Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The measurement of the effectiveness of a multi-media presentation relating to the topic of employer-supported… Ebner, Carol 1990

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A8 E26.pdf [ 3.94MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098411.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098411-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098411-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098411-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098411-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098411-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098411-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098411-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098411.ris

Full Text

THE MEASUREMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A MULTI-MEDIA PRESENTATION RELATING TO THE TOPIC OF EMPLOYER-SUPPORTED CHILD CARE AMONG PERSONNEL OFFICERS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by C a r o l Ebner As s o c i a t e of A r t s , Capilano C o l l e g e , 1970 Bachelor of A r t s , Antioch U n i v e r s i t y , 1982 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES FACULTY OF EDUCATION We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1990 © C a r o l P a t r i c i a Ebner, 1990 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT This study was designed to examine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a multi-media p r e s e n t a t i o n r e l a t i n g to the t o p i c of employer-su p p o r t e d c h i l d care i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n the b u s i n e s s community. Changes i n the knowledge and a t t i t u d e o f e m p l o y e r s , as me a s u r e d by a q u e s t i o n a i r e , were t h e d e t e r m i n a n t s of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the p r e s e n t a t i o n . P e r s o n n e l o f f i c e r s from the p u b l i c and p r i v a t e s e c t o r were s e l e c t e d for the study subjects. Support for t h i s study was o b t a i n e d from a p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n of p e r s o n n e l o f f i c e r s , which of f e r e d to host an educational seminar on t h i s t o p i c . This seminar i s the treatment of the study and the members of the a s s o c i a t i o n who elected to attend t h i s seminar are the subjects. This study was part of a l a r g e r study that was a j o i n t research p r o j e c t between the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia and Douglas C o l l e g e . Each i n s t i t u t i o n s u p p l i e d a p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t o r , p r o j e c t personnel and i n s t i t u t i o n a l resources. The author of t h i s t h e s i s was the project researcher. Funding f o r the pr o j e c t was received from the C h i l d Care I n i t i a t i v e s Fund, Health and Welfare Canada. A s e c t i o n of the l a r g e r p r o j e c t ' s f i n d i n g s were extracted for t h i s study. The f i e l d of employer-supported c h i l d care i s r e l a t i v e l y recent i n Canada. Since 1964 when the R i v e r d a l e H o s p i t a l opened a c h i l d care f a c i l i t y i n Toronto, there have been j u s t over one hundred such employer-supported c h i l d care f a c i l i t i e s i s e t up. Many o t h e r companies have s e t up c o m p a n y - a s s i s t e d c h i l d c a r e o p t i o n s t h a t a l s o f a l l w i t h i n the term "employer-s u p p o r t e d c h i l d c a r e , " but no one t o date has c a t a l o g u e d the t o t a l number of such i n i t i a t i v e s . In B r i t i s h Columbia t h e r e have been f o u r known employer-s u p p o r t e d c h i l d c a r e c e n t r e s ; one i s no l o n g e r i n e x i s t e n c e . T here has been c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t and a c t i v i t y i n t h e p r o v i n c i a l b u s i n e s s community s i n c e t h i s study began i n 1988. H o w e v e r , o t h e r t h a n M. M a y f i e l d ' s s u r v e y o f e m p l o y e r i n v o l v e m e n t i n c h i l d c a r e i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a i n 1984, no r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s have been conducted on t h i s t o p i c . No o t h e r known s t u d i e s are c u r r e n t l y t a k i n g p l a c e , a l t h o u g h the C h i l d C a re I n i t i a t i v e s Fund, H e a l t h and W e l f a r e Canada does l i s t s e v e r a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n p r o j e c t s c u r r e n t l y underway a c r o s s Canada. T h i s s t u d y , then, i s to develop an e f f e c t i v e m u l t i - m e d i a p r e s e n t a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o e m p l o y e r - s u p p o r t e d c h i l d c a r e t h a t would educate and i n f l u e n c e employers t o c o n s i d e r i n v o l v e m e n t i n t he c h i l d c a r e needs o f t h e i r employees from an economic p e r s p e c t i v e . Measurement of knowledge and a t t i t u d e toward the t o p i c would be t a k e n t o de t e r m i n e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n . R e s u l t s showed t h a t t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n was e f f e c t i v e . Whereas b e f o r e the seminar 2.5% o f the r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d t h e i r company's l e v e l o f i n v o l v e m e n t i n c h i l d c a r e a t t h e " d e v e l o p i n g an o p t i o n " s t a g e , by t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e i i s e m i n a r , 3 2 . 5 % o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d i n t e r e s t a t t h e same l e v e l . R e s p o n s e s s h o w e d t h a t t h e p e r c e i v e d o b s t a c l e s o f " l a c k o f e v i d e n c e o f c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s p r o v i d i n g l o n g t e r m b e n e f i t s t o t h e c o m p a n y " , " c o r p o r a t e l i a b i l i t y " , a n d " e q u i t y " w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e d u c e d . E m p l o y e r s a c q u i r e d k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e t o p i c t h r o u g h t h e s e m i n a r . P e r c e i v e d o b s t a c l e s w e r e o v e r c o m e . T h e r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e m o t i v a t e d t o become i n v o l v e d i n e m p l o y e r - s u p p o r t e d c h i l d c a r e . A n e e d f o r f u t u r e s t u d i e s h a s b e e n i d e n t i f i e d f r o m t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s a n d i t i s h o p e d t h a t i s s u e s r a i s e d f r o m t h i s s t u d y w i l l f o r m f u t u r e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s . i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i TABLE OF CONTENTS i v LIST OF TABLES v i LIST OF FIGURES v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i i CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Overview 1 Employees and the Work/ Family C o n f l i c t 2 P e r s p e c t i v e s and L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 3 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 6 I n t r o d u c t i o n 6 H i s t o r y of Employer-Supported C h i l d Care 7 The L i t e r a t u r e 9 The P e r c e p t i o n of L e v e l of Employer Obstacle about Involvement i n Employer-Supported C h i l d Care . . 