. M a c D o n a l d . O n t a r i o : M i n i s t r y o f Community a n d S o c i a l S c i e n c e s . Doby, J o h n T. 1954 An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o S o c i a l R e s e a r c h , S t a c k p o l e Company.  P e n n s y l v a n i a : The  94  Fanshel, 1 976  David " S t a t u s Changes o f C h i l d r e n i n Foster Care : Final R e s u l t s of the Columbia U n i v e r s i t y L o n g i t u d i n a l Study," in C h i l d Welfare Volume LV, Number 3, M a r c h 1976, pp.143-171.  F a n s h e l , D a v i d and John Brundy November 1975 Computerized Data f o r C h i l d r e n i n F o s t e r Care : F i r s t A n a l y s i s f r o m a Management I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e i n New York C i t y . New Y o r k : Child Welfare Information Services. Fontona, V i n c e n t J . and Douglas J . Besharov 1 979 The M a l t r e a t e d C h i l d , C h a r l e s C. Thomas. Garbarino, J . M a r c h 1976 "A P r e l i m i n a r y S t u d y o f Some E c o l o g i c a l C o r r e l a t e s o f C h i l d Abuse : The I m p a c t o f S o c i o - e c o n o m i c S t r e s s on M o t h e r s , " i n C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t 47 : p p . 1 7 8 - 1 8 5 . G a r b a r i n o , J . & A. C r o u t e r 1978 A Note on t h e P r o b l e m s of C o n s t r u c t Validity in A s s e s s i n g the U s e f u l n e s s of C h i l d Maltreatment Report Data," in American J o u r n a l of P u b l i c H e a l t h 68 : pp.598-600. G e i s m a r , L u d w i g L. a n d B e v e r l y A y r e s 1960 M e a s u r i n g F a m i l y F u n c t i o n i n g : A M a n u a l on a M e t h o d f o r E v a l u a t i n g the S o c i a l Functioning of Disorganized F a m i l i e s , Family Centered Project, Greater S t . Paul Community C h e s t a n d C o u n c i l s , I n c . S t . P a u l , M i n n e s o t a . G e i s m a r , L u d w i g L. a n d K a t h e r i n e M. Wood May 1982 "Evaluating P r a c t i c e : Science C a s e w o r k , V o l . 6 3 , Number 5.  as F a i t h , "  i n Social  95  Gelles, 1975  Richard J .  Gelles, 1 973  Richard J .  "The S o c i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n o f C h i l d A b u s e , " in J o u r n a l o f O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y 45 ( 3 ) , A p r i l 1975.  American  "Child Abuse a s P s y c h o p a t h o l o g y : a Sociological Critique & Reformation," in American J o u r n a l of O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y 43 ( J u l y ) : 6 1 1 - 6 2 1 .  G e r m a i n , C a r e l B. ( e d . ) 1 979 S o c i a l Work P r a c i t c e : P e o p l e a n d E n v i r o n m e n t s , a n d E c o l o g i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e , New Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y Press. Germain, C a r e l , and A l e x G i t t e r m a n 1980 The L i f e M o d e l o f S o c i a l Work P r a c t i c e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  New  G e r t h , H. H. a n d C. W r i g h t M i l l s ( t r a n s , a n d ed.) 1 976 • From Max Weber : E s s a y s i n S o c i o l o g y , New Y o r k University Press.  York  :  : Oxford  G i l , D a v i d G. A p r i l 1975 "Unraveling C h i l d A b u s e , " i n Am. J . o f O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y 4 5 ( 3 ) : 346-356. G i l , D a v i d G. May 1969 " P h y s i c a l Abuse o f C h i l d r e n : F i n d i n g & I m p l i c a t i o n s of a N a t i o n w i d e S u r v e y , " i n P e d i a t r i c s 44 : 8 5 7 . G o l d s t e i n , J . , A. F r e u d , a n d A. J . S o l n i t 1 973 B e y o n d t h e B e s t I n t e r e s t s o f t h e C h i l d , New Y o r k Press.  : Free  96  Habermas, J u r g e n 1 979 Communication Beacon.  and t h e E v o l u t i o n of S o c i e t y ,  Boston  H e i f e r , Ray E., a n d C. H e n r y Kempe ( e d . ) 1 976 C h i l d Abuse a n d N e g l e c t : The F a m i l y a n d t h e Community, M a s s . : B a l l i n g e r P u b . Comp.. H e i f e r , R. a n d C H . Kempe ( e d . ) 1 968 The B a t t e r e d C h i l d , C h i c a g o Press.  :  University  H o l l i n g s h e a d , A u g u s t B. a n d F r e d e r i c k C. R e d l i c h 1 958 S o c i a l C l a s s a n d M e n t a l I l l n e s s , New Y o r k  of Chicago  : John Wiley,  H o r o w i t z , B e r n a r d and I s a b e l Wolock 1981 " M a t e r i a l D e p r i v a t i o n , C h i l d M a l t r e a t m e n t , and Agency Interventions Among Poor F a m i l i e s , " i n L. P e l t o n ( e d . ) 1981 . Hudson, Pete and Brad M c k e n z i e 1 981 " C h i l d Welfare and N a t i v e People : The E x t e n s i o n of Colonialism," i n The S o c i a l W o r k e r , V o l . 