Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of the extent and nature of the need for child care Grace, Lorna Louise 1987

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A5 G72_2.pdf [ 7.04MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096838.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096838-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096838-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096838-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096838-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096838-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096838-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096838-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096838.ris

Full Text

A STUDY OF THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE NEED FOR CHILD CARE By LORNA LOUISE GRACE A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK  in THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department  We a c c e p t to  this  of Social  thesis  therequired  Work  as conforming standard  THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H  COLUMBIA  J u n e 1987 @  Lorna  L o u i s e G r a c e , 1987  In  presenting  degree at  this  the  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  British Columbia, I agree  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  of  department  this or  publication of  thesis for by  his  or  her  DE-6(3/81)  that the  for  an advanced  Library shall make  It  is  granted by the understood  that  this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without  o , Q 7 ^ M / Qi  The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  r\  representatives.  requirements  it  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be  permission.  Department of  the  head of copying  my or  my written  i i ABSTRACT The  purpose  research extent for  in a  and  who  relationships  age  of  child,  location.  t h e r e was  were  o f 237  aged  group care  for older  care  from  the  parents'  place  centralized to  relocate  facility.  of  there  years.  vicinity  of Even  was  0 - 5  i n the  each  preferred  compiled.  a  for  types of  of  few they  of  care and  location  for  to  preferred were  a  child  age  school  of  Out  children.  need  and  development  other.  and  years  though  three  analyzed:  Preferred  home  of  B.C.  were  major  respondents indicated  assist  the  f o r 217  The  children.  employment.  location, and  that  need  examined  of  care  were  and  one  variables  for children  out-of-school ranged  proximity  of  practice  i n Richmond,  attending  hours  indicated  study  care  families  0-13  care  or  close  care,  an  This  different  indicated  for children  required  within  of  t o combine  for child  employed  results  results  was  agency.  between  type  The  families  are  located  The  care  study  community  institutions,  The  this  n a t u r e o f t h e need  parents  237  of  the a  willing  centralized  i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS An was  o l d philosopher  especially  provided  true  valuable  stated  for this  " n o man i s a n i s l a n d " study.  and t h i s  A number o f p e o p l e  contributions to this  study.  I am  have  indebted  t o my t h e s i s a d v i s o r s - D r . C h r i s M c N i v e n a n d D r . J o h n C r a n e . They  h a v e g i v e n me e x c e l l e n t a n d i n v a l u a b l e This  were  research  without  Planning  p r o j e c t would n o t have  thecooperation  time  especially tolerated  been  and support  possible i f  i t  of the Municipal  D e p a r t m e n t o f R i c h m o n d , B.C.  I am a l s o i n d e b t e d her  advice.  t o V a l e r i e A h w e e , who s p e n t  editing  and proof-reading  grateful  t o my c h i l d r e n ,  the drafts.  my s i s t e r  my many moods a n d g a v e me t h e i r  s o much o f I am  a n d M i c h a e l , who  unreserved  support.  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT  ii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST  i  OF T A B L E S  i  i v i  CHAPTER 1.  BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM AREA 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5  1  D e f i n i n g the Problem S o c i a l Changes E x t e n t and N a t u r e o f Need Who B e n e f i t s S o c i a l Work a n d C h i l d C a r e  1 4 8 14 20  2.  I N T E R A C T I O N OF P R A C T I C E AND R E S E A R C H  24  3.  THE R E S E A R C H PROBLEM  35  3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.  RESEARCH DESIGN 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7  5.  Statement of Issues Rationale f o r Selection of Issues Purpose of Research Knowledge-Building Function Major Concepts Relevant Research L i m i t a t i o n s of Research  48  C o n t r o l o v e r Phenomena S t u d i e d Sampling Design Timing o f Data C o l l e c t i o n Methodological Orientation Data C o l l e c t i o n Data A n a l y s i s Ethical Issues  48 48 49 50 50 56 59  RESULTS 5.1 5.2  35 36 36 37 38 39 46  60 O v e r a l l F a m i l y and C h i l d r e n ' s C h i l d Care F a m i l y and C h i l d r e n ' s Needs by Institution  Needs f o r 60 82  V  6.  DISCUSSION 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4  115  Methodological Issues O v e r a l l F a m i l y and C h i l d r e n ' s Needs Needs o f I n d i v i d u a l I n s t i t u t i o n s Summary a n d C o n c l u s i o n  115 119 125 130  BIBLIOGRAPHY  133  PERSONAL  137  REFERENCES  NOTES  138  APPENDIX  I - COVERING  LETTER  APPENDIX  I I - QUESTIONNAIRE  147 149  vi L I S T OF  TABLES Page  1.  2.  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Families i n Areas o f : Have C h i l d r e n ; Need C a r e ; Emergency C a r e ; S u b s i d y ; R e l o c a t i o n ; and Development  61  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Families' with Present C h i l d Care Arrangements  62  3.  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n  4.  Frequency Distribution L o c a t i o n f o r C h i l d Care  5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  Cross-Tabulation o f Ages Breakdown i n C h i l d Care  i n Families  by 67 by 68  of Children  by 69  Distribution  of  Age  i n Families  by 70  of  Children  i n 72  Distribution  Frequency Children  Distribution  16.  of Children  Cross-Tabulation o f Ages o f C h i l d r e n P r e f e r r e d L o c a t i o n of C h i l d Care  Frequency Children  15.  64 65  i n Families  Frequency Families  .  Preferred  Cross-Tabulation o f Ages Emergency Care S e r v i c e s  11.  14.  Families'  t o Pay  i n Families  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n  13.  of  Ability  Cross-Tabulation o f Ages o f C h i l d r e n A l t e r n a t i v e C h i l d Care A v a i l a b l e  10.  12.  of Families'  Satisfaction  of Children o f Type  Needing Care  of  Care  Needed  ....  73  for 74  Cross-Tabulation of C h i l d r e n  of Hours of Care  Needed f o r 75  o f Type of C h i l d  Cross-Tabulation o f Type C a r e Needed f o r C h i l d r e n  C a r e Needed by  76 of Care  Needed  by H o u r s o f 78  Cross-Tabulation o f Type o f C a r e Needed by Location of Care f o r C h i l d r e n Cross-Tabulation o f Type t o Pay f o r C h i l d r e n  Age  of Care  Needed  Preferred 79 by  Ability 80  vii 17. 18. 19.  20.  21. 22. 23.  24.  25.  26. 27.  28.  29. 30.  Cross-Tabulation o f Type o f C a r e Needed by Parents' W i l l i n g n e s s t o H e l p D e v e l o p S e r v i c e s f o r C h i l d r e n ..  81  Cross-Tabulation o f Age o f C h i l d r e n i n F a m i l i e s Breakdown i n Care f o r Workers' Compensation Board  by ..  84  Cross-Tabulation o f Age o f C h i l d r e n i n F a m i l i e s b y A l t e r n a t e Care A v a i l a b l e f o r Workers' Compensation Board  85  Cross-Tabulation Emergency Care Board  86  o f A g e s o f C h i l d r e n i n F a m i l i e s by Offered f o r Workers' Compensation  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Children Workers' Compensation Board  Needing  Care  for 88  Cross-Tabulation o f T y p e o f C a r e by H o u r s o f f o r C h i l d r e n from Workers' Compensation Board Cross-Tabulation o f Type o f C a r e N e e d e d by Location of Care for Children from Compensation Board  Care 89  Preferred Workers' 90  Cross-Tabulation o f Type o f C a r e Needed by A b i l i t y to Pay f o r C h i l d r e n from Workers' Compensation Board  91  Cross-Tabulation of Type o f Care Develop a Centre for Children Compensation Board  93  Needed by H e l p from Workers'  Cross-Tabulation o f Ages o f C h i l d r e n i n F a m i l i e s by B r e a k d o w n i n C a r e f o r R i c h m o n d G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l ....  95  Cross-Tabulation A l t e r n a t e Care Hospital  o f A g e s o f C h i l d r e n i n F a m i l i e s by A v a i l a b l e f o r Richmond General 96  Cross-Tabulation Emergency Care Hospital  o f A g e s o f C h i l d r e n i n F a m i l i e s by i n C e n t r e s f o r Richmond General  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Children Richmond G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l  97 Needing  Cross-Tabulation o f T y p e o f C a r e by H o u r s f o r C h i l d r e n from Richmond G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l  Care  for 99  of  Care 100  viii 31.  32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.  Cross-Tabulation o f Type o f C a r e by P r e f e r r e d L o c a t i o n of Care f o r C h i l d r e n from Richmond G e n e r a l Hospital  101  C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f Type o f C a r e by A b i l i t y f o r C h i l d r e n from Richmond G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l  103  t o Pay  C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f Type o f C a r e by H e l p Develop C e n t r e f o r C h i l d r e n from Richmond G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l .  104  C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f Age o f C h i l d r e n i n F a m i l i e s Breakdown i n C h i l d Care f o r Kwantlen C o l l e g e  by 106  C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f Age o f C h i l d r e n A l t e r n a t e Care f o r Kwantlen C o l l e g e  by  i n Families  107  C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f Age o f C h i l d r e n i n F a m i l i e s Emergency Care i n C e n t r e s f o r Kwantlen C o l l e g e Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n for Kwantlen College  o f Care  Needed  C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f T y p e o f C a r e by for C h i l d r e n from Kwantlen C o l l e g e  by 108  for Children 109 Hours  of  Care I l l  Cross-Tabulation o f Type o f C a r e by P r e f e r r e d L o c a t i o n of Care f o r C h i l d r e n from Kwantlen C o l l e g e  112  C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f Type o f C a r e by for C h i l d r e n from Kwantlen C o l l e g e  113  Ability  C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f Type o f C a r e by H e l p Centre f o r C h i l d r e n from Kwantlen C o l l e g e  t o Pay  Develop  a 114  1 CHAPTER ONE; 1.1  Defining A  care  the Problem of the extent  requires a clear  For 'a  study  t h e purpose  This  during  service  accessible  of this  study  a portion  i n this  or  part-time  or attend remain  parents  o f need  need  care  of  The type  that  referred  work  full-  of child  reasons.  can best  be d e f i n e d a s t h e  i s ) a n d when  there  t h e need i s  periods).  school-aged  care  schedules,  7  million  children  force. [1]  of care  The S t a t u s  a r e over  whose p a r e n t s  a n d amount  and t h e parents'  The t y p e s  parents  These  whose figures  r e m a i n a t home a n d  assistance f o rbusiness  not only with parents'  thechild  quality,  Children  institutions,  extended  i n the labour children  varies  there  a n d 14 m i l l i o n  do n o t i n c l u d e t h o s e periodic child  whose  or personal  has stated  a r e employed  reasons.  of high  day'.  from  o f a need  children  of the  own  i n t h e home a n d n e e d p e r i o d i c b r e a k s  (overnight, evenings,  pre-school  to describe  those  and nature  Canada  care'i s .  f o r by t h e i r  part  be  for child  and  The e x t e n t  (how much  those  educational  f o rbusiness  Women  'child  i s used  be c a r e d  should  include  children  required  care  or substantial  f o r children  definition  whose p a r e n t s  degree  o f what  child  who c a n n o t  o f t h e need  and a f f o r d a b l e f o r a l l parents.  to  their  and nature  understanding  service to children  parents  of  BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM AREA OF THESIS  required  or personal for children  but also with  t h e age  p r e f e r r e d program. s e l e c t e d by p a r e n t s  vary  from i n -  2 home c a r e by b a b y s i t t e r s , r e l a t i v e s , family child  care  friends,  to unlicensed  t o l i c e n s e d group and f a m i l y c a r e .  This  study w i l l o n l y cover l i c e n s e d group c e n t r e care and l i c e n s e d family  c h i l d c a r e because they  are r e g u l a t e d .  can be e a s i l y documented and  T h i s i s not t o suggest t h a t t h e v a r i o u s other  forms o f c a r e a r e inadequate  or u n q u a l i f i e d , but i t i s n o t  p o s s i b l e t o document or r e g u l a t e what cannot be assessed or counted. In  the past,  c h i l d r e n were  taken  care  o f by  their  m o t h e r s ; o r i n t h e event t h a t t h e mother was i n c a p a b l e o f l o o k i n g a f t e r her c h i l d r e n because she had t o work o u t s i d e the home, some member o f the immediate or extended f a m i l y  filled  the need.  class  Sometimes f a m i l i e s ,  especially  of middle  income, had housekeepers or nannies who came i n t o the home t o care  f o r the c h i l d r e n .  which  created  cities, evolved.  Due t o t h e i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n ,  a major m i g r a t i o n  a need  for child  care  from  the r u r a l  outside  to urban  the c h i l d ' s  home  Family p a t t e r n s changed; women found i t necessary t o  work o u t s i d e the home, and a need t o look beyond the extended f a m i l y f o r support  i n c a r i n g f o r the young. [2]  With the onslaught of World War I I , women were encouraged to  leave  behind.  home and t a k e  over  the jobs  their  husbands  left  "Government s u b s i d i e s were g i v e n t o s e t up c h i l d  care  c e n t r e s f o r c h i l d r e n from ages 2 t o 14." [3] However, a t the end of the War, the men r e t u r n e d t o t h e i r j o b s and s o c i e t y once a g a i n  f e l t a woman's p l a c e was i n t h e  3 home  caring  f o r her children.  disapproval  f o r working  child  working  of  a  intellectual  affection factor  drastically  their  places  i n the labour  f o r this  Social  concerning lead  female the  from  that  trend.  lacked  physical  continuous  was h e l d a s t h e d e t e r m i n i n g  impairment."  [4]  care f a c i l i t i e s  t h e need  f o r such  areas  care  strain  shortage  employed  on  Due  to  this  were s h u t  down  centres  are a  indicated  would  [6]  that  quick  t o mean t h a t  f o r , they  (1978)  either  inducement  stay  enhanced household  t o mothers t o The f a c t  should  i f mothers a r e f i n a n c i a l l y  would  a t home  study  reflecting  because o f economic prosperity  most  expansion  the  t o non-market  need.  of  in traditionally  of labour,  relative  economic  "that  "As w a g e s i n c r e a s e  r e g a r d l e s s of economic  c y c l i c a l  number  economic  o f manpower  taking  t h e money." [ 5 ]  of Calgary's  as an i r r e s i s t i b l e  most m o t h e r s work p r i m a r i l y  provided  There  study  the supply  o f market  serves  interpreted  One  indicated  o f employment.  attractiveness  favourable  force.  S e r v i c e s Department  to increasing  activities  a  inferior  and poor  because they d e s p e r a t e l y needed  child  severe  become  said  decrease.  mothers worked  may  upset  social  t h e y e a r s p r o g r e s s e d , m o r e a n d m o r e women b e g a n  reasons  The  that  strong  suffer  children  person  the majority of child  i t was e x p e c t e d  As  emotional  personality  was  I t has been  would  these  a particular  affecting  because  mother  "The f a c t  from  ideology,  mothers.  development,  development.  There  and care  that  need o r n o t be  adequately for their  4 c h i l d r e n . " [7] Today, than  ever  t h e need  before  force  Parents  are finding  In  sure  promotional  urban For  child  the  This  cities  more  their  have  o f young  they a r e  are receiving.  work  of the lack into  children.  where  children  had t o miss  has turned  prevalent  n u m b e r s o f women i n t h e  i n situations  of care  problem  or pass  of child  a crisis  up care  not only  but nationally.  the purpose  care  that  themselves  many p a r e n t s  i s even  number  o p p o r t u n i t i e s because  facilities. for  and the growing  of the quality  addition,  care  due t o t h e i n c r e a s i n g  labour  not  for child  of this  report, the extent  needs were s t u d i e d i n t h r e e  are located within  and nature o f  institutional  c l o s e p r o x i m i t y o f each  settings  other  and t o  and nature  of the  ' t o w n c e n t r e ' o f R i c h m o n d , B.C. The  need  report w i l l  only look a t the extent  and not the f i n a n c i a l  There  a r e gaps  need,  i n the report  but these  discussions  with  issues  gaps  were  involved with  concerning f i l l e d  key personnel,  the nature  i n by  parents,  child  care. of the  i n t e r v i e w s and  and other  concerned  citizens. 1.2  only  Social  Change  Until  recently  f o r those  educational alleviate  t h e need  parents  activities  t h e causes  for child  who w e r e which  "engaged  enable  or effects  care  was  recognized  i n employment o r  parents  of poverty."  t o overcome o r [8]  A  second  5  need f o r care i s "evident on the b a s i s of s o c i a l needs, which justify  t h e c o s t of c h i l d c a r e as a means of s o c i a l  intervention  to prevent,  overcome o r a l l e v i a t e  service  conditions  b e l i e v e d t o be s e r i o u s l y d e t r i m e n t a l t o the development o f t h e child."  [9] Today, the need f o r c h i l d care has changed due t o  a number of s o c i a l changes that have a f f e c t e d f a m i l y l i f e and the need f o r c h i l d c a r e . Clarke-Stewart  (1981) d e s c r i b e s four changes which have  c o n t r i b u t e d t o the i n c r e a s e d need f o r c h i l d c a r e . [10] The  f i r s t s o c i a l change i s the i n c r e a s i n g number o f women  participating Stewart, "the  the primary  force.  reason f o r t h i s  d e s i r e to maintain  l i v i n g , coupled to  i n the labour  experiences  i s economic:  w i t h r i s i n g c o s t s and high i n f l a t i o n , has l e d income i n most f a m i l i e s . " [ 1 1 ]  E c o n o m i c s , however, i s no l o n g e r they  increase  to Clarke-  or improve t h e f a m i l y ' s s t a n d a r d o f  t h e need f o r i n c r e a s e d  work:  According  the o n l y  reason why women  work t o have c a r e e r s , meet new people, and become independent.  have new  "Individuals believingi n  the s o c i o - e c o n o m i c e q u a l i t y of the sexes may seek employment outside and  t h e home so as t o o b t a i n g r e a t e r  individuality  social  i n the community or s o c i a l  recognition  circle,  as g r e a t e r economic independence from t h e i r male  as w e l l  counterparts  i n the home." [12] A second s o c i a l change mentioned by C l a r k e - S t e w a r t is  the increased  families  d i v o r c e r a t e . [13]  accounted  In 1981,  f o r 11% o f a l l Canadian  single  (1982) parent  families,  as  6 compared w i t h 9% i n 1971. [14] A l s o i n 1981, "57 p e r c e n t o f l o n e p a r e n t s were s e p a r a t e d or d i v o r c e d ; a n o t h e r  10 p e r c e n t  had never m a r r i e d and the remaining 33 percent were widows and w i d o w e r s . " [15]  The chances o f many o f t h e s e  remarrying i s very s l i g h t .  Consequently, a mother who becomes  a single  parent w i t h the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  children  i s limited  She  can e i t h e r  individuals  of r a i s i n g  young  i n c h o i c e s c o n c e r n i n g her f u t u r e . [16]  approach  the S t a t e f o r f i n a n c i a l  assistance  ( w e l f a r e ) or work f u l l - t i m e i n the labour f o r c e . The  t h i r d s o c i a l change i s i n the s i z e o f f a m i l i e s .  to the 1930's f a m i l i e s c o n s i s t e d of s i x t o t e n c h i l d r e n , from  Up then  t h e 30's t o t h e 50's the number o f c h i l d r e n per f a m i l y  decreased.  During the 1950's, t h e r e was another  'baby boom'  and the number of c h i l d r e n i n c r e a s e d but not t o the e x t e n t o f the e a r l y  1900's.  After  t h e 1950's, the number o f c h i l d r e n  per f a m i l y decreased, u n t i l today many f a m i l i e s o n l y have one or two c h i l d r e n . under one r o o f . the extended  [17]  No l o n g e r do t h r e e g e n e r a t i o n s d w e l l  Before u r b a n i z a t i o n and i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , i f  f a m i l y d i d not l i v e together a t l e a s t they  lived  i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y , thus e n a b l i n g the mother t o work w h i l e t h e children  were  cousins.  [18]  cared  f o r by g r a n d p a r e n t s ,  "Geographic  mobility  i s not only  f o r nucleus  and  has d e c r e a s e d t h e  l i k e l i h o o d t h a t these r e l a t i o n s l i v e nearby." today  aunts  families,  [19] The t r e n d but a l s o f o r  grandparents and other r e l a t i v e s t o p a r t i c i p a t e l o n g e r i n the labour  f o r c e and t o have i n t e r e s t s  outside their  extended  7 families.  [20]  Lastly, are  reflected  move  away  devote their  own  society  within  from  their  children new  as  the  have  the  family.  traditional  lives  comfort  changes,  to and  their  too  "There notion  than  they  lives  on  the  v a l u e s , and has  that  been  to  these  a  marked  parents  should  making  sacrifices  ensure  d i d . " [21]  o u t l o o k , many p a r e n t s a r e b e c o m i n g  effects  do  children,  personal  i t better  so  that  Along  concerned  their  with  about  in  this  the  net  children.  " P a r e n t s t o d a y a r e w o r r i e d and u n c e r t a i n about how t o b r i n g up t h e i r c h i l d r e n . They feel unclear about the proper balance between p e r m i s s i v e n e s s and f i r m n e s s . They f e a r t h e y a r e n e g l e c t i n g t h e i r c h i l d r e n , yet they sometimes r e s e n t t h e demands t h e i r c h i l d r e n make. They wonder whether t h e y ' r e doing a good job as p a r e n t s , y e t a r e u n a b l e t o d e f i n e j u s t what a g o o d j o b i s .... W h a t i s new ... i s the i n t e n s i t y o f t h e m a l a i s e , t h e s e n s e o f h a v i n g no g u i d e l i n e s or supports f o r r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n , the f e e l i n g s o f not b e i n g i n c o n t r o l as p a r e n t s , and t h e w i d e s p r e a d sense of p e r s o n a l g u i l t f o r what s e e m s t o be g o i n g a w r y . " [ 2 2 ]  In  addition  Clarke-Stewart, (1986) lives  noted  the  the  their  involved  in  developing  p h y s i c a l  f i t n e s s [23]  and  roles  knowledge,  organization."  above  social  changes  S t a t u s o f Women's T a s k  t h a t more  outside  becoming  to  or  more as  their a  parents  parents  Force are  and  talent,  v o l u n t e e r i n g  In a recent survey  on  Child  maintaining for  a  conducted  their  they  upgrading  by Care  "defining  workers;  communities;  special  outlined  are  their their  p a r t i c u l a r f o r the  Task  8 Force, that  they  least 1.3  as  regularly  o u t o f 336 r e s p o n d e n t s ,  spent time  53% s t a t e d  o u t s i d e t h e home i n v o l v e d i n a t  one v o l u n t a r y a c t i v i t y . [24] Extent  and N a t u r e o f Need  Extent  and nature  need  o f need  i s required  1.3.1  (evenings,  to Statistics  Canada  65.6% and 71.5%,  and 93.9% r e s p e c t i v e l y .  under  women  i n the labour  3 years  without age,  a n d 938,000  aged  children, [26]  educational Canadian  o f need a r e t h e t y p e s o f  These  force  institutions. under  2 million  or attending  also There  There with  women  are  t h e ages o f 24 - 5 4 ,  approximately  at least  one  child  i n the labour  one c h i l d  at least  figures  the participation  and f o r t h e ages  3, b u t w i t h  but with  i n Labour F o r c e or  f o r c e between  women i n t h e l a b o u r  children  approximately workforce  under  i s ) a n d when  extended p e r i o d s ) .  (1986),  [25]  o f a g e , 307,000  children  be d e f i n e d  needs.  f o r women a n d men i n t h e l a b o u r  "425,000  old."  and nature  will  there  Need Based on P a r e n t s ' P a r t i c i p a t i o n Educational Institution  a n d 24 w e r e  69.8%  study  overnight,  r e q u i r e d t o meet t h o s e  According rate  forthis  (how much o f a n e e d  a d d i t i o n t o the extent  programs  15  that  t h e d e g r e e o f need  the In  i t was n o t e d  3 - 5  force without one c h i l d  include  women  of  pre-school  6 - 1 5  years  enrolled  i n  million  t h e a g e o f 13 a n d o f t h i s  number,  school.  parents [27]  than  years  4.7  have  a r e more  force  participating  I n 1983, there  i n the  were  only  9 139,070  licensed  group  and  family  home  care  spaces  i n  Canada. [28] The but  data  fails  and/or  into  four  o f t h e need  of parents'  Employment  employment  schedules  c a n be  categories:  those parents working through Friday;  -  those parents working s h i f t s c y c l e s , such as nurses, p o l i c e ,  -  those parents working  part-time or  -  those parents looking  f o r work.  'regular'  daytime  t h e d a y , b u t many  may  also  hours,  Monday  or r e g u l a r l y rotating hotel/restaurant, etc.; 'on-call';  a t t e n d i n g an e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n have  may  have  to attend  classes  classes i n  evenings. Parents  during  needed  during  will  preferences. during  work  child  these  Most  The t y p e  i n this  licensed  group  between  only  child  care  type of s e t t i n g  of care  centres  however, per day.  during  that are  hours  operate children Licensed  they  choose,  'regular'  hours.  c a n b e i n c a r e u p t o 12  majority of licensed  t h e ages  for their  and t h e p a r e n t s '  care  a t whatever  operate  institutions  o f programs  t o 6:00 p.m.;  can operate  The  child  t h e age o f t h e c h i l d  o f 7:00 a.m.  cares  educational  require  a maximum o f 10 h o u r s  day. [29]  children  will  hours.  upon  the majority  Children  or attend  hours  depend  the hours  allowed  family  who  'regular'  children  per  the nature  the extent  -  during  but  explains  educational schedules.  Parents  are  above  to ascertain  summarized  the  outlined  o f 3 t o 5, v e r y  settings  hours  accept  few c e n t r e s  have  10 care  for children Parents  and  who  weekends  "flexible need." not  who  should  be  to  [32]  for  in  to  parents t o be  far  of  the  with  Often  is  husbands,  care  dangerous  for  busy."  their  type  or  have  because  been  [34]  If  many  own. facility  The  of  works  9  These  care  care  is  not  parents  identified  farm  the  pressure  these  to  type  be of  centrally  and  women  are  families  are  as  those  are  women w o r k  arrangements  for their  children  who  shifts  'drop-in'  where  Farm  c l o s e neighbours  i s needed small  only  during  Calgary  work.  of  are  [33]  who  the  need their  work  someone  d u r i n g peak p e r i o d s such  because  everyone  is a  centres  old  who  seeking  this  i n urban areas.  care  relatives  satisfactory  as  and  again,  community  especially  are  parents  rights  t o a c q u i r e some t y p e Once  year  "people  able  parents  child  that  classes  v a r i o u s needs  29  unemployed  working  harvesting.  