11 A Study of Work-Related Day Care i n Canada: the Cooke Task Force Report 14 " E m p l o y e r - S u p p o r t e d Day Ca r e From The B r i t i s h Columbia Employers' P e r s p e c t i v e " 18 A S e n s e o f S e c u r i t y : P a r e n t and C h i l d V i ews Regarding Work -Related C h i l d Care 19 Summary 22 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 23 In t r o d u c t i o n 23 Statement of the Research Problem: 23 Procedures 24 ( i ) Research Video 25 ( i i ) Research Speakers 26 Subjects 26 Co n s t r u c t i o n of the Instrument 27 ( i i i ) P i l o t Studies . . . 29 Conduct of the Research 30 A n a l y s i s of the Data 31 Summary 31 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 32 In t r o d u c t i o n 32 P r o f i l e of the Companies and Subjects 32 Res u l t s Of The Primary Research Problem 33 P r e t e s t I n v o l v e m e n t and P o s t t e s t I n t e r e s t i n Employer-Supported C h i l d Care 34 i v Supporting Research Questions 35 Summary 39 CHAPTER FIVE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 40 Im p l i c a t i o n s 40 Recommendations For Further Research 41 Follow-up Study 44 Summary 45 ENDNOTES 46 BIBLIOGRAPHY 48 APPENDIX A: Test Instruments 56 APPENDIX B: Follow-up Study: Results 72 General Levels of Involvement 73 APPENDIX C: Follow-up Survey 7 5 v LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE I: COMPANY LEVELS OF INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD CARE . . 34 TABLE I I : LACK OF EVIDENCE TO BENEFIT TO COMPANY AS AN OBSTACLE TO INVOLVEMENT 36 TABLE I I I : CORPORATE LIABILITY AS AN OBSTACLE TO INVOLVEMENT 37 TABLE IV: EQUITY AS AN OBSTACLE TO INVOLVEMENT 38 TABLE V: LATER INVOLVEMENT IN EMPLOYER-SUPPORTED CHILD CARE 7 4 v i LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1: 3 5 FIGURE 2: 3 7 FIGURE 3: 3 8 FIGURE 4: 3 9 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to e x p r e s s my deep a p p r e c i a t i o n t o my a d v i s o r , Dr. Glen Dixon, who generously supported my e f f o r t s through t h i s r e s e a r c h program, and to my committee members, Dr. Dennis Milburn and Dr. Harold R a t z l a f f , who gave me t i m e l y advice on readings and research procedures. I would a l s o l i k e to acknowledge the support of Dr. John McKendry, one of the p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s of the j o i n t U.B.C./ Douglas College research p r o j e c t , and E l v a Reid, the r e s e a r c h c o o r d i n a t o r of the j o i n t r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . I a p p r e c i a t e d the a s s i s t a n c e o f Dr. M i c h a e l M a r s h a l l , the E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r of the E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement Research Group (EMRG) at U.B.C. and Mr. R. T a y l o r , the D i r e c t o r of EMRG f o r t h e i r t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e w i t h t h e d e s i g n a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the t e s t instruments and the a n a l y s i s of the data. S p e c i a l mention must a l s o be given to the a s s i s t a n c e of I n g r i d Edelman, A l i c e Harder and Mariam Larson, the graduate a s s i s t a n t s of the j o i n t U.B.C./ Douglas C o l l e g e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . v i i i 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Overview Employer-supported c h i l d care i s innovative and s t i l l l a r g e l y unexamined. But the interest in the topic from the business community, parents, government and the f i e l d of Early C h i l d h o o d E d u c a t i o n i s h i g h . A l l p a r t i e s are seeking solutions to the shortage of available, affordable and quality c h i l d care i n Canada. C r i t i c a l questions such as c o s t , company productivity and p r o f i t , c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and quality of care need to be examined. One key area of needed research i s the knowledge and attitude towards employer-supported c h i l d care by employers. If companies are going to be encouraged to provide t h i s employee benefit, the opinions and knowledge of mid-managers who would bring forward such p o l i c i e s must be explored. The term "employer-supported c h i l d care" i s defined as the involvement of an employer in the provision of assistance to employees' c h i l d care arrangements. It includes d i r e c t f i n a n c i a l support to those costs, set-up and operation of an on- or near- s i t e c h i l d care centre, and the various personnel p o l i c i e s that enable an employee to better meet the family r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s relating to c h i l d care. 2 Employees and the Work/ Family C o n f l i c t An ever i n c r e a s i n g number of Canadian women are e n t e r i n g the work f o r c e . A review of s t a t i s t i c s i n d i c a t e s t h a t the biggest i ncrease i n the number of working women are mothers of young c h i l d r e n . The percentage of working mothers i n Canada i n 1951 was approximately 10%. By 1961 t h i s f i g u r e had grown to 20% and i n 1984, approximately 60% of mothers with c h i l d r e n under the age of s i x t e e n were i n the labour f o r c e ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada Labour Force Survey, 1987). This increase of working mothers i s p r o j e c t e d to continue i n the 1990s. I t can t h e r e f o r e be s a i d t h a t , from t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e alone, work and fami l y l i f e f o r many Canadians can no longer be viewed as separate e n t i t i e s . Conditions at work s p i l l over and a f f e c t the employee's fam i l y l i f e . Family l i