4 9 , Number 2, Summer 1 9 8 1 . H u n t e r , R o b e r t J . a n d Yvonne E l d e r W a l k e r ( e d . ) 1981 E x p l o r i n g t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p between C h i l d Abuse and D e l i n q u e n c y , New J e r s e y : A l l a n h e l d , Osmun & Comp., Jay, Martin 1973 The D i a l e c t i c a l I m a g i n a t i o n : a h i s t o r y o f t h e F r a n k f u r t School and t h e I n s t i t u t e of S o c i a l Research, 1923-1950, B o s t o n : L i t t l e , B r o w n .  97  Jenkins, 1 967  Shirley "Duration of Foster Care : Some R e l e v a n t A n t e c e d e n t V a r i a b l e s , " i n C h i l d W e l f a r e O c t . 1967, p p . 4 5 0 - 4 5 5 .  J o h n s o n , L e o A. 1979a "Precapitalist Economic Formations and t h e C a p t i a l i s t Labor Market in Canada, 1911-1971," in Social S t r a t i f i c a t i o n : Canada , e d i t e d by J . E . C u r i t s & W.G. S c o t t , O n t a r i o : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1979, p p . 8 9 - 1 0 4 . J o h n s o n , L e o A. 1 979b "Income D i s p a r i t y and t h e S t r u c t u r e of Canada, 1946-74," i n J . E . C u r t i s a n d W.G. 1979, pp.141-158  Earning i n Scott (ed.)  Kadushin, A l f r e d 1978 "Children In Foster Families And I n s t i t u t i o n s , " i n S o c i a l Services Research, edited by H. Maas, N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S o c i a l W o r k e r s , I n c . , pp.90-148. Kempe, C. H., F.N. S i l v e r m a n , B.F. S t e e l e , W. Droegenmueller, and H. K. S i l v e r 1962. "The Battered-Child Syndrome," i n J o u r n a l o f A m e r i c a n M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n 181 : p p . 1 0 7 . K i t a , Stanley 1980. UBC SPSS : S t a t i s t i c a l P a c k a g e F o r t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s , V e r s i o n 8.00 ( U n d e r MTS). Computer C e n t e r , U.B.C. Leiss, William 1 978 The L i m i t t o S a t i s f a c t i o n : On Needs a n d C o m m o n d i t i e s , London : B o y a r s . Maas, H e n r y S. ( e d . ) 1978 S o c i a l S e r v i c e Research : Reviews of S t u d i e s . A s s o c i a t i o n of S o c i a l Workers, I n c . .  National  98  Maas, H e n r y S. 1969 "Children i n Long-Term F o s t e r C a r e , " i n C h i l d W e l f a r e V o l u m e X L V I I I , Number 6, J u n e 1969, p p . 3 2 1 - 3 3 3 . M a c D o n a l d , J o h n R. ( e d . ) Aug. 1980. T r a i n i n g Program : I n t r o d u c t i o n & R e a d i n g s , V o l . 1 : A B a s i c T r a i n i n g Program F o r F r o n t - L i n e P r o t e c t i o n S t a f f And S u p e r v i s o r s o f C h i l d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t i e s i n t h e P r o v i n c e o f O n t a r i o , O n t a r i o : M i n i s t r y o f Community and S o c i a l S e r v i c e s . Mann, W. E. ( e d . ) 1970 P o v e r t y and S o c i a l P o l i c y i n Canada, C l a r k Pub. Company. Marx, K a r l 1969 The E c o n o m i c a n d P h i l o s o p h i c Paperbacks.  Canada  Manuscripts,  :  New  Copp  World  M a t h e s o n , K e n n e t h D o u g l a s , a n d D a v i s Neave 1967 E p i d e m i o l o g i c a l Survey of C h i l d r e n Admitted t o Care i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Master Thesis, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. M a y n t z , R e n a t e , K u r t H o l m , a n d R o g e r Huebner 1976 Introduction t o Empirical Sociology, M i n i s t r y o f Human R e s o u r c e s 1980 A n n u a l R e p o r t 1980 : S e r v i c e s Human R e s o u r c e s , B.C.. National 1981  Council  Penguin  f o rPeople,  of Welfare  Measuring Poverty Ottawa : N a t i o n a l  : 1981 P o v e r t y L i n e s , Council of Welfare.  Education.  Ministry  of  99  N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of W e l f a r e 1982 M e a s u r i n g P o v e r t y : 1982 P o v e r t y L i n e s , Ottawa : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of W e l f a r e . N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of W e l f a r e M a r c h 1981 The W o r k i n g P o o r : a s t a t i s t i c a l the N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Welfare, of W e l f a r e .  p r o f i l e p r e p a r e d by Ottawa : Nat. C o u n c i l  N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of W e l f a r e December 1979 I n t h e B e s t I n t e r e s t s o f t h e C h i l d : a r e p o r t by t h e N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f W e l f a r e on t h e c h i l d w e l f a r e s y s t e m i n Canada, Ottawa : N a t . C o u n c i l of W e l f a r e . N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of W e l f a r e O c t . 