on  same  A  overnight  accommodate  are  in  and  left  attend  will  Canada.  i n some a c t i v i t y .  and/or  fields,  who  that  stated  the  children.  except  need  [30]  include evenings,  parents  across  entitled  participating  living  6.  which  arrangements  shifts  their  Thus  those  works  need  common  shifts  available  mother  parents  and  3 or over  S e t t i n g s t h a t accommodate t h e s e  widely  Some  work  care  [31]  5".  under  in  seeding, that  this  the  haying be  made  i s "often  times are  can  also  on  to  help  children  because  around  machinery  service  needed  located within  the  not farm  their  i t is or for  the  to  too be  these farming  11 community. 1.3.2  [35]  Special There  Circumstances  are  a  number  child  care.  days,  s p r i n g break,  vacation. regular for  The  work  care.  their are to  care  must  up  their i n  children.  the  need  care  at  at  interim  any  age  are  find may  and  also  f u l f i l l  must  h a v e an  h o l i d a y s and  coincide with  There to  Development  others have  take  look  work  time.  over  again,  for after  overtime, are  unable  Someone  the  in  duties  to  to  made  situations  their  specified  to  parents'  once  a c c i d e n t , e t c . , and a  summer  a r r a n g e m e n t s m u s t be  can  in go  which  on  there  is a  endlessly.  What  f o r emergency/temporary care filling  is  an  alternative  is  required.  need  which  such  centres  B.C.,  i l l  require  care  must  of  the  [36]  facilities  In  days  parents  children  the  Christmas  these  parents  Finally,  Circumstances of  and  unable  that  have P r o f e s s i o n a l  found.  in traffic,  found  types  be  so  circumstances  so a l t e r n a t e  are  reasons,  caught  be  Easter  schedules,  children.  pick  children  m a j o r i t y of  caregivers  various  age  special  C h i l d r e n become  alternate which  School  of  this type  i s unexpected  the  ones  [37]  of  which  f o r the or  for  alternate  i s important  exists,  yet  i s that  there are  Emergency/temporary  o f c a r e where l i t t l e  It exists  because  need.  need  or  s o l e purpose  'unusual'.  no of  There  care  notification fulfilling are  very in  a few  the  tremendous  fluctuations  did  exist  f o r e c l o s e d because  have  no  need. of  12 economic reasons.  However, some group c e n t r e s r e s e r v e s e v e r a l  spaces f o r emergency/temporary c a r e . [38] Alternative  forms of c a r e f o r s c h o o l - a g e  children  u s u a l l y sponsored by community c e n t r e s , YWCA or Boys and  are Girls  C l u b s . [39]  However, the demand f a r exceeds the s u p p l y .  the p r e s e n t  t i m e , formal school-aged  "At  c h i l d care programs are  i n s e r i o u s s h o r t supply throughout Canada." [40] Parents  who  need e m e r g e n c y / t e m p o r a r y  c h i l d r e n have few c h o i c e s . or  care  for  Some r e l y on neighbours,  their friends  r e l a t i v e s , but the v a s t m a j o r i t y are f o r c e d t o take  o f f work t o care f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n . 1.3.3  time  [41]  Care Needed to Enable P a r e n t s to P a r t i c i p a t e Community A c t i v i t i e s and to A t t e n d to F a m i l y P e r s o n a l Needs  M o t h e r s who  remain  a t home t o look a f t e r  the  in and  children  i n s t e a d of going out t o work, are a l s o i n need of c h i l d c a r e . " I n most c a s e s , the reasons been e x t r e m e f a t i g u e , rest."  [42]  appointments,  Other  for requesting c h i l d  e x h a u s t i o n , or  reasons,  such  as  care  the s i m p l e  need f o r  medical  business  short-term h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n  or  or f a m i l y  are p e r i o d s when the need f o r c h i l d care i s i m p o r t a n t .  problems [43]  I n c r e a s i n g l y , people are a t t e m p t i n g t o d e f i n e t h e i r beyond t h e i r r o l e s as p a r e n t s and workers community a f f a i r s  t o "express  have  or d e v e l o p  lives  by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a talent,  upgrade  t h e i r knowledge, m a i n t a i n p h y s i c a l f i t n e s s , or s i m p l y spend t i m e w i t h f r i e n d s or  in social  activities."  [44]  Some o f  13 these a c t i v i t i e s occur d u r i n g the day, but the m a j o r i t y occur i n the evening. spouses,  friends,  children.  Until  r e c e n t l y , many p a r e n t s have r e l i e d on  r e l a t i v e s and neighbours  t o care f o r t h e i r  "These types of care arrangements a r e g e n e r a l l y not  a c o n c e r n o f p r o v i n c i a l c h i l d c a r e a u t h o r i t i e s , y e t concern about the q u a l i t y o f these evening arrangements were v o i c e d by p a r e n t s . " [45]  F o r t h e s e p a r e n t s , d r o p - i n c e n t r e s and/or  b a b y s i t t i n g services could f i l l 1.3.4  the need.  Need f o r C a r e f o r ' S p e c i a l *  Children  C h i l d r e n s u f f e r from a wide range o f d i s a b i l i t i e s . of these d i s a b i l i t i e s  a r e permanent, some can be overcome.  Whether p a r e n t s work i n t h e l a b o u r f o r c e o r remain home, t h e r e i s a need f o r c h i l d Child  care  c a r e s e t t i n g s w i t h f l e x i b l e hours  f o r these  by  existing  and programs  immigrant flexible  geared  rarity i n  "The needs of these c h i l d r e n a r e not being met services,"  [ 4 6 ] nor do p a r e n t s  support t o h e l p them cope w i t h t h e i r Another  i n the  children.  toward t h e development of the c h i l d a r e y e t another our s o c i e t y .  Some  have  children.  group o f c h i l d r e n who have s p e c i a l  children. c e n t r e hours  Requirements  in-home  i n this  and programs i n which  needs a r e  case  include  some s t a f f a r e  f l u e n t i n the c h i l d ' s language and "are s e n s i t i v e t o the norms of t h a t c u l t u r e . " [47] Canada's n a t i v e c h i l d r e n a r e a l s o i n need of c h i l d on t h e i r r e s e r v a t i o n s .  care  In a l l of Canada, t h e r e a r e o n l y 1,432  14 child to  care  spaces  enable  and  parents  i n an  both  access In  keep  f o r these  t o have  children  close  increase  i n immigrant  specialized 1.4  Who  facilities.  care  options  changes: time  parents  have  there  i n rapid  culture,  the family,  will  women  the family  may  change,  that  balance  be  risks  especially  i s modified."  cope  but society  The  work  behaviour  to  workforce,  and  parenting, need f o r  rapid  with  i s disturbed. t o human when  [49]  modern  change  can  be  So, t o o ,  and  cultural  the basic  unit  The f a m i l y a s a  of unit  have not changed t o  society.  Child  that can b e n e f i t not only  care,  the parent  as a whole.  Child  Traditionally, children  t o expand  and t h e i n c r e a s e d  learned  i s one s t r u c t u r e  child  1.4.1  have  i n the  changed, but the s t r u c t u r e s i n s o c i e t y  however,  have  care.  when e n v i r o n m e n t a l  i s assumed,  help  should  [48]  outside  children  and emergency  ecology  and  care  These  Benefits  destructive  has  centre.  leisure  "Ecologists  it  are isolated  social  use of  homes  a n d work on r e s e r v e s w h i c h  child  parents'  to their  acceptable.  to quality  with  centres i s  i s developmentally  urban  summary,  pace  their  which  live  the nearest  equal  The need  environment  Many p a r e n t s from  on r e s e r v e s .  from  society  a deficit  manifested  model,  has that  themselves,  approached  the needs  i s , "as s i g n s o f  treatment  has been  of  abnormal initiated  15 when a v a i l a b l e . " [50] avoided  by  I t i s a f a c t t h a t many problems can  early attention.  n a t i o n a l tragedy.  "Our  lack  of commitment i s a  We know a l r e a d y t h a t i t i s more f r u i t f u l t o  prevent damage t o our young c h i l d r e n than t o attempt and h e a l the wounds.  We  avoided  t h r e e years of l i f e .  basis  i n the f i r s t  f o r mental  development and  We  competence i s e s t a b l i s h e d  recognize  p r e v e n t a t i v e and  to provide  be  know t h a t the  S o c i e t y i s now  need  to patch  know t h a t much of the damage can  l a r g e l y by the age of s i x . " [51] the  be  beginning to support  s e r v i c e s to f a m i l i e s d u r i n g a c h i l d ' s d e v e l o p i n g y e a r s .  Child  care s e r v i c e s can be one of the most e f f e c t i v e s e r v i c e s i n the p r e v e n t i o n of developmental  d e f i c i e n c i e s i n young c h i l d r e n ,  no  matter what type of f a m i l y they come from. Numerous s t u d i e s d u r i n g the past f i f t e e n years have been conducted  r e g a r d i n g the p o s i t i v e a s p e c t s of c h i l d c a r e on  child's  social,  development. that  and  As e a r l y as 1970,  t h e r e a r e no  remaining  emotional  inte11ectua1-cognitive  there i s evidence  and  emotionality.  c a r e does not prevent c h i l d r e n from forming normal w i t h t h e i r mother. [52]  had  lower  emotional children  children  those i n care i n such v a r i a b l e s  n u r t u r a n c e , dependency, h o s t i l i t y  c h i l d r e n who  indicating  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between  i n the home and  as  Child  attachments  Blanchard and Main (1979) found t h a t  spent longer p e r i o d s of time i n s u b s t i t u t e  s c o r e s f o r avoidance adjustment.  the  [53]  care  and higher s c o r e s f o r s o c i a l Clarke-Stewart  i n a range of d i f f e r e n t  (1982) s t u d i e d  types of care  settings,  16 including  situations  that  children  less  timid  children  i n care  who  (1978)  children more  more  are being  helpful  She c o n c l u d e d  social  skills,  are  and c o o p e r a t i v e  than  a t home.  various  on t h e s o c i a l  [54]  surveys  Belsky  and  on t h e r e s u l t s  of  and e m o t i o n a l development  of  i n c a r e and concluded t h a t  experience demonstrate  a t home.  advanced  raised  completed  conducted  children  have  and f e a r f u l ,  Steinberg studies  of only  children  a h i g h e r degree  with  a child  of interaction  care  and peer  o r i e n t a t i o n . [55] The has  intellectual  been  memory,  with  language,  symbolic, p i c t o r i a l  infant  those  (1978) child  (1975), Fowler  care  experience neither  development from  long-term gain looking  economic programs decline  groups have  and f a m i l i e s  i n intellectual  Longitudinal  families,  shown  [56]  that  t o be  [57]  attendance  that  nor b e n e f i t s  performance.  not  [58]  quality  a  the  completed  f o r children  instrumental  such  Steinberg  the premise  r e s e a r c h does  at risk,  overall  studies,  In tests  of  school  affect  Other  deteriorates  the advantages  been  found  a l l support  i n intellectual  at  tests  (1972), B e l s k y and  of children.  advantaged  children  and g e n e r a l  not adversely  development.  and Kagan e t . a l (1976)  children  when  or language  of  on s t a n d a r d i z e d  e t . a l (1981)  c e n t r e s does  by D o y l e  cognitive  any  performance  Rubenstein  care  emotional as  development  associated  performance. in  and c o g n i t i v e  on  indicate However,  from child  lower care  i n preventing a  performance. [59]  studies  completed  on  children  and  their  17 experiences lasting  i n care  have  shown  effects/influences  Berrueto-Clement effects  that  throughout  e t . a l (1984)  of child  care  tend  there  tend  t o be  the child's  and o t h e r s  t o have  later  state  lasting  some  years.  that the  benefits i n  improving  the scholastic  achievements during school years.  addition,  those  who a t t e n d e d  had  less  delinquency,  children  who  especially and  All  of these  f a c i l i t i e s .  years  rates  than  This  was  lower  economic c l a s s e s  effects  of care  on c h i l d r e n a r e  i s also  they  possible:  i f the care  their  are given children  they  developmental  i s quality can  are given  suffer i snot  needs.  The P a r e n t s Work  i s only  f o r their  settings leaving  ease  access  children.  a r e , i f they  care  men  must  why p a r e n t s  Adequate,  quality  and s t r e s s  t o work. are safe  "Parents  need  child  child  care  associated worry  a n d how t h e y  about  with where  a r e doing  as  peers." [61] i s o n e way  t o employment  responsibilities  reasons  of the guilt  and going  to their  Child  o n e o f many  some  a child  children  compared  than  and drop-out  from  i f the care  effects  adequate and meeting  the  children  positive  however,  insurmountable  care  care  i n pre-school  a t r i s k . [60]  The r e v e r s e  1.4.2  care  pregnancy  d i d not attend  possible,  care.  crime,  true f o r those  families  only  children  In  t o enable  opportunities.  o f f a m i l y and c a r e e r , make  decisions  of  women  t o have  equal  "In balancing the women m o r e f r e q u e n t l y  consequence  to  their  18 career."  [62]  attributed  The  t o the type  over-represented find  child  over-qualified promotions  and prevents  them  Whatever  educational needs. and  working  beginning  women,  t o 'lend  a  the children,  mother's.  "The w o r k i n g  physical  fatigue  her  husband's;  and  employee  her  children."  to ease t h i s Child  but with  concern  roles  married  about  and g u i l t  [65]  Much  though household  conflict  balancing  Adequate  between  any of  spouses  the  h e r work a n d  s h e must care  are  not only  her maternal,  child  to  and w i t h  i s still  has t o cope  t h e harm  quality  emotional  applies  chores  responsibility mother  an  also  some  these  loneliness  o f meeting  of this  and  emotional or  i s t o meet  to suffer  capable  about  family  of isolation,  i s liable  the primary  financial  the children.  i n balancing  responsibility  with  care or  or taking job  needs - p h y s i c a l ,  f o r even  cannot  they a r e  of total  of raising  alone  [64]  hand'  often  of child  seeking  also  Women a r e  f o r which  burden  not being  responsibilities.  married  with  The p a r e n t  are  f o radvancement." [63]  i s the feeling  a n d e n d up  her/his  cope  the child's  to this  desperation.  raising  must  they  "Lack  from  a dual  have care.  i n jobs  necessary  - the parents'  Added  overload  have  child  because  and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  parent  women  children. women  parents  single  jobs  keeps  responsibility  career.  f o rtheir  care  jobs  of available  or the training  Single  of  i n part-time  adequate care  inadequate  The  kinds  wifely  be d o i n g  c a n d o much  burden.  care  i s a resource and support  not only f o r working  19 mothers, home  but also  and take  remain  care  them a l l d a y . may  begin  women and  by  caught  both  1.4.3  problems.  major  employee  care  of.  f o r business Without  must have t h e i r  frustrated have  and  turned  parents  to alcohol,  drugs  or dealing  and abuse  be a l l e v i a t e d  f o r the parents  with  Many  a s ways o f a l l e v i a t i n g  could  child  children and  or  isolated.  Some o f t h e n e g l e c t  and c h i l d  advantage  children Less  i n t h e form  from  sick  quality  children.  felt  i f there are  of child  Another  transporting  paid  t o do.  care.  can v i s i t  i s a with  and mothers  children  less  f o r employers  likely  their  Less  t o an o f f - s i t e  taken  care  from  i s spent  will  booking  t o look  facility  children  care  more  absenteeism  can breastfeed time  worry  can concentrate  i n order  child  to  are well  many p a r e n t s  h o l i d a y time  i s that  care  are less  t h e employee  I f there  breaks,  advantage  means  their  child  known t h e c h i l d r e n  care and prevent  parents  coffee  Employees  i s being  or using  work-site,  of quality  i f they  worry  t h e j o b she/he  their  and  [66]  productivity.  their  result off  parents  Employer  about  on  though  Even  f o r themselves.  situation  or neglect  of support  The is  i n the  r e q u i r e time  parents  trapped,  i n this  parent  sources  s t i l l  t o remain  T h i s can c r e a t e a tremendous s t r a i n  abuse  their  who w i s h  children.  and time  these  to feel  child  with  they  appointments  i n some f o r m ,  parents  of their  i n t h e home,  personal care  f o r those  after on t h e  during their  lunch young.  by p a r e n t s  facility.  i n  A l l this  20 reduces  absenteeism,  tardiness  and  staff  turnover  f o r the  employer. [67] 1.4.4  Society The  well-being  society. parents feel  I f there  lower  secure  be  on  foster  human 1.5  groups  crime  t o pay  homes,  child's  and  care,  urgent  courts,  enables  that  children  physically; utterly ought  child  be  [68]  1 9 t h and e a r l y  extended  arrangements  There ills  was  society  does  centres,  enhances  a  productive  20th  centuries,  consensus  suffered  are sadly  neglected.  the older  ones  should  less  a  to families  "When t h e m o t h e r  fixed  exhibit  Care  the s o c i a l  a  from  care  t o become  no  children  detention  Quality  rule  with  by c h i l d r e n  The y o u n g e r  through  lack  from  social were  due  t h e home,  children  suffer  of d i s c i p l i n e  become  for a life  social  b e made a s w o u l d  demonstrating among  i s absent  unmanageable and thus q u a l i f y to  then  will  and f o r s o c i e t y .  provision  women w o r k i n g .  care  single jobs and  they  that  f o r more  etc.  that  i n the late  need."  because  pregnancy,  affects  care,  to maintain  pre-school  prices  S o c i a l Work and C h i l d  reformers  the  attend  enormous  was a " c h a r i t a b l e  to  stigmatized  teenage  f o r himself  Child  an  and  be a b l e  i n turn,  child  I f i t i s true  who  police,  life  being  less 1  economic  have  and  quality  will  'the d o l e .  delinquency, not  i s adequate  on s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e  more  longer  o f t h e c h i l d and f a m i l y ,  leave  of crime.  workers  that  the mother  It such  free  to  21 care  f o r her  home a n d  Throughout focus, need  the  providing  to  viewed  work. child  minimal  Even  care  major work  increase  "as  women  the  child,  in  a  this  host  social  of  to  physically The that  those or  of  and  a  useful  were  [70] of  The  first  was  the  the  second  was  the  to  the  beneficial.  for  care  properly  i t became one  families,  Child  the  perceptions  detrimental  a  by  evidence proving  role:  was  and  needed  children. the  not  ordered  interest  parents  within  profession  relieving tool  for  that wellChild  program specific  delivering  families  believed  c u l t u r e  of  p o v e r t y  was  an  important  also  emotionally  disturbed  and  handicapped.  workers need  and  i n many w a y s  c h i l d r e n who  the  working  force  new  was  [71]  recognizing and  care.  p r o l o n g i n g  mentally  upsurge  social  that  a  C h i l d care  generationa1ly." to  on  the  armed w i t h  were  took  i n  demonstrated  work  families  child  "disorganized  i n f l u e n t i a l  service  the  but  many  social  challenged  s e r v i c e s were  problems.  services  the  a  family counselling."  researchers  point  i t s charitable  women w i t h  marginal  labour  care  at  of  in  child  resumed  custodial service necessitated  to  quality of  for  regard  number o f  care  60's  developments  with  of  only  the  a  [69]  child  a program of  growing  care  in  functioning  Two  being  1950's  services  accompanied with  social  children."  for  to  care  and  demand become the  S o c i a l workers  human,  for  child  more  care  instrumental  benefits gained have  meant  a  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and  long  by  in both  history  of  institutional  22 complexities child be.  care,  social  Social  should. capable as  parent  the  to other  the social  choose care but  f o r a l l groups  social child  workers care  advocating should but  affecting  care.  generalist,  f o r what  parents  such but  might  be  involvement  the problems  I f they  Social  care  as  workers of  and i n s p e c t i o n o f care,  which  r e c e n t l y , when f o r the  There  are providing  child  when  has  issue  the p r o f e s s i o n d i d not  not only  active  stand  was n o t a m a j o r  problem u n t i l  a more  a  distribution  Child  i s a  role  need f o r  i n ensuring care  and  d o n o t , many  that  and i n  t o meet t h e demand. are brought  child  disadvantaged  great  quality  become i n v o l v e d i n t h e p o l i c i e s child  they  institutions,  care:  for families,  f o r an i n c r e a s e i n s u p p l y until  as  functions  one.  facilities.  i n society.  facilities  not wait  should  of child  problem,  to play  be a  perceives  p r o f e s s i o n because  an urgent  a role  t o take  societal  of qualifying  t o see i t as a major  became  workers  and not as a  work  as i t c o u l d  advocacy and  of the country  family care  of  [73]  for social  f o r care  licensed  community  t o t h e need  i n v o l v e d i n two m a i n a r e a s funds  should  as c l i e n t  always been a problem area for  worker  groups."  ideology  as thorough  of the t r a d i t i o n a l  responding  i s difficult  political  subsidy new  some  'new w o r k ' , s u c h  f a m i l y problem  are  the s o c i a l  participation  In the area  do n o t p l a y a s a c t i v e  and l i a i s o n of  the f a m i l y . [72]  has not been  today  of performing  capable  It  work  "Ideally,  considered in  affect  workers  casework  also  a  which  before  They them,  recommendations o f t h e needs  of  23 both an  parents  and  obligation  sand  and  to  wait  preventative  children help  for  may  others,  problems  services,  not  go  unmet.  not to  to  bury  arise.  remedial.  Social their It  is  workers heads the  in  time  have the for  24 CHAPTER TWO; The able  goal  to  Since  research  The  subsequently of  goals  by  by  the  child  yet  extent  Planning  care  B.C.  nature  not  programs,  and  to  with  and  be  the  study  the  no  study  need  was  given  was  a  child  criteria  concerning  but  the  conducted.  study  current  of  research  researcher  satisfy A  with  could  researcher  facilities, and  familiar  Department  research  best  services.  contact  The  Department  there  the  Department  w o u l d be  numerous  previous to  care  chosen  initial  researcher.  Planning  child the  would  be  research.  Planning  the  and  to  the p r a c t i c e  become  policies  the  which  for  area the  the  social  for research, to  was  and  had  been  licensed had  been  for child  care  researcher  that  1981. The  been  on  made  on  area  this  and  conducted since  by  placement  p r a c t i c e was  Richmond,  contacted  out  completed centres  field  in  feasible  set  with  RESEARCH  within  researcher  researcher  because  area  also  s e v e r a l areas  most  research  when i m p l e m e n t i n g  for  Hall  PRACTICE AND  particular  new  the  but  these  The  Municipal  care  enable  setting  mind.  choice  conduct  research, of  this  relatively  would  with  The  choosing  is a  evaluation  in  of  effectively  this  only  INTERACTION OF  other  were  no  a  feasible studies  f o l l o w up  studies, various Planning  agreed area  the  to study  completed  which  results.  In  social  Department  with  that  because  indicated a addition  service agencies many  people  there  in  had the  to  had need  these  reported community  25 were  requesting  the  current  Facilities order  have  need  study  (1986),  f o r them  community to  i n f o r m a t i o n on  at some  Planning  able  Child  Care  Department  to assist  i n developing of  facilities.  a  social  service,  the  i s s u e f a c e d by t h e r e s e a r c h e r  first  at  need.  this  The  time,  facility.  care  w h i c h were study be  need  f o r both out  extent  and  assistance services.  agencies  and  the  at  was  to assess  the  the  area  of  discussed  at  for child  was  Licensed  of with  Child  indicated  w i t h i n the  these  types  dual  of  the Planning nature  of  other  care.  purpose  the  need,  groups  wishing  that to  of  care  and  study,  but  reported  the  investigation  was  -  to  i n understanding so  child  Facilities  child  i n implementing a  Department  a  indicated  and  had  i n mind  by  areas  as  i n t h e 1986  The  a  that  24-hour  community  care.  contacted  point  Services  Areas such as  c a r e were  a  Care  need the  in establishing this  a of  locate  Department  was  extent  p r e s e n t l y not o f f e r e d i n Richmond  agencies  to  in  t h e need  interested  agencies/organizations  assist  that  researcher  on  decided  investigated.  social  and  and  the Planning  I t was  on  also  outside  supervisor for research  emergency/temporary  carried  facilities  organization  care  should  care  the options  non-profit  the  on  and  decided  and  The  After  Services  there  nature  care.  length  to  the  care  for child  greatest  in  Licensed  understanding  previous"study  Also  on  t o be  large  child  they  facilitate service the  could  implement  and  exact  provide  child  care  26 After the  Lower M a i n l a n d ,  decided need the  much r e s e a r c h  that  research  were  no  were  type  no 2 4 - h o u r  At t h i s  care  facilities were drawn  was t o a s s e s s  porary  f a c i l i t i e s  people  care such  services.  i n t h e Lower  assessment  addition  care.  t o these  When  the  o f need  A review  information  emergency/temporary  those was  i t would that  a  paper  n o t be  catered  not economically care  of  there  Terms  of The  f o r emergency/tem-  suggest  methods  of  researcher  interviewed  key  f o r their  knowledge  and  and s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e f o r  of l i t e r a t u r e  was c o n d u c t e d i n  only  was  detailing care.  completed,  the major  I t was  agreed  economically  feasible  t o temporary  care  could  feasible. be  Therefore  incorporated  issues at  this  to create  because  many  already  a of  found i t  i t was a g r e e d  into  the  that  existing  centres. The  Planning  non-profit the  because  i n t e r v i e w e d who h a d e s t a b l i s h e d e m e r g e n c y c a r e ,  emergency care  to  gathering  surrounding  facility  the scope  a  interviews.  prepared  that  was  up by t h e r e s e a r c h e r .  and  The  researcher  time  point,  t h e need  Mainland  of the degree  emergency c h i l d  but there  to investigate.  purpose of the study  implementing  facilities  t o emergency/temporary care  f o r the study  child  various groups i n  Department and t h e r e s e a r c h e r  of setting.  changed  24-hour  reference  the Planning  there  for this  and d i s c u s s i o n w i t h  Department  met w i t h  agency and t h e H e a l t h  feasibility  o f an emergency  representatives of the  Department. centre,  At this  a centre  meeting,  for children  27 under  three  and  a  24-hour  proposed  methodology  emergency  care  the  c o m p l e t e d by  paper  those  people  understand At had  a  were  care  the  good  picture  who  this  not  was  the  true  extent  Compensation  The  D e p a r t m e n t and  for  child  this  same  each  Planning  agreed  of that  distributed  the  areas  of  care  an  to  wishing  to  researcher  i n which a  the  inquiry  regarding  needs  comprehensive need  facility  to serve  Compensation  researcher  The  disadvantages  of  the  Employee  H o s p i t a l was  among t h e i r  in  for  child  area  in  and  that  at  the  requirements the  Board, the  staff  for  needs of the  their  Planning  issues involved in  completed a  review  work-related  care  Compensation  Services  Division  e x p l o r i n g ways t o meet  on and  Board. of  the  the need  employees.  institutions an  from  the  care.  