f e s t r e s s e s can i n t e r f e r e with a worker's performance on the jo b . The worker, male or female, must i n c r e a s i n g l y j u g g l e m u l t i p l e r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s that are not easy to leave behind on the job or at home. A r e c e n t 1 American study of employee a b s e n t e e i s m and t a r d i n e s s found that employees with c h i l d r e n under the age of twelve years missed 43% more work days per year and were l a t e f o r work 60% more than other employees. In t h i s study, the three major sources of s t r e s s reported by employees were: 1. f a m i l y finances 2. job r e l a t e d worries 3 3. c h i l d care arrangements Yet, a G a l l u p P o l l i n 1986 found that 48% of respondents thought that two income f a m i l i e s should not r e c e i v e government s u b s i d i e s f o r c h i l d care. However, Health and Welfare Canada estimated i n 1986 that c h i l d r e n i n need of some form of c h i l d care outnumber the spaces a v a i l a b l e i n l i c e n s e d c entres a c r o s s Canada by ten to one. In the l a t t e r years of the 1980s employers have become aware of the issue of employee work/family c o n f l i c t s and the p o s s i b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e s e s t r e s s e s on company p r o d u c t i v i t y . T h i s concern has been supported as w e l l by the Conference Board of Canada's a n a l y s i s of labour p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s of men and women, as w e l l as p r o j e c t e d s h o r t a g e s of s k i l l e d w o r k e r s . 2 The t o p i c of employer-supported c h i l d c a r e has become one o f i m p o r t a n c e as e m p l o y e r s seek answers t o recruitment and r e t e n t i o n , as w e l l as t r a d i t i o n a l concerns of t a r d i n e s s , absenteeism, and morale. I n n o v a t i v e c o r p o r a t e l e a d e r s a r e examining t h e i r employee demographics and the labour scene to f i n d s o l u t i o n s . P e r s p e c t i v e s and L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study The p e r s p e c t i v e taken i n t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y study i s to examine ways of e f f e c t i n g a p o s i t i v e change i n how employers view t h e i r involvement i n c h i l d care f o r t h e i r employees. The s t u d y was d e s i g n e d to c o n f i r m t h a t a q u a l i t y , m u l t i - m e d i a 4 e d u c a t i o n a l p r e s e n t a t i o n would educate employers about t h i s t o p i c and encourage them to become f u r t h e r i n v o l v e d i n t h i s area. The l i m i t a t i o n s of the study are: 1. the s u b j e c t s a r e not random. P e r s o n n e l o f f i c e r s r e g i s t e r e d to a t t e n d t h i s seminar and are t h e r e f o r e s e l f -s e l e c t e d . The g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s of t h i s study are l i m i t e d : the r e s u l t s apply to these s u b j e c t s , and other members of the a s s o c i a t i o n who share s i m i l i a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 2. the sample s i z e (N = 40) i s s m a l l . G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y i s a l s o l i m i t e d due to the small number of respondents. 3. t h e i n s t r u m e n t had l i m i t a t i o n s . A l t h o u g h t h e i n s t r u m e n t was adapted from a h i g h l y v a l i d a t e d survey from another study, adaptation was necessary. The s t r u c t u r e of the p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t d i d not permit d i r e c t c o r r e l a t i o n between a l l p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t t e s t items. One general q u e s t i o n of p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t involvement could only be analyzed at the numerical change l e v e l . 4. the treatment time was short . T h i s study was a small p a r t of a much l a r g e r j o i n t U.B.C./ Douglas C o l l e g e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . A follow-up study was conducted at s i x months and a one year follow-up study i s being planned to determine l a s t i n g e f f e c t s of the changes. The g o a l of the s t u d y i s to i n f l u e n c e e m p loyers t o c o n s i d e r e m p l o y e r - s u p p o r t e d c h i l d c a r e from an economic p e r s p e c t i v e . A multi-media p r e s e n t a t i o n was developed to meet 5 t h i s g o a l . Although the r e s u l t s of t h i s study apply to the s u b j e c t s of t h i s study and other members of the a s s o c i a t i o n who share s i m i l i a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n , i f e f f e c t i v e , c o u l d be o f f e r e d to the b u s i n e s s community i n general to achieve s i m i l i a r g o a l s . 6 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE In t h i s chapter, a review of the r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e i s presented. Because t h i s t o p i c i s recent, there are few North A m e r i c a n s t u d i e s t h a t a d d r e s s t h e f o c u s o f e m p l o y e r involvement i n c h i l d care and perceived employer o b s t a c l e s to involvement. T h i s chapter w i l l present the only known s t u d i e s t h a t s p e c i f i c a l l y address t h i s s p e c i f i c focus. Two Canadian s t u d i e s , one American study, and the only study conducted i n B r i t i s h Columbia w i l l be reviewed. A review of a Canadian study on c h i l d / p a r e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n with the use of employer-supported c h i l d care w i l l a l s o be given. I n t r o d u c t i o n As w e l l as various l e v e l s of government, some employers, uni o n s and community a g e n c i e s have a l r e a d y r e c o g n i z e d the co n n e c t i o n between corporate e f f i c i e n c y and the s t a t e of the work f o r c e . Such employers have r e c e n t l y developed employee b e n e f i t programs geared to improving c o m p a t i b i l i t y between work and f a m i l y l i f e . I n n o v a t i v e employee e d u c a t i o n and support programs and c a f e t e r i a - s t y l e b e n e f i t plans are some of the new a p p r o a c h e s b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d by N o r t h A m e r i c a n employers. Care f o r the c h i l d r e n of employees i s one such r e c e n t b u s i n e s s i n i t i a t i v e t h a t some companies are c o n s i d e r i n g i n i n c r e a s i n g numbers. This Chapter w i l l examine the r e s u l t s of 