1979 Woman a n d P o v e r t y : a r e p o r t by t h e N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f W e l f a r e , Ottawa : Nat. C o u n c i l of W e l f a r e . N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of W e l f a r e Poor People's Groups : a r e p o r t of t h e N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f W e l f a r e on s e l f - h e l p p r o b l e m s o l v i n g by l o w - i n c o m e communities, Ottawa : N a t . C o u n c i l of W e l f a r e . N e w b e r g e r , E l i H. 1979 "The M y t h o f t h e B a t t e r e d C h i l d and N e w b e r g e r ( e d . ) 1979.  Syndrome,"  in  Bourne  Nie, Norman H., C. H a d l a i H u l l , J.G. J e n k i n s , K. S t e i n b r e n n e r , and D.H. B e n t 1975. S t a t i s t i c a l Package F o r t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s , McGrawH a l l , Inc . . N u r s e , S.M. 1966. "Familial Children," pp.11-25.  Patterns of Parents who Abuse i n S m i t h C o l l e g e S t u d y S o c i a l Work  their 35,  100  Pelton, 1 981  L e r o y H.  Porter, 1965  John  (ed.)  The S o c i a l C o n t e x t of Human S c i e n c e P r e s s .  The V e r t i c a l M o s a i c , Press. S m i t h , S e l w y n M. 1975 The B a t t e r e d Steele, 1 968  B.F.  and  C.B.  C h i l d Abuse & N e g l e c t . New  Toronto  :  Unversity  of  York  :  Toronto  C h i l d Syndrome, B u t t e r w o r t h s . Pollock  "A p s y c h i a r i c s t u d y o f p a r e n t s who abuse infants and small c h i l d r e n , " i n The B a t t e r e d C h i l d , e d i t e d by R.E. H e i f e r and C H . Kempe. C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press 1968. Taylor, 1971  Charles "Interpretation and t h e S c i e n c e s of Man," M e t a p h y s i c s , V o l . 25, 1971-72, p p . 3 - 5 1 .  i n Review  of  Thomas, D a v i d . 1979 N a t u r a l i s m and S o c i a l S c i e n c e : A P o s t - E m p i r i c i s t P h i l o s o p h y of S o c i a l S o c i e n c e , Cambridge University Press. T r i p o d i , T o n y , P h i l l i p F e l l i n , and H e n r y J . M e y e r 1969 The A s s e s s m e n t of S o c i a l R e s e a r c h ; G u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e Use of R e s e a r c h i n S o c i a l Work and S o c i a l S c i e n c e . I t a s c a , 111. : F. E. P e a c o c k P u b l i s h e r . T u c k e y , E l i z a b e t h U. T. 1 967 F a m i l y I n f l u e n c e on C h i l d P r o t e c t i o n C a s e s a t o f A p p r e h e n s i o n and i n L a t o r F o s t e r C a r e , T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a .  the  Point Master  101  W a r n e r , W. L l o y d , M a r c h i a M e e k e r , and K e n n e t h 1 949 S o c i a l Class i n America, Chicago, Research A s s o c i a t e s .  Eells 111.  :  Science  Y o u n g , L. 1 964 Wednesday's C h i l d r e n : A S t u d y o f C h i l d N e g l e c t & A b u s e , New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H a l l . Z e n t n e r , H. ( e d . ) 1979 The I n d i a n Publishing  Identity Crisis, Limited.  -u C a l g a r y : S t r a y e r  Z i m b a l i s t , S i d n e y E. 1977 H i s t o r i c Themes and L a n d m a r k s i n S o c i a l W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h , New Y o r k : H a r p e r & Row.  102  APPENDIX I LETTER TO CHILD WELFARE SOCIAL WORKERS (To c h i l d w e l f a r e s o c i a l w o r k e r i d e n t i f i e d by Team C o o r d i n a t o r s i n R e g i o n 1 a n d 15; M i n i s t r y o f Human R e s o u r c e s , c i t y o f Vancouver.) Re: Dear  Study  on t h e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c P a t t e r n s o f C h i l d i n Care F a m i l i e  friend:  The purpose of t h i s study i s t o i d e n t i f y the social-economic c o n d i t i o n s of the c h i l d i n care f a m i l y , and t o f i n d out the correlation between t h e f a m i l y ' s s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s and the c h i l d ' s l e g a l s t a t u s a t t h e time of t h e c h i l d ' s l a s t and second last change of l e g a l s t a t u s . The n i n e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c i n d i c a t o r s used i n t h i s study a r e : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  A n n u a l Income S o u r c e s o f Inocme Occupation House Type D w e l l i n g Area Level of Education L e n g t h o f Employment o r Unemployment Association Strength Family S o l i d a r i t y .  