Department  institutions  nature  area  care.  have  discussed  time,  both  other  not  the  to others  i n f o r m a t i o n to the Workers'  care  Since  the  researcher  and  General  child  did  had  Board  Workers'  the  advantages  Richmond  and  be  Department and  and  Department  employees.  the  should  some o f  s t i l l  in  A  areas.  a child  At  of  discussed.  I t was  emergency  Planning  but  Planning  presented  were  survey  the meeting  met,  establishing  the  needs  issues concerning  the  work-related  a  researcher  understanding  i n other  Workers'  the  attended  being  The  for  centre  tabled for discussion.  stage,  of  care  with the  area  are no  within close child  researcher might  need  care  facilities,  looked child  proximity  at  care.  what  of the  other  Kwantlen  28 College  was  identified  students  would need c h i l d  Planning  staff  Compensation College of  a  and  combined  care  as  issue,  lower  but  was  previous could  not  The of  willing  of  to  problem need  analysis.  suggested  questionnaires offered Workers' their to  to  child  care  look  their and  by  the  on  senior  to  Workers' Kwantlen  feasibility  regarded  child  i t s facility  space  A l l parties  were  as  i t appeared  from  one  organization  alone  a  after  survey  agreed  The  needs  to  purpose  for  g r o u p was  assist was  with  these the  would  selected  pay  printing  Board  staff  of  with  the  would  the  required  to proceed.  be  The  nature Planning  and  The  data  questionnaire The  College  distributed  d i s t r i b u t e hospital  questionnaire. authorization  Municipal  Personnel  survey  and  research  could  period.  the  a  institutions.  extent  distribute.  h o s p i t a l  the  the  undertake  of  to develop a d r a f t  questionnaires  management the  the  w i t h i n each o r g a n i z a t i o n .  the  Compensation  discuss  care  institutions  r e g i s t r a t i o n  that  students.  researcher  that  with  initiative,  the  Hospital,  participate.  centres  of  College  institutions  and  offered  the  whose  facility.  the  The  to  a l l three  for child  institution  to discuss  compared  other  identified  Department  which  on  employees  assess  General  Kwantlen  combined  sustain a  begin,  survey  Richmond  priority  a  major  representatives  Department s t a f f  research  To  was  to  with  initiative.  a  receptive  another  care.  met  Board,  Health  as  Hall  Department  staff and  at the also The from had with  29 the  Union. The  of  the  data  group  set  emerge,  determined  follow  these  to the In  care,  that  care  to  were  cost,  help  present  emergency  draft  the  The  of  need. three  A  care  to  given  to  the  During  the  the  need  could  and  be  staff  distribute  and  drawn  of  the  Heath  for  period  hours  of  location.  was  toward  facility.  An  initial  by  the  and  the  Department second was  The  final  draft  Municipal  staff  and  the  areas  of  to  the  distributed  This  a  researcher.  reviewed  identify  critique.  questionnaire.  need  attitude  C h a n g e s w e r e made t o t h e for a final  of  that  researcher  up  area the  care,  i t was  the  felt  up  drawn  i n the  preferred  issue,  i f i t would  to  formulating  concerning  types  existing  the  was  and  hospital this  issues  were  was  and  in  sample's  i n an  draft  input.  of  the  the  Planning  completed  a current  determine  o n c e more d i s t r i b u t e d pre-testing  these  was  staff  second  and  Several  what  organizations  analysis  surveys  questionnaire  questionnaire  return and  of  requirements  questionnaire  satisfaction  ask  Planning  and  survey  nature  researcher  other  Because emergency care  including  the  the  identified.  the  the  identified;  should  of  of  facility  sites  reviewed.  question  distribution  involved.  various  were  the  finalize  groups  order  care  so  to  for  picture  potential  questionnaire,  for  closer  up  date  Upon c o m p l e t i o n  a  and  would  child  target  questionnaires.  analysis,  would  a  for  their  draft  and  the  only  was  then  printing. the  the  Union  30 discussed  the  the  conducted  Union  plans  to  do  survey.  I t was  a  study  another.  to  d a t e and  to proceed with  The hospital with  postpone  the  College  distributing researcher  would  registration. distribute  the  Workers'  with  that  sign  questionnaires Board  the  the  researcher  was  other  implemented  researched.  were  areas  educational  Consultation supervisors  with  operating  Mainland  the  the  from  method and  purpose  of the  of  the  questionnaires  at  point  senior  the  Discussion  Hospital  this  decided period.  had  to The  s t i l l  management t o  board  centres  indicated  Two  after  contacted  where  the both  the  child  Incorporating  school  feasible.  weeks  awaiting  institutions  operationally  researcher  later  not  proceed  survey.  questionnaire,  existing  a  College  mid-month pay  at  a u t h o r i z a t i o n from t h e i r  While  Lower  a  no  researcher  surveys  The  General on  were  until  feasible  stating  above  Richmond  Compensation  most  followed. a  ago,  institutions.  printed  the  posted  The  the  them t o K w a n t l e n C o l l e g e .  survey  be  and  years  there  Hall  three  the  concerning  decided  research  received  collected  the  staff  Municipal  other  several  presently  Planning  the  distributed  that  that  surveying  researcher and  and  The  decided  noted  that  the  members  idea  had  Richmond  care child  one  in educational  surveys the  was  return  of and  of  could  the be  care  within  the  areas.  child  facilities  care in  the  was  economically  and  been  distributed,  the  General  Hospital  and  31 Kwantlen was so  College  noted  that  to collect  the return  the researcher  methods  of  sign  where  urgency had  before the  employees  posted,  researcher  discovered  the  return  rate.  possible  The was  reason  employees were Kwantlen of  distribute  results  of a  with  returned.  and/or  co-workers  enlisting such  as  to return  reasons  meeting  at this  weeks  the h o s p i t a l and  the hospital,  third  the  were up,  had been  possible  a  notice  two  t h e two weeks  within  not possible  this  another  of resurveying  discussed  t o post  f o r the low  indicated  time  r a t e was t h a t  the  and  that  that  one  the h o s p i t a l  'surveyed o u t ' . College  the survey;  three  meeting  f o r the low r e t u r n  registration. had  When  t h e i r  stating  After  waited  their  return  paycheques,  questionnaires  to request  It  discussed  o n was  the questionnaires.  no more  also  to  decided  their  o f key people  They  resurveying  collect  the possibility  nurses,  surveys.  finally  had another  cooperation  head  employees  the hospital.  that  They d i s c u s s e d  representatives  the researcher  contacting  questionnaires.  f o r t h e h o s p i t a l was v e r y l o w ,  more  The method  of returning  been  rate  and h o s p i t a l  g e t t i n g  questionnaires.  the returned  no  also  had problems  one c o m p l e t e d  However,  a member  with  a single  survey  results  student  body  i n class.  a n d met  with  representative  questionnaire  of the administrative  i n s t r u c t o r s i n the Continuous the surveys  the d i s t r i b u t i o n  Entering  The r e s e a r c h e r administrative  t o work  out a  at team  Program  collected the staff  better  and a  method  of  32 surveying  the  constraints not  be  College.  and  carried  lack  same  different  The  would  results.  The  organizations each  extent  of  the  The  care  and  best  service.  in  The  to  time would  own  the  They  r e c e i v e d utilized  printing.  Board  was  were  the  covering  attached  to  the  distributed  to  the  administration  contacted  A  the  building.  researcher  The  when  the  returned. informed  a l l three  convened  i n two  A  would  analyze  t h e n an  brief  discuss  the  the  data  results  overview  summary be  organizations  jointly  First,  would  the  to  ways.  need  of  given  as  well  as  the  for  a  survey  the  three  be  given  would a l l the  identifying  that  the  results need  successes  and and  survey. of  hours  this of  of  guide  meet  their  Board  researcher  amount will  due  f i n a l l y  survey.  questionnaires  be  f a c i l i t y within  will  did  the  the  were  results  needed,  variables a  of  that  a d d i t i o n a l survey  Board  Compensation  and  given.  limitations  care  with  o r g a n i z a t i o n and  be  an  the  researcher  meeting  would  but  Compensation  questionnaires  interest,  proceed  departments  Workers'  for  to  w r i t t e n by  questionnaire  decided  Compensation  questionnaire  letter  of  was  out.  Workers' authorization  It  the  the  survey  survey  care  required,  monies those  spent  who  town needs results  should  are  centre of  preferred  on  child  the  type  location  care.  of of  These  interested in establishing as  those  will  indicate  to  what  willing  also  type to  of  setting  utilize  i n d i c a t e whether  the  i t is  33 possible  to  implement  Workers'  Compensation  sites.  This  to  one  institutions their  results To role  (age,  can  only  ensure  will  be  different  the  wanted  with  child  few,  the care  of  the  pro's  of  and  work  existing  is limited  data  in  those  collected  to  demographic  Therefore,  the  Richmond.  the  researcher's  of  implementing  con's  s e r v i c e s t o i n t e r e s t e d community  p r a c t i c e and  the  either  because  study,  their of  decisions.  practice and  significant.  was  in  p o p u l a t i o n of  the  advantages  but  l e a r n i n g experience because  area  limit  them i n m a k i n g  i t both  both  gap  research  g e n e r a l i z e d to the  discuss  were  This  a  e l i m i n a t i n g general  utilization  of  fulfill  period  to  c o l l a b o r a t i v e process  limitations to  to  f i l l  in  Hospital  m a r i t a l s t a t u s , income).  to a s s i s t  This  time  the  types  g r o u p s and  carries  be  also  care  General  geographic  therefore  sex,  child  Richmond  staff.  s p e c i f i c involved  or  will  Planning  employees,  variables  Board  research  knowledge f o r the scope  work-related  research into  limitations  research  limitations. There  'crammed'  and  of  was  not  criteria. a  very  the  The enough  Much  short  of time  researcher's  schedule. On aid  the  the  positive  success  true p i c t u r e of must  be  consider learning  prepared  of  s i d e , p r a c t i c e and the  study.  what a c t u a l l y  This  occurs  type i n the  to a l t e r n a t e schedules,  a complete change of experience  in  research  strategy.  strengthening  of  coincided  process  real  world  r e v i s e work The  process  research,  to  gave and and  a one  even  i s also  a  analytical  34 skills  and  levels  of  and to  administrative community  in joint balance  develop  problem  agency  staff,  solving.  p e r s o n a l and  a manageable  skills  i n working  i n assembling  I t also  professional  workload.  with  h e l p s one commitments  various  information to learn i n order  how to  35 CHAPTER THREE: 3.1  Issues S e l e c t e d f o r Research Several  research; order and  THE RESEARCH PROBLEM  issues  child  however, t h e main concern  t o determine  potential  would  elicit  child  care,  operation included  concerning  t h e requirements  sites  within  a clearer  picture  of a child  s e l e c t e df o r  were  t h e need i n  care  centre'.  facility  Issues  that  preferred location f o r  of the children,  o f programs  i n t h e assessment  were  was t o c l a r i f y  t h e 'town  t h e age range  and types  care  required.  t h e hours  The t y p e s  of  of care  were:  (a)  Group day care - p r o v i d e s care f o r c h i l d r e n t o 18 m o n t h s f o r u p t o 10 h o u r s p e r d a y ;  (b)  Group day care - provides care f o r c h i l d r e n m o n t h s t o 36 m o n t h s f o r u p t o 10 h o u r s p e r d a y ;  (c)  Group day care - p r o v i d e s care f o rc h i l d r e n t o s c h o o l a g e f o r u p t o 10 h o u r s p e r d a y ;  (d)  Nursery s c h o o l - p r o v i d e s c a r e f o r c h i l d r e n 32 m o n t h s t o s c h o o l a g e f o r a maximum o f 3 h o u r s p e r day;  (e)  Out-of-school care - provides care f o r school-aged c h i l d r e n before and a f t e r normal school hours - a l s o provides f u l l - d a y care during periods of school closure (i.e., Professional Development days and school v a c a t i o n ) ;  (f)  S p e c i a l i z e d day care - provides a l l - d a y care f o r maximum o f 10 h o u r s f o r s p e c i a l n e e d s c h i l d r e n from b i r t h t o school age;  (g)  Overnight care - provides care f o rc h i l d r e n a g e s f o r p e r i o d s u p t o 10 h o u r s .  Also  included  emergency/short-term  i n the issues care  was  f o rchildren.  3 months  3  18  years  ofa l l  the concern f o r This  issue  was  36 selected and  because at present  o n l y a few  Lower 3.2  spaces  are  The  due  to  for  a  recent  Department  services  and  facilities.  available  but  d i d not  Department  and  the  understand  the  assessment  was  Department's  on  i n Richmond  centres  in  the  child  'town  the  as  an  The  creating In  were  their  t h a t no  child  The  General  facility  decided  Planning  care,  to  the  to  fully  a  needs  Planning  H o s p i t a l and to  Armed  for  a  the  study  the  meet  with  presently exists  to plan  care  services  i n order  employees.  area.  these within  that  individual  the  would groups  Research  care in  facility  order  that  Municipal  the  need.  was  child  e x p l o r i n g ways  f o r the geographic  child  a  Richmond  the  covered  addition  needs  area  by  issues  licensed  to  of  of  geographic  agreed  In  Board  i t was  purpose  for  of  study  related  the  assessment  Purpose of  care  completed  This  among  fact  centre',  incorporate well  care  child  number  required.  concern,  and  the  problems  need  concerns  study  researcher  Compensation  for  Issues  d e f i n e the degree of  Workers'  need  in existing  selecting  Planning  3.3  services exist  available  S e l e c t i o n of  rationale  partially  as  such  Mainland. Rationale for  the  no  the  research  within order within  to assess  the  each to  the  was  to  assess  institution  determine  the  the and  degree  of  within  the  feasibility  of  'town c e n t r e * .  need,  i t was  necessary  to  measure  37 the  degree  the  type  would  o f need,  and hours  utilize  determine  of care  a facility  concerning  the above  satisfaction  with their  3.4  Knowledge-Building The  territory, of  social  social  and  geographic  asked  respondents'  arrangements.  f u n c t i o n s used The  for this  study are  exploratory function " i s  b u t t h e raw d a t a  human  problems,  and program."  [74]  some i n s i g h t  area  the  were  Functions  practice,  i s to gain  or not parents  Questions  concerning  present  as i n geography,  policies  function the  i n the area.  and mapping.  work  of the children,  r e q u i r e d and whether  knowledge-building  exploratory  t h e age range  into  and o b s e r v a t i o n s  or the workings  The  purpose  the problems  and t o s t i m u l a t e i d e a s  not  of  of this  present i n  i n solving  these  problems. The that  mapping  help  order  explanations problem  need,  t h e raw d a t a  and generate  that  variable  contribute  "conceptual  frames  d e s c r i p t i o n s and  to the understanding  relationships  the researcher not only  institution. centre  i n building  of the  s t u d i e d . " [75]  The enable  function aids  to identify  f o r t h e sample  These  variables  found  i n t h e raw d a t a  the extent and nature  as a whole, will  r e q u i r e d by t h e m a j o r i t y o f  but a l s o  help determine respondents.  will  of the  f o r each  the type  of  38 3.5  Major The  This the  is  Concepts  conceptual the  only  child  used  care  data  to  and  questionnaire  as  sort  the  current the  of  a  child  institutions,  narrowed  to  who  needs  is  use  of  model  is  type  of  what  q u a n t i t a t i v e and  collection  because  model.  the  conceptual  questionnaire  researched  variables  both  as  fall  the  i t provides  decided  does  method  for  a  into  a  of  large  an  not  on  the  part  the  have  exist  any  of  concerning and  various the  various  the  in  from  preferred  the  case  care  views  to  were  of  of  of  these  care  were  a l l related  ensure  that  the  needs.  theoretical  participation  to  child  concerns,  developed of  varied  in  types  when  questionnaire.  i s , however,  orientation guiding  an  underlying  policy  consumer p a r t i c i p a t i o n  f u t u r e p r o j e c t because the  income,  However,  concerns  indication  There  consumer to  issues  consideration issues  economic  i n v e s t i g a t e d and  research. -  as  into  These  facility.  major  explained  were  taken  as  specific  would provide There  such  D e f i n i t i o n s of  and  Having  were  care  the  the  institutions.  the  -  data  questionnaire.  location  important  research  issues  demographics,  concept  The  The  considering  The  needs  chosen  specific  this  when  Dimensional  subjects.  formulating  data  model  method of  was  the  out  model.  collection  Major  the  was  functions.  when.  Dimensional  number o f  chosen  feasible  knowledge-building  primarily  the  model  making.  in this  service created  study  will  be  major It  is  and  in  to  meet  39 the  consumers'  cannot 3.6  be  The community  of  their  input,  the project  child  i s not reserved  Research  problem  interest  and without  undertaken.  Relevant  the  needs  of  b u t t o Canada i n child  reason  care,  why c a r e  care  at large.  recent  Due  t o one  to the increased  s t u d i e s have a d d r e s s e d  i s needed  but also  the extent  not only  and  nature  t h e need. A  S p e c i a l Committee  participation 45%  t o those  that  children  found  women  that  who h a v e  level  different serve  types  79,754  auspices.  Family  and 68.3% had  The Committee  also  a r e below  13%, 64% a r e s i n g l e  (1987)  between  parent  out surveys  across  available  i nthe  I n 1986, the l i c e n s e d  centres  t h e ages  spaces;  care  carried  of spaces  facilities  child  found  c h i l d r e n . [76]  of settings.  i n commercial  from  i s broken  t h e Committee  of 3 - 5 years  t h e number  centre  that the  under t h e age o f 3 y e a r s , 61.6%  and o f t h i s  children  197,802 l i c e n s e d  participation  13% o f Canadian f a m i l i e s  S p e c i a l Committee to assess  noted  f o r c e had i n c r e a s e d  t h e a g e s o f 6 - 15 y e a r s .  with pre-school  The  (1987)  children,  t h e ages  approximately  poverty  Canada  between  between  families  that  i n the labour  i n 1986, 56% had c h i l d r e n  children  the  Care  i n 1 9 7 6 t o 5 5 % i n 1 9 8 6 . When t h i s  down  had  o f women  on C h i l d  91,115  of 3 -  i n non-profit  and 26,933  centres,  6 years  except  under  had  settings, government  i n Newfoundland,  40 had  22,715 s p a c e s  i n 1986.  found  that  there  there  were  11,415  commercial family  care  broke  There were  using  13,969  groups  were  served;  or  care and  or  198,008 or  c h i l d r e n aged  facilities  but  4,299  spaces  in  4,086  spaces  in  were  these  statistics  6.9%  of  [78]  to  children in this  c h i l d r e n from  years  into  c h i l d r e n ages b i r t h  18  -  13.9% o f c h i l d r e n were  3 - 5  33.9% were s e r v e d .  down  202,498  spaces  spaces  the Committee  [77]  (1987),  months  397,311  child  in non-profit  settings.  age c a t e g o r i e s .  27,605  public  Columbia,  In addition, there  committee  utilized  no  spaces  centres.  child  The  were  In B r i t i s h  o f age  used  35  17 age  months  served;  134,826  and  spaces  T h e s e f i g u r e s do n o t i n c l u d e  older  children. Latchkey day  and  c h i l d r e n are those  therefore  need  Special  Committee  children  needing  1981  findings  Canada, there British  i n 1986,  However,  t h e Committee  The series  Status  of  specific  t h e age  234,000  there of  noted  6 that  the  school. of  The these  were 12  In  1981,  latchkey  these  who  need  f i g u r e s may  that  across  children;  approximately years  on  they  leave  in  26,000 care. be  low their  [79]  o f Women ( 1 9 8 5 ) ,  studies  during  numbers  care.  are reluctant to report  unattended.  school  and/or a f t e r  c h i l d r e n needing  between  parents  attend  b u t d i d do a p r o j e c t e d a n a l y s i s b a s e d  children  child  have  were a p p r o x i m a t e l y  Columbia  because  before  d i d not  care of  care  who  on  child  under K a t i e Cook, c o m p l e t e d  care.  Their  findings  a  concerning  41 the  number  number the  o f women p a r t i c i p a t i n g  of  available  Special  findings, of  whole,  and  and  not  care.  acculturation  Canadian  face  a  language do  centres,  but  customs. Merriel  needs  of  determine life  with  -  not  these  cultural  want  to  their  their  an  can  that  also  issues as  type  a of  centres  working  hours,  and u n d e r s t a n d i n g ,  take place." problems  where  [80]  which  The  affect  availability,  affects  minority  minority  problem.  The  children  cared  to  learn  study  on  for  and  groups.  groups  majority  of  also ethnic  in  'ethnic'  Canada's  language  [81] (1985)  immigrant some  of  i n Canada.  conducted women the  i n the  problems  Among  a  they  perceive  women's child  concerns  were s i m i l a r  to the concerns of immigrants studied stated  and  i n adapting  and  Force; the m a j o r i t y  of  experiences  Halifax-Dartmouth area  immigrant  affordability  the  availability  Task  and  environment  problems,  children  these  community-based  with  with  immigrants,  their  the  to  particular  accessibility,  care -  to  want  that  and  in line  problems  sensitivity  noted  the  child  and  found  society  (1985)  of  They  fall  addition  looked at  children  in addition  families  and  their  families  In  accommodates  children  Force  report.  "access  to Canadian  affordability However,  which  to their  care  p r e f e r e n c e f o r one  prefer  care  Task  a  labour force  for child  also  groups.  show  provides  Cook  report  They  family  responds  Cook  ethnic  do  child  Committee's  the  various  spaces  i n the  that  care.  t h e r e was  Their  was  to the  concerns  i n the  a need  to  Cook  f o r more  42 accessible their  and  affordable child  children A  study  Indians there  into  were  only  reserves.  Out  contributing  of  Northern  bands w i t h exist  only  toys  or  day  care  centre  Canada  to  identify  families. utilized  The  child  care  Force  families  monies  because  do  child  have  that  the  needs in  do  money for  a  [83]  families  participated  they  three  adequate  Canada".  no  Affairs  assist  centres  336  had  were  Indian  to  on  provinces  there  not  care  Canada  Alberta  considered of  Status  centres  the  The  surveyed  of  who  and  Columbia,  area  (1985)  nature  care  of  centres.  for  i n a l l of  Department of  class  of  across various  this  study  needed:  -  s u p e r v i s i o n o f c h i l d r e n whose p a r e n t s were employed o u t s i d e t h e home o r who w e r e a t t e n d i n g a n e d u c a t i o n a l or t r a i n i n g program;  -  support  and  care  of  children  - a i d i n development of  They  British  " t h a t w o u l d be  the  care  rest  allocated  i n a middle Task  Ontario  b a s i c s e r v i c e s and  equipment  Cook  child  i n 1984/85 the  the  Services  in native  the  mainstream  [82]  that  In  child  would  concluded  with  Development  which  Care  spaces  little.  but  for  The  these  operating  offer  "Child  spaces  1,300,  very  known f i g u r e s ,  on  Reserves",  1,432  approximately  and  Canadian c u l t u r e .  completed  R e s i d i n g on  care  children  -  short-term  -  time to enable parents to community a c t i v i t i e s . [84]  found  that  emergency  f o r those  with special 's s o c i a l  needs; skills;  care;  parents  take who  part  in  volunteer  require full-time  or  child  43 care,  41.2%  pre-school aged  had  c h i l d r e n aged  6-12  years.  approximately evenings  holidays,  to  there and  was  an  child  (10%  aged  g r o u p s and  Winnipeg  to  the  or  few  areas;  number  of  assess  the  summer  centres  degree  out-of-school the of  that  current  existing  i f  "one  existing  care  would  spaces  demand.  This  in  arrangements,  of  Social  days,  summer  or  Task  only  a  caregiver  which  were  classes Force  few  urban  centres  and  served  in  found  in  months,  of  child  there  minority  supply  and  care  would  be  required  increase care the  gap  i n supply  spaces.  supply  in  This  pre-school i n order  to  represents  Stevens  inadequate  between  needs  demand.  5,700 a d d i t i o n a l  this the  back-up  [87]  study  licensed child  considers  increase". The  care  as  emergency c e n t r e s  the  a  [85]  arrangements  The  were  care,  regular  regular  work  [86]  needs c h i l d r e n . completed  from  had  children  on  for care  there  children during  (1984)  care  when t h e  short-term  had  reasons.  need  absenteeism  50.9%  full-time  Development  i n d i c a t e s that approximately  meet  regular  required  sample group)."  rural  special  Stevens  i l l  age,  57.3%  "Unreliable care  affect  of  in  was  down.  insufficient  study  families  of  and  addition to  Professional  broke  one  school  62%  for  were v e r y  for  and  of  years  years  a l s o examined  directly  families  areas  25%  when t h e  arrangements  that  In  Task Force  arrangements  30  2 - 5  2  and/or weekends f o r w o r k - r e l a t e d  The  shown  c h i l d r e n under  notes  quality and  of  demand  [88] Planning  Council  of  Metropolitan  Toronto  44 (1984)  surveyed  programs  was  cannot lists one on  be  approximately  cast  of  a n d some p a r e n t s Regardless  exceeds  put t h e i r  the  number  This  at a l l for their The  trend of  economic  necessity.  parent In  families  1981  living  i n a  marriages.  families that  were  concerning services  There  are  completed  an  keep  waiting  not  was  1941  parent  an  and  That  headed  by s i n g l e  studies need  1981  in-depth  study  surveyed  were  44%  and  or  no  and  British  and  t h e Richmond the  out  in  Mainland.  the  10%  every  of a l l indicate  i n c r e a s e . [91] i n  Richmond  facilities  Planning  needs  were  Columbia,  the trends will  of  single  3 divorces for  completed  care  The  children  i n Richmond,  families  been  force  i n t h e Lower  In  parents  on  labour  of dependent  year  for child I n 1981  results  continues.  increase of  there  same  have  families  family.  statistics,  care f a r  the  were  than  placed  unlicensed care  i n the  C o l u m b i a , 13%  available.  figures  requiring  centres  parent  [90]  the  these  [89]  t h e number o f s i n g l e p a r e n t Several  centres  the w a i t i n g  also states that  utilizing  single  parents  single  t o 1981  children  licensed  children.  between  in British  according 8  single  of  parents  toward  majority  do  care  c h i l d r e n ' s names o n m o r e  study  because only  does not i n c l u d e those care  but  However,  some c e n t r e s  home  These  children,  number.  and  private  o f t h e number o f c h i l d r e n ' s names  the supply.  not c l e a r  and  children.  17,750  this  i n stone  waiting lists,  group care  pre-school  one-quarter  list.  are  licensed  serving  accommodated list  321  and  and  Department  resources  of  45 child  care.  1,134  The  children  care  of  in  being  and  that  35.3%  their  own  300  children  due  to l a c k of A  February  in  need  area,  turned  of  out-of-school babysitting  The  Department licensed  child  emphasizes different care  care  the  of  spaces  the  "Based demand  and  enrolled on  the  far  the  [94]  in  facilities,  no  services  for  be  by  facilities  child  61  any  existing in  dealt  In a d d i t i o n to the survey under  This  with  outside  a  services,  l a c k of  indicated age  in  A l l but  1%  community. the  current licensed  available  of  child of  the  that  the  capacity  the  of  also  licensed  with  the  survey  served.  