7 four s t u d i e s of employer-supported c h i l d care i n i t i a t i v e s i n North America. Each study's methodology and f i n d i n g s as they p e r t a i n t o e m p l o y e r i n v o l v e m e n t and o b s t a c l e s w i l l be presented. One Canadian study of parent and c h i l d p e r c e p t i o n of s a t i s f a c t i o n of c h i l d care and sense of s e c u r i t y of parent and c h i l d . A summary w i l l conclude t h i s s e c t i o n . H i s t o r y of Employer-Supported C h i l d Care The f i e l d of employer-supported c h i l d care i s r e c e n t , small i n the number of e x i s t i n g programs i n North America, and i s a h y b r i d b e n e f i t s area between c h i l d care and business. The f i r s t e m ployer-supported c h i l d c a r e f a c i l i t y was opened i n 1964 at R i v e r d a l e H o s p i t a l i n Toronto. The second f a c i l i t y was e s t a b l i s h e d at the U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a H o s p i t a l i n Edmonton i n 1967. Today t h e r e a r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y one hundred known f a c i l i t i e s i n Canada and h e a l t h care i n d u s t r y have been the l e a d e r s i n developing t h i s employee b e n e f i t . In 1984, such c e n t r e s c o n s t i t u t e d between 3 - 4% of a l l l i c e n s e d spaces i n Canada. 3 C u r r e n t l y i n B.C., there are l e s s than s i x such on- or n e a r - s i t e c e n t r e s , a l t h o u g h a number of employers o f f e r f l e x i b l e personnel p o l i c i e s to p a r t l y address the c h i l d care needs o f t h e i r e m p l o y e e s . The f i r s t o n - s i t e e m p l o y e r -supported c h i l d care centre opened i n B.C. i n 1982 at A l o u e t t e Search S e r v i c e s i n New Westminster. I t operated c o n t i n u o u s l y u n t i l the Spring of 1987 when i t was d i s c o n t i n u e d due to lack 8 of need. C u r r e n t l y one h o s p i t a l , one p u b l i c s e c t o r union, and one n a t i o n a l food chain s t o r e operate such programs. To emphasize how recent t h i s f i e l d i s , S t a t i s t i c s Canada r e p o r t s t h a t 87% of a l l employer-supported c e n t r e s have s t a r t e d i n Canada s i n c e 1976, w h i l e 42% of those have s t a r t e d s i n c e 1980. 4 In t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , the development o f e m p l o y e r -s u p p o r t e d c h i l d care f a c i l i t i e s has o c c u r r e d over the l a s t t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s . As i n Canada, t h e y were o r i g i n a l l y implemented by h e a l t h c a r e o r g a n i z a t i o n s ( h o s p i t a l s ) , or c o mpanies t h a t p r o d u c e h e a l t h c a r e p r o d u c t s ( J o h n s o n & Johnson, S t r i d e R i t e ) , and who have t r a d i t i o n a l l y addressed f a m i l y i s s u e s of employees. One Canadian d i f f e r e n c e , however, i s that almost a l l of these f a c i l i t i e s that have opened s i n c e the f e d e r a l S p e c i a l Committee on C h i l d Care Task Force Report was i s s u e d i n March of 1987 have been sponsored by the p u b l i c s e c t o r , and not the p r i v a t e (business) sector as was the case i n the United States (Ebner, 1988). In the past two years there has been a n o t i c e a b l e f l u r r y of i n t e r e s t on the p a r t of employers i n t h i s t o p i c . The r e a s o n s f o r t h i s i n q u i r y a r e p r i m a r i l y c o n s i d e r e d to be " e n l i g h t e n e d s e l f - i n t e r e s t " . 5 As American r e s e a r c h i s disseminated i n p r o f e s s i o n a l business j o u r n a l s , Canadian human r e l a t i o n s personnel are becoming aware of the t o p i c . As w e l l , research i n i t i a t i v e s have been encouraged through funding from the C h i l d Care I n i t i a t i v e s Fund, Health and Welfare, Canada. 9 R e c e n t l y , the t o p i c of work/ f a m i l y c o n f l i c t i s r e c e i v i n g media a t t e n t i o n i n the p u b l i c p r e s s . As y e t , the employers who are at the beginning stages of involvement have g e n e r a l l y yet to move beyond a g e n e r a l l e v e l of i n v e s t i g a t i o n of need w i t h i n t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n . The L i t e r a t u r e T h e r e i s a s m a l l but growing body of N o r t h American l i t e r a t u r e on t h i s t o p i c . As yet, there i s a l i m i t e d source of e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e Canadian i n f o r m a t i o n 6 on t h i s t o p i c , a l t h o u g h s e v e r a l s t u d i e s a r e c u r r e n t l y b e i n g c o n d u c t e d ( M a y f i e l d , i n p r e s s ) . Four major s t u d i e s have been s e l e c t e d t o p r e s e n t a r a t i o n a l e f o r the s e l e c t i o n of the four research questions of t h i s s t u d y . Employer inv o l v e m e n t i n c h i l d c a r e i n o f t e n d e l a y e d o r d e n i e d by the p e r c e p t i o n o f o b s t a c l e s t h a t employers c i t e as pre-involvement concerns. A study of these o b s t a c l e s i s n e c e s s a r y to i d e n t i f y the importance of the o b s t a c l e s as w e l l as i d e n t i f y i n g ways of overcoming them ( r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s study). As w e l l , one Canadian study has been s e l e c t e d from the l i t e r a t u r e because i t examined the views and a t t i t u d e s of parents and c h i l d r e n who use employer-supported c h i l d care i n O n t a r i o and Quebec. Although t h i s focus of t h i s study i s on the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a p r e s e n t a t i o n to employers about t h i s t o p i c , the a t t i t u d e of the users of the s e r v i c e , e s p e c i a l l y 10 t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n about, and sense of s e c u r i t y provided from t h i s type of care, i s important to consider. The f e d e r a l government Task Force on C h i l d Care surveyed Canadian employers f o r i t s 1985 p u b l i c a t i o n , " S h a r i n g the R e s p o n s i b i l i t y , S e r i e s 6 - The Employer's Role" and i n c l u d e d s t a t i s t i c s from across the country. In 1989, the Conference Board of Canada issued "The Corporate Response to Workers with F a m i l y R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s " . The s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d , "Canadian Work E n v i r o n m e n t s : A S u r v e y of E m p l o y e r s " i n c l u d e s an