Definitions of the 9 i n d i c a t o r s are attached with the questionnaire. I will c o n t a c t y o u t o a r r a n g e an i n t e r v i e w . I n the i n t e r v i e w , t h e i n t e r v i e w e r w i l l ask you a l l t h e q u e s t i o n s as t h o s e i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . You s h o u l d r e c e i v e a copy of the questionnaire one week b e f o r e t h e i n t e r v i e w , s o t h a t y o u w i l l h a v e ample t i m e t o p r e p a r e . Y o u r name a n d t h e name o f t h e c a s e w i l l  remain  confidential.  T h i s s t u d y h a s been a p p r o v e d by t h e D e p u t y Minister o f Human Resources (Mr. N o b l e ) , a n d by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n y o u r R e g i o n a l o f f i c e . Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s n o t a mandatory one, and you have the right t o r e f u s e t o be i n t e r v i e w e d w i t h o u t j e o p a r d y t o y o u r s t a t u s i n t h e agency.  103  I f y o u have any q u e s t i o n , p l e a s e d o n ' t h e s i t a t e t o c o n s u l t your Team Coordinator, o r y o u may c o n t a c t me d i r e c t l y a t t h e UBC S c h o o l o f S o c i a l Work. Thank y o u v e r y much f o r y o u r a s s i s t a n c e a n d c o o p e r a t i o n . Yours  truly,  A l b e r t Chan M a s t e r o f S o c i a l Work U.B.C.  student  104  APPENDIX I I QUESTIONNAIRE CASE IDENTITY NUMBER: DATE OF INTERVIEW: PLACE OF INTERVIEW: QUESTIONNAIRE A C h i l d p r o f i l e a t the time of admission  to care  1. Age: 2. S e x : 1. 3. R a c i a l  Female  2. M a l e  Origin: 1. C a u c a s i a n 4. M e t i s 7. Not Known  2. N a t i v e 5. N e g r o  3, As i a t i c 6, O t h e r s  4. R e l i g i o n : 1. P r o t e s t a n t 4. O t h e r s  2. C a t h o l i c 3, J e w i s h 5. No R e l i g i o n 6, Not Known  Indian Status: 1 . Yes  No  6. D a t e o f t h e l a t e s t a d m i s s i o n Year 7, A d m i t t i n g  Month  Known  to care: Day_  Region  8, S u p e r v i s i n g  Region:  9, R e a s o n f o r A d m i s s i o n : 1. 2. 3. 4.  Not  2  p h y s i c a l abue d e s e r t i o n o r abandonment emotional disturbance one p a r e n t d e c e a s e d  17. P a r e n t a l f a i l u r e t o provide medical care 18. p a r e n t ( s ) i m p r i s o n e d 19. i n a b l i l i t y o f f a m i l y t o  105  5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.  s o l e parent deceased parental sexual deviation parental illness,mental parental illness,physical awaiting adoption parents removed f r o m a d o p t i o n parents a w a i t i n g permanent p l a n p h y s i c a l handicap mental r e t a r d a t i o n delinquent behavior transient u n m a r r i e d mother  10. L e g a l s t a t u s o f t h e c h i l d of o r d e r : 11. D a t e o f t h e l a s t year month  p r o v i d e needed e d u c a t i o n 20. p a r e n t a l f a i l u r e 2 1 . r e q u e s t e d by a n o t h e r p r o v . 22. l a c k o f h o u s i n g / a c c o m m o d a . for f a m i l y group 23. not a p p l i c a b l e 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.  after  n o t known s e x u a l a b u s e by n e i g h b o u r e m o t i o n a l abuse neglect s e x u a l a b u s e by p a r e n t  the l a s t  change or e x t e n s i o n  change or e x t e n s i o n of l e g a l day  status:  106  Questionnaire  B  F a m i l y p r o f i l e a t t h e Time o f t h e C h i l d ' s A d m i s s i o n  1. Head o f H o u s e h o l d : 1. 3. 5. 7. 8.  to care  2  biological father b i o l o g i c a l grandparent(s) relative others: specify n o t known  2, b i o l o g i c a l m o t h e r 4, s t e p - p a r e n t 6, f r i e n d o f f a m i l y  2. Age o f t h e Head o f H o u s e h o l d : 3. Sex o f t h e Head o f H o u s e h o l d : 1. 4. M a r i t a l  male  Status: 1. 3. 5. 7. 8.  Ethnic  female  single parent separated widow o r w i d o w e r others: n o t known  origin  of t h e head of  2. m a r r i e d 4. l i v i n g t o g e t h e r 6. d i v o r c e d  household:  1. C a u c a s i a n 3. A s i a t i c 5. N e g r o 7. Not Known  2. N a t i v e 4. M e t i s 6. O t h e r s  Number o f c h i l d r e n r e s i d i n g w i t h t h e f a m i l y a t t h e t i m e s the c h i l d ' s admission t o c a r e : 7.  Number of c h i l d r e n the child's last status:  8.  Family's l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e c h i l d ' s admisssion to care:  of  r e s i d i n g w i t h the f a m i l y a t the time of change or extension of legal  in  the  Region  before the  1 07  QUESTIONNAIRE C The S o c i o - e c o n o m i c C o n d i t i o n s o f t h e F a m i l y a t t h e Time C h i l d was g r a n t e d T e m p o r a r y W a r d s h i p . 