the  Planning  increase 64  each  there  [93]  Richmond  exist  of  supply  these  to arrange,  an  are  Richmond  or  centres  1,600  East  were  from  care  for  27%  one  facilities.  There  Richmond  and  the  from  children  to  pre-schools  area."  come  the  taken 150  i n East  the  able  i n the  need  approximately  facilities." existing  might  of  observations  children  respondents  "Apart  care.  children  69  number o f  the  out  only  licensed  licensed  Within  completed  child  exceeds  of  care.  cares  of  47  approximately  completed  out  s e r v i c e s and  extent  types  from  concerning  services operating  1,147 of  survey  (1986)  month  limited  f a m i l y day  latest  are  that  [92]  that  parent  in  have  There  program.  services a  of  families  space.  child  a  care  group of  of  indicated  care  assessment  of  were o n l y  study  taken  each  stated  some t y p e  there  no  away  needs  1986,  this  homes.  available  community  in  of  were  facilities,  are  results  spaces  there three,  were no  46 e m e r g e n c y / s h o r t - t e r m s e r v i c e s , no t w e n t y - f o u r work-related When  trends.  also  social  impact  Department  approximately Richmond the  to  area  this  9 years  steady  3.7  care  increase  the population  completed  and the  t h e Richmond  i nthe  The number o f c h i l d r e n u n d e r  increase  over  i n children, with  t h e next  especially  the growing  force,  20  years.  those  birth  number  t h e demand  o f women  for quality  continue. [96]  noted.  are several There  questionnaires rate  limitations  of the research  c a n be no a s s u r a n c e  and t h i s  was d i f f i c u l t  research  to evaluate  because  of the relevant population  reasonably  assumed t h a t  the  population  at this  that  the study  that  i t i s only one does  change.  the study point  a high  n o t have  at a particular a  clear  rate of  The r e t u r n what  I t c a n be  proportion of  however, due t o t h e f a c t  was a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l d e s i g n , relevant  must  i t i s n o t known  was r e a c h e d .  reached  i n time,  which  of the return  was n o e x c e p t i o n .  percentage  and  by  care  L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Research There  be  gradually  for child  o r 23.8% or 31.5% l i v i n g  i n the labour  will  o r no  o f 1985, p r e d i c t e d an i n c r e a s e o f  2001.  of age, coupled  participating child  study  people  by t h e year  o f t h e need  consider  i nApril  20,000  a g e o f 15 w i l l  With  the extent  one must A  care,  care. [95]  considering  services,  Planning  child  hour  i ti s limited i n  fixed  indication  point  i n time  of the ratio  of  47 There a r e a l s o l i m i t a t i o n s First  there  marital basic  were  very  analysis  given,  where  thus  emphasize  of  was  child  respondents often question children  on  On  child  Several  questions  f o r example,  f o r example,  care).  The  respondents  were  preferred  and  therefore Also,  this  i f a respondent  i n group  questionnaire  and  several  d i d not  the l o c a t i o n f o r care  (one c h i l d  only  indicated, several  not emphasized,  ages,  as s e x ,  variables  compiled.  care  had  could  be  and one i n  should  t h e 'key' people  Questionnaires  i n general  have  apply  research.  Respondents  to this  study  which  because  t o be g a i n e d The  was  itself.  have  been  to eliminate  ambiguity.  information the  was  requested;  problems;  f o r each  pre-tested  also  care  of different  out-of-school  be  these  s e l e c t e d more t h a n one l o c a t i o n .  presented  different  could  the data.  being  v a r i a b l e s such  Without  one r e s p o n s e  confounding  what  location  of the data only  the questionnaire  few demographic  s t a t u s , age and income.  questions  any  with  could  increase  researcher  questionnaire  also  h a s no  i s answered  which can contaminate  limitations cannot  the researcher's  a l l information  from non-verbal  several  i s written.  expand  which upon  knowledge o f There  i s much  communication and tone o f speech. control and  this  the results.  over  how  c a n be  [97]  o r by a  cause  whom t h e of  bias  48 CHAPTER FOUR: 4.1  R e s e a r c h e r ' s C o n t r o l Over Phenomena S t u d i e d There  are several strategies  investigate attempting other are  RESEARCH DESIGN  a phenomenon.  to alter  One m e t h o d ,  paper  trying  to alter  i s naturalistic  event,  behaviour  and  nature  o f t h e need  graphic A about  area;  people's  study  child  "serves  survey  ideas, care.  1  require  f o rthis  a prior  sampling  multi-group  separate results  with  Columbia.  to acquire information attitudes state  and  that this  the study  were  i n child  Therefore  needs  type o f  together  o f what  because  indicate  the study  within  care  needs  The s i z e  a  people  need  i n that f o r their  that a non-  o f t h e sample  was c o m p l e t e d  a specific  an o v e r a l l  self-selected  one c o u l d s t a t e  d e s i g n was u s e d .  institutions will  o f Richmond, B r i t i s h  study  interest  employees and students.  was  i n one geo-  Design  subjects  probability  facilities  [99]  Sampling  showed  care  the extent  function of grouping  may  they  but t o access  Reed and Smith  o f approaches a l l concerned  The  to alter  was u s e d  set  4.2  i t i s not attempting  preferences,  the practical  as they for this  f o rchild  t h e 'town c e n t r e  events  The  [ 9 8 ] The r e s e a r c h  or occurrence,  needs assessment  concerning  them.  i s by  the effects.  i sto investigate  because  any  a researcher can  experimental,  t h a t phenomenon t o s t u d y  strategy, naturalistic,  without  by which  geographic  i n three area.  The  f o rthe specific  area  49 and  the  Since  extent  the  study  geographic  the  target  respondents take  the The  to  several  f o r each  the  make a n y One  institutions  institutions  statistical  can  of  these  institutions,  researcher  w i l l  of  only  be  the  in a  small  demographic inferences to  assume  survey  General  institutions take-home  the  extent  clearly  to determine to  in  Richmond  amount  care  institution.  questionnaire lacked  cannot  Board,  work  and  need  that  the  were w i l l i n g  to  respond.  three  Each  area,  the  were the most n e e d f u l because t h e y  College.  child  the  population.  Compensation  three  of  surveyed  and  study  time  and  nature  only  area  variables, the  and  the  the  Workers'  Hospital  and  Kwantlen  differs  pay.  and  the  i n the  By  sample  of  the  This  f o r the  the  of  these  need  for  enables  specific to  hours  utilizing  nature  defined.  needs  g e n e r a l i z e from  are  the  geographic  population  of  Richmond.  4.3  Timing of Data C o l l e c t i o n T h e r e was  an  independent  purpose.  It  situation years also  of no  of  best  variable; i s designed  the  age,  need  i n one  distinction  variables. can  no m e a s u r e m e n t b e f o r e o r a f t e r  be  For  these  termed  the  study  also  primarily  for child specific between reasons,  to  care  the  lacks  an  describe  explanatory the  for children  geographic the  the o p e r a t i o n of  location.  independent timing of  'undifferentiated'.  [100]  current  ages  0-13  There  is  and  dependent  data  collection  50  4.4  Methodological Because the  collected better of  also  the  after  data  need  4.5  as  identified  to size  and  of  used  11  the  need  for  to  the  large  child  questionnaire  of  a  large  number  repetitions within  variable  can  be  one  assessed  r e l a t i o n s h i p of  numbers  program.  would  questionnaire  complete  collection  regarding as  well  s i z e ,  yield  three  as  the  most  as  the  separate in  a  specific  study,  questionnaire  extent  preferred  and  that  a  data  and  accurate  Due  frame  and  written  would  a  be  the  remain  questionnaire.  therefore  are  without  obliged  time  but  likely  fear  of  to  can  Lastly,  The  more  complete do  i t at  most r e s p o n d e n t s were g i v e n  questionnaire.  of  location.  time  felt  nature  groups.  using  not  a  questions  questions  also  was  l i m i t e d  anonymous and  are  at  this the  the  method  personal  They  In  data  advantages  remain  even  exposed.  for  o r i e n t a t i o n , i t was  are  respondents  to  and  another  of  sample  w i t h i n the  There  leisure.  will  i n d i c a t e the  care,  standardized  complete  q u a n t i t a t i v e methodology  counts  questions  methodological  constant  data  track  size  Collection  method  consisting  most  type  of  i n keeping  by  to  l a r g e , the  Collection  Method o f The  is fairly  large;  Frequency  collection  Data  4.5.1  be  researcher  variables.  variable  by  sample s i z e  will  aid  Orientation  two  questionnaires  to  being the their weeks as  a  51 rule  tend  suming .  to  be  more  cost  though  questionnaire  there  to study  are  Questionnaires  bias  i s no  as  there  researcher.  which  prevents  Many  clues  responses. completed  none  Also, the  the  are  researcher  only  can  Another  low  rate; this  interest certain  or as  to  why  be  time  be  how  as  con-  due  only  result,  the  who  respond.  is  the  lack  Methods t o One  method the  are  to  check  questionnaire  and  and  answers.  from  control  written  over  completed. data,  main  or  Some  why  can  is also  who  and  reasons  curious  human  format  non-verbal  researcher  The  Verify  their  some r e s p o n d e n t s '  There  also  respondent  questionnaires  the  the this  yield  of  never  be  risk  of  limitation and,  information.  a  lack  motivated  interaction  a d d i t i o n a l non-verbal  Check and  used  of  no  the  the  occurred.  ones  l a c k of  to  are  a  interviewer  from  missing  to  but  using  in question  i t is  i s that  reasons,  of  apparent  has  with  limitation  this  are  researcher or  in  between  gained  these  surmise  for other  questionnaire  review  can  of  may  burden  e l a b o r a t i n g on  s a m p l e s b e c a u s e p e o p l e who  the  4.5.2  from  returned  occurred.  the  flexibility  questionnaire  questionnaires  return  i s no  insights but  benefits  communication  respondents  communications,  be  less  phenomenon, t h e r e  carry  verbal  There  and  many  a particular  limitations.  biased  and  [101]  Even  and  effective  may of  a  as  a  [102]  Data verify  then  data  compare  collected is the  data  to  to i t .  52 When r e v i e w i n g lengthy,  the questionnaire  thus  relatively return.  enabling  short The  time  questions  with  These  of questions  to  types  complete  little  and  The  respondent  old  child,  two  care  The  This  data  type  or  'other'.  the respondent  time  further  compared  into  questions  p r e d i c t another.  -*• h o u r s  was  and w i t h  as  were  information some  of the  was  correct  the previous  of care  •+ p r e f e r r e d  the c h i l d  each  This  on  the  question  one (age o f c h i l d location).  were  completed  throughout  because  year  required  categories  was n o t o n l y  f o r consistency needs  For example, i f  i f both  possible  from  allows  t o s e e i f one  s h e / h e h a d a n 18 m o n t h - 3  f o r a l l questions  This  ensures an accurate 4.5.3  closed-ended  t o add a d d i t i o n a l  of verification  but  or flowed  questioning  of  t o enable  then she/he would check o f f t h a t  questionnaire.  of  also  indicated that  questions  followed  the rate  s t a t e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t s . [ 1 0 3 ]  the  care.  i t i n a  The o p e n - e n d e d q u e s t i o n s  t o probe  or v a r i a b l e would  selected.  increase  i n as l i t t l e  the respondent  researcher  question  i t was n o t  s u c h a s 'why' o r  chosen  as p o s s i b l e .  the researcher  problem areas  group  were  that  to complete  a l l either  requests  the questionnaire  to allow  help  should  were  open-ended  difficulty  included  respondents which  contingency  i t was n o t e d  -»• t y p e form  and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y  of and  assessment.  A p p r a i s a l o f S t a g e s o f Development The  questionnaire  used  i n this  study  was d e v e l o p e d  after  53 a  thorough  With  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of  input  from the  After studies for  questions for  draft  of  the  Health  changes  final  of  the out  There  was  studied  by  three  this  other  and  group  in  scoring  any  and  in  was  carried  institution.  out  that  manner.  College  placed  The the  one  formed  to  first  was  to  people the  Hall.  evaluation  This  a  the  from  incorporated  for  of  two  person  Municipal  is  "refers  the  same  Any  and  the  towards  a  the  only  pre-  the  degree  of  uniformity  of  to a  test".  questionnaire  [104] was  i n that a l l data c o l l e c t e d  distribute  the  'key'  distributed  Richmond  could  the  in a  pick  the  questionnaires;  i n d i v i d u a l s from  General  questionnaires  i n t e r e s t e d person  analyzed  same m a n n e r . not  by  A l l three  similar  any  did  were  for appraisal  administering  equally  i n the  which  were  defined,  indication  research  were s c o r e d  researcher  and  researcher.  t o a l l r e s p o n d e n t s , and  this  clear  Richmond  Standardization  uniformity  been  groups  to  distributed  the  had  institutions,  distributed  The  a  questionnaire. by  needs surveys  were d i s t r i b u t e d  the  aspect  standardization. when  of  again  important  procedures  the  by  care  questions,  Department,  was  carried  An  form  requested  draft  testing  These  Department  questionnaire  be  predict  questionnaire,  people  Planning  would  care.  'key'  from  to  organized  which  child the  and  child  institutions.  phenomenon  completed  need  the  the  three  other  one  questionnaires  Hospital designated up,  f i l l  and  each in  a  Kwantlen  place i t out  where and  54 return  i t .  stating Workers' stating were  notice  the purpose  posted  above  o f the survey  the purpose  and r e t u r n  by  the  the  questionnaire  and t h e r e t u r n their  date;  date.  own c o v e r i n g  then  the  'key' i n d i v i d u a l  The letter  questionnaires  to the  different  w i t h i n t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n b u i l d i n g t o be p i c k e d  up by  i n t e r e s t e d persons and completed. There  within  was some d i s c r e p a n c y  Kwantlen  i n i t i a l l y  them  of  methods  it  the  reached  spokesperson,  target  these  of  researcher  assessed  nature was  elicit  as  relevant  institutions,  t h e ones  of  standardization a v a i l a b l e  the instrument other  included  to a  which  as  any  This the  i n that college  had a  about  a  high  studies  of  the  same were  on t h e e x t e n t  In addition a  to the questionnaire  the  and t h e r e s e a r c h e r ,  information  care.  and  c e r t a i n  was c o n s t r u c t e d ,  institutions  o f t h e need f o r c h i l d  i n the type  i n the questionnaire  t h e most a c c u r a t e  attached  were  who h a d c h i l d r e n . [ 1 0 5 ]  numerous  Questions  receive  complete one.  According  were  that  instructors distributed  was  group.  c h o s e n by t h e d i f f e r e n t  which would  letter  Before  distribution  d i d not  by t h e o t h e r  i n f o r m a t i o n [106]  phenomenon.  classroom  classes  principle  instrument.  those  used  of the students  second  amount  three  of  questionnaires  distribution  distribution  A  The  c l a s s e s and had each student  method  proportion  i n t h e method  f o r distribution  therefore,  i n three  second  College.  posted  attention;  and  was  Compensation Board attached  distributed  offices any  A  stating  covering  the purpose  55 of  the study  Appendix). there  and  If this  would  instrument 4.5.4  defining  be  consistency  and  conditions, people  same p e o p l e .  will  such  or given  Also,  again this  who  when need  t h e same  years If  care.  under  child  more  the  used.  when  used  test  than  A  under to  once  i s relatively  care.  two  to the  may  n o t be  Therefore  This  small  be a p p l i e d  to a  population  measurement would n o t  applied  reliable  of  be  discrepancies.  to a  o f age and s t i l l  13 y e a r s much  could  reliable would  of the working  i t was  13 y e a r s  the results  i n only  percentage  i s over  instrument  study  resulting  o f age and whether an  test  measurement  measurement depends on whether 13  groups  affects the  being  t h e same  i n s i x months,  a large  t h e measurement  of  that  results  giving  i n this  i f , f o r instance,  has a c h i l d  care;  similar  t h e same  same  of people  i s because  reliable  of research the measures  as  have c h i l d r e n and need c h i l d be  to other  [107]  i f given  group  of  yield  measurement used  similar.  This  (see  i n i n t e r p r e t i n g how  element  stability  similar  large  given  options  Validity  i s that  measure  that  d i f f i c u l t y  and  reliable  in  was  care  was t o b e u s e d .  Reliability  The  questionnaire  no  Reliability  different  the child  respondent i n need  two y e a r s  from  o f a g e a n d no l o n g e r the r e l i a b i l i t y  of  of now in  this  r e s p o n d e n t s have c h i l d r e n under  they  need o r use c h i l d  i s reliable,  care.  i t i s not necessarily  56 valid, w i l l  but i f i t i s v a l i d , be  r e l i a b l e .  measurements; In  child  The  instrument's the  extent  can  be  from  geographic  for  i t .  the child  warranted.  Data  4.6.1  centre'  direct  evidence  i s no  apply  the general  of  inferences small  population  p u r p o s e was t o i d e n t i f y  t o see whether purpose  concerning  validity  to a  needs o f a group o f p e o p l e  Any a d d i t i o n a l  of  evidence  The s t a t i s t i c a l can only  of the  or  not a  of this  the problem  and  employed i n  f a c i l i t y  study  of child  was  can only  be  care.  Analysis  Type and Amount o f R e s u l t s The  frequency ended  noted.  type  a n d amount  counts  Open-ended  to frequency The  of results  and s t a t i s t i c a l  questions.  according  parts  validity.  were  o f t h e need f o r  indication  there  The p r i m a r y  care  generalization  4.6  i s an  but issues concerning  be drawn from  'town  and nature  However,  [108]  a l l variables  i t provides  the instrument  area,  to.  o f t h e needs and t h e r e f o r e f a c e  or predictive  acquired  the  because  of the  i t i s supposed  study,  collected  established.  classify  for this  data  validity  i s the accuracy  what  the extent  and nature  concurrent  can  used  t o measure  care.  i n the m a j o r i t y of cases i t  V a l i d i t y  i t i s measuring  the instrument  designed  then  - f a m i l y need which  was  assessed  through  procedures  for a l l closed-  questions  were  and t h e most  questionnaire  were  common  divided  include questions  into  tabulated  responses two  were  separate  1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8,  57 9,  10, and 11,  2, 3, a n d 4. as  and c h i l d r e n ' s  For family  needs  needs,  data  was  calculated  questionnaire. for  more  than  (Note:  other, also  some  one c h i l d . )  questionnaire,  through  per  child  calculated  indicated  needs,  i n  each  a  need  questionnaires indicated  variables  i . e . , age o f c h i l d  were  but f o r c h i l d r e n ' s  In addition  different  analyzed  as  include questions  the responses  one q u e s t i o n n a i r e p e r r e s p o n d e n t ,  the  which  to the d i v i s i o n  were  compared  with preferred location. frequency  counts  and  i n the  with  each  These  were  s t a t i s t i c a l  procedures. The separate  results  o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were a n a l y z e d  institution  and  then  combined  to give  f o r each  an  overall  summary  tables  picture. 4.6.2  Plan of Presentation of Results The  results  accompanied  by a b r i e f  were c o l l e c t e d There  w i l l  variable  w i l l  from  also  with  be  presented  description  and which be  institution  they  q u e s t i o n they were d e r i v e d  from.  several  another;  these  on  of which  matrix will  also  tables  comparing  be a c c o m p a n i e d  one  with  a  short explanation. 4.6.3  A n a l y s i s Methods All  the data  level  coding.  were  presented  (b),  2 -  11.  was  analyzed  Questions on  were  by  frequency  numbered  counts  according  and 1 s t  t o how  the questionnaire, i . e . , questions  Y e s was  entered  a s 1 a n d n o a s 0,  they 1  (a)  and m i s s i n g  58 data  was  coded  as 99.  they  were  numbered  0 and up, i . e . , t h e q u e s t i o n  preferred  location  had f i v e  These were numbered study,  When  0 t o 4.  the researcher  questions  boxes Since  looked  which  this  be  was a n e e d s  f o r raw d a t a  which  assessment  would  It  i s e s t i m a t i n g need b a s e d on t h e sample by c o u n t i n g  population  a type o f each  o f t h e need  checked.  identify  want  and extent  could  and then  be  able  to identify  need  of care,  care  required.  will  institution  and t o Richmond's town  in  assessing  well  as  facility 4.6.4  child  This  those  of care  information w i l l with  groups/organizations  within  this  to the  centre.  and t h e hours  a i d each  regard who  will  who a r e m o s t i n  the preferred location  i t s own s i t u a t i o n  type  of  care  institution  to child  wish  of  care  to establish  as a  t h e town c e n t r e .  o f i n f o r m a t i o n drawn from  indication care.  indicated.  are willing A l l of these  specific  participating  of the extent  geographic i n the study.  area  should  on  will and  care  would  indicate of  give a  of t h e need f o r  a n d t h e amount  t o spend results  the data  and nature  The p r e f e r r e d l o c a t i o n  respondents  the  In addition,  how many  I n f e r e n c e s From t h e D a t a The  clear  as the type  care.  the researcher  t h e age range o f c h i l d r e n  as well  be i n d i c a t e d .  projecting  count,  indicate  forchild  of service  Through t h e use o f a frequency  answers,  concerning  or  people  the areas  had s e v e r a l  each  o f monies also  be  t h e needs o f i n s t i t u t i o n  59 Beyond  the  assumptions of  the  the  geographic  c a n b e made w i t h  community.  similar within  specified  However,  because there  age  I f these  ranges,  they  only  to the o v e r a l l  these  are families  t h e community.  specified  regard  setting,  assumptions with  families will  general  population  may  be  very  young  children  living  have  children  within  also  need  or  use  child  care.  4.7  Ethical  Issues  Ethical completing to  issues  limited  because  the  t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s d i d s o by c h o i c e  participate  implied  anonymous;  only  completion  of  returned  were  consent.  the sources  the results  respondents  and  A l l respondents  (institutions)  were  a l lq u e s t i o n n a i r e s  t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s on r e q u e s t  or  in  choosing  were  known.  will  either  destroyed.  kept Upon be  60 CHAPTER F I V E ; Most this  of the variables  i s noted  computer  used  below t h e v a r i a b l e  analysis  RESULTS h a d some  i n question.  the missing cases  than  n o f 237 .  Also,  some  5.1  the total  of a  children  of the variables  reach the  used  had more  of  237  respondents,  T h e r e w e r e 83 ( 6 1 . 5 % ) p a r e n t s regular child  (Table were  1).  they  respondents offer  present  and f r i e n d s .  regard child  that  reliability,  t o how care  and 7  given  (60.3%)  who e x p e r i e n c e d  One h u n d r e d existing care  a breakdown  had a l t e r n a t e  proximity  dissatisfaction  situations  forms o f c a r e  and t h i r t e e n  (88.3%)  (Table 1 ) . parents  arrangements,  forsatisfaction  were  centres/services should  satisfied  (3%) were  had  (Table 1 ) .  could use i n emergency/short-term  indicated  satisfied, Reasons  care  c a r e a n d 84 ( 6 2 . 2 % ) r e s p o n d e n t s  emergency/short-term With  143  The most f r e q u e n t l y s t a t e d a l t e r n a t e  relatives  be  Care  t h e a g e o f 13 a n d 1 3 0 ( 5 6 . 8 % ) s t a t e d t h e y  u s i n g o r were i n need o f c h i l d  arrangements  will  n o f 237.  total  under  presently  for  does n o t i n f a c t  O v e r a l l F a m i l y and C h i l d r e n ' s Needs f o r C h i l d Out  and  For t h e sake o f  one p o s s i b l e answer and t h e r e f o r e t h e 100% f i g u r e  more t h a n  in  cases  were n o t i n c l u d e d , s o i n a  number o f i n s t a n c e s t h e 1 0 0 % f i g u r e total  missing  very  52  were  (41.9%)  dissatisfied  included high  their  were  very  (Table 2 ) .  quality  t o home a n d r e a s o n a b l e  included unreliability,  with  cost.  of care, Reasons  high cost, lack of  61 TABLE 1 Workers'  Richmond  CompensaGeneral t i o n B o a r d H o s p i tQ.a l F r e q "O Freq % 1  5  Kwantlen C o l l e go. e F r e q "o  Overall Total F r e q a"o  (a)  Have  children  98  77 .8  23  82 .1  22  26 .5  143  60. 3  (b)  Need  care  95  75 .4  21  75 .0  14  18 .7  130  56. 8  (a)  Have a  62  63 .9  18  81 .8  3  18 .8  83  61. 5  (b)  Have a l t e r n a t e  59  61 .5  15  68 .2  10  58 .8  84  62. 2  80  86 .0  22  100 .0  11  84 .6  113  88. 3  52  54 .2  12  54 .5  4  26 .7  68  51. 1  58  63 .7  16  76 .2  7  46 .7  81  63. 8  51  56 .7  12  57 .1  8  53 .8  71  breakdown care  (c) Emergency c a r e i n centre 8  Know a b o u t  10  Will  11  Will  subsidy  relocate help  to  develop  Missing W.C.B.  R. G. H.  Cases K.C.  Total  1  (a) (b)  0 0  0 0  0 8  0 8  5  (a) (b) (c)  29 30 33  6 6 6  67 66 70  102 102 109  8  30  6  68  104  10  35  7  68  110  11  36  7  68  111  563  62 TABLE 2 SATISFACTION WITH PRESENT CARE ARRANGEMENTS Workers Compensat i o n Board Freq %  Richmond General Hospital Freq %  Kwantlen College Freq %  Overall Total F r e q o,x>  37  43.0  7  30.4  8  52  41. 9  Satisfied  32  37.2  9  39.1  4  26.7  45  36. 3  Dissatisfied  12  14.0  3  13.0  3  20.0  18  14. 5  Very  1  1.2  1  4.3  —  2  1. 6  4  4.7  3  13.0  —  7  5. 6  1  Very  Other  Satisfied  Dissatisfied  Total Missing  C a s e s 113  53 .3  —  63 socialization The could  as  majority  not  care.  or  more  require  Ministry (Table  month  were  of  $250  care 68  child be  for their  per  t o pay  the  and  fact  (Table  as  much large  that  some  who  only  3).  were  subsidy  they child  The  students  who  Housing  for  care.  to  children  that  month  willing  due  respondents  S e r v i c e s and  indicated  for  employees  (51.1%)  Social  per  care.  aware  of  the  for child  care  1).  When location  respondents  for child  facility on  near  child's  the  work  were  care,  w i t h i n the  facility  children  their  established affordable  preferred  a preference  of  home, 59  31  (23.0%) p r e f e r r e d a  school.  Some r e s p o n d e n t s  for child  (63.8%) child  in  or  care,  categories  that  development  of  care  1).  they  such  present  respondents  near  (Table  indicated  changing  (45.2%) i n d i c a t e d  and  age  their  (43.7%) p r e f e r r e d a  indicated  especially  such  for  as  3 -  facility more  than  i f they  had  5  and  years  4).  