examination of employer a t t i t u d e s and c h a l l e n g e s . There has been o n l y one study conducted on employer-supported c h i l d care i n B r i t i s h Columbia (M. M a y f i e l d , 1984). T h i s a u t h o r i s c u r r e n t l y c o m p i l i n g an i n v e n t o r y of work-r e l a t e d c h i l d care programs i n Canada f o r Labour Canada ( i n p r e s s ) . One s i g n i f i c a n t American study that e x p l o r e d p e r c e i v e d employer o b s t a c l e s i s the 1988 American S o c i e t y of Personnel A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 1988 C h i l d Care Survey R e p o r t . The s u r v e y format from t h i s study was used as a b a s i s f o r the p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t used i n the study conducted by t h i s author. During the r e s e a r c h year (1989 - 1990), as p a r t of the l a r g e r s t u d y , the w r i t e r c o n d u c t e d an ongoing l i t e r a t u r e s e a r c h . C a n a d i a n , A m e r c i a n and s e l e c t e d i n t e r n a t i o n a l a r t i c l e s have been s e t up i n a c a t a l o g u e d c o l l e c t i o n a t Douglas C o l l e g e . These a r t i c l e s w i l l s h o r t l y be a v a i l a b l e f o r loan to the business and general community. 11 From that c o l l e c t i o n , the w r i t e r decided t h a t , f o r t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n , American l i t e r a t u r e on g e n e r i c f a m i l y and s o c i a l i s s u e s can apply to Canada and may be of value when c o n s i d e r i n g innovations i n the business, f a m i l y and s o c i a l l i f e of Canada. For that reason, the Amercian S o c i e t y of Personnel Administrators 1988 C h i l d Care Survey Report has been i n c l u d e d . The two Canadian s t u d i e s are g i v e n as they r e p r e s e n t the n a t i o n a l scene, and the B r i t i s h Columbia study i s i n c l u d e d as i t i s the only p r e v i o u s examination of t h i s t o p i c . The four employer s t u d i e s have a methodology of survey. The Task Force Report a l s o interviewed employers. The study of p a r e n t a l and c h i l d s a t i s f a c t i o n was a case study. No study has b een f o u n d on t h i s t o p i c t h a t e m p l o y e d a q u a s i -experimental or experimental design. The P e r c e p t i o n o f L e v e l o f E m p l o y e r O b s t a c l e a b o u t  Involvement i n Employer-Supported C h i l d Care The Conference Board of Canada conducted the most recent r e s e a r c h program on the t o p i c of work/family i s s u e s and i t s impact on the Canadian labour f o r c e . The Conference Board s u r v e y e d 1,600 companies and o r g a n i z a t i o n s d u r i n g 1988 and 1989. 7 The survey asked respondents about the e x t e n t of t h e i r involvement to a number of f a m i l y - r e l a t e d b e n e f i t areas, one of which was employer-supported c h i l d care. Survey f i n d i n g s show that few Canadian companies are c u r r e n t l y i n v o l v e d . The 12 respondents were not asked the degree of t h e i r involvement, but were asked to i d e n t i f y the option of c h i l d care i n which they are c u r r e n t l y i n v o l v e d . The p r o p o r t i o n of companies f o r each employer-supported c h i l d care option f o l l o w s : ( i ) c h i l d care information and r e f e r r a l s e r v i c e s - 8.4% ( i i ) a s s i s t a n c e f o r the care of s i c k c h i l d r e n - 7.8% ( i i i ) c h i l d care centres ( o n - s i t e , support f o r o f f - s i t e , f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r employees to help pay f o r c h i l d care) - 4.8% ( i v ) parent education seminars - 4.6% (v) c h i l d care a s s i s t a n c e f o r employees who work outside of normal hours - 2.7% ( v i ) summer camps - 1.1% ( v i i ) a f t e r - s c h o o l programs - 1.0% •6 T h i s s e c t i o n of the survey a l s o asked f o r f u t u r e i n t e r e s t i n involvement ( " a c t i v e l y " or "may" and a "no" c a t e g o r y ) . Few e m p l o y e r s r e p o r t e d t h a t they would p r o c e e d w i t h f u r t h e r involvement. 8 T h i s study d i d not d i r e c t l y ask the respondents about employer o b s t a c l e s to p r o v i d i n g c h i l d care s e r v i c e s . However, the employers were asked to estimate the p r o p o r t i o n of t h e i r work spent on human resource problems and the connection with those employees fami l y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . 58.3% responded that a t l e a s t o n e - q u a r t e r of t h e i r p r oblems have t o do w i t h employee w o r k / f a m i l y c o n f l i c t s . J u s t o v e r h a l f (56.2% 13 responded t h a t over one-quarter of absenteeism problems are caused by work/ f a m i l y c o n f l i c t s . These r e s u l t s show t h a t employers are aware of the need to address t h i s area. The employers were a l s o asked what t h e i r companies have p r e v i o u s l y done to l e a r n more about the t o p i c and ways of a d d r e s s i n g t h i s i s s u e . 22% of the respondents had r e c e n t l y attended a conference or workshop on t h i s t o p i c . 15.4% of the r e s p o n d e n t s have met w i t h o t h e r c o m p a n i e s t o e x p l o r e s o l u t i o n s . 11% have h i r e d a c o n s u l t a n t to examine work and f a m i l y problems and discover p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s . 43% of t h e companies have s u r v e y e d t h e i r employees r e c e n t l y to determine the l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n with e x i s t i n g p o l i c i e s , p r a c t i c e s and b e n e f i t s . 26% have surveyed employees f o r b e n e f i t preferences. However, only 2.1% of companies have surveyed d i r e c t l y employees' pe r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . And only 2.6% would consider a survey of t h i s kind i n the f u t u r e . T h i s report i s presented because i t shows that companies are aware of the work/family c o n f l i c t s of many employees and a r e b e g i n n i n g to seek out knowledge of those problems and s o l u t i o n s to the problems. Implied here i s a beginning l e v e l of involvement f o r such b e n e f i t areas as employer-supported c h i l d c a r e s e r v i c e s . The f a c t that o n l y 2.6% would survey employee need i n t h i s area i n the f u t u r e suggests that these companies are f a c i n g i n t e r n a l o b s t a c l e s to involvement that must be a d d r e s s e d b e f o r e they p r o c e e d beyond an i n i t i a l involvement l e v e l . 