1. F a m i l y ' s A n n u a l 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 2. S o u r c e s  3  lower poverty c l a s s poverty class lower c l a s s lower middle c l a s s middle c l a s s upper middle c l a s s upper c l a s s n o t known o f Income o f t h e F a m i l y  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  1. 3. 5. 7.  o f t h e Head of t h e H o u s e h o l d  n e v e r been e m p l o y e d semi-skilled tradesperson entrepreneur  type 1. 3. 5. 7.  5. D w e l l i n g 1. 3. 5. 7.  :*  nonrespectable source p u b l i c source p r i v a t e source wages salary p r o f i t s and f e e s i n h e r i t e d and e a r n e d w e a l t h n o t known  3. O c c u p a t i o n  4. House  Income. :  :  5  2. u n s k i l l e d 4. s k i l l e d 6. p r o f e s s i o n a l 8. n o t known  . 6  v e r y poor house below average above average very high Area very below above very  2. 4. 6. 8.  high average high n o t known  . 7  low average average high  2. low 4. a v e r a g e 6. h i g h 8. n o t known  the  108  QUESTIONNAIRE C  (cont'd)  6. E d u c a t i o n of t h e Head of t h e H o u s e h o l d : 1. no f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n 2. u n d e r 7 y e a r s of s c h o o l i n g 3. b e t w e e n 7 and 11 y e a r s o f s c h o o l i n g 4. h i g h s c h o o l g r a d u a t e 5. 1 t o 2 y e a r s c o l l e g e o r j o b t r a i n i n g 6. u n i v e r s i t y g r a d u a t e 7. p r o f e s s i o n a l d e g r e e 8. n o t known  program  L e n g t h of c o n t i n u o u s employment o r unemployment o f t h e of t h e h o u s e h o l d : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. .8.  u n e m p l o y e d more t h a n 1 y e a r u n e m p l o y e d b e t w e e n 6 t o 11 months u n e m p l o y e d l e s s t h a n 6 months e m p l o y e d l e s s t h a n 6 months e m p l o y e d b e t w e e n 6 t o 11 months employed between 1 t o 2 y e a r s e m p l o y e d more t h a n 2 y e a r s n o t known  Family's churches, family :  Association Strength with social community groups, organizations, and  8  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  poor inadequate below m a r g i n a l marginal above m a r g i n a l adequate good n o t known  9. F a m i l y S o l i d a r i t y 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  head  :  9  poor inadequate below m a r g i n a l marginal above m a r g i n a l adequate good n o t known  agencies, extended  109  QUESTIONNAIRE  D  The S o c i o - e c o n o m i c Status Revision.  c o n d i t i o n s of t h e f a m i l y a t the time of L e g a l  1. F a m i l y ' s A n n u a l  Income :  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 2. S o u r c e s 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  3  lower poverty c l a s s poverty class lower c l a s s lower middle c l a s s middle c l a s s upper m i d d l e c l a s s upper c l a s s n o t known o f Income o f t h e F a m i l y  :  4  nonrespectable source p u b l i c source p r i v a t e source wages salary p r o f i t s and f e e s i n h e r i t e d and e a r n e d w e a l t h n o t known  3. O c c u p a t i o n o f t h e Head o f t h e H o u s e h o l d 1. 3. 5. 7.  n e v e r been e m p l o y e d semi-skilled trandesperson entrepreneur  :  5  2. 4. 6. 8.  unskilied skilled professional n o t known  2. 4. 6. 8.  high average high n o t known  2. 4. 6. 8.  low average high n o t known  4. House t y p e 1. 3. 5. 7.  v e r y poor house below average above a v e r a g e very high  5. D w e l l i n g A r e a 1. 3. 5. 7.  . 7  v e r y low below average above a v e r a g e very high  1 10  QUESTIONNAIRE D  Education 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  o f t h e Head o f t h e H o u s e h o l d :  no f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n under 7 y e a r s of s c h o o l i n g b e t w e e n 7 and 11 y e a r s o f s c h o o l i n g high school graduate 1 t o 2 years c o l l e g e or job t r a i n i n g u n i v e r s i t y graduate p r o f e s s i o n a l degree n o t known  Length of c o n t i n u o u s of t h e h o u s e h o l d : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  o r unemployment  of t h e h e a d  association strength with social agencies, community g r o u p s a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and e x t e n d e d 8  poor inadequate below m a r g i n a l marginal above m a r g i n a l adequate good n o t known  9. F a m i l y S o l i d a r i t y 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  employment  program  u n e m p l o y e d more t h a n 1 y e a r u n e m p l o y e d b e t w e e n 6 t o 11 months u n e m p l o y e d l e s s t h a n 6 months e m p l o y e d l e s s t h a n 6 months e m p l o y e d between 6 t o 11 months e m p l o y e d between 1 t o 2 y e a r s e m p l o y e d more t h a n 2 y e a r s n o t known  Family's churches, family : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  (cont'd)  poor inadequate below m a r g i n a l marginal above m a r g i n a l adequate good n o t known  :  9  111  Notes  :  1.  