Eighty-one change  about  premises  in different  (Table  61  asked  vicinity  preferred location  older  than  a m o u n t s may  part-time  part-time  There  more  (38.7%)  (5.0%) were a b l e or  per  are  i n c o n s i s t e n c y of  respondents  i n these  respondents  and  paying  Some p a r e n t s  $500  one  of  afford  discrepancy  a  for child  a  indicated  arrangements the  town  centre  Seventy-one  would  be  facility  arrangements  were  1).  they  would  i f a  facility  and  i f fees  (56.3%)  willing (Table  that  to  were  respondents  assist  Reasons  convenience,  was  in  the  given  for  stability,  64 TABLE 3 PARENTS' ABILITY TO  Per Per  Month Child  Less  than  $250  PAY  Workers' Compensat i o n Board Freq %  Richmond General Hospital Freq %  Kwantlen College Freq %  Overall Total F r e q o,"5  23  25.6  14  82.4  9  75.0  46  38 .7  17.6  2  16.7  39  32 .8  8.3  27  22 .7  6  5 .0  1  .8  $200 -  $300  34  37.8  3  #300 -  $400  26  28.9  —  1  6  6.7  —  —  1  1.1  Over Other  $500  Total Missing  C a s e s 118  65 TABLE 4 PREFERRED LOCATION FOR CHILD CARE Workers'  Richmond  Compensat i o n Board Freq %  General Hospital Freq %  Kwantlen College Freq %  Overall Total Freq %  Vicinity  o f House  40  41.7  10  43.5  11  68. 8  61  45.2  Vicinity  o f Work  29  30.2  4  17.4  —  —  33  24.4  Premises  o f Work  48  50.0  8  34.8  3  18. 8  59  43.7  S c h o o l 16  16.7  9  39.1  6  37. 5  31  23.0  Centralized  6  6.3  1  4.3  2  12. 5  9  6.7  Other  1  1.0  1  4.3  —  2  Near  Child's  Total  Missing  Cases  — 102  1.5  66 acceptable with  according  the child.  were  to child  Reasons  inconvenience, f o r a  satisfaction  with present  the  standards,  preference  f a c i l i t y  near  a  child's  breakdown  care,  children  care,  i n normal  there  t h e age ranges;  18 m o n t h s - 3 y e a r s  school  and  i n families  with  and 19.7% o f f a m i l i e s  experienced  the least  was  very  l i t t l e  23.5% o f f a m i l i e s  experience  breakdowns,  with  with  t h e g r e a t e s t number o f children  number o f b r e a k d o w n s  0 - 1 7  months  (Table 5 ) .  When c o m p a r i n g c h i l d r e n ' s a g e g r o u p s w i t h a l t e r n a t e care, and  32 32  years)  (24.2%)  (24.2%) have  majority emergency 3 years  children  0 - 1 7  (who h a v e  children  18 m o n t h s  (34.6%),  i n existing  arrangements who  (Table  indicated  c e n t r e s , have  child  months) -  6).  3  The  a preference f o r  children  18 m o n t h s -  (Table 7 ) .  preferred  c r o s s - t a b u l a t i n g t h e ages location  o n work 18  preferred  care  months  children  preferred  forchild  premises.  children  had  families  (who h a v e  a l t e r n a t e care  care  When  care  families  of families  a  arrangements. of the children  between  time  arrangement  f o r in-home  When c o m p a r i n g t h e a g e s  discrepancy  a n d more  f o r not changing present  a  preference  care  -  care  years.  i n the v i c i n i t y 5  care  months - 3 y e a r s  years  59 f a m i l i e s  Out o f these 3  (Table 8 ) .  Of  of  o f home,  with the  preferred  child  59 f a m l i e s , 5 5 . 9 % h a d t h e 31  of the child's  or older;  i n vicinity  of children  t h e 59  families  who  s c h o o l , 71.0% families  45.8% had c h i l d r e n  who 18  TABLE 5 CROSS-TABULATION  OF AGES OF CHILDREN  IN FAMILIES  BY BREAKDOWN IN CHILD CARE  CHILDAGE (TABULATING 1) Ages of c h i l d r e n BY BREAK Have had a breakdown i n c h i l d care  i n family  BREAK  ILDAGE  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  No  Yes  ROW TOTAL  o  AGE 17 Ages 0 -- 17 months  22 45 .8 44 .0 16.7  26 54 .2 31 .7 19 . 7  48 36.4  AGE36 Ages 18 months to 3  18 36.7 36 .0 13.6  31 63.3 37 .8 23.5  49 37 . 1  28 60.9 34 . 1 21.2  46 34 .8  +  AGE60 Ages 3 -• 5 years +  AGEOLD Ages more than 5 yea  18 39 . 1 36.0 13.6 '  1  9 23 . 1 18.0 6.8 +  COLUMN TOTAL  +  +  50 37.9  -+  39 29.5  30 76 .9 36 .6 22 . 7 +  82 62.1  132 100.0  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 132 VALID CASES  105 MISSING CASES  TABLE 6 CROSS-TABULATION  OF AGES OF CHILDREN  IN FAMILIES  BY ALTERNATIVE CHILD CARE AVAILABLE  CHILDAGE (TABULATING 1) Ages of c h i l d r e n BY ALTERNAT Have a l t e r n a t e daycare a v a i l a b l e  In family  ALTERNAT  ILDAGE  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  No  Yes  -+- -  0  -+  ROW TOTAL 1  -+  AGE 17 Ages 0 -- 17 months  16 33.3 32.7 12. 1  32 66.7 38 .6 24.2  48 36.4  AGE36 Ages 18 months t o 3  17 34.7 34.7 12.9  32 65.3 38 .6 24.2  49 37 . 1  AGE60 Ages 3 - 5 y e a r s  15 32.6 30.6 11.4  31 67.4 37 . 3 23.5  46 34 .8  AGEOLD Ages more than 5 yea  17 42 . 5 34.7 12.9  23 57 .5 27.7 17.4  40 30.3  49 37. 1  83 62.9  132 100.0  •i—  COLUMN TOTAL  -+  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 132 VALID CASES  105 MISSING CASES  TABLE 7 CROSS-TABOLATION  OF AGES OF CHILDREN  IN FAMILIES  BY EMERGENCY CARE SERVICES  CHILDAGE (TABULATING 1) Age6 of c h i l d r e n BY EMERGENC Emergency care should be o f f e r e d EMERGENC  CHILDAGE Ages 0  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT AGE 17 17 months  AGE36 Ages 18 months to 3  Ages 3  AGE 60 5 years  AGEOLD Ages more than 5 yea  COLUMN TOTAL  No  Yes 1  I +  ROW TOTAL  7 15.2 50.0 5.5  39 84 .8 34 .5 30.7  4 8.3 28.6 3. 1  44 91.7 38.9 34.6  48 37 .8  4 8.7 28.6 3. 1  42 91.3 37 . 2 33 . 1  46 36.2  3 8.3 21.4 2.4  33 91 .7 29.2 26 .0  36 28.3  14 1 1 .O  113 89.0  127 100.0  46 36.2  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 127 VALID CASES  110 MISSING CASES  i n family  70 TABLE 8 CROSS-TABULATION  OF AGES OF CHILDREN  IN FAMILIES  BY PREFERRED LOCATION OF CHILD CARE  CHILDAGE (TABULATING BY LOCATION (TABULATING  1) Ages of c h i l d r e n In f a m i l y 1) P r e f e r r e d l o c a t i o n of c h i l d c a r e  LOCATION COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT CHILDAGE Ages 0  AGE 17 17 months  AGE36 Ages 18 months to 3  Ages 3 - 5  AGE60 years  AGEOLD Ages more than 5 yea  COLUMN TOTAL  Prefer v Prefer v Prefer o Prefer v Prefer c Prefer o iclnlty iclnlty n work p i c l n l t y e n t r a l 1 ther l o c ROW of h of w rent of s ocat atto TOTAL LOCHOME JLOCWORK |LOCPREM |LOSCHOOL|LOCCENT | L0C0THER| + 3 15 23 2 2 20 48 4 2 41.7 31.3 6.3 4 2 47.9 36. 1 9.7 33.9 45.5 22 2 39.0 100 0 17.3 1 5 1 5 15.0 11.3 2.3 27 55. 1 45.8 20.3  12 24.5 36.4 9.0  33 67.3 55.9 24.8  3 6. 1 9.7 2.3  4 8 2 44 4 3 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  49 36.8  14 29.2 23.7 10.5  12 25.0 36.4 9.0  20 41.7 33.9 15.0  13 27. 1 41.9 9.8  2 4 2 22 2 1 5  2 4 2 10O 0 1 5  48 36. 1  17 42.5 28.8 12.8  4 10.0 12. 1 3.0  10 25.0 16.9 7.5  22 55.0 71.0 16.5  3 7 5 33 3 2 3  1 2 5 50 0 0 8  40 30. 1  59 44 . 4  33 24.8  59 44 .4  31 23.3  9 6 8  2 1 5  133 100.0  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 133 VALID CASES  104 MISSING CASES  71 Children's  Needs  The  number  indicated 5 years 49  of  i n the survey,  o r o l d e r , 54  (23.1%) i n each  months - 3 y e a r s  (Table  or  10).  217.  ( 25.5%) of  were  needed  using  (29.6%) shifts  those  requiring  therefore The with  part-time  chose  years  were  of care of  0 - 1 7  there  months  When  group  years  206  (94.9%) r e q u i r e d  these  120  (Table the  11).  care.  care a  type  (Table  variety  Of  of  who  Of  care  used  or  12).  Parents  of d i f f e r e n t  were  these  148  63  work  times  and  blocks.  There  these  who  60  118  also  corresponds  children  children,  36.4% and  whose  children,  whose were 28.8%  parents  85.7%  were  (Table 13).  the type  r e q u i r e d , 129  129 c h i l d r e n ,  of  care  T h e r e w e r e 63 c h i l d r e n  care.  care  (59.1%) were  Hours  required for children  o f age  comparing  58 c h i l d r e n  18  (32.5%) were i n need o f  p r e f e r r e d time  of age.  5 years  of care  and  r e q u i r e d c a r e on weekdays and  the c h i l d .  out-of-school  more t h a n  hours  and  m o n t h s o f a g e , 3 4 . 7 % w e r e 18 m o n t h s - 3 y e a r s  were 3 - 5 chose  need  often indicated type  as  3 - 5  or using care  followed  (64.5%) c h i l d r e n  t h e age  parents 0-17  care  required part-time or  care,  were  o f 217 c h i l d r e n ,  out-of-school  131  used  (28.3%) c h i l d r e n  the categories  for children  needed:  or  Sixty  n e e d o f o r u s i n g g r o u p c a r e , a n d 66  required  Of  Of  was  who  (Table 9 ) .  Out o f a t o t a l  in  children  of  child  children  care  needed  with  r e q u i r e d weekday  88.4% a l s o r e q u i r e d g r o u p c a r e .  the  care. Of t h e  required part-time care, a l l also required  72 TABLE 9 AGES OF CHILDREN Workers' Compensat i o n Board Freq % 0 - 17 m o n t h s  Richmond General Hospital Freq %  Kwantlen College Freq %  Overall Total Freq %  39  27. 1  7  15. 9  3  12.5  49  23. 1  18 m o n t h s - 3 y e a r s 38  26. 4  8  17. 4  3  12.5  49  23. 1  3 years  37  25. 7  14  31. 8  3  12.5  54  25. 5  30  20. 8  32. 6  15  Older  - 5 years  Total  15  M i s s i n g Cases 5  62.5  60  28. 3  73  TABLE 1 0 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN NEEDING CARE  30 APR 87 10:48:14  CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: C h i l d r e n U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia  NEEDCARE  VALUE LABEL  VALUE  No Yes  FREQUENCY  !  11 206  5.1 94.9  5.1 94.9  TOTAL  217  100.0  100.0  MEAN MAXIMUM VALID CASES  .949 1.000 217  CUM PERCENT 5.1 100.0  +  I I I O  VALID PERCENT  O 1  I O -+ NO II 11 -+ I Yes  PERCENT  206 I + I 80 STD DEV  MISSING CASES  I I 160 240 FREQUENCY .220  0  MINIMUM  I 320  I 400 . 000  74 TABLE 11 TYPE OF CARE NEEDED FOR CHILDREN  Group  Care  Pre-school  Care  Before/After Out o f S c h o o l Specialized Other  Care  Care  Care  Workers' Compensat i o n Board F r e q 0"6  Richmond General Hospital Freq %  Kwantlen College Freq %  Overall Total Freq %  93  67.9  18  40.9  9  120  59.1  7  5.1  5  11.4  12  5.9  17  38.6  66  32.5  3  1.5  36  26.3  2  1.5  1  2.3  7  5.1  3  6.8  Total  Missing  13  C a s e s 14  40.9  59.1  10  4.9  75 TABLE 12 HOORS OF CARE NEEDED FOR CHILDREN  Week  Days  Week  Nights  Workers' Compensat i o n Board Freq %  Richmond General Hospital Freq %  95  69.9  28  62.2  8  3  2.2  19  42.2  Kwantlen College Freq %  131  64. 5  —  22  10 . 8  10  4 .9  4.5  9  4. 4  59.1  7  3. 4  7  3. 4  Weekend  Days  2  1.5  8  17.8  —  Weekend  Nights  3  2.2  5  11.1  1  35  25.7  12  26.7  13  7  5.1  —  —  Part Other  Time Times  Total  M i s s i n g C a s e s 14  36.4  Overall Total F r e q o.X>  76  TABLE 13 CROSS-TABULATION  OP TYPE OF CHILD CARE  NEEDED BY AGE OF CHILDREN  CHILDAGE Age of c h i 1 d BY CARETYPE (TABULATING  1) Type of daycare  needed  CARETYPE COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT CHILDAGE 1  17 months  18 months  3 years  5 years  More than 5 y e a r s  COLUMN TOTAL  Group ca Pre-scho re ol care  Before/a Special< Other ca f t e r / o u t sed care r e ROW of TOTAL GROUPCAR|PRESCHOO|OUTOF JSPECIAL |OTHERCAR| 43 93.5 36.4 21.7  2 4. 3 16 . 7 1 .0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  3 6 .5 30 .0 1 .5  46 23.2  41 87.2 34.7 20. 7  7 14 .9 58 .3 3 .5  0 0 .0 0 .0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  1 2. 1 10 .0 0 .5  47 23.7  34 69.4 28.8 17.2  3 6. 1 25 .0 1. 5  9 18 .4 14 3 4 5  2 4 1 66 7 1 0  40 0 2 0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0 .0 0 .0 O .O  54 96 4 85 7 27 . 3  1 1 8 33 3 0 5  2 3 6 20 0 1 .0  1 18 59.6  12 6. 1  63 31 8  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 198 VALID CASES  19 MISSING CASES  3 1 5  4 B .2  io  5. 1  49 24.7  56 28.3  198 100.0  77 out-of-school specialized As  care  of  o f those  required  care  care  one c h i l d  i n need  required  group care.  vicinity  of school,  (Table 1 4 ) .  i n the v i c i n i t y of  59.1% a l s o care.  work  required  premises,  required  group  Of t h e c h i l d r e n 76.7% also  O f t h e c h i l d r e n who n e e d e d 69.2% a l s o  required  to the preferred  of care  out-of-school  on p a r e n t s '  who  and other  compared  93 c h i l d r e n ,  and 37.6% r e q u i r e d  who  was o n l y  on weekdays, p a r t - t i m e  93 c h i l d r e n w e r e  homes;  care  There  t o the types  location, their  care.  care  i nthe  out-of-school  care  (Table 1 5 ) . When parents'  c r o s s - t a b u l a t i n g the type ability  a n d 5 4 . 1 % o f c h i l d r e n who  were  from  of  families  per child.  parents  who  the  occupation  who  required  willing (Table  with the  could  These needed  group  required  or used  care,  out-of-school  not afford  figures fall  more  i n line  part-time  t o p a y b e t w e e n $300  than with  child  However,  8 2 . 1 % were  from  - $400  group care  $250 p e r t h e number  care  and w i t h  o f t h e 39 c h i l d r e n families per c h i l d  who  were  p e r month  16) .  When parents' lity,  who  of the parents.  or able  needed  t o p a y , 4 3 . 2 % o f c h i l d r e n who r e q u i r e d  care  month  of care  comparing  t h e type  willingness to assist  of child  children willing  to assist.  who  needed  to participate  needed  with the  i n the development o f a  3 5 . 5 % o f c h i l d r e n who n e e d e d  were w i l l i n g  care  group care  What i s i n t e r e s t i n g , out-of-school  care  had parents i s that  also  had  faciwho  18.3% o f parents  i n such a development (Table 1 7 ) .  78 TABLE 14 CROSS-TABULATION  OF TYPE OF CARE NEEDED BY  HOURS OF CARE NEEDED FOR  CARETYPE (TABULATING BY CARETIME (TABULATING  CHILDREN  1) Type of daycare needed 1) Hours of daycare needed CARETIME  CARETYPE  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  Weekdays Weeknigh Weekend ts days  Weekend nights  WEEKDAYS|WEEKNIGH|ENDDAYS  |ENDNIGHT|PARTTIME|OTHERTIM|  Part e  tlm Other t l mes  ROW TOTAL  GROUPCAR  1 14 95.0 88 . 4 57 .0  10 8 .3 45 . 5 5 .0  7 5 8 70 0 3 5  4 3 3 50 0 2 0  1 0 8 1 7 0 5  4 3 3 57 1 2 0  120 60.0  PRESCHOO care  11 91.7 8.5 5.5  3 25 .0 13 .6 1 .5  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  1 a 3 14 3 0 5  12 6.0  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  3 4.5 2.3 1. 5  9 13 .6 40 .9 4. 5  3 4 5 30 0 1 5  5 7 6 62 5 2 5  58 87 9 100 0 29 0  1 1 5 14 3 0 5  66 33.0  Group c a r e  Pre-school  Spec t a l i sed  SPECIAL care  1 33 . 3 0.8 0.5  0 0 .0 O .0 O .0  0 0 0 0 o 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  1 33 3 1 7 0 5  1 33 3 14 3 0 5  3 1 .5  OTHERCAR  6 85.7 4.7 3.0  0 0 0 0 .0 0 .0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 o 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 O 0  1 14 3 14 3 0 5  7 3.5  22 1 1.O  10 5 0  8 4 0  58 29 0  7 3 5  200 100.0  Other c a r e  COLUMN TOTAL  129 64.5  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 200 VALID CASES  17 MISSING CASES  79 TABLE 15 CROSS-TABULATION  OF TYPE OF CARE NEEDED BY  PREFERRED LOCATION OF CARE FOR  CARETYPE (TABULATING BY LOCATION (TABULATING  CHILDREN  1) Type of daycare needed 1) P r e f e r r e d l o c a t i o n of c h l l d c a r e LOCATION  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  Prefer v iclnlty of h LOCHOME I  Prefer v 1dn1 ty of w LOCWORK I  Prefer o n work p reml LOCPREM I  55 45 .8 59 . 1 27 .5  34 28 3 75 6 17 0  66 55 .0 76 .7 33 .0  12 10 .0 23 . 1 6 .0  7 5 .8 53 .8 3 .5  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  120 60.0  PRESCHOO care  4 33 .3 4 .3 2 .O  6 50 0 13 3 3 0  7 58 .3 8. 1 3 .5  2 16 .7 3 .8 1 .0  0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  12 6.0  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  35 53 .0 37 .6 17 .5  7 10 6 15 6 3 5  14 21 . 2 16 .3 7 .0  36 54 .5 69 .2 18 .0  5 7 .6 38 . 5 2. 5  o 0 0 0 0 0 0  66 33.0  SPECIAL care  2 66 . 7 2. 2 1 .0  0 0 .0 0 0 0 0  1 33 .3 1 .2 0 .5  1 33 . 3 1 .9 0 .5  0 0 .0 0 .0 O .0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  3 1 .5  OTHERCAR  1 14 . 3 1. 1 0.5  1 14 3 2 2 0 5  3 42 .9 3 .5 1 .5  3 42 .9 5 .8 1 .5  1 ' 14.3 7 .7 0 .5  2 28 6 100 0 1 0  7 3.5  COLUMN TOTAL  93 46 . 5  45 22 5  86 43 .0  52 26 .0  13 6 5  2 1 0  200 100.0  GROUPCAR Group c a r e .  Pre-school  Spec i a 1 i s e d  Other  care  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 200 VALID CASES  17 MISSING CASES  Prefer v Prefer c iclnlty antral 1 of s ocat LOSCHOOLl LOCCENT I  Prefer o ther l o c ROW at i o TOTAL LOCOTHER|  80 TABLE 16 CROSS-TABULATION  OF TYPE OF CARE NEEDED BY  ABILITY TO PAY FOR  CARE TY-i BY PAY  (TABULATING Ab11i ty t o pay  CHILDREN  1 ) Type of daycare  needed  PAY COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  CARETYPE  Less tha $200 - 3 $300 - 4 Over $50 Other n $250/m 00/month 00/month 0/month onth 4 0 3 2  ROW TOTAL  GROUPCAR  32 28 .6 43 .2 18 .2  42 37 .5 75 .0 23 .9  32 28 .6 82 . 1 18 . 2  5 4 5 83 3 2 8  1 0 9 100 0 0 6  PRESCHOO care  2 20 .0 2. 7 1. 1  3 30 .0 5 .4 1. 7  3 30 .0 7. 7 1 .7  2 20 0 33 3 1 1  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  10 5.7  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  40 72 . 7 54 . 1 22 . 7  8 14 . 5 14 . 3 4. 5  6 10 .9 15 .4 3. 4  1 1 8 16 7 O 6  0 0 O 0 0 O o  55 31.3  SPECIAL care  1 33 .3 1 .4 0 .6  1 33 . 3 1 .8 0 .6  1 33 . 3 2 .6 O .6  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0  o  3 1 .7  OTHERCAR  1 25 .0 1. 4 0 .6  2 50 .0 3 6 1. 1  0 0 .0 0 .0 0 0  1 25 0 16 7 0 6  0 0 0 0 0 0  o  4 2.3  74 42 .0  56 31 8  39 22 2  6 3 4  1 0 6  176 100.0  Group c a r e  112 63.6  •  Pre-school  Specialised  Other  care  COLUMN TOTAL  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 176 VALID CASES  41 MISSING CASES  TABLE 17 CROSS-TABULATION  OF TYPE OF CARE NEEDED BY  PARENTS' WILLINGNESS TO HELP DEVELOP SERVICES FOR  CARETYPE (TABULATING 1) Type of daycare BY TAKEPART Would h e l p develop s e r v i c e  needed  TAKEPART COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT CARETYPE  No  Yes 1  ROW TOTAL  GROUPCAR  44 40.0 55.0 23.7  66 60.0 62.3 35 . 5  1 10 59. 1  PRESCHOO care  5 41.7 6.3 2.7  7 58 . 3 6.6 3.8  12 6.5  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  30 46.9 37.5 16. 1  34 53 . 1 32. 1 18.3  64 34.4  SPECIAL care  2 66 . 7 2.5 1 . 1  1 33.3 0.9 0.5  3 1.6  OTHERCAR  4 80.0 5.0 2.2  1 20.0 0.9 0.5  5 2.7  COLUMN TOTAL  80 43.0  106 57.0  186 100.0  Group c a r e  Pre-school  Specialised  Other  care  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 186 VALID CASES  31 MISSING CASES  CHILDREN  82 5.2  F a m i l y and C h i l d r e n ' s  Needs by  A.  Workers'  Board  Family Out  Compensation  Institution  Needs  o f 126 r e t u r n e d  surveys,  98  (77.8%)  under  t h e a g e o f 13 a n d 95 ( 7 5 . 4 % ) w e r e u s i n g  care  (Table  1 ) .  experienced  a  respondents  who  children  care  were  breakdown  62  i n child  had a l t e r n a t e care  (Table  short-term  There  1). should  Also  80  and  felt  59  who  (61.5%)  f o r their  that  be o f f e r e d i n e x i s t i n g  child  families  arrangements  (86.0%)  children  o r needed  (63.9%) care  had  emergency  centres/services  (Table 1 ) . When a s k e d how s a t i s f i e d child only who  care  1 ( 1 . 2 % ) was v e r y indicated  were the  either children With  to  arrangements,  "other"  left  able  arrangements  were were  with very  their  present  satisfied  and  The 4 (4.7%) r e s p o n d e n t s stated that  own o r a s p o u s e  their  children  was t a k i n g c a r e  of  (Table 2 ) .  regard  between  (43.0%)  dissatisfied.  on t h e i r  t o t h e amount o f m o n i e s  pay f o r c h i l d  pay  37  parents  care  each month,  r e s p o n d e n t s were  34 ( 3 7 . 8 % )  $200 - $300 p e r month p e r c h i l d  or w i l l i n g  t o p a y more  than  $500  were  willing  and 6 (6.7%)  p e r month  able to were  per  child  of the child  care  (Table 3 ) . Fifty-two  (54.2%)  subsidy  available  Housing  (Table 1 ) .  from  parents  were  the Ministry  aware  of Social  S e r v i c e s and  83 The  majority  preferred (Table  4).  would in  child  care  (50.0%)  facilities  change  child  care  centre  (56.7%) p a r e n t s a centre  and i f c o s t s  offered their  breakdown  i n regular  child  care,  3 years  breakdowns.  (26.3%)  However, a  high  ages  families  with  children  3 - 5  35.9%  children years  between  a need  Children's  number (27.1%) years, than  the other  t h e ages care  ages  developed Fifty-one  (Table  18).  types  (Table  of  When care,  19).  In a  and t h e need f o r  centres,  of care.  also  o f age (25.5%) and  t h e most  i n existing  18  number o f  age c a t e g o r i e s  of children  type  children  the greatest  three  with  80  O f t h e 80  18 m o n t h s - 3 y e a r s  families families,  (Table 2 0 ) .  Needs  0 - 1 7  (25.7%)  5 years  with  to alternative  (25.5%) c a r e  for this  of children  37  families  18 m o n t h s - 3 y e a r s  126 r e t u r n e d  were  they  i n families  o f breakdowns  of children  had c h i l d r e n  The  indicated  affordable.  children  experienced  degree  emergency/short-term indicated  premises  (Table 1 ) . of  comparison  they  a s s i s t a n c e i n t h e development o f  ages  comparing  on work  58 ( 6 3 . 7 % )  were  comparing  experienced  that  a r r a n g e m e n t s i f a c e n t r e was  When  months -  indicated  located  O f t h e 126 r e s p o n d e n t s ,  t h e town  such  o f respondents  surveys  i n each months,  were  3 - 5  o f age (Table  represented  147 c h i l d r e n .  age category 38  (26.4%)  years  9).  was were  a n d 30  The number  similar: 18 m o n t h s  (20.8%) o f these  were  The 39 - 3 more  children  TABLE 18 CROSS-TABULATION  OF AGE OF CHILDREN  IN FAMILIES BY  BREAKDOWN IN CARE FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD  CHILDAGE (TABULATING 1) Ages of c h i l d r e n BY BREAK Have had a breakdown i n c h i l d c a r e  In f a m i l y  BREAK  CHILDAGE  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  No  Yes 0  ROW TOTAL 1  AGE 17 Ages 0 - 17 months  16 42 . 1 47 . 1 16.8  22 57.9 36. 1 23.2  38 40.0  AGE36 Ages 18 months t o 3  13 34 .2 38.2 13.7  25 65.8 41.0 26.3  38 40.0  15 44 . 1 44 . 1 15.8  19 55.9 31.1 20.0  34 35.8  3 14.3 8.8 3.2  18 85.7 29.5 18.9  21 22 . 1  34 35.8  61 64.2  Ages 3 - 5  AGE60 years  AGEOLD Ages more than 5 yea  COLUMN TOTAL  95 100.0  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 95 VALID CASES  31 MISSING CASES  TABLE 19 CROSS-TABULATION  OF AGE OF CHILDREN IN FAMILIES BY  ALTERNATE CARE AVAILABLE FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD  CHILDAGE (TABULATING 1) Ages of c h i l d r e n BY ALTERNAT Have a l t e r n a t e daycare a v a i l a b l e ALTERNAT  CHILDAGE Ages 0  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  No  Yes  AGE 17 17 months  38 40.4  38 40.4  AGE36 Ages 18 months t o 3  Ages 3 - 5  ROW TOTAL  AGE60 years  33 35. 1  AGEOLD Ages more than 5 yea  21 22.3  COLUMN TOTAL  94 100.0  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 94 VALID CASES  32 MISSING CASES  1n f a m i l y  TABLE 20 CROSS-TABULATION  OF AGES OF CHILDREN  IN FAMILIES BY  EMERGENCY CARE OFFERED FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD  CHILDAGE (TABULATING 1) Ages of c h i l d r e n BY EMERGENC Emergency care should be o f f e r e d EMERGENC  CHILDAGE Ages O  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT AGE 17 17 months  AGE36 Ages 18 months t o 3  Ages 3 - 5  AGE60 years  AGEOLD Ages more than 5 yea  COLUMN TOTAL  No  Yes  ROW TOTAL  6 16.7 50.0 6.5  30 83.3 37 . 5 32.6  36 39. 1  4 10.8 33.3 4.3  33 89.2 41.3 35.9  37 40.2  4 12. 1 33.3 4.3  29 87 .9 36.3 31 .5  33 35 .9  2 10.0 16.7 2.2  18 90.0 22. 5 19.6  20 21.7  12 13.0  80 87 .0  92 100.0  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 92 VALID CASES  34 MISSING CASES  in family  87 using  or  needing  (67.9%)  children  specialized (Table six  care  11).  When  on  required these  36  hours  of  21).  care,  2  required  required  (Table of  Ninety-three  (1.5%)  required  out-of-school  were b r o k e n  indicate that  types  95  care  down  into  (69.9%) c h i l d r e n  12).  care  weekday  care.  children,  group  care  weekdays  required  group  (98.0%) Table  (26.3%)  results  comparing  children  147  required  The  care  was  and  The  choices.  required  93  care  needed  care;  with  of  hours  these,  Thirty-four required  of  care,  95.7%  also  part-time  100.0% a l s o r e q u i r e d o u t - o f - s c h o o l  care;  care  of  (Table  22) . When  c r o s s - t a b u l a t i n g the  preferred  location,  preference  for  68  c h i l d r e n had  child  care  on  (79.4%) r e q u i r e d group c a r e . preferred required (Table  group  a  parents' pay  79.6% care. who 24).  care care  in and  the  the  58  needed  that  premises;  of  required  with  indicated of  these  c h i l d r e n whose  vicinity  31.0%  care  parents  work  Of  of  home,  a 68  parents  67.2%  also  out-of-school  care  23).  In  to  child  type  comparison  a b i l i t y t o pay,  49  the  type  of  c h i l d r e n had  $200 - $300 p e r  month per  child.  required  care  14.3%  Most  could This  several  between  of  not  group the  afford  older  more t h a n  before  needed  parents  who  Of  $250 p e r  when t h e and  after  these  required  c h i l d r e n (56.3%)  i s understandable  h o u r s a day  and  care  were  month per  child school.  only  49  and  the  were  able  children,  out-of-school from child  families (Table  requires  care  TABLE 21 FREQUENCY  DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN NEEDING  CARE  FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD  VALUE LABEL  FREQUENCY  0 1  3 144  2.0 98.0  2.0 98.0  TOTAL  147  100.0  100.0  NO Yes  PERCENT  VALID PERCENT  VALUE  CUM PERCENT 2.0 100.0  I  o -+  No II 3 -+ I , Yes I I I 0 MEAN MAXIMUM VALID CASES  .980 I.OOO 147  + 144 I + I 40 STO DEV  MISSING CASES  I I 80 120 FREQUENCY .142  0  MINIMUM  I 160  I 200 .000  89 TABLE 22 CROSS-TABULATION  OF TYPE OF CARE BY  HOURS OF CARE FOR CHILDREN FROM WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD  CARETYPE (TABULATING BY CARETIME (TABULATING  1) Type of daycare needed 1) Hours of daycare needed CARETIME  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT CARETYPE Group c a r e  Pre-school  Specialised  Weekend nights  WEEKDAYS|WEEKNIGH|ENDOAYS  |ENDNIGHT|PARTTIME|OTHERTIM| 4 4.3 57 . 1 3.0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 14.3 14.3 0.7  7 5.2  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  1 2 a 50 o 0 7  34 94.4 100.0 25.4  1 2.8 14 . 3 0.7  36 26.9  0 0 O 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  1 50. O 2.9 0.7  1 50.0 14.3 0.7  2 1 .5  3 75.0 3.2 2.2  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 25.0 14.3 0.7  4 3.0  93 69.4  3 2 2  2 1 5  2 1 5  34 25.4  7 5.2  134 10O.0  89 95.7 95.7 66.4  2 2 2 66 7 1 5  2 2 2 100 0 1 5  2 2 2 100 0 1 5  PRESCHOO care  6 85.7 6.5 4.S  0 0 0 0 0 O 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  1 2 8 33 3 0 7  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  OTHERCAR  COLUMN TOTAL  SPECIAL care  Other c a r e  1 2.8 1. 1 0.7  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 134 VALID CASES  ROW TOTAL  1 1. 1 2.9 0.7  GROUPCAR  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  Part tlm Other t l e mes  Weekdays Weeknlgh Weekend ts days  13 MISSING CASES  93 69.4  90 TABLE 23 CROSS-TABULATION  OF TYPE OF CARE NEEDED BY  PREFERRED LOCATION OF CARE FOR CHILDREN FROM WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD  CARETYPE (TABULATING BY LOCATION (TABULATING  1) Type of daycare needed 1) P r e f e r r e d l o c a t i o n of c h l l d c a r e LOCATION  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT CARETYPE Group  Other  Prefer o n work p rem 1 LOCPREM  Prefer v icinity of s LOSCHOOL  Prefer c entral 1 ocat LOCCENT  ROW TOTAL  39 41.9 67.2 29 . 1  32 34 4 80 0 23 9  54 58. 1 79.4 40.3  6 6 .5 24 .0 4 .5  5 5.4 62.5 3.7  93 69.4  PRESCHOO care  2 2B.6 3.4 1. 5  4 57 1 10 0 3 0  6 85.7 8.8 4.5  1  14 .3 4 .0 0 .7  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  7 5.2  18 50.0 31.0 13.4  7 19 4 17 5 5 2  10 27 .8 14.7 7.5  18 50 .0 72 .0 13 .4  2 5.6 25.0 1 .5  2 lOO.O 3.4 1.5  0 O O O 0 0 0  1 50.0 1 .5 0.7  0 O .0 0 0 0 0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  OTHERCAR  1 25.0 1.7 0.7  O 0 0 0 0 O 0  2 50.0 2.9 1 .5  2 50 0 8 0 1 5  1 25.0 12.5 0.7-  COLUMN TOTAL  58 43.3  40 29. 