14 A Study of Work-Related Day Care in Canada: the Cooke Task  Force Report The second Canadian study to examine c h i l d care and employers was "A Study of Work-Related Day Care in Canada", part of the Cooke Task Force Report on Child Care. 9 This report states that employers in seven out of ten provinces and the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s sponsor 79 c h i l d care centres, with the capacity to care for 3477 ch i l d r e n . 1 0 Other employers sponsor c h i l d care information and r e f e r r a l programs, family leave benefits and other c h i l d care-related benefits to their employees. U n t i l t h i s survey, no n a t i o n a l review of t h i s topic had taken place. For t h i s study, "work-related day care" was defined as "a day care program which has been established by an/or has some on-going involvement with a sponsoring employer or employee group for the purpose of meeting the c h i l d care needs of parents in the paid labour force of the sponsor". 1 1 Short interviews with a l l known existing programs, longer interviews with a large sample of those programs, and general interviews with p r o v i n c i a l and t e r r i t o r i a l o f f i c i a l s formed the methodology of t h i s study. Ninety-one programs were i d e n t i f i e d as of September, 1984. B r i t i s h Columbia i s l i s t e d as having three existing programs at that time. The Report also states that group c h i l d care centres form the majority of employer-supported c h i l d care i n i t i a t i v e s , many companies have supportive personnel p o l i c i e s as well, 15 which reduce work/ f a m i l y c o n f l i c t . Such b e n e f i t s as p a i d p a r e n t a l l e a v e , f l e x i b l e working hours, job-sharing and p a i d leave to care f o r m i l d l y - i l l c h i l d r e n are a l t e r n a t i v e s to on-or n e a r - s i t e c h i l d care. One s e c t i o n of the Report s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s e s the a t t i t u d e s of s e n i o r management as a key f a c t o r i n t h e involvement of c h i l d care: "Management a t t i t u d e s o f t e n shape the p h i l o s o p h y t h a t u n d e r l i e s day-to-day p r a c t i c e " . 1 2 The b a r r i e r o f e q u i t y t o a l l employees i s i d e n t i f i e d as an o b s t a c l e o f t e n mentioned by management. P r o v i n c i a l o f f i c i a l s a l s o i d e n t i f i e d a lack of information about employer-supported c h i l d care and a lack of awareness of the need f o r c h i l d care s e r v i c e s as o b s t a c l e s . S i z e of b u s i n e s s was c i t e d : s m a l l b u s i n e s s e s f e l t they could not support a c h i l d care program. A personal o p i n i o n that employees have s o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n was another o b s t a c l e presented. One s i g n i f i c a n t o b s t a c l e mentioned i n t h i s r e p o r t as a primary one and o f t e n mentioned i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s expense. Many e m p l o y e r s h e l d the view t h a t a l a c k o f f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e was a b a r r i e r to involvement. E i g h t out of ten employers thought that high on-going costs were an important o b s t a c l e . T h i s s e c t i o n concludes with the comment, "To date, l i m i t e d data are a v a i l a b l e regarding the a t t i t u d e s of s e n i o r managers i n Canada". 1 3 The t h i r d study examined f o r employer involvement and o b s t a c l e s to involvement was the American S o c i e t y of P e r s o n n e l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (ASPA) 1988 C h i l d Care 16 Survey Report, "Employers and C h i l d Care: The Human Resource P r o f e s s i o n a l ' s View". Two s e c t i o n s of t h i s extensive survey are of i n t e r e s t to t h i s review of the l i t e r a t u r e . S e c t i o n A addresses "current i n v o l v e m e n t i n c h i l d c a r e " and S e c t i o n C has a s e c t i o n , " p o t e n t i a l o b s t a c l e s to employer involvement i n c h i l d c a r e " . T h i s study a l s o e x p l o r e d employer p e r c e p t i o n s of c h i l d care l e g i s l a t i o n and i n c l u d e d a question on employee/ government/ employee r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c h i l d care. Since t h i s was a l s o a q u e s t i o n i n the study of t h i s author, the r e s u l t s from t h i s area w i l l a l s o be presented. T h i s study was a n a t i o n a l examination of i t s members' views on the t o p i c . A random sample of 5,554 members were s e l e c t e d from the membership l i s t . The response r a t e was 27 p e r c e n t . Of those companies, 10% r e p o r t e d i n v o l v e m e n t i n c h i l d c are, with l a r g e r companies more l i k e l y to be i n v o l v e d than s m a l l ones. Over h a l f (53%) are not i n v o l v e d a t any l e v e l , w h i l e the o t h e r h a l f r e p o r t e d v a r y i n g l e v e l s o f involvement (25% e x p l o r i n g i s s u e , 10% researching i s s u e . Of the companies with no current involvement, 36% of the l a r g e r ones are e x p l o r i n g the i s s u e s . Smaller companies report no or l i t t l e involvement. S e c t i o n C of the Report examined p o t e n t i a l o b s t a c l e s to i n v o l v e m e n t . Expense of p r o v i d i n g c h i l d c a r e i s the top o b s t a c l e ( 7 7 % ) , f o l l o w e d c l o s e l y by l i a b i l i t y c o n c e r n s a t 76%. Complexity of a c h i l d care system i s a l s o considered a 17 major o b s t a c l e ( 5 0 % ) , f o l l o w e d by l a c k of commitment from s e n i o r management ( 4 9 % ) . Lack of e v i d e n c e o f l o n g term b e n e f i t s to the company was an o b s t a c l e f o r 40%, and not enough p r o v i d e r s was an o b s t a c l e f o r 33%. Other o b s t a c l e s were: ( i ) i n a b i l i t y to be f a i r to a l l employees : 30% ( i i ) unsure of employee needs : 25% ( i i i ) b e l i e v e that business should not be inv o l v e d i n family matters : 24% ( i v ) u n f a m i l i a r with c h i l d care options : 23% (v) employees without c h i l d r e n might object : 21% One other relevant a n a l y s i s i s a d i s t i n c t i o n made of the o b s t a c l e s l i s t e d by companies c u r r e n t l y i n v o l v e d i n c h i l d care a g a i n s t companies not yet i n v o l v e d i n c h i l d c a r e . I t was suspected that there would be i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between