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and d e f i n i t i o n s of reasons f o r admission used in this study a r e c o p i e d f r o m t h e M i n i s t r y o f Human R e s o u r c e s ' C h i l d A c t i v i t y Form (HR 1629 C h i l d C a r e Activity Form 8 1 / 0 5 ) .  2.  The p e r s o n w i t h t h e m a j o r f a m i l y income s h o u l d be d e s i g n a t e d as t h e f a m i l y ' s head of h o u s e h o l d .  3.  The f a m i l y ' s a n n u a l  4.  income l e v e l s a r e d e f i n e d a s f o l l o w s :  1.  lower poverty class : f a m i l y ' s a n n u a l income i s 2 0 % lower than t h e l i n e of p o v e r t y setted by t h e S e n a t e Committee on P o v e r t y (see Appendix A f o r the s e t of poverty l i n e ) .  2.  poverty class the poverty poverty.  3.  lower c l a s s : f a m i l y ' s annual income i s above S e n a t e s ' s l i n e o f p o v e r t y b u t i s below 20,000.  4.  lower-middle c l a s s 20,000 t o 3 4 , 9 9 9 .  5.  middle c l a s s 49,999.  : f a m i l y ' s annual  income i s f r o m 35,000 t o  6.  middle c l a s s 70,000.  : f a m i l y ' s annual  income i s f r o m 50,000 t o  7.  upper class 70,000.  : f a m i l y ' s a n n u a l income i s 80-100% o f line setted by t h e S e n a t e C o m m i t t e e on  :  The v a r i o u s l e v e l s o f follow :  : the family's annual  the  family's  sources  of  annual  income  the  income i s f r o m  income i s a b o v e  are  defined  as  1.  nonrespectable source : money o b t a i n e d f r o m i l l e g a l o c c u p a t i o n , i . e . s t e a l i n g , gambling, p r o s t i t u t i o n , and etc  2.  p u b l i c s o u r c e : money r e c e i v e d f r o m a g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c y or from some s e m i p u b l i c c h a r i t y organization. This i n c l u d e s P e n s i o n , U . I . C . , a n d o t h e r Income A s s i s t a n c e .  3.  private source : money received from friends, r e l a t i v e s , c h u r c h e s , community a s s o c i a t i o n , and e t c . .  1 12  4.  wages : amount i s d e t e r m i n e d by h o u r l y  5.  salary : r e g u l a r income p a i d f o r s e r v i c e s on a m o n t h l y or yearly basis. This category also includes the commission type of s a l a r y p a i d t o salespersons.  6.  profits and f e e s : money p a i d t o p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n s f o r s e r v i c e s and a d v i c e . T h i s a l s o i n c l u d e s t h e money made by o w n e r s o f b u s i n e s s f o r s a l e of goods, and r o y a l t i e s p a i d t o w r i t e r s , m u s c i a n s , and t h e l i k e .  7.  i n h e r i t e d a n d e a r n e d w e a l t h : money made by previous g e n e r a t i o n . T h i s i n c l u d e s money d e r i v e d f r o m s a v i n g a n d interests or business enterprises i n h e r i t e d f r o m an e a r l i e r g e n e r a t i o n . Or money f r o m s a v i n g , i n v e s t m e n t o r i n t e r e s t s from c a p i t a l w h i c h has amassed sufficient money s o t h a t t h e p e r s o n d o e s n o t need t o w o r k .  5. The v a r i o u s  l e v e l s of occupation  or d a i l y  rates.  a r e d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s :  1.  n e v e r been e m p l o y e d : a p e r s o n who h a s n e v e r w o r k e d f o r wages, c o m m i s s i o n , a n d t h e l i k e .  2.  unskilled : manual labor which does not r e q u i r e t r a i n i n g . T h i s i n c l u d e s heavy l a b o r , m i g r a n t work, oddj o b man, j a n i t o r s , n e w s b o y s , m i g r a n t f a r m workers and the l i k e .  3.  semi-skilled : manual labor that requires some experience, s k i l l s or t r a i n i n g , i . e . f a c t o r y workers, gas station attendants, night watchmen, w a i t e r a n d waitress, etc..  4.  s k i l l e d : manual l a b o r o r o f f i c e work that requires training and skills. This includes bank clerks, plumbers, e l e c t r i c i a n s , repairmen, operators, barbers, bartenders, chef, s e c r e t a r i e s , nurse-aids, contractors, etc . .  