9  68 50.7  25 18 7  8 6.0  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  Specialised  Prefer v idnlty of w LOCWORK  GROUPCAR care  Pre-school  Prefer v l d n l ty of h LOCHOME  SPECIAL care  care  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 134 VALID CASES  13 MISSING CASES  36 26 .9  4 .0  134 100.0  91 TABLE 24 CROSS-TABULATION  OF TYPE OF CARE NEEDED BY  ABILITY TO PAY FOR CHILDREN FROM WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD  CARETYPE (TABULATING BY PAY Abl H t y to pay  1) Type o f daycare  needed  PAY COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT CARETYPE  Less tha $200 - 3 $300 - 4 Over $50 Other n $250/m OO/month OO/month O/month onth 4 3 0 2 1 1  ROW TOTAL  GROUPCAR  15 16.5 45.5 11.8  39 42 .9 79 .6 30 . 7  31 34 . 1 81 .6 24 .4  5 5 5 83 3 3 9  1 1 100 0 0 8  PRESCHOO care  0 0.0 O.O 0.0  1 16 .7 2 .O 0 .8  3 50 .0 7 .9 2 .4  2 33 3 33 3 1 6  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  18 56.3 54.5 14.2  7 21 .9 14 .3 5 .5  6 18 .8 15 .8 4 .7  1 3 1 16 7 0 a  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  32 25.2  SPECIAL care  1 50.0 3.0 0.8  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 50.0 2.6 0.8  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 1.6  OTHERCAR  1 25.0 3.0 0.8  2 50.0 4. 1 1 .6  0 O.O 0.0 0.0  1 25 0 16 7 0 8  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  4 3. 1  COLUMN TOTAL  33 26.0  49 38.6  38 29.9  6 4 7  1 0 8  Group c a r e  Pre-school  Specialised  Other c a r e  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 127 VALID CASES  20 MISSING CASES  1  91 71.7  6 4.7  127 1OO.0  92  When parents' near  c r o s s - t a b u l a t i n g the willingness  the  willing  town  (Table  B.  Richmond  28  under  or  child  experienced (63.2%)  two  The (30.4%)  returned 13  years  care  have  parents  parents  (Table  parents  work  require  less  Twelve  i n or  who  were  required  group  21  (75.0%)  child  families  (81.89%)  had  needed parents  care arrangements  care a  families  arrangements.  need  and  Twenty-  f o r emergency  short-  (Table 1).  r e s p o n d e n t s were (39.1%)  with  either  their  very  present  satisfied child  care  (Table 2).  were  $250 p e r month  (17.6%)  parents  39.7%  Eighteen  indicated  satisfied  There were o n l y  than  with  service  (82.1%)  i n regular child  centres  of  23  and  1).  alternative  majority or  surveys,  (Table  in existing  arrangements  monies  74 c h i l d r e n ,  o f age  a breakdown  (100.0%)  term care  had  a  care  General H o s p i t a l  children  15  i n developing  children  these  child  Needs  the  used  Of  the  of  25).  Family Of  centre,  to assist.  care  to assist  type  a  3).  two  willing  to  (82.4%) and One  variety  paid  c a t e g o r i e s s e l e c t e d f o r t h e amount  of  spend  for child  between  $200 -  or  less  $300 p e r  possible explanation shifts  care:  part-time  i s that and  of  month many  therefore  care.  r e s p o n d e n t s were  aware  of  the  child  care  subsidy  TABLE 25 CROSS-TABULATION  OF TYPE OF CARE NEEDED BY  HELP DEVELOP A CENTRE FOR CHILDREN FROM WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD  CARETYPE (TABULATING 1) Type of daycare BY TAKEPART Would help develop s e r v i c e  needed  TAKEPART  CARETYPE  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  Yes  No o  1  1  ROW TOTAL  GROUPCAR  37 42.5 71.2 29.4  50 57 5 67 6 39 7  87 69.0  PRESCHOO care  3 42.9 5.8 2.4  4 57 1 5 4 3 2  7 5.6  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  14 38.9 26.9 11.1  22 61 1 29 7 17 5  36 28 .6  2 100.0 3.8 1 .6  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OTHERCAR  1 50.0 1 .9 0.8  1 50 .0 1 4 o .8  COLUMN TOTAL  52 41.3  74 58 . 7  Group c a r e  Pre-school  Specialised  SPECIAL care  Other c a r e  1 .6  2 1 .6  126 100.0  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 126 VALID CASES  21 MISSING CASES  94 provided  by t h e M i n i s t r y  of Social  S e r v i c e s and Housing  (Table  1) . Of  the parents  employed  at the hospital,  preferred  child  care  i n the v i c i n i t y  preferred  child  care  i n the v i c i n i t y  preferred  child  c a r e on t h e i r  Of  t o change  child  affordable  and i n o r near  indicated  that  they  development o f such When  18  care  experienced  older  than  5 years  (Table  were  15  f a m i l i e s  who  years  15  (Table  families,  27).  whether  the  had  emergency  comparing 22  children  o l d e r than  ages  Following  t o  seek  care  the  years  i n care;  from  years  with  this  ages  (Table 28).  of and  this,  there  a l t e r n a t i v e  care  of age. than  question,  - 3  Also, of 5  years  the question  affirmed  3 - 5  i n age  18 m o n t h s  older  be o f f e r e d ,  had c h i l d r e n  t h e ages o f  3 - 5  ( 2 2 ) who c o m p l e t e d  should  5 years  with  (27.3%) had c h i l d r e n  3 - 5  c h i l d r e n ' s ages  responses  to assist  31.8% had c h i l d r e n  A l l families  (57.1%)  27.3% had c h i l d r e n  and 27.3% had c h i l d r e n  these  When  26).  15 f a m i l i e s  months,  be  Twelve  a breakdown  40.9% had c h i l d r e n  0 - 1 7  would  i t was  services with  18 f a m i l i e s ,  categories  they  (Table 1 ) .  emergency  o f them  (24.2%)  provided  centre.  these  arrangements;  and 8  stated  be w i l l i n g  (39.1%)  (Table 4 ) .  settings  t h e town  would  families  (76.2%)  care  a centre  comparing  children,  16  (43.5%)  home; 9  of school  work p r e m i s e  t h e 28 r e s p o n d e n t s ,  w i l l i n g  of their  10  on  t h e need. 45.5% o f  and 45.5% had  TABLE 26 CROSS-TABULATION  OF AGES OF CHILDREN IN FAMILIES BY  BREAKDOWN IN CARE FOR RICHMOND GENERAL  CHILOAGE (TABULATING 1) Ages of c h i l d r e n BY BREAK Have had a breakdown i n c h i l d care  HOSPITAL  m  BREAK COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT CHILDAGE Ages O  AGE 17 17 months  AGE36 Ages 18 months to 3  Ages 3  AGE60 5 years  AGEOLD Ages more than 5 yea  COLUMN TOTAL  No  Yes  ROW TOTAL  o  1  3 42 9 75 0 13 6  4 57 1 22 2 18 2  2 25 0 50 0 9 1  6 75 O 33 3 27 3  1 10 0 25 0 4 5  9 90 0 50 .0 40 .9  10 45.5  1 10 0 25 0 4 .5  9 90 .0 50 .O 40 .9  10 45.5  4 18 .2  18 81 .8  22 100.0  7 31.8  a  36.4  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 22 VALID CASES  6 MISSING CASES  family  TABLE 27 CROSS-TABULATION  OF AGES OF CHILDREN  IN FAMILIES BY  ALTERNATE CARE AVAILABLE FOR RICHMOND GENERAL  CHILOAGE (TABULATING 1) Ages of c h i l d r e n BY ALTERNAT Have a l t e r n a t e daycare a v a i l a b l e ALTERNAT  CHILDAGE  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  Yes  No  o  ROW TOTAL 1  AGE 17 Ages 0 - 17 months  1 14 3 14 3 4 5  6 85.7 40.0 27 . 3  7 31.8  AGE36 Ages 18 months t o 3  2 25 0 28 6 9 1  6 75 .O 40.0 27 .3  8 36.4  4 40 0 57 1 18 2  6 60.0 40.0 27 . 3  10 45.5  3 30 0 42 9 13 6  7 70.0 46 . 7 31 .8  10 45.5  7 31 8  15 68 . 2  22 100.0  Ages 3  AGE60 5 years  AGEOLD Ages more than 5 yea  COLUMN TOTAL  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 22 VALID CASES  6 MISSING CASES  HOSPITAL  In f a m i l y  TABLE 28 CROSS-TABULATION  OF AGES OF CHILDREN  IN FAMILIES BY  EMERGENCY CARE IN CENTRES FOR RICHMOND GENERAL  CHILDAGL' (TABULATING 1) Ages of c h i l d r e n BY EMERGENC Emergency c a r e should oe o f f e r e d EMERGENC  CHILDAGE  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  Yes 1_ I  +  AGE 17 Ages 0 - 17 months + AGE36 Ages 18 months t o 3 + Ages 3 - 5  AGE60 years •f  AGEOLD Ages more than 5 yea h COLUMN TOTAL  ROW TOTAL  7 10O.0 31.8 31.8  7 31.8 +  8 10O.0 36.4 36.4  a 36.4  +.  10 100.0 45.5 45.5 10 lOO.O 45.5 45.5 22 100.0  10 45.5 +  10 45.5 + 22 100.0  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 22 VALID CASES  6 MISSING CASES  HOSPITAL  in f a m i l y  98 Children's  Needs  Forty-six  children  questionnaires. than  5 years  Forty-one need  requiring  or  (42.2%)  children required 19  42.1%  children,  the  (Table  using  46 29).  were  and  out-of-school  care  required  school  the  types  and  hours  of  required  weekdays;  of  these  28  g r o u p c a r e and children  who  programs  A  17.9%  needed  were  in  children children  11).  Twenty-  weekdays  and  19  (Table  required  There  on  group  weeknights; of care  preferred location  indicated  that  vicinity  20 of  of  children  children,  50.0%  r e q u i r e d group c a r e and  and  19,  out-of-  their  care  had  home.  40.0%  and  type  parents Of  who  these  20  required out-of-  (Table 31).  results  and  the a b i l i t y  who  cannot  required  settings  these  30).  i n the  26  28  required pre-school care.  care  The  required,  60.7%  preferred  care  care  children,  care  i n both  c o m p a r i s o n between  care  these  or  (40.9%)  on  older  (Table 9).  using  (Table  care  were  (38.6%)  comparing  required care  school  17  returned  o f age  T h e r e w e r e 18  care  28  (32.6%)  years  children  group  children  15  i n  r e q u i r e d c a r e on w e e k n i g h t s ( T a b l e 1 2 ) .  When  were  of  using  (62.2%)  46  represented  (31.8%) were 3 - 5  care  or  these  14  (89.1%)  requiring  of  and  of c h i l d  eight  Of  were  of  t o pay  afford  more  children, group  c r o s s - t a b u l a t i n g the  care.  indicate than  50.0%  that  26  type  children  $250 p e r month p e r  needed  None o f  of  care have  parents  child.  out-of-school care  the parents  needed  and  could afford  Out  of  42.3% paying  99 TABLE 29 FREQUENCY  DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN NEEDING  CARE  FOR RICHMOND GENERAL HOSPITAL  VALUE LABEL  FREQUENCY  PERCENT  VALID PERCENT  0 1  5 41  10.9 89.1  10.9 89.1  TOTAL  46  100.0  100.0  VALUE  No Yes  O No I  1  +  I O  VALID CASES  .891 1.000 46  10.9 100.0  + 5 1 +  Yes I  MEAN MAXIMUM  CUM PERCENT  41 I  +  I 10 STD DEV  MISSING CASES  I I 20 30 FREQUENCY .315  O  MINIMUM  I 40  I 50 .OOO  100 TABLE 30 CROSS-TABULATION  OF TYPE OF CARE BY  HOURS OF CARE FOR CHILDREN FROM RICHMOND GENERAL  CARETYPE (TABULATING BY CARETIME (TABULATING  HOSPITAL  t) Type of daycare needed 1) Hours of daycare needed CARETIME  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT CARETYPE Group c a r e  Pre-school  Other  Weekend nights  Part tlm e  WEEKDAYS WEEKNIGH ENDDAYS  ENDNIGHT PARTTIME  ROW TOTAL  GROUPCAR  17 94 .4 60 .7 38 .6  8 44 .4 42 . 1 18 .2  5 27 8 62 5 1 14  1 5 6 20 0 2 3  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  18 40.9  PRESCHOO care  5 1CO .0 17 .9 1 1.4  3 60 .0 15 .8 6 8  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0.0 0.0 O.O  5 11.4  8 47 1 42 . 1 18 .2  3 17 6 37 5 6 8  4 23 5 80 0 9 1  1 1 64 . 7 10O.0 25.0  17 38 .6  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  Specialised  Weekdays Weeknigh Weekend ts days  2 1 1.8 7. 1 4 .5  SPECIAL care  1 100 .0 3 .6 2 .3  0 0 0 0 0 0 .0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0.0 O.O 0.0  OTHERCAR  3 100 .0 10 . 7 6 .8  0 0 .0 0 0 0 .0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  19 43 .2  8 18 2  5 11 4  11 25.0  care  COLUMN TOTAL  28 63 .6  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 44 VALID CASES  2 MISSING CASES  44 100.0  101 TABLE 31 CROSS-TABULATION OF TYPE OF CARE BY PREFERRED LOCATION OF CARE FOR CHILDREN FROM RICHMOND GENERAL HOSPITAL  CARETYPE (TABULATING BY LOCATION (TABULATING  1) Type of daycare needed 1) P r e f e r r e d l o c a t i o n of c h i l d c a r e  LOCATION COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  CARETYPE  Prefer v Prefer v Prefer o Prefer v Prefer c Prefer o icinity icinity n work p i c i n i t y e n t r a l 1 ther l o c ROW of h of w rem! of s ocat atio TOTAL LOCHOME |LOCWORK |LOCPREM |LOSCHOOLILOCCENT |LOCOTHER|  GROUPCAR  10 55.6 50.0 22.7  2 11 1 40 0 4 5  10 55 .6 71 .4 22 . 7  6 33 . 3 35 .3 13 .6  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  PRESCHOO care  2 40.0 10.0 4.5  2 40 0 40 0 4 S  1 20 .0 7.1 2 .3  1 20 0 5 .9 2 .3  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  8 47. 1 40.0 18.2  o 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 1 1.8 14 .3 4 .5  8 47 . 1 47 . 1 18 .2  2 11 a 100 0 4 5  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  SPECIAL care  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0 0 0 o 0 0  O 0 .0 0 .o 0 .0  1 100 0 5 .9 2 .3  0 0 0 o 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OTHERCAR  0 o.o 0.0 0.0  1 33 3 20 0 2 3  1 33 . 3 7.1 2.3  1 33 3 5 .9 2 .3  0 o 0 0 0 0 0  2 66 7 100 0 4 5  COLUMN TOTAL  20 45.5  5 11 4  14 31 .8  17 38 6  2 4 5  2 4 5  Group  care  Pre-school  Specialised  Other  care  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 44 VALID CASES  2 MISSING CASES  18 40. 9  11  17 38 .6  44 100.0  102 more t h a n  $300 p e r month p e r c h i l d  When  t a b u l a t i n g care  developing  a  parents  were w i l l i n g  29.3% C.  who  service  group care  Kwantlen  College  83,  22  (26.5%)  and  14  (18.7%)  those  returned  needed 3  child  town  surveys  or  had  care  (Table  2).  care  children  three  afford  more  ability  4  to  categories. than  child  indicated care.  parents  $250  month, and  (Table  subsidy  these  under  23  they  Ten  13  care  had  children,  had  should  11  be  Of  years  (Table  (58.8%)  a r r a n g e m e n t s , and  arrangements  first  Only  children  these of  age  1).  Of  experienced s t a t e d they  (84.6%)  a had  indicated  incorporated within  (Table 1).  (53.3%)  Parents'  $300 p e r  Of  23  f o r the C o l l e g e .  required  (18.8%)  facilities  child  centre,  in  33).  emergency/short-term care  Eight  month  (Table  i n regular child  alternative  existing  willingness to assist  to cooperate.  s t a t e d they  parents,  breakdown  with  32).  Needs  T h e r e w e r e 83  that  i n the  needed  Family  type  (Table  1  per  were  and  pay  3  very  satisfied  (20.0%)  for child  Nine  (75.0%)  month,  ( 8 . 3 % ) was  2  were  care  t o pay  their  dissatisfied  fell  families  (16.7%)  able  with  could  into  the  could  not  pay  $300 -  $200  $400  -  per  3). (26.7%)  o f f e r e d by  parents  the M i n i s t r y  were  aware  of S o c i a l  of  the  child  S e r v i c e s and  care  Housing  TABLE 32 CROSS-TABULATION  OF TYPE OF CARE BY  HELP DEVELOP CENTRE FOR CHILDREN FROM RICHMOND GENERAL  CARETYPE (TABULATING BY PAY Ac 1 1 1 t y to pay  HOSPITAL  1) Type of daycare  needed  PAY  CARETYPE Group c a r e  Pre-school  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  +  +  GROUPCAR  11 91.7 42 . 3 35.5  1 8 3 20 0 3 2  12 38 . 7  PRESCHOO care  2 50.0 7.7 6.5  2 50 0 40 0 6 5  4 12.9  13 92 .9 50.0 41.9  1 7 1 20 0 3 2  14 45.2  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 100 0 20 0 3 2  1 3.2  26 83.9  5 16 1  31 100.0  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  Specialised  Less tha $200 - 3 n $250/m OO/month ROW onth TOTAL 0 | 1 |  SPECIAL care  COLUMN TOTAL  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 31 VALID CASES  15 MISSING CASES  TABLE 33 CROSS-TABOLATION  OF AGE OF CHILDREN IN FAMILIES BY  BREAKDOWN IN CHILD CARE FOR KWANTLEN COLLEGE  CARETYPE (TABULATING 1) Type of daycare BY TAKEPART Would h e l p develop s e r v i c e  needed  TAKEPART COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  CARETYPE Group c a r e  Pre-school  Other  care  Yes I  0  1  I +  ROW TOTAL  GROUPCAR  5 29.4 27 .8 12.2  12 70.6 52.2 29.3  PRESCHOO care  2 40.0 11.1 4.9  3 60.0 13.0 7 .3  5 12.2  8 53.3 44 . 4 19.5  7 46.7 30. 4 17 . 1  15 36.6  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 100.0 4.3 2.4  1 2.4  3 7. 3  OUTOF B e f o ^ e / a f t e r / o u t of  Specialised  No  SPECIAL care  OTHERCAR  3 100.0 16.7 7.3  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  COLUMN TOTAL  18 43.9  23 56. 1  17 41.5  41 100.0  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 41 VALID CASES  5 MISSING CASES  105 (Table 1 ) . With  regard  to preferred  (68.8%)  respondents  of  and 6  home  school  preferred a facility  (37.5%)  present  t h e number o f p a r e n t s child  and  8 (53.3%) i n d i c a t e d  centre,  development  7  (46.7%)  families  breakdown  with  the vicinity  children  of  were  which  (62.5%)  distribution  needed  their  a facility i n  would  relocate  to assist  care  34).  with  than  t h e ages  5  (20.0%)  Ten f a m i l i e s  families  indicated  emergency/short-term  over  of  i n the  that  a  they  10 f a m i l i e s , 3 1 . 3 % 0 - 1 7  that  months  existing  care.  care  Of t h e s e 1 1 ,  trie a g e o f 5 ( T a b l e 3 6 ) .  Needs a total  o f 83 r e t u r n e d  represented were  24 c h i l d r e n .  older  than  5  surveys  from  Kwantlen  24  children,  Of t h e s e  years.  The  ( 1 2 . 5 % ) was t h e same f o r a l l t h e o t h e r (Table  o r used  children,  experienced  stated  5 and 18.8% had c h i l d r e n  offer  Children's  categories  t o change  they  w o u l d be w i l l i n g  older  (Table  Eleven  had c h i l d r e n  College,  that  care arrangements; o f these  should  There  stated  emergency  over  35).  centres  who w e r e w i l l i n g  they  children  i n care  alternative  (Table  15  11  (Table 1 ) .  When c o m p a r i n g  38.5%  care,  the v i c i n i t y  care arrangements and h e l p develop  town  had  within  p r e f e r r e d one w i t h i n  the  had  of child  (Table 4 ) .  Of  3  location  9).  care  There  (Table  were 37).  frequency t h r e e age  21 o u t o f 24 c h i l d r e n Thirteen  (59.1%)  who  children  TABLE 34 CROSS-TABULATION  OF AGE OF CHILDREN IN FAMILIES BY  BREAKDOWN IN CHILD CARE FOR KWANTLEN COLLEGE  CHILDAGE (TABULATING 1) Ages of c h i l d r e n BY BREAK Have had a breakdown i n c h i l d c a r e BREAK  CHILDAGE Ages O  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  No  AGE 17 17 months  AGE36 Ages 18 months to 3  Ages 3 - 5  AGE60 years  AGEOLD Ages more than 5 yea  COLUMN •TOTAL PERCENTS AND TOTAUSABASED 15 VALID CASES  Yes ROW TOTAL  3 100 O 25 0 20 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  3 20.0  3 100 0 25 0 20 0  O 0 0 0 0 0 0  3 20.0  2 100 O 16 7 13 3  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 13.3  5 62 5 417 33 3  3 37 5 too 0 20 0  S S3. 3  •SO 0  3 20 O  •IE. 100.0  ON RESPONDENTS 68 MISSING CASES  in family  TABLE 35 CROSS-TABULATION  OF AGE OF CHILDREN  IN FAMILIES BY  ALTERNATE CARE FOR KWANTLEN COLLEGE  CHILDAGE (TABULATING BY ALTERNAT Have a l t e r n a t e  1) Ages of c h i l d r e n daycare a v a i l a b l e  in family  ALTERNAT COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  No  Yes 1  CHILDAGE Ages O  AGE 17 17 months  AGE36 Ages 18 months t o 3  Ages 3 - 5  AGE60 years  AGEOLD than 5 yea  COLUMN TOTAL  ROW TOTAL  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  3 100.0 30.0 18.8  3 18.8  1 33.3 16 . 7 6.3  2 66 . 7 20.0 12.5  3 18.8  2 66.7 33.3 12.5  1 33 .3 10.0 6.3  3 18.8  4 44 4 66 7 25 0  5 55.6 50.0 31.3  9 56 . 3  6 37 5  10 62.5  -+  16 100.0  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 16 VALID CASES  67 MISSING CASES  TABLE 36 CROSS-TABOLATIQN  OF AGE OF CHILDREN  IN FAMILIES BY  EMERGENCY CARE IN CENTRES FOR KWANTLEN COLLEGE  CHILDAGE (TABULATING 1) Ages of c h i l d r e n BY EMERGENC Emergency c a r e should be o f f e r e d  in f a m i l y  EMERGENC COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  CHILDAGE Ages 0 - 1 7  AGE 17 months  AGE36 Ages 18 months t o 3  Ages 3 - 5  AGE60 years  AGEOLD than 5 yea  COLUMN TOTAL  No  Yes 0  I  1  I  ROW TOTAL  1 33 . 3 50.0 7. 7  2 66 . 7 18.2 15.4  3 23 . 1  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  3 100.0 27 . 3 23. 1  3 23 . 1  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  3 100.0 27 .3 23 . 1  3 23 . 1  +  1 16 7 50 0 7 7  5 83 . 3 45 . 5 38 . 5  2 15 4  1 1 84 . 6  + 6 46 . 2 -+  13 100.0  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 13 VALID CASES  70 MISSING CASES  109 TABLE 37 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF CARE NEEDED FOR CHILDREN  IN KWANTLEN COLLEGE  GROUP CARETYPE Type of daycare needed (VALUE TABULATED = 1) DICHOTOMY LABEL  NAME  Group c a r e  GROUPCAR  B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of school  care TOTAL  2 MISSING CASES  COUNT 9  OUTOF  13  RESPONSES  22  22 VALID CASES  PCT OF PCT OF RESPONSES CASES 40.9  40.9  59 . 1  59 . 1  100.0  100.0  110 required (Table  out-of-school 11).  part-time  of  care  and 9  The m a j o r i t y  care  When  care  of children  needed,  t h e type  of care  13 c h i l d r e n r e q u i r e d  13, a l l r e q u i r e d o u t - o f - s c h o o l tabulating  location  of care,  facility  within  children, 40.0%  preferred of  these  group  of care  of their  of care  who c o u l d  In assist  comparing  type  of care  i n t h e development  children  had parents  group care  with  (Table 41).  of  these  the preferred  who  home. care  preferred Of  these  and t h e had parents  of the child's care  a 15  other who  school;  (Table 3 9 ) .  with  ability  n o t a f f o r d more  t o pay,"  than  $250  out-of-school  (Table 4 0 ) .  with  parents'  of a f a c i l i t y  who w e r e w i l l i n g  c h i l d r e n , 26.3% needed  the hours  care;  15 c h i l d r e n 6 0 . 0 % r e q u i r e d  and 40.0% r e q u i r e d group care  required  (Table 3 8 ) .  within the v i c i n i t y  o f these  with  Ten c h i l d r e n a l s o  c r o s s - t a b u l a t i n g type  care  (Table 1 2 ) .  part-time  out-of-school  care.  group  (59.1%)  required  10, a l l r e q u i r e d o u t - o f - s c h o o l  month;  care  9  the vicinity  c h i l d r e n had parents  per  13  15 c h i l d r e n h a d p a r e n t s  a setting  When 15  care  t h e type  60.0% required  required  required  and 8 (36.4%) r e q u i r e d weekdays  comparing  When  (40.9%)  willingness to  i n t h e town  to assist.  out-of-school  care  centre,  Out o f  9  these  and 21.4% needed  TABLE 38 CROSS-TABULATION  OF TYPE OF CARE BY  HOURS OF CARE FOR CHILDREN FROM KWANTLEN COLLEGE  CARETYPE (TABULATING BY CARETIME (TABULATING  1 ) Type of daycare needed 1) Hours of daycare needed CARETIME  CARETYPE  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  Weekdays Weekend nights  Part tim e  WEEKDAYS|ENDNIGHT|PARTTIME|  ROW TOTAL  GROUPCAR  8 88 9 100 0 36 4  1 1 11 100 0 4 5  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  9 40.9  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  13 too.o 100.0 59. 1  13 59. 1  COLUMN TOTAL  8 36 4  1 4 5  13 59. 1  22 100.0  Group c a r e  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 22 VALID CASES  2 MISSING CASES  112 TABLE 39 CROSS-TABULATION  OF TYPE OF CARE BY  PREFERRED LOCATION OF CARE FOR CHILDREN FROM KWANTLEN COLLEGE  CARETYPE (TABULATING BY LOCATION (TABULATING  1) Type of daycare needed 1) P r e f e r r e d l o c a t i o n of c h i l d c a r e LOCATION  CARETYPE  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  Prefer v Prefer o Prefer v Prefer c icinity n work p i c i n i t y entral 1 ROW of h remi of s ocat TOTAL LOCHOME |LOCPREM |LOSCHOOL|LOCCENT I +  +  +  +  GROUPCAR  6 66.7 40.0 27.3  2 22 2 50 0 9 1  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  2 22 2 66 7 9 1  9 40.9  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  9 69.2 60. O 40.9  2 15 4 50 O 9 1  10 76.9 100.0 45.5  1 7 7 33 3 4 5  13 59. 1  COLUMN TOTAL  15 68.2  4 18 2  10 45.5  3 13 6  22 100.0  Group c a r e  PERCENTS ANO TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 22 VALID CASES  2 MISSING CASES  TABLE 40 CROSS-TABULATION  OF TYPE OF CARE BY  ABILITY TO PAY FOR CHILDREN FROM KWANTLEN COLLEGE  CARETYPE (TABULATING BY PAY A b l I i t y t o pay  1) Type of daycare needed  PAY  CARETYPE  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT  Less tha $200 - 3 $300 - 4 n $250/m OO/month OO/month onth 0 I 1 I 2  ROW TOTAL  GROUPCAR  6 66.7 40.0 33.3  2 22 2 100 0 111  1 1 11 100 0 5 6  9 50.0  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  9 100.0 60.0 50.0  O 0 0 0 0 O 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  9 50.0  COLUMN TOTAL  15 83.3  2 1 11  1 5 6  18 100.0  Group c a r e  PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 18 VALID CASES  6 MISSING CASES  114  TABLE 41 CROSS-TABULATION  OF TYPE OF CARE BY  HELP DEVELOP A CENTRE FOR CHILDREN FROM KWANTLEN COLLEGE  CARETYPE (TABULATING 1) Type of daycare BY TAKEPART Wo-'j Id. h e l p d e v e l o p s e r v i c e  needed  TAKEPART COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TAB PCT CARETYPE  GROUPCAR  Group c a r e  OUTOF B e f o r e / a f t e r / o u t of  COLUMN TOTAL  No  Yes  ROW TOTAL  2 33 .3 20 0 10 .5  4 66 7 44 4 2t 1  6 31.6  8 61 .5 80 .0 42 . 1  5 38 5 55 6 26 3  13 68.4  10 52 .6  9 47 4  19 1O0.0  PERCENT^ AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONDENTS 19 VALID CASES  5 MISSING CASES  115 CHAPTER SIX: 6.1  Methodological  6.1.1  Reliability Studies  may  have  rely  problems  study  that  referred  question  only  with  the reliability  t o type  dealing  misleading  in  their  with  institution and they  preferred  location,  frequency  count,  because  frequency  was d o c u m e n t e d  r e l i a b i l i t y  problems  circumstances  and/or  time. amount  However, study  o f monies  these  and should  t h e need  for  be  of respondents  care,  are willing  can also  be u n d e r s t o o d  i n their  of the data  arrangements,  'the' was a  selected  the location even  There  which  though  are also  may  t o pay could  be e x p e c t e d  with  f i n a n c i a l  preferred  beforehand.  others  i n another  i n the respondents'  parents  changes  care  o f the respondent.  living  Therefore,  them  as p r e f e r r e d  may  on t h e work  not actually  therefore  The  care  knew t h a t  to 'aid'  the analysis  l o c a t i o n s as 'preferred';  date.  of child  preferred  and the m a j o r i t y  variables  and age o f c h i l d a r e  for a f a c i l i t y  l o c a t i o n may  may n o t b e t h e c a s e  over  those  at a later  have wanted  actually  questionnaires  of the information;  location'  'pushing'  may o n l y  Preferred  and  inoperative  were  location.  highest  from  b e c a u s e some o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s  b u t may h a v e  this  needed  'preferred  question,  the  Data  In particular,  of care  and therefore  be  several  on i n f o r m a t i o n  was no e x c e p t i o n .  time-dated  premise  Issues o f I n f o r m a t i o n and M i s s i n g  that  this  DISCUSSION  change  location, change.  i n any type  of  116 The does  amount  have  an  child  care.  with  care  missing  of  effect  and  the  found  in  extent  and  nature  may  the  t h e r e was  have  into  fulfill  the  needs.  future that  the  variables  an  of  variable.  selecting  adequate can that  the  back  a  page,  but  on  thirdly,  that  (such  preferred location)  as  requested; area  be  6.1.2  a l l questions  lastly,  locations  reliably  no  (which  had  positive  cases  may  have  However,  and  even  requesting clear  page  as  to  an  done  aid  to  be  to  for  ensure  discovered  from  placed  i f  specific  to  programs  as  questions  separate  be  for  satisfaction  with  firstly,  be  need  enough o f a demand  p r e - t e s t be  questionnaire; secondly, a  care,  the  analysis  the  location  t h e r e was  interest  of  available  the  of  of  data  subjects  recommendations:  researchers,  the  the  of  missing data,  some  type  change  hence  investigation  are  to  true value  specified  the  represented  warrant  There  as  willingness  f r e q u e n c i e s , and  underestimated though  on  data  V a r i a b l e s , such  cases),  variable  missing  on  necessary; information  what  is  being  t h a t more p r e c i s e f o l l o w - u p s t u d i e s i n  this  coordinated.  Nature of the Sample The  'town  extent  and  nature  centre'  of  Richmond,  confirmed  i n the  confirmation In  the  be  present attempted  present  of  study  the  need  B.C. and  in future  study,  the  was  for child not  care  in  the  independently  i t i s proposed  that  such  a  studies.  sample  population  possessed  117 several  different  characteristics  representative  of  particular,  subjects  the  employed  and  who  require  also  'town  therefore  were  Also  not on  and  the types  of c h i l d  but  the  sample  various  used  in  shifts  require  this  accommodate t h e i r  care  needed  6.1.3  care  may from  they  d i d not  who  needs".  the sample  institutions  were  prefer  i t located  i n the  a  range  wide  affected  true need  parents  be  the  economic  results  willing  shifts  to  and  of  spend  weekends,  representation child  work  care  of  afford.  