the o b s t a c l e s . I t was explained that some major o b s t a c l e s f o r companies not i n v o l v e d i n c h i l d c a r e may be viewed as major s i m p l y b ecause they were not y e t i n v o l v e d and d e a l i n g w i t h the i s s u e s , eg. 32 % of the u n i n v o l v e d companies s t a t e d t h a t " u n f a m i l i a r i t y with c h i l d care o p t i o n s " i s a major o b s t a c l e versus 15% of those already i n v o l v e d . But two other o b s t a c l e s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Companies not in v o l v e d i n c h i l d care r e p o r t e d a " l a c k of commitment from s e n i o r management" as a 18 major o b s t a c l e (63%) whereas only 35% of those i n v o l v e d i n c h i l d c a r e s c o r e d t h a t o b s t a c l e as major. " B e l i e f t h a t b u s i n e s s s h o u l d not be i n v o l v e d i n f a m i l y m a t t e r s " a l s o d i f f e r e d c o n s i d e r a b l y : uninvolved: 35% i n v o l v e d : 15% One o p i n i o n asked of the ASPA r e s p o n d e n t s was whose p r i m a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y c h i l d c a r e was: the employee, the government or the employer. In the q u e s t i o n of l e g i s l a t i v e p r o p o s a l s , o n l y 2% a g r e e d t o t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of c h i l d care i s that of the employer. 83% disagreed , 13% were n e u t r a l and 2% were not sure. I t s h o u l d be noted here t h a t the s t r u c t u r e of t h i s e x t e n s i v e survey was the b a s i s of t h i s study of p e r s o n n e l o f f i c e r s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. These f i n d i n g s w i l l be compared to the r e s u l t s and presented i n Chapter 5. " E m p l o y e r - S u p p o r t e d Day C a r e From The B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a  Employers' P e r s p e c t i v e " The f o u r t h study p r e s e n t e d here i s M. M a y f i e l d ' s 1984 survey of employer involvement i n and a t t i t u d e about employer-s u p p o r t e d c h i l d care i n t h i s p r o v i n c e . The methodology of t h i s study was a m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e sent to 170 B.C.-based c o r p o r a t i o n s a s k i n g about " t h e i r need f o r , a t t i t u d e s toward, i n t e r e s t i n , and c u r r e n t or f u t u r e p l a n s f o r e m p l o y e r -supported c h i l d c a r e " . 1 4 T h i s study had a high r e t u r n r a t e (75%) against an average 37% f o r such s t u d i e s . 1 5 19 The answers to the q u e s t i o n s of involvement and f u t u r e p l a n s show t h a t o n l y a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of companies were w i l l i n g to become d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n c h i l d c a r e . Only 2% s a i d they c u r r e n t l y have worksite c h i l d c a r e , a l t h o u g h 20% i n d i c a t e d they would consider t h i s o p t i o n . A f u r t h e r 78% s a i d they would not c o n s i d e r o n - s i t e c h i l d c a r e . The o f f - s i t e c h i l d c a r e o p t i o n r e c e i v e d only s l i g h t l y more commitment: 4% are c u r r e n t l y i n v o l v e d , 29% would consider t h i s o p t i o n and 67% would not consider t h i s . A higher response rate was given f o r c h i l d care information and r e f e r r a l s e r v i c e : 8% were c u r r e n t l y u s i n g t h i s o p t i o n ; 58% would c o n s i d e r t h i s o p t i o n , and 34% would not consider t h i s o p t i o n . 1 6 The o b s t a c l e s that employers i n d i c a t e d would prevent them f r o m i n v o l v e m e n t a r e : c o s t , l a c k o f i n t e r e s t by t h e i r employees, and the complexity of B.C. l i c e n s i n g r e g u l a t i o n s f o r c h i l d care c e n t r e s . 1 7 M a y f i e l d concludes her report of the study by e s t i m a t i n g that B r i t i s h Columbia employers, i n 1984, were at an awareness and i n t e r e s t l e v e l of involvement, but "do not seem to have a g r e a t d e a l of i n f o r m a t i o n nor a r e they a c t i v e l y s e e k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n " . 1 8 A Sense of S e c u r i t y : Parent and C h i l d Views Regarding Work- Related C h i l d Care A C a n a d i a n s t u d y examined the views o f p a r e n t s and c h i l d r e n about t h e i r sense of s e c u r i t y and s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the use of employer-supported c h i l d c a r e . Nina Howe and L o r a 20 M u l l e r used a q u e s t i o n a i r e to determine the f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e s e l e c t i o n of worksite care, p a r e n t a l p e r c e p t i o n s of a r e d u c t i o n of work/family s t r e s s and t h e i r job performance as a f f e c t e d by c h i l d c a r e . Since no other study had examined the o p i n i o n s of c h i l d r e n , they a l s o asked the o l d e r c h i l d r e n i n c a r e ( f i v e year o l d s ) about t h e i r l i k e s and d i s l i k e s of t h i s form of care. The a u t h o r s p o i n t out that while r e s e a r c h i n the 1970s attemped to determine the e f f e c t s of out-of-home care on a c h i l d ' s d e v e l o p m e n t , more r e c e n t r e s e a r c h ( B e l s k y and Steinberg, 1978) has i n s t e a d examined how the q u a l i t y of care a f f e c t s s p e c i f i c domains of development (Studkey, McGhee and B e l l , 1982: c h i l d care and f a m i l y i n t e r a c t i o n s ) . The authors d i s t i n q u i s h between "work-site care" (near the p l a c e of work, but f u n c t i o n s i n d e p e n d e n t l y of the company) and "employer-s u p p o r t e d c h i l d c a r e " (a d i r e c t t i e t o t h e c o m p a n y ) . A t t e n t i o n i s drawn t o a r e c e n t Canadian s t u d y (Howe and M o l l e r , 1987) t h a t f o u n d t h a t o n - s i t e c a r e (a f o r m o f employer-supported c h i l d care) was a s s o c i a t e d with low s t a f f t u r n o v e r , h i g h j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n , and a s t r o n g s ense o f p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m among the teachers. Two c e n t r e s were i n v e s t i g a t e d . One c e n t r e i s a department of a company and a "pure" example of employer-supported c h i l d care. The other centre i n t h i s study serves e m ployees o f a m a l l and a d j o i n i n g b u s i n e s s o f f i c e s and f u n c t i o n s as a n o n - p r o f i t s o c i e t y independent of an employer. 