5.  tradesperson : jobs which s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e b u t do n o t r e q u i r e d e g r e e o r certification, i.e. manager, s a l e s p e r s o n , e x e c u t i v e s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , etc. .  6.  p r o f e s s i o n a l : jobs which r e q u i r e professional degree and certification. This includes charter accountants, engineers, a r c h i t e c t s , judges, doctors, nurses, e t c . .  7.  entrepreneur : p e r s o n s who a r e t h e o w n e r s o r t h e t o p executives of large corporation. This includes p r e s i d e n t , v i c e - p r e s i d e n t s , e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r s and t h e  113  like. 6.  The  various  l e v e l s of h o u s e - t y p e a r e  as  follows * :  1.  v e r y p o o r h o u s e : h o u s e s w h i c h have d e t e r i o r a t e d so f a r t h a t they cannot be repaired. They are considered u n h e a l t h y and u n s a f e t o l i v e i n .  2.  p o o r h o u s e s : h o u s e s w h i c h a r e b a d l y r u n down, b u t h a v e not deteriorated sufficiently that they cannot be r e p a i r e d . Houses l a c k b a s i c maintenance.  3.  f a i r houses : houses which are reasonable l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n .  4.  a v e r a g e h o u s e s : h o u s e s w h i c h have s u f f i c i e n t rooms and space for the family and are furnished with basic necessity.  5.  good houses : houses w h i c h are slightly larger u t i l i t y demands, and a r e c o m f o r t a b l y furnished.  6.  v e r y good h o u s e s : h o u s e s w h i c h have a b u n d a n t rooms space and a r e f u r n i s h e d w i t h e x p e n s i v e f u r n i t u r e s . h o u s e s a r e s u r r o u n d e d w i t h n i c e s i z e l a w n and y a r d .  7.  e x c e l l e n t houses : houses which are very large single family d w e l l i n g i n good r e p a i r and s u r r o u n d e d by l a r g e lawn and yard. The houses are well designed and landscaped, and well cared f o r . The h o u s e s h a v e an element of ostentation with respect to size, architectual s t y l e , and g e n e r a l c o n d i t i o n s of y a r d and lawn.  * The d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e to apartments. 7.  defined  The  various  c r o w d e d but  houses' c o n d i t i o n s  l e v e l s of d w e l l i n g a r e a are  is  are  also  defined  kept  in  than and The  applicable as  follows  :  1.  very low reputation, unhealthy the s o c i a l  :  slum d i s t r i c t s , the a r e s w i t h the p o o r e s t not o n l y because of unpleasant and and geographical p o s i t i o n s , but a l s o because of s t i g m a a t t a c h e d t o t h o s e who l i v e t h e r e .  2.  low : t h e s e a r e a s a r e r u n down and s e m i s l u m . The h o u s e s a r e s e t c l o s e t o g e t h e r and a r e i n p o o r condition. The streets and yards are often f i l l e d w i t h d e b r i s and waste.  3.  below average  : these areas  are  undesirable  to  live  114  because they are c l o s e to f a c t o r y , r a i l r o a d or other i n d u s t r i e s . Some of t h e h o u s e s i n t h e s e a r e a s are run down.  8.  4.  average : houses i n these areas u n p r e t e n t i o u s but neat i n appearance.  5.  above average : t h i s i s an area of n i c e but not pretentious h o u s e s . The s t r e e t s a r e k e p t c l e a n and t h e h o u s e s and l a w n s u r r o u n d e d t h e h o u s e s a r e well cared f o r . I t i s known as "a n i c e p l a c e t o l i v e " .  6.  high : a r e a s w h i c h a r e f e l t t o be w e l l a b o v e a v e r a g e . T h e r e a r e m a n s i o n and l a r g e h o u s e s w i t h huge w e l l c a r e d f o r lawn and y a r d s .  7.  v e r y h i g h : t h i s a r e a has a h i g h s t a t u s r e p u t a t i o n . The s t r e e t s a r e w i d e and c l e a n , and h a v e many t r e e s . The best and most expensive houses are l o c a t e d i n t h i s area.  The v a r i o u s l e v e l s o f f a m i l y ' s a s s o c i a t i o n follows :  are  are  small  defined  and  as  1.  poor : extreme hostile attitude towards social a g e n c i e s , c h u r c h e s , c o m m u n i t y g r o u p s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and e x t e n d e d f a m i l y .  2.  inadequate  3.  b e l o w m a r g i n a l : a t t i t u d e i s somewhat h o s t i l e ; c o n t a c t ; and u n w i l l i n g t o c o o p e r a t e .  4.  