worked  which parents  "flexible  In  groups  would  a  i t non-  unemployed  could  give  study,  the  made  community.  represent  which  some s u b j e c t s  previously  Finally,  and  have  the  of  t h e amount p a r e n t s  hours during  and  care  not  may  i n  two  represented,  questions  were  from  subjects  the  There  groups  would  child  centre'.  incomes  other  that  a  care. wide  arrangements  of  As  the  stated  variety that  of will  [109] was  for "special"  not r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of  specialized  children.  V a l i d i t y of Outcome Measures As  discussed  indication  of  care,  the  but  instrument To  begin  of  the  sample  the  4,  extent  nature  and  s t a t i s t i c a l  would  with,  i n Chapter  only  the  institutions for that  apply  return  data of  t o one of  s u r v e y e d were so  collected  the  information  rates  institution;  the  specific  need  for  gained  geographic  the  10%  results  of  the  may  an  child  from  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e below  i s  the area.  from  two  population not  yield  a  118 true  picture  also  affect  town  centre.  the  degree  issue  of  Without and  a  facility  can  The  present  study  sex,  marital  therefore  except  to  make  population  at  the  at  aid  the  need  affect  beyond  the  for  of  child  i s therefore several  its  recommended  the  study  validity; area  concerning  demographic  of  variables  geographic  assumptions  applicability  variables  'independent'  that  the  age  used and  of  i n the  child  and  variables  knowing  the  age  of  needed  and  possibly  care  the  parents'  occupation amounts  present  'dependent';  independent  and  understanding  that  future  variables  to  the  the  which  population  R e l a t i o n s h i p Between V a r i a b l e s The  and  the  large.  6.1.4  as  in  will  within  demographic  income) which  applied  It  will  effect,  facility  of  certain  general  incorporate  in  established.  be  researchers  a  nature  lacked  some  This,  comprehensive  the  status,  large.  need.  more  be  cannot  of  establishing  especially  no  (age, it  the  the  extent  care,  of  which  the  however,  place  of  would  affect  child, also  one the  amount  location  could  also  predictor  of  monies  a  available  occupation would a f f e c t his/her  for  for  income.  i t was  the  predict of  for care;  could  be  results.  By  the  monies  care.  The  preferred the  regarded recognized  employment  could  preferred be  s t u d y were not  type  of  available place  of  location  respondent's  119 6.2  O v e r a l l Family The  nature been in  results  and C h i l d r e n ' s Needs of  o f t h e need  by o t h e r s .  the previous  chapter,  require care.  represented, The  nature  The  results  care  on  which Those  after  school;  parents  who  the and  employees  straight  day  Friday, work  but  shifts  week.  for  and  I f the  Workers'  Hospital,  then  weekday  return at  shifts the  study,  only  apply  to those  they  to of  the Workers'  8:00  a.m.  employees the h o s p i t a l  at  -  were  the  care,  results  and  day  care  before in  evenings.  weekdays care.  or One  children  requiring  the  parents'  place  the  questionnaire.  Compensation p.m.,  the Richmond  Board  Monday General  would  definitely 'true'  of For work  through Hospital  24 h o u r s a d a y ,  than  a  to  or  required  Board  not g i v e  required  situations  r e t u r n r a t e o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was Compensation  schedule.  of  4:00  operates  care.  required  selected either  due  rate  children  applied  the  stated many  work  who  has  how  children  a l s o those  times  be  of  as  required  on t h e p a r e n t s '  the m a j o r i t y  may  206  and  what  e.g.,  217  children,  were  the  of  day,  example,  numbers,  the m a j o r i t y  extent  the need,  surveys,  part-time  noted  the  217  the  corroborate  of  half-time during  explanation  during  237  in this  worked  and  with  i t d i d not  worked  week-evenings  employment  of  there  Part-time,  parents  care  deals  that  but  clearly extent  depended  indicated  weekdays,  possible  The  Out  of the care  concerning  care  and out o f t h e s e  part-time. and/or  study  for child  documented  children  the  this  7 days  higher  f o r Richmond indicate  a  for  General a  representation of  need the  120 needs o f h o s p i t a l Of  those  employees.  children  six  of the children  and  after  for  by  uncommon and/or  after  or possibly  are left  The  type  parents'  included  children  care  facility's  aged 0 - 5  included  placed Group  child  o f 7:00  facilities  serve  the  by  study  types  cared  before  of latchkey  on t h e i r  own t o  i s d i f f i c u l t t o admit  was  t h e most  indicated  into  a.m.  -  Of  needed  as  was  that  to their  facilities  children  t h e Richmond  p.m.  3 - 5  study  only  these  four,  group  type  'other'.  of  five,  t h e most  i n family child  6:00  The  over  t o look  usually  needed.  This  after care  Planning  Also  category a  their  was  nanny  or  children  facilities.  operate  of age.  care f o r before and  between  and t h e m a j o r i t y  years  upon t h e  age and t h e  p r e f e r r e d t o have  t h e home  children  hours.  For c h i l d r e n  of care  care  the child's  of care.  some p a r e n t s  come  their  own  r e q u i r e d not o n l y depends  years.  care  because else  their  left  many  but a l s o  as  i n the types  included  before  I t i s not  i n h i s study  How  operating  specific  indicated  school  hours  found  own.  on  are not w i l l i n g  schedules,  four  was  someone  their  but  unsupervised.  of child  work  care  after  on  children  [110]  as p a r e n t s  a l l  n o t i n c l u d e d were  t h e r e a r e a g r e a t many c h i l d r e n  children  care  were  As K u i k e n  care,  o f age r e q u i r e d c a r e  left  school-aged  school.  approximate,  or  5 years  f o r themselves.  child  required part-time  T h e s i x who  to find  children, fend  over  school.  a parent  who  of  the  these  As i n d i c a t e d i n  Department  (1986),  there  121 were  no g r o u p  [Ill]  facilities  Due t o t h e l a c k  place  their  f o r c h i l d r e n under of f a c i l i t i e s ,  children i n less  options  w e r e made a v a i l a b l e ,  care.  This  needing  group  may  the  location  the type  family  needs  most  parents  child.  This  that per  from  care,  followed  what c a r e average $300  care  are willing  who  group  of children  do  One  apply  of care  both  than  indicated  $250  p e r month  to before/after this  possible  them  looked  by  a  care  The  i s over the  next  was c l o s e r t o  f o r t h e l o w amount  group  those  care,  the children f o r part t o those  required  type  this  be b e c a u s e  parents  institution.  they  care.  t o pay ($200 - $ 3 0 0 ) , t h e  full-time  after  children i n this  may  school  amount i s  considering  explanation  t o spend  their  f o r group  was g r o u p c a r e ;  particularly  after  surveying  the results  when  were w i l l i n g  look  that  paid  On t h e a v e r a g e ,  However,  an e d u c a t i o n a l  indicated  of monies  When  more  f e e p e r month  not require  s p o u s e may  and amount  c h a r g e p e r month f o r p a r t - t i m e  parents  parents  attend  might  numbers  required.  care.  [112]  fees.  or  f o r the high  applied mainly  facility's  amount  would  select  parents  not a f f o r d  amount  current  This  these  of care  could  most p r e f e r r e d type  their  but i f other  and c h i l d r e n ' s needs,  facilities  part-time  may h a v e h a d t o  preferred settings,  of care  by g r o u p  p e r month.  highest  parents  care.  Preferred follow  account  t h e age o f t h r e e .  Many  group  of setting, relative,  who  or  work  because  of theday.  who w o r k  shifts  of the parents,  care,  may  but instead  neighbour  or  not have may  have  friend.  122 Therefore,  they  facilities  would  parents  willing  The  are  younger  Those  could more  they  than  parents,  have for  may  not  Parents setting  school care  was  home  to  satisfied family  needs  vicinity  an of  preferred Many  of  preference; they  had  always  to  home  attending  the  town  the may  on  centre,  case;  was who  many  for  their  home  and  the  setting  near  may  be  When  results  within The  child's one  may  next  location  This not  the  school.  also indicated 5.  very  comparing  of  be  than  over  a  care  (44%).  picture  location.  t o have  For  to  more  5 and  'true'  preferred  of  child's  school.  sets  care  i f parents  under  the  a  or  they  premises  indicated  acceptable were  for  prefer  convenient  both  vicinity  therefore a  concerning  pay  and  not  unless  arrangements.  work  the  respondents this  This  would  care  may  also prefer a  preference  was  they  of  school  child's  current  and/or  perhaps  alternatives.  type  c h i l d r e n ' s needs,  equal  children  the  indicated  their  care.  to afford i t .  near  parents  child.  child  i s expensive  best  care  amount  the  more,  indicated  care  the  of  for  pay  I t i s much e a s i e r a n d  location the  the  to  other  who  licensed  age  costs  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problems  with  indicate  in  i n or  reduce  want  i s the the  no  Child  children  nearby.  children,  and  what  considering  willing  parents  able  located  facility  younger  be  with  are  care. they  when  higher  infants  for  than  for care,  the  those  less  Also  work  although  children,  care  child,  $300  paying  t o pay  who  account  be  charge.  the  parents  because  might  was  have  that not been  123 T h o s e who  p r e f e r r e d care  answer  positively  in  town  the  to  relocating  centre.  respondents  This  willing group  indicated  willingness  the  type  a  of  The  they  -  the  -  they  child  the  has  care.  with  are  The of  their  satisfied. quality,  no  Richmond.  [113]  and  64.4%  of  The  age  of  of  were  for  were  breakdown  of  of  those  children  whose  of  parents  the  the p r e f e r r e d  i n  child  and  location.  relocating  a facility  with present  care  concerning  and  parents'  the  study  were:  only  the  18  who  months  -  arrangements. the  16.1%  3  years  quality  that  were  of  with  the  or  were  vast  satisfied less  than  convenience,  etc. care  results, a  breakdown  reason may  be  f a c i l i t y  61.5%  experienced  One  low  satisfied  the  months - 3 y e a r s .  in value.  year;  dissatisfaction  satisfaction  to  in a  indicated  very  experienced  children  close 18  such  reliability,  breakdown were those  ranges  need  either  According  of  facility  participate  age  ernergency/short-term  children  range  and  the  a  would  p o r t i o n of  ones  gave f o r not  arrangement;  affordability, i s  to  number  the  affect  controversy  Reasons  There  for a  place  f a r away;  results  current  work  children  relocate  receiving  parents  the  The  Therefore,  would not  been  children  majority  too  their  also  to  were s a t i s f i e d  There care  were  respondents  lived  near  account  r e q u i r e d both  reasons  -  care  or  relocate.  facility.  care  may  to  requiring  developing  on  of  in  families  in child  care.  highest  degree  However, a l l age  for the  this  degree  of  difficulty  in  124 acquiring  satisfactory  particular licensed  age  forms of  What category  is,  as  the  because  of  a  individual a  usually  to  seek  that  children,  the yet  breakdown.  that  many  The  of  no  3  in  alternate  over  0 - 1 7  One  category  children  This  age  may  or  are  group  be  due  c h i l d r e n were  available facilities  age  explanation  months  the  5  this  these  until  home  forms  of  child  relatives,  care  who  and  should  offer  cases,  care.  friends,  Due  to  need  there  These  or  subsidy.  were  84  to  older  because  of  was  of  was  the  vast  a l t e r n a t e forms  of  consensus  However,  The  number  age)  of  had were  other  presumably  school  for alternative  the  respondents  neighbours.  child  emergency/short-term half  only  have a l t e r n a t e c a r e  ( i f the  the  Approximately care  valid  d i d not  surprising  many  is  the  135  hardly  how  of  are  reliable.  breakdown.  of  unsupervised.  child  have  amount o f  of  t o m i s s work or  regular  number o f  total  respondents,  child  note  there  this  c h i l d r e n under  the most  to  own.  in  lack  for  for  choice.  alternate  had  least  remaining  be  frequency  their  earlier,  parents  not  previously,  on  experienced  Of  to  arrangements  stated  that  highest  second  left  mothers  means  the  care  f a c i l i t i e s  interesting  stated  often  As  w h i c h may  is  has  only  care  This  care,  was  group.  group  Richmond.  child  either  leave  breakdowns  arrangements,  that existing  51  the in  i t is  facilities  care.  respondents  were  aware  this  does  not  r e c e i v i n g i t , which  number i s of  more  of  the  indicate  significance.  125 Obtaining  this  i n f o r m a t i o n would a i d i n determining  fees  when p l a n n i n g  6.3  Needs of I n d i v i d u a l I n s t i t u t i o n s When  be  comparing  remembered  each w i l l of  nature  and had  the  Hospital  will  type  of  of  on  not  each  institution,  returned  be  need.  emphasized  (Note:  number o f  i t must  questionnaires  a l l questions.  Compensation  both  a  had  from  Therefore, as  Workers'  much  the  as  the  Compensation  returns.)  did  classrooms even  s t i l l who  wish  adequate c h i l d Age, The  a  clear  0-17  College  and  Richmond  of  The  not  only  24  may  c o l l e g e had p i c t u r e of cannot  be  of  due  complete been need due  per  children  majority  the  General  c h i l d r e n as  had  This  college  these  to  only  college.  surveyed, because to  a  i t many  lack  of  [114].  of  Hours of  Care  children varied with  W o r k e r ' s C o m p e n s a t i o n B o a r d had with  number  children.  attend  and  returns.  surveyed  C a r e and  range  83  'complete'  yield  care  Type of age  being  to  of  have  i f the not  Kwantlen  total not  Board  significant  however,  respondents  age,  of  Workers'  in a  parents  results  need  represented  would  number  greatest  rate;  However,  the  results  Children  The  three  facility.  the  the  the the  Have  return  that  affect  extent  Board  a new  affordable  months  each  institution.  more c h i l d r e n u n d e r  ranking  the  highest.  The  5 years  of  Richmond  126 General  H o s p i t a l had  smallest College  number had  majority  of  The care  a  For  group  of  distinct  Out  care  i s the For  was  predominant of  Workers' the  was  care  there  were  There  categories. frequently  from care.  only  in  operation  most  frequently  before/after  15  a  for  11  attended  Board  of  age  require out-  needed.  This  Richmond group  care  p a t t e r n of  Kwantlen  over  by  5,  age  College  and  Hospital,  yet  the  care  of  44  of  children in  29  children in group  care  then  the the  was  age  over  5  under  5  the  most  care. of  the  requested  by  and  opposite:  e x p l a i n why  during  followed  not  of  required, followed  child  and  the  type  day,  then  category.  part-time  will  part-time  care.  of  care,  weekdays  care  are  which  is  will  be  If  children  be  significant.  Compensation B o a r d , weekdays were the  requested,  the  type  college,  the  both  the  did  I f c h i l d r e n require group  school,  Kwantlen  at Richmond G e n e r a l  out  total  type the  the  H o w e v e r , when l o o k i n g a t a l l t h e  would  requested  of  only  i n d i c a t e d was  only  were  This  Following hours  age  and  categories;  factor in  type  were  care  follows  age  months.  Compensation  of  group care.  category.  Workers'  children,  results  type  frequent  required  the  definite  most f r e q u e n t  the  of  5.  Compensation Board, but  most  ranges,  217  Workers'  Hospital  type  0-17  c h i l d r e n whose p a r e n t s  General  and  of  5 years  d i f f e r e n c e i n age  children is a  those  care.  the  c h i l d r e n aged  c h i l d r e n were over  age  of-school  of  very  required.  care.  more c h i l d r e n o v e r  most  Kwantlen  the  require For  frequently College  was  127 exactly  the  workers  required  weekdays but  opposite.  had  a l l the  mentioned, General also  Hospital  a.m.  work  indicate  times  p.m.  - 7:00  rotating type  as  a.m.  need  3:00  needs:  weeknights,  from  Richmond  category,  but  they  worked.  For  worked  p.m.  two  - 11:00  i t is difficult a  number  of  days  p.m.  I f the m a j o r i t y of  as  be  time  she/he  evenings  shift  What m u s t  respondents  that  their  well.  shifts  shifts, of  meet  particular  wrote two  of  and  hospital  for  them  different  to  care  Care  What p a r e n t s type  family  of  hospital  most  taken  -  spend  on  of  average,  Respondents  for child  children  from  the  month  per  from  c o n s i d e r a t i o n when from  and child  the  would, care;  t h e r e f o r e , have also  the  than  Several  assessing  C o l l e g e would  two  C o l l e g e as  less  well  $250  not  the  as  per  Board  these  and  these  the  month  selected must  be  frequencies. be  employed  monies a v a i l a b l e  m a j o r i t y of  on  children  factors  generally less  depends  family  had  Compensation  child.  care  per  respondents  frequently indicated  per  Respondents full-time  t o pay  number  Respondents  $400 into  afford  the On  care.  child.  $300  can  care,  income.  requiring  per  a  to  the  are required. Cost  the  the  Hospital  f o l l o w e d by  indicated  of  p.m.,  one  hours  different  parent  n i g h t s 11:00  only  were  many  the  of  frequency,  indicated  down  - 4:00  employees  variety  times  that  one  Richmond G e n e r a l  highest  other is  example,  two  the  wrote  7:00  a  At  to  respondents  128 had  c h i l d r e n over  care.  Employees  majority  were  indicated  employees  sources  have  of care  mentioned  that  care  Compensation  I f these  t o p a y more f o r c h i l d Preferred The  three  t h e c h i l d r e n when  costs.  worked  part-time  available.  place  parents  t o work,  wish  of child  Workers'  followed  care  Compensation  by c a r e  within  vicinity  o f home, f o l l o w e d b y v i c i n i t y  home  followed  children's preferred work  vicinity  varied Board  there would from  and have they  will  Kwantlen  College's  by v i c i n i t y  the v i c i n i t y  needs  and t h e type group  care  and b e f o r e / a f t e r  of child's  of school  preference  of school.  school.  When  of care ranked  school These  within the  preferred i n  H o s p i t a l employees p r e f e r r e d care  vicinity,  place  Employees  full-time  General  place.  again  a r e employed  these  hospital  because  This  t o pay.  others  Having Some  they  care.  location  institutions.  work  shifts;  reduces  Richmond  of  night  respondents  Location  preferred  work  after or  Some  and the  five.  prepared  Board  part-time  shifts,  t h e home.  they  were  worked  into  facilities  they  children.  come  required  under  evenings  relatives  t h e amount  younger  looked  t o work  no 2 4 - h o u r  Workers'  the  spouse  that  alternative  the hospital  c h i l d r e n were  their  required  lessen  from  of their  indicated  were  t h e age o f 5 and o n l y  o f home.  within the  and  vicinity  was v i c i n i t y at  only  cross-tabulated  with  highest  looking  of  forvicinity  forvicinity results  of  o f home a n d  are i n line  with  129 the  ages  Children a  of  was  problems  having  of  be  to  each  the  on  benefits  willing  yet to  care  of  present  arrangements;  the  was  The  satisfied. because  flexible  Emergency  a  previous  employers  in  facility. i s that  The  very a  few  respondents  setting  asked  that  was  i f respondents  a r e a and  majority  that  parents Board  that  in  p a r e n t s and  a i d i n the  of a l l responses  respondents  i n the development  Compensation  satisfied  transportation  stated  to a central  Workers'  been  required.  p a r e n t s , so i f  site,  preferred  indicated  care  of a  were  willing  facility.  Satisfaction  majority  were  work  of their  questionnaire  relocate  assist  by  As  to note  the  institution and  types  to both  of such a f a c i l i t y .  Degree of  employees  the  institutions  located  relocate  The  the  eliminated.  i s interesting  development from  be  there are  centrally would  established  a work-related child  any  and  care are transported  would  What from  children  i n group  setting  chapter,  the  of  from  were  Kwantlen  very  majority Hospital the  satisfied of  work  with  Richmond  employees  difficulty  enough t o meet t h e i r  College  and their  Hospital  may  not  have  in acquiring  care  schedule.  Care  majority  Richmond H o s p i t a l  of had  Those  from Kwantlen  from  the  College  respondents  from  Compensation  e x p e r i e n c e d a breakdown  College did  not  had  not.  Perhaps  experience  a  Board  i n regular most  and care.  respondents  breakdown  in  care  130 because  their  children  required  care  f o r short  scheduled  their  c l a s s e s during the c h i l d r e n ' s school hours  therefore  d i d not require care.  A l l  the  alternate not.  These p a r e n t s  unsupervised.  in  existing  6.4  wrote  There  was  regarding facilities;  assess  the degree and w i t h i n  feasibility  of creating  order  some  however,  their  very  little  of  because  5  and  the  from  children  only  parents  respondents  many  that  t h e need  and  who  had  the college d i d were o f t e n  discrepancy  left  between t h e  f o r emergency/short-term  a l l were p o s i t i v e  to assess  of  hours  of care  utilize As  i n this  care  regard.  child  age  There  by  each  t o determine  the  t h e town c e n t e r .  necessary  t o measure  t h e age range o f c h i l d r e n ,  the survey  the three  The t y p e  of the child,  i s a particular  school-aged  within  was  or not parents  In the  types and wanted  to  the majority  of  i n the area.  indicated  care.  i t was  care  area  within  r e q u i r e d and whether  from  of the research  for child  a facility  the need,  a facility  respondents  need  the geographic  degree o f need, determine  for  had  or  discussed p r e v i o u s l y , the purpose  institution  the  t h e age  Summary a n d C o n c l u s i o n As  to  of care;  over  periods,  institutions  forms  institutions  were  results,  institutions  of care  varies  with  but the degree need  children.  f o r care There  r e q u i r e some  type  the i n s t i t u t i o n  o f need  for children  i s a l s o a need  of and  i s relevant. under  3 and  for flexible  131 care  arrangements,  offer care  depends  on  work  relocate  their  facility For  be  in  being have  that  of  able  care  to  secure what  for  to  of  with  to  which  location  l o c a t i o n of are  the  relocate,  of the  willing  to  development  of  olds, of  In to  addition, offer,  older  a l l age  such  groups.  In  also  be  obtain  within  the  will  be,  then  they  will  as  c h i l d r e n or  a l s o have t o d e c i d e  must and  implications  l o c a t i o n should  program  i m p l i c a t i o n s , they w i l l  infant  programs  addition on  the  approval  guidelines  hours  from of  to  the  current  standards. conclusion  future  was  especially indicated  and  are  several  There  agencies  is a  for  need  suggestions  need  be  made  f o r more s u p p o r t  from  assessment  not  representative  of  for  'special'  children,  in  parents  However,  there  references.  organizations  the  concerning"the warrant  the  parents  location.  needs  department  centres  centre.  year  They  and  assist  and  preferred  of  preferred  type  the  child  wishing a  The  majority  the  3 - 5  meet  care  those  the  town  where  centres  care.  of  The  groups  operation.  study  24-care  c h i l d r e n and  decide  In for  place.  those  licensing day  age  w i t h i n the  will  these  the  deciding  to  care,  as  emergency/short-term  parents'  a  such  the  needs  survey).  who  are  study extent  on  I t was low  does and  investigation into  the  provide nature a  research.  population  also  incomes  (there  not or  who  possible  need site  at were  are  for and  The  large, only  representative  sufficient of  to  3 of  unemployed. information  child  care  programs  to for  132 child  care.  to  institute  of  a  This  is sufficient  their  own  facility  utilize  such  e m p l o y e e s , and  a  studies  i n the  town  study  could  food  services  information or  centre. be  to consider Other  hotel/motel  employees.  f o r other the  groups  groups  development which  employees,  could airport  133 BIBLIOGRAPHY A b e l l a , Judge R o s a l i e . i n Employment. October A c h i l l e a , J u d i t h D. Weil-Being. New Y o r k :  Report o f t h e Commission 1 9 8 4 , C h a p t e r 5.  Equality  C h i l d - C a r e A l t e r n a t i v e s and Emotional Praeger P u b l i s h e r s , 1980.  A u e r b a c k , Stevanne and R i v a l d o , James. Care S e r v i c e s : P r o g r a m U.S. P o l i t i c s . S c i e n c e P r e s s I n c . , 1975, V o l . I . Bagley, Christopher. National Implications. Bates, Helene. Services". Paper December, 1984.  on  Rationale for Child New Y o r k : Human  Daycare i n A l b e r t a : A C a l g a r y , A l b e r t a , 1985.  "Special prepared  Review  With  Needs" C h i l d r e n and C h i l d f o r t h e Task F o r c e on C h i l d  Care Care.  B e l s k y , J . a n d S t e i n b e r g , L.D. "The E f f e c t s o f Day C a r e : C r i t i c a l Review." C h i l d Development, 1978, 49.  A  B e r r u e t o - C l e m e n t , J.R., e t a l . "Changed L i v e s : The E f f e c t s of t h e Penny P r e s c h o o l Program on Youth Through Age 1 9 . " M o n o g r a p h 8. Y p s i l a n t i , M i c h i g a n : H i g h / S c o p e P l u s , 1 9 8 4 . B l a n c h a r d , M., a n d M a i n , M. "Avoidance, o f t h e attachment f i g u r e and s o c i a l - e m o t i o n a l adjustment i n daycare infants." Developmental Psychology. 1 9 7 9 , V o l . 1 5 , N o . 4. Bloom, M a r t i n , and F i s c h e r , J o e l . Evaluating Practice: Guidelines f o r the Accountable Professional. New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l I n c . , 1982. Brommelard, Lora F u l l Time C a r i n g October 1984.  L e e . C h i l d Care Needs f o rPreschool Children.  o f Mothers Edmonton,  A t Home Alberta:  C a l d w e l l , B.M., e t a l . "Infant daycare and attachments." American J o u r n a l o f O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y , 40, 1970. Canadian C o u n c i l o f S o c i a l Development. a N a t i o n a l Study. January, 1972. Clarke-Stewart, Alison. U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1982.  Day C a r e .  Day C a r e :  Massachusetts:  Report o f Harvard  C1 a r k e - S t e w a r t , A l i s o n . " O b s e r v a t i o n and experiment: complementary s t r a t e g i e s f o r studying day care and s o c i a l development." A d v a n c e s i n E a r l y E d u c a t i o n a n d DAy C a r e , 2,  134  Community S e r v i c e s Committee of C a l g a r y C i t y C o u n c i l . A R e v i e w o f S u b s i d i z e d DAy C a r e P r o g r a m s W i t h a C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f A l t e r n a t i v e F a m i l y and Long Term P l a n n i n g . Calgary, Alberta: C a l g a r y C i t y C o u n c i l , May 1 9 7 4 . Crane,  Dr. John.  "Words a n d N u m b e r s . "  F a l l 1986.  Crane, Dr. John. " P r i n c i p a l Modes o f O b s e r v a t i o n U s e f u l i n E x p e r i m e n t a l I n n o v a t i o n s i n S o c i a l Work." F a l l 1986. Crane, 1986.  Dr. John.  "Well  Tempered  Research  Proposal."  Day C a r e S e r v i c e s f o r S t a t u s I n d i a n s R e s i d i n g Ottawa: Task F o r c e on C h i l d C a r e , 1985.  on  Fall  Reserves.  