marginal : show i n d i f f e r e n c e t o w a r d s any p e r s o n s t h e a b o v e g r o u p s ; f a m i l y members a r e a p a t h e t i c and no i n i t i a t i o n t o r e a c h o u t .  5.  above m a r g i n a l : show some i n t e r e s t s to maintain contact but are willing not to t r y t o work w i t h c o n t a c t e d r e s o u r c e s i n any p o s i t i v e s e n s e .  6.  a e q u a t e : show i n t e r e s t s and i n i t i a t i v e s , and to maintain regular contact. There are improvement.  7.  g o o d : p o s i t i v e and h e a l t h y attitude, f a m i l y members show interests and t a k e i n i t i a t i v e t o c o n t a c t o t h e r s , and are able to form meaningful and functional r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h them.  : attitude  is hostile;  refuse to  cooperate. minimal from take  are able signs of  1 15  9.  The v a r i o u s follows :  levels  of  family  solidarity  are defined  as  1.  poor : marked l a c k of a f f e c t i o n and e m o t i o n a l ties among family members. C o n f l i c t among members a r e p e r s i s t e n t o r s e v e r e . P h y s i c a l h e a l t h o f f a m i l y members i s i n danger.  2.  i n a d e q u a t e : marked l a c k o f a f f e c t i o n and e m o t i o n a l ties among f a m i l y members. C o n f l i c t among members a r e p e r s i s t e n t o r s e v e r e , b u t members' p h y s i c a l health i s not i n danger.  3.  b e l o w m a r g i n a l : n e a r l y no a f f e c t i o n a n d e m o t i o n a l t i e s among family members. F a m i l y c o n f l i c t a l w a y s e n d s i n direct verbal confrontation.  4.  marginal : l i t t l e emotional warmth e v i d e n c e d among family members. F a m i l y members o f t e n i n c o n f l i c t , b u t not n e c e s s a r i l y ended i n d i r e c t c o n f r o n t a t i o n . Members have no s e n s e of s h a r i n g r e s p o n s i b l i 1 i t y . W e l f a r e of c h i l d r e n i s p o t e n t i a l l y but not y e t i n a c t u a l danger.  5.  above m a r g i n a l : little emotional warmth b u t few conflicts. Members e a t a n d do t h i n g s t o g e t h e r b u t a r e u n a b l e t o make l o n g t e r m p l a n f o r t h e f a m i l y .  6.  a d e q u a t e : warmth a n d a f f e c t i o n shown among family members. W i l l i n g n e s s t o s h a r e some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y b u t s o m e t i m e s c a n n o t c a r r y o u t . F a m i l y members c a n discuss problems but are not able t o reach resolution harmonically.  7.  g o o d : warmth a n d a f f e c t i o n shown among f a m i l y members; giving them a s e n s e of b e l o n g i n g and emotional security. Conflict dealt with quickly and appropriately. Definite evidence of cohesiveness. Members find considerable statisfaction i n family living.  APPENDIX SENATE COMMITTEE POVERTY L I N E OF 1981 Family Size Line 3. 45. 67 o r more. 1  2  Poverty Line  20% l o w e r t h a n t h e P o v e r t y  $  less less less less less less less  6,960 11,600 13,920 16,250 18,560 20,880 23,200  than than than than than than than  5,568 9,280 11,136 12,992 14,848 16,704 18,560  1 17  APPENDIX I I I DATA RECORDING SHEET C a s e I d e n t i t y Number : Date o f I n t e r v i e w Place of Interview  :  (1-2) (3-4)  :  (5-6)  Part A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  Part C ( 9-10) ( 11 ) ( 12 ) ( 13 ) ( 14 ) (15-16) (17-18) (19-20) (21-22) (25-26) (28-29) ( 31 ) (32-33)  10. 11 .  1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  Part B 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.  (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54)  Part D (35) (36-37) ( 38 ) ( 39 ) ( 40 ) ( 41 ) 42  7ZZZZZZ^^ < > 8. ( 43 )  1.  (60)  2- Z I ^ Z ^ Z Z (61)  3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  (62) (63) (64) (65) (66) (67) (68)  118  APPENDIX I V  CONSENT FORM  Re:  S t u d y on t h e S o c i a l - E c o n o m i c Patterns of C h i l d - S e p a r a t e d F a m i l i e s  I, , C h i l d Welfare Social Worker o f Region , M i n i s t r y o f Human Resources, British Columbia, fully understand the nature o f t h i s s t u d y , a n d am f u l l y a w a r e o f my r i g h t t o r e f u s e t o be i n t e r v i e w e d , h e r e b y , (consent/refuse), t o be i n t e r v i e w e d by A l b e r t C h a n , i n v e s t i g a t o r o f t h i s p r o j e c t . I t i s my understanding that my name a n d t h e names o f t h e c a s e u s e d i n t h i s study w i l l remained c o n f i d e n t i a l .  Signature  Date of S i g n a t u r e  

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.831.1-0095589/manifest

Comment

Related Items