Domina Group. "Toward U n i v e r s a l i t y : A H i s t o r i c a l Overview of the E v o l u t i o n o f E d u c a t i o n , H e a l t h C a r e , Day C a r e a n d M a t e r n i t y Leave." Paper p r e s e n t e d f o r t h e Task F o r c e on C h i l d C a r e , November 1984. D o y l e , A . , a n d Sommes, K. "The e f f e c t s o f g r o u p a n d f a m i l y day c a r e on i n f a n t attachment b e h a v i o u r s . " Canadian Journal of B e h a v i o u r a l S c i e n c e , 1 0 ( 1 ) , January 1978. E a s t R i c h m o n d Community Needs Assessment, 1986.  Needs  F o w l e r , W. Quarterly,  "Developmental 18, 1972.  Grotberg, Washington,  Edith. Day D.C. 1971.  Research  learning Care:  Project.  approach." Resources  A  Community  Merriel-Palmer f o r  Decisions.  Heinicke, C.M., et a l . "The o r g a n i z a t i o n of daycare c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e mental h e a l t h o f c h i l d and family." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 43(1), January 1973. Hollis, Joe. P o l e m i c s on Day C a r e . W a l l a c e I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n c . , 1981.  Toronto:  Williams-  Huet, C a m i l l e . " S t u d y o f Day C a r e N e e d s Among F u l l - T i m e Homemakers w i t h C h i l d r e n 0 - 6 y e a r s o f Age." Paper p r e p a r e d f o r Task F o r c e on C h i l d C a r e . October 1984. Kagan, Jerome, et a l . "The e f f e c t s o f i n f a n t d a y c a r e on p s y c h o l o g i c a l development." E v a l u a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 1 ( 1 ) , 1976. Keniston,  K.,  and t h e Carnegie  Council  on C h i l d r e n .  A l l Our  135 Children.  New Y o r k :  Harcourt, Brace, J o v a n o v i c h , 1977.  Kuiken, Jake. "Latchkey Children." Report prepared f o r S p e c i a l C o m m i t t e e o f t h e H o u s e o f Commons, A u g u s t , 1 9 8 6 . MacLean's 1986  Magazine.  "High  cost  f o ra career."  November 1 0 ,  Matheson, Douglas, e t a l . Experimental Psychology Research Design and A n a l y s i s . New Y o r k : Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc., 1978. M e r r i l l , Helen. " I m m i g r a n t Women i n H a l i f a x - D a r t m o u t h : Their E x p e r i e n c e s and Needs." Conducted f o r the Coalition f o r I m m i g r a n t Women i n N o v a S c o t i a , J u n e 1 9 8 5 . M o c h , K a r e n R. " C h i l d Care Needs o f C u l t u r a l Minorities." P a p e r p r e p a r e d f o r S p e c i a l C o m m i t t e e on C h i l d C a r e . August 1986. Paper r e l e a s e d by t h e L e a d e r o f t h e O p p o s i t i o n i n r e s p o n s e t o the R e p o r t o f t h e S p e c i a l Committee on C h i l d Care - M i n o r i t y Report on C h i l d Care. L i b e r a l s , March 1987. Parenstedt, Lower-class Priorities. Privilege."  Eleanor. Families.  The D r i f t e r s : Children of Disorganized Boston: L i t t l e Brown a n d Co., 1 9 6 7 .  " Q u a l i t y and A f f o r d a b l e August 1986.  Provence, Sally. "A T h r e e 2, M a r c h \ A p r i l , 1 9 6 9 .  Cornered  Day C a r e :  a Right,  Project".  not a  Children,  16,  R a m s e y , C . T . , a n d S m i t h , B. "Assessing the intellectual consequences of early intervention with high risk infants." American J o u r n a l o f Mental D e f i c i e n c y , 18, 1977. R e i d , W.J., a n d S m i t h , A.D. "Research Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ,1981.  i n Social  Richmond P l a n n i n g Department. Richmond Needs and R e s o u r c e s . September 1981. Richmond Planning P r o f i l e . 1985. Richmond 1985.  Department.  P l a n n i n g Department.  Child  Richmond: Social  Impact  A  Work" Care  Study-  Statistical  Summary.  Richmond P l a n n i n g Department. Licensed Child and F a c i l i t i e s i n Richmond. December 1 9 8 6 .  Ohio:  Care  April  Services  136  R u b e n s t e i n , J u d i t h L. , e t a l . "A t w o y e a r f o l l o w - u p o f i n f a n t s i n community b a s e d day c a r e . " J o u r n a l of Child P s y c h o l o g y and P s y c h i a t r y and A l l i e d D i s c i p l i n e s , 2 2 ( 3 ) , J u l y 1981. R u d e s m a n , F l o r e n c e A. C h i l d Care and W o r k i n g M o t h e r s : S t u d y o f A r r a n g e m e n t s Made f o r D a y t i m e C a r e o f C h i l d r e n . York: C h i l d W e l f a r e League o f A m e r i c a , 1968. Sharing the R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : on C h i l d C a r e . March 1987.  Report  of  the  Special  Committee  S o c i a l P l a n n i n g Council of Metropolitan Toronto. Families Project." S o u r c e b o o k o n W o r k - R e l a t e d Day Canada, 1985. Statistics  Canada, Labour  Force Survey,  Statistics  Canada, Labour  F o r c e S u r v e y , December  S t a t u s o f Women C a n a d a . Ottawa, 1986. Status Series  of 5:  Report  of  A New  "Working Care i n  1981.  Task  Force  1986. on  Child  Care.  Women C a n a d a . R e p o r t o f Task F o r c e on C h i l d C a r e . C h i l d Care Needs o f P a r e n t s and F a m i l i e s , 1985.  Stevens, Harvey. " C h i l d C a r e Needs and R e a l i t i e s i n W i n n i p e g , 1984. A r e p o r t f o r the Manitoba C h i l d Care Association W i n n i p e g : The S o c i a l P l a n n i n g C o u n c i l i n W i n n i p e g . 1984. The Social P l a n n i n g C o u n c i l of M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto. " M e a s u r i n g Day C a r e N e e d s : t h e N u m b e r s Game. Social Infopac, 3(3), June 1984. Thomas, C a r o l . C u r r e n t I s s u e s i n Day C a r e : Resources. Phoenix, Arizona: Oryx P r e s s , 1986. United 1985.  Way.  The  Western Producer. 25, 1986.  Lower  Mainland  " F a m i l y Members  i n the Fill  Readings  I980's. the  Gap."  and  November, September  137 PERSONAL REFERENCES Ashmore, P e t e r ,  Information  Beardsly, Ruth, Vancouver. Bechon,  Child  Irene,  Christie, Coates, Falk,  Care  Supervisor,  Vancouver.  Service  Ms., A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , L a n g a r a  B r a n d o l i n i , Karen, Westminster. Brown,  Day C a r e ,  Coordinator,  College,  Royal  Vancouver.  Columbian  Day C a r e ,  R i c h m o n d F r i e n d s h i p Home S o c i e t y ,  Susan,  C h i l d Care  S e r v i c e s , YWCA,  YWCA,  New  Richmond.  Vancouver.  P e n n y , D a y C a r e A c t i o n C o a l i t i o n , B.C.  Cliff,  Administrator,  Hamade, A r t , A s s i s t a n t C h i e f Health Department. McCabe, K a t e , S u p e r v i s o r , Picard, Margaret, B.C.  Kwantlen  College,  Public Health  C r e a t i v e Minds  Richmond.  Inspector,  Day C a r e ,  S o c i a l and Neighbourhood  Richmond  Vancouver.  Planner,  Richmond,  Smith, Don, A s s i s t a n t E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r - Management S e r v i c e s , Richmond G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l , Richmond. Supervisor,  K i n g E d w a r d Campus D a y C a r e ,  Supervisor,  Langara  Supervisor,  Simon F r a s e r  Supervisor,  U.B.C. D a y C a r e ,  Supervisor,  V a l l e y View  College  Day C a r e ,  Vancouver.  Vancouver.  U n i v e r s i t y Day C a r e ,  Burnaby.  Vancouver.  H o s p i t a l Day C a r e , C o q u i t l a m .  Sykes, P a t . Personal Services Compensation Board, Richmond.  Department,  S y l v e s t e r , J e r r y , Dean o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , K i n g E d w a r d Vancouver.  Worker  1  College,  138  NOTES 1.  S t a t u s o f Women C h i l d Care.  Canada. Report Ottawa, 1986.  o f t h e Task  2.  Richmond P l a n n i n g Department. Study - Needs and R e s o u r c e s .  Richmond C h i l d September 1981.  3.  Richmond P l a n n i n g Department. Study - Needs a n d R e s o u r c e s .  Richmond C h i l d Care S e p t e m b e r 1 9 8 1 , p . 4.  4.  Canadian C o u n c i l o f S o c i a l Development. Day C a r e : Report o f a N a t i o n a l Study. J a n u a r y 1972, p. 15.  5.  H o l l i s , Joe. P o l e m i c s o n Day C a r e . Toronto: W a l l a c e I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n c . , 1 9 8 1 , p . 8.  6.  Community S e r v i c e s Committee o f C a l g a r y C i t y C o u n c i l . A Review o f S u b s i d i z e d Day C a r e P r o g r a m s W i t h A C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f A l t e r n a t i v e F a m i l y and Long Term Planning. Calgary, Alberta: Calgary City Council, May 1 9 7 4 .  7.  Hollis,  8.  S t a t u s o f Women C a n a d a . Report o f t h e Task F o r c e on C h i l d Care. S e r i e s 5: C h i l d C a r e N e e d s o f P a r e n t s and F a m i l i e s , 1985, p. 45.  9.  S t a t u s o f Women C a n a d a . Report o f t h e Task F o r c e on C h i l d Care. S e r i e s 5: C h i l d C a r e N e e d s o f P a r e n t s and F a m i l i e s , 1985, p. 45.  10.  Clarke-Stewart, Alison. Day C a r e . Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1982.  11.  Clarke-Stewart, Alison. Day C a r e . Massachusetts, H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1982, p. 10.  12.  Hollis,  13.  Clarke-Stewart, Alison.  r  Force  on  Care  William-  p . 8.  Massachusetts,  p . 9.  Harvard  University  Massachusetts,  Press, 1982.  14.  Statistics  15.  S t a t u s o f Women C a n a d a . Report o f t h e Task F o r c e on C h i l d Care. Ottawa, 1986: 12. Clarke-Stewart, Alison. Day C a r e . Massachusetts, Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1982.  16.  Canada.  Day C a r e .  Labour  Force Survey, 1981.  139  17.  Thomas, C a r o l . C u r r e n t I s s u e s i n Day C a r e : Readings and Resources, Phoenix, A r i z o n a , Oryx P r e s s , 1986.  18.  Clarke-Stewart, Alison. Day C a r e . Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1982.  19.  Richmond P l a n n i n g Department. S t u d y - Needs a n d R e s o u r c e s .  20.  Clarke-Stewart, Alison. Day C a r e . Massachusetts, H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1982, p. 16.  21.  Clarke-Stewart, Alison. Day C a r e . Massachusetts, H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1982, p. 16.  22.  K e n i s t o n , K., a n d t h e C a r n e g i e C o u n c i l o n C h i l d r e n . " A l l Our Children." New Y o r k : Harcourt, Brace, J o v a n o v i c h , 1977, p. 12.  23.  S t a t u s o f Women C a n a d a . Report o f t h e Task F o r c e on C h i l d Care. S e r i e s 5: C h i l d Care Needs o f P a r e n t s and F a m i l i e s , 1985, p. 15.  24.  S t a t u s o f Women C a n a d a . Report o f t h e Task F o r c e on C h i l d Care. S e r i e s 5: C h i l d C a r e N e e d s o f P a r e n t s and F a m i l i e s , 1985, p. 45.  25.  Statistics  26.  S t a t u s o f Women C a n a d a . Report o f t h e Task F o r c e on C h i l d Care. S e r i e s 5: C h i l d C a r e N e e d s o f P a r e n t s and F a m i l i e s , 1985, p. 42.  27.  Paper  28.  Priorities.  Canada.  The Labour  Massachusetts,  Richmond C h i l d September 1 9 8 1 .  Force.  Care  December 1 9 8 6 .  r e l e a s e d by t h e L e a d e r of the Opposition i n response t o t h e Report of the S p e c i a l Committee on C h i l d Care - M i n i s t r y R e p o r t on C h i l d C a r e , L i b e r a l , March 1987. "Quality  and A f f o r d a b l e  not a P r i v i l e g e . "  August  29.  S t a t u s o f Women, S e r i e s #5.  30.  Bagby,  Christopher.  National  1986,  Day C a r e  Implications.  31.  S t a t u s o f Women, S e r i e s  32.  MacLeans Magazine. "High 10, 1986, p. 10.  Day C a r e :  a  Right,  p. 20.  i n Alberta;  A Review  with  Calgary, A l b e r t a , 1985.  5, p . 4 7 . Costs  for a Career."  November  140  33.  C o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h P e t e r Ashmore. V a n c o u v e r , December 1 9 8 6 .  Information  Day  Care.  34.  Western Producer. "Family September 25, 1986.  Members  F i l l  t h e Gap."  35.  Western Producer. "Family September 25, 1986.  Members  F i l l  t h e Gap."  36.  C o n v e r s a t i o n with Ruth Beardsly, C h i l d Care S e r v i c e s C o o r d i n a t o r YWCA, V a n c o u v e r , N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 6 .  37.  C o n v e r s a t i o n with Ruth Beardsly, C h i l d Care S e r v i c e s C o o r d i n a t o r YWCA, Vancouver, c o n c e r n i n g ' G r a n n y ' s Y'. T h i s c e n t r e up u n t i l 1987 was t h e o n l y emergency/short-term c e n t r e i n t h e Lower Mainland. I t i s s t i l l i n o p e r a t i o n , b u t i t no l o n g e r has emergency care spaces, o n l y ' r e g u l a r ' care. D e c e m b e r 1, 1 9 8 6 .  38.  C o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h R o y a l C o l u m b i a n Day C a r e S u p e r v i s o r , R o y a l C o l u m b i a n H o s p i t a l , New W e s t m i n s t e r , December 1986.  39.  Kuiken, Jake. 'Latchkey C h i l d r e n ' , C a l g a r y , August 1986. Report t o : A S p e c i a l Committee o f t h e House o f Commons, T h e P a r l i a m e n t a r y T a s k F o r c e o n C h i l d C a r e .  40.  Kuiken, Jake. 'Latchkey C h i l d r e n ' , C a l g a r y , August 1986. Report t o : A S p e c i a l Committee o f t h e House o f Commons, T h e P a r l i a m e n t a r y T a s k F o r c e o n C h i l d C a r e , p. 9 0 .  41.  Conversation with parents s i t u a t i o n s when t h e y children.  42.  Huet,  Camille. S t u d y o f Day C a r e N e e d s Homemakers With Children 0 - 6 O c t o b e r 1984, p. 35.  Along years  Full-Time of Age.  43.  Huet,  Camille. S t u d y o f Day C a r e N e e d s Homemakers With Children 0 - 6 October 1984.  Along years  Full-Time of Age.  44.  Status  o f Women, S e r i e s #5, p . 5 1 .  45.  Status  o f Women, S e r i e s #5, p . 5 2 .  w i t h r e g a r d t o what t h e y do i n cannot o r g a n i z e care f o r t h e i r  141 46.  Bates, Helene. " S p e c i a l Needs" C h i l d r e n and C h i l d C a r e Services. Paper P r e p a r e d f o r The Task F o r c e on C h i l d C a r e , December 1984, p. 1  47.  M o c k , K a r e n R. C h i l d Care Needs o f C u l t u r a l M i n o r i t i e s . R e p o r t p r e p a r e d f o r t h e H o u s e o f Commons Special C o m m i t t e e o n C h i l d C a r e , A u g u s t 1 9 8 6 , p . 1.  48.  Day  49.  S c h i l l e r , J u d i t h P. "Child-Care A l t e r n a t i v e s and Emotional Well-Being." New Y o r k : Praeger P u b l i s h e r s , 1 9 8 0 , p . 1.  50.  A u e r b a c h , S t e v a n n e , and R i v a l d o , James. "Rationale f o r C h i l d Care Services: P r o g r a m s v s . P o l i t i c s " , New Y o r k : Huron S c i e n c e P r e s s I n c . , 1975, V o l . I , p. 21.  51.  Heinricke, CM. et a l . "The O r g a n i z a t i o n o f Day C a r e Consideration Relating to the Mental Health of Child and F a m i l y . " American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, J a n u a r y 1 9 7 3 , 4 3 ( 1 ) , p . 7.  52.  C a l d w e l l , B.C., e t a l . " I n f a n t Attachments." American Journal of 1970, 40, 397-412.  53.  B l a n c h a r d , M. a n d M a i n , M. "Avoidance of the Attachment F i g u r e a n d S o c i a l - E m o t i o n a l A d j u s t m e n t i n Day C a r e Infants." Developmental P s y c h o l o g y , 1979, V o l . 15, No. 4, 1 4 5 - 4 4 6 .  54.  C l a r k e - S t e w a r t , A l i s o n , " O b s e r v a t i o n and Experiment." Complementary S t r a t e g i e s f o r S t u d y i n g Day C a r e a n d S o c i a l Development." Advances i n E a r l y E d u c a t i o n a n d D a y C a r e , 1 9 8 2 , V o l . 2, 2 2 7 - 2 5 0 .  55.  B e l s k y , J . , a n d S t e i n b e r g , L.D. "The E f f e c t s o f Day Care: A C r i t i c a l Review." C h i l d Development, 1978, 49, 929-949.  56.  R u b e n s t e i n , J u d i t h L . , e t a l . "A T w o - Y e a r F o l l o w - u p O f I n f a n t s i n C o m m u n i t y B a s e d Day C a r e . " Journal of Child Psychology and P s y c h i a t r y and A l l i e d D i s c i p l i n e s , 1984 ( J u l . ) , V o l . 2 2 ( 3 ) , 209-218.  57.  D o y l e , A . , a n d S o m m e s , K. "The E f f e c t s o f G r o u p a n d F a m i l y Day C a r e on I n f a n t A t t a c h m e n t B e h a v i o u r s . "  Care Services For Status Indians Residing on Reserves. Ottawa: Task F o r c e on C h i l d C a r e , 1985. A d e t a i l e d review of c h i l d care services f o r native peoples i n the province.  Day C a r e and Orthopsychiatry,  142 Canadian J o u r n a l o f B e h a v i o u r a l S c i e n c e , 1978 ( J a n . ) / V o l . 1 ( 1 ) , 38-45. F o w l e r , W. Palmer  "Developmental Learning Approach." Q u a r t e r l y , 1972, 18, 145-175.  Merriel-  B e l s k y , J . , a n d S t e i n b e r g , L.D. "The E f f e c t s o f Day Care: A C r i t i c a l Review." C h i l d Development, 1978, 49, 929-949. K a g a n , J e r o m e , e t a l . "The E f f e c t s o f I n f a n t Day C a r e o n P s y c h o l o g i c a l Development." Evaluation Quarterly, 1 9 7 6 , V o l . 1, N o . 1, 1 0 9 - 1 4 2 . 58.  B e l s k y , J . , a n d S t e i n b e r g , L.D. "The E f f e c t s o f Day Care: A C r i t i c a l Review." C h i l d Development, 1978, 49, 929-949.  59.  R a m s e y , C.T., a n d S m i t h , B. "Assessing the Intellectual Consequences o f Early I n t e r v e n t i o n With High Risk Infants." American Journal of Mental D e f i c i e n c y , 1977, V o l . 18, 318-324.  60.  B e r r u e t o - C l e m e n t , J.R. e t a l . "Changed L i v e s . The E f f e c t s o f t h e Penny P r e s c h o o l Program on Youth T h r o u g h A g e 1 9 . " M o n o g r a p h 8, Y p s i l a n t i , M i c h i g a n : High/Scope P l u s , 1984.  61.  Brommeland, L o r a L e a . C h i l d Care Needs o f M o t h e r s A t Home F u l l Time C a r i n g F o r P r e s c h o o l C h i l d r e n . Edmonton, A l b e r t a , October 1984, p. 102.  62.  A b e l l a , Judge R o s a l i e . Report of t h e Commission E q u a l i t y i n Employment. October 1984, Chapter C h i l d C a r e , p. 185.  on 5-  63.  A b e l l a , Judge R o s a l i e . Report of t h e Commission E q u a l i t y i n Employment. October 1984, Chapter C h i l d C a r e , p. 186.  on 5-  64.  Brommeland, L o r a L e a . C h i l d Care Needs o f M o t h e r s A t Home F u l l Time C a r i n g F o r P r e s c h o o l C h i l d r e n . Edmonton, A l b e r t a , October 1984, 102.  65.  C l a r k e - S t e w a r t , A l i s o n , Day C a r e , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 8 2 , p. 18.  66.  Brommeland, L o r a L e a . C h i l d Care Needs o f M o t h e r s A t Home F u l l Time C a r i n g F o r P r e s c h o o l C h i l d r e n . Edmonton, A l b e r t a , October 1984.  Harvard  143 67.  Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto: Working Families Project." S o u r c e b o o k on W o r k - R e l a t e d Day Care i n Canada, 1985.  68.  Domina Group. Toward U n i v e r s a l i t y : An H i s t o r i c a l Overview of t h e E v o l u t i o n of Education, H e a l t h Care, Day Care and M a t e r n i t y Leave. November 1984. Background Paper s u b m i t t e d t o t h e Task F o r c e on C h i l d Care, p. 18.  69.  Domina, p. 19.  70.  R u d e r m a n , F l o r e n c e A. C h i l d Study o f Arrangements Children. New Y o r k : America, 1968.  71.  Pavenstedt, Eleanor. The D r i f t e r s : Children of Disorganized Lower-class Families, Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1967, p. 42.  72.  Grotberg, Edith, Editor. Decision. Washington,  73.  Provence, 1969  74.  Crane, Dr. John. "Well F a l l , 1 9 8 6 , p . 4.  Tempered  Research  Proposal."  75.  Crane, Dr. John. "Well F a l l , 1 9 8 6 , p . 4.  Tempered  Research  Proposal."  76.  Sharing the Responsibility: Report of the S p e c i a l Committee on C h i l d C a r e . March 1987.  77.  Sharing the Responsibility: Report of the Special Committee on C h i l d C a r e . March 1987, p. 3 5 .  78.  Sharing the Responsibility: Report of the S p e c i a l Committee on C h i l d Care. March 1987, p. 45.  79.  Sharing  Care and Working Mothers: A Made f o r Day T i m e C a r e o f C h i l d W e l f a r e League o f  Day C a r e : D.C., 1 9 7 1 .  Resources f o r  Sally. "A T h r e e C o i n e d P r o j e c t . " ( M a r c h - A p r i l ) , 1 6 , 2, 5 3 - 5 , p . 5 4 .  the Responsibility:  Committee on C h i l d  Care.  Report March  80.  S t a t u s o f Women, S e r i e s  #5, p . 1 1 .  81.  S t a t u s o f Women, S e r i e s  #5, p . 7.  Children,  of the Special  1987,  p. 46.  144 82.  M e r r i l l , Helen. " I m m i g r a n t Women i n Their Experiences and Needs. C o a l i t i o n f o r I m m i g r a n t Women i n 1985.  83,  Day  84.  Status  o f Women, S e r i e s  #5,  P-  104.  85,  Status  o f Women, S e r i e s  #5,  P-  105.  86.  Status  o f Women, S e r i e s  #5,  P-  105.  87,  Status  o f Women, S e r i e s  #5,  P-  105.  88,  Stevens, Harvey. C h i l d Care Needs and R e a l i t i e s i n Winnipeg, 1984. A Report f o r the Manitoba C h i l d Care A s s o c i a t i o n . Winnipeg: The S o c i a l Planning C o u n c i l i n W i n n i p e g , 1984, p. 15.  89  The  90  U n i t e d Way, " T h e L o w e r M a i n l a n d 1985.  i n t h e 1980's."  91.  Richmond P l a n n i n g Department. P r o f i l e , 1985,p. 24.  Richmond:  92.  Richmond Planning Department. S t u d y - Needs a n d R e s o u r c e s .  93.  East  94.  Richmond Planning Department. Licensed Child Care S e r v i c e s and F a c i l i t i e s i n Richmond. December 1 9 8 6 , p . 5.  95.  Richmond Planning Department. Licensed Child Care S e r v i c e s and F a c i l i t i e s i n Richmond. December 1 9 8 6 , p. 1 6 .  Halifax-Dartmouth: Conducted f o r the Nova S c o t i a , J u n e ,  Care Services For Status Indians R e s i d i n g on Reserves. Ottawa: Task Force on C h i l d C a r e , 1 9 8 5 , p p . 7 & 8. A d e t a i l e d r e v i e w o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s f o r :n a t i v e p e o p l e s i n t h e p r o v i n c e .  Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto. " M e a s u r i n g Day C a r e N e e d s : T h e N u m b e r s Game." S o c i a l I n f o p a c , 1 9 8 4 ( J u n e ) , V o l . 3, N o . 3.  Richmond Community Needs Community Needs A s s e s s m e n t .  A  November Statistical  Richmond C h i l d September 1 9 8 1 .  Care  Research Project: 1986, p. 49.  A  145 96.  Richmond P l a n n i n g Department. A p r i l 1985, p. 18.  "Social  Impact  Summary."  97.  R e i d , W.J., a n d S m i t h , A.D. "Research Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1981.  i n Social  Work"  98.  R e i d , W.J., a n d S m i t h , A.D. "Research Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1981.  i n Social  Work"  99.  R e i d , W.J., a n d S m i t h , A.D. "Research i n S o c i a l C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1981, p. 297.  Work"  100.  R e i d , W.J., a n d S m i t h , A.D. "Research i n S o c i a l Ohio: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1981.  Work"  101.  Crane, Dr. John. "The P r i n c i p a l Modes o f O b s e r v a t i o n U s e f u l i n E x p e r i m e n t a l I n n o v a t i o n s i n S o c i a l Work". F a l l , 1986.  102.  Bloom, M a r t i n , and F i s c h e r , J o e l . "Evaluating Practice: Guidance f o r the Accountable Professional. New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l I n c . , 1985.  103.  Reed  104.  Bloom & F i s c h e r ,  105.  D i s c u s s i o n w i t h a member o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Kwantlen C o l l e g e regarding students with c h i l d r e n . F r o m t h e r e g i s t r y i t was f o u n d t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f students with children were e n r o l l e d i n the Continuous Entering classes. (Feb., 1987).  106.  Bloom & F i s c h e r ,  107.  Matheson, Douglas, et a l . Experimental Psychology. R e s e a r c h D e s i g n a n d A n a l y s i s , New Y o r k : Holt, R i n e h a r t and Winston, I n c . , 1978.  108.  Matheson, Douglas, et a l . Experimental Psychology. R e s e a r c h D e s i g n a n d A n a l y s i s , New Y o r k : Holt, R i n e h a r t and Winston, I n c . , 1978.  109.  S t a t u s o f Women, S e r i e s  110.  Kuiken, Jake. 'Latchkey C h i l d r e n ' , C a l g a r y , August 1986. R e p o r t t o : A S p e c i a l Committee o f t h e House o f Commons, T h e P a r l i a m e n t a r y T a s k F o r c e o n C h i l d C a r e .  111.  Richmond P l a n n i n g Department.  & Smith, 1981. p. 134.  p. 135.  #5, p . 4 4 .  1986.  146 112.  Conversation Concerning  with  Peter  Ashmore.  Fees f o r C h i l d  113.  Richmond P l a n n i n g  114.  Conversation College.  Department.  November  1986.  Care. 1986.  with administrative staff February 1987.  at  Kwantlen  147  APPENDIX I  149  APPENDIX  II  150  CHILD CARE SURVEY  This is an exploratory survey to determine the extent and nature of childcare requirements among several groups with a view to establishing a childcare f a c i l i t y . The results from the survey will assist various groups in assessing the f e a s i b i l i t y in future planning for childcare services. All information will be confidential and only used for planning purposes by groups wishing to establish childcare f a c i l i t i e s . DEFINITIONS: 1.  Group Day Care  (3 months to 18 months)  provides care for children aged 3 months to 18 months for periods up to 10 hours per day. 2.  Group Day Care  (18 months to 36 months)  provides all day care (maximum 10 hours) for children aged 18 months to 36 months. 3.  Group Day Care  (3 years to school age)  provides care for children aged 3 years to school age for periods of up to 10 hours per day. 4.  Nursery School provides care for children maximum of 3 hours per day.  5.  aged 32 months to  school  age for  Out of School Care provides care school hours.  for  school-aged children  before  and  after  normal  also provides full-day care during periods of school closure Professional Development Days and School Vacations). 6.  a  (eg.  Specialized Day Care provides all-day care (maximum 10 hours) for special needs children aged birth to school age.  7.  Overnight Care provides care for children of all per day.  ages for periods up to 10 hours  151  CHILD CARE SURVEY  la)  Do you have children between the ages of birth to 13 years of age? (_) (_)  b)  Yes No  Are you presently using or in need of childcare? (_) (_)  Yes No  If you answered no to both questions thank-you for your answered yes to either question please answer the following. 2.  If  you  What are the ages of your children ( ) ( ) (__)  3a)  input.  0 - 1 7 months 18 months to 3 years 3 - 5 years  What type of childcare do you require? Group Day Care  Pre School Nursery  Specialized Care  Out of School Care  Other  1 2 3 4 5 6 b)  If you have special needs children indicate their needed. Age  Child 4.  age and type of care  Type of Care  1 2 For what hours do you require childcare services? Week Evenings Weekdays (7am - 6pm) (6pm - 11pm)  Child 1 2 3 4 5 6  Weekends Days Evenings  Part-time (Before or after school)  Other (Please specify)  152  5a)  Have you ever experienced a break down in regular childcare? (  O  b)  c)  )  Do you have alternate arrangements you could use in an emergency or for other situations requiring short-term childcare? (  )  (  ) No  Yes (please describe the arrangement)  Do you feel that short-term care? (_) • (__)  6.  Yes No  existing  centres/services  should  offer  emergency  Yes No  How satisfied are you with your percent childcare arrangements? ( ( ( ( (_)  ) ) ) )  Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Other - Specify  Why? 7.  How much are you able to pay for good care for each child? ( ) ( ) (_) ( )  8.  Less $200 $300 Over  than $250 per month - $300 per month - $400 per month $500 per month  Do you know about the Ministry of Social Services and Housing subsidy for childcare for qualifying families? Yes No  9.  Where would your preferred location for childcare be? In the vicinity of your home In the vicinity of your place of work On the premises of your work place Near your child's school Centralized (between work and home) Other - Specify  ... • . i  153  10.  Would you be willing to change from your present childcare arrangements i f a setting was established in or near the town centre and fees were affordable? ( (  11.  ) )  Yes - please state why No - please state why not  If a service were developed in Richmond's town centre would you be interested in taking part in the development of such a service? (  )  Yes C~) No  

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.831.1-0096838/manifest

Comment

Related Items