21 Both c e n t r e s are c o n s i d e r e d to p r o v i d e h i g h q u a l i t y c h i l d c are. A p p r o x i m a t e l y t w o - t h i r d s of the p a r e n t s r e p o r t e d t h a t u s i n g t h e s e w o r k - r e l a t e d c e n t r e s reduced t h e i r g u i l t and s t r e s s about l e a v i n g t h e i r c h i l d i n care. They a l s o r e p o r t e d i n c r e a s e d m o r a l e on t h e j o b . No p a r e n t r e p o r t e d t h i s p r o x i m i t y of c h i l d care to work s i t e as d i s r u p t i v e to t h e i r work. 74.5% reported that such care increased t h e i r c h i l d ' s s e n se o f s e c u r i t y ; 72.6% f e l t i t i n c r e a s e d t h e i r c h i l d ' s happiness. As w e l l , 62.7% reported that using o n - s i t e c h i l d care made them f e e l more p o s i t i v e about c h i l d care. The c h i l d r e n ' s views supported the p o s i t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s of the parents. Questions were asked of the c h i l d r e n about t h e i r l i k e s and d i s l i k e s of c h i l d care, i f they would rather come to c h i l d c a r e or s t a y at home, and how they f e l t about being c l o s e to t h e i r parent's place of work. Most of the c h i l d r e n s a i d they l i k e d to come to c h i l d care because they could p l a y with t h e i r f r i e n d s . 60% s a i d they p r e f e r r e d c h i l d care over s t a y i n g at home, because, " i t ' s funner". D i s l i k e s i n c l u d e d b r o c c o l i and not being able to chew gum. A l l of the c h i l d r e n i n d i c a t e d that they l i k e d being c l o s e to t h e i r parent's p l a c e of work, i n c l u d i n g the comment, "She doesn't have to walk so f a r ( t o work) and I don't have to worry about i t . " The authors note that t h i s type of comment shows that even young c h i l d r e n are s e n s i t i v e to the work/family dilemma. 22 This study i n d i c a t e s that employer-supported c h i l d care i n g e n e r a l s u p p o r t s f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s and reduces p a r e n t a l a n x i e t y . Summary These f i v e s t u d i e s of employer involvement have been reviewed because they i n c l u d e d i n t h e i r surveys s e c t i o n s on company l e v e l of involvement and perceived employer o b s t a c l e s to involvement. 23 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY I n t r o d u c t i o n T h i s c h a p t e r w i l l d e s c r i b e the methodology used t o address the research problem as i t evolved out of the review of the l i t e r a t u r e . The chapter i n c l u d e s the research problem, the procedures of the study, c o n s t r u c t i o n of the instrument, the s u b j e c t s of the study, a n a l y s i s of the data and a summary. Statement of the Research Problem: The research problem i s : "A MULTI-MEDIA PRESENTATION ABOUT EMPLOYER-SUPPORTED CHILD CARE WILL BE EFFECTIVE IN INCREASING POTENTIAL INVOLVEMENT OF COMPANIES IN CHILD CARE " For the purposes of t h i s study, the term " e f f e c t i v e " i s d e f i n e d as: 1 having an e f f e c t ; producing a r e s u l t 2 producing a d e f i n i t e or d e s i r e d r e s u l t " 1 9 To i n t e r p r e t t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e r e s e a r c h p r e s e n t a t i o n , i t was d e c i d e d t h a t e f f e c t i v e n e s s would be measured by the change i n pre and post treatment responses of l e v e l of company involvement i n c h i l d care and three o f t e n -c i t e d o b s t a c l e s to company involvement i n c h i l d care. To determine the impact of the i n d i v i d u a l respondent's background and p r o f i l e , and the impact of the company that the 24 respondent represents, the post t e s t instrument a l s o c o l l e c t e d i n f o r m a t i o n about the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondent and company so t h a t c h a n g e s i n t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n could be compared i f necessary. Two items were s e l e c t e d from the t e s t i n s t r u m e n t to answer the f i r s t p art of the research question. These are: 1. p r e t e s t company involvement i n meeting employees' c h i l d care needs, as compared to 2. p o s t t e s t respondent i n t e r e s t i n meeting employees' c h i l d care needs. The three s u p p o r t i n g items are the p e r c e i v e d o b s t a c l e s o f : l a c k of evidence of long term b e n e f i t s to the company, corporate l i a b i l i t y when involved i n c h i l d care, and, e q u i t y : c o n c e r n t h a t employees without c h i l d r e n w i l l o b j e c t to the b e n e f i t . Procedures This i n v e s t i g a t i o n has a quasi-experimental methodology. The study c o n s i s t s of a p r e t e s t , treatment and p o s t t e s t . The treatment i s a one-day, multi-media e d u c a t i o n a l seminar that was c o n s t r u c t e d to inform the subject group about the t o p i c . The business a d v i s o r s for the l a r g e r study were asked about e f f e c t i v e teaching s t r a t e g i e s for the subjects i n the study. The l e a r n i n g model most p r e f e r r e d by the s u b j e c t s , namely the personnel o f f i c e r s i n a p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n , i s one t h a t : 1. i d e n t i f i e s steps that t h e i r colleagues are 25 already taking on an is s u e , 2. presents information i n a concise, v i s u a l format, with a minimum of reading r e q u i r e d , and 3. focuses s p e c i f i c a l l y on l o c a l i n i t i a t i v e s and concerns about an i s s u e . The format of the educational seminar was c o n s t r u c t e d to r e f l e c t these p o i n t s to ensure maximum e f f e c t from a one-day, i n i t i a l exposure to the t o p i c . Because the treatment time i s s h o r t , a d d i t i o n a l time-d e l a y e d measures of e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e t r e a t m e n t a r e re q u i r e d . Therefore, as part of the l a r g e r study, a followup study was conducted s i x months a f t e r the t e s t , and a more e x t e n s i v e f o l l o w - u p study w i l l be conducted one year l a t e r . S e l e c t e d r e s u l t s of the s i x month f o l l o w u p study comprise Appendix B. ( i ) Research Video A f o u r t e e n minute, broadcast q u a l i t y video was prepared that presented the t o p i c according to: the need f o r e m p l o y e r - s u p p o r t e d c h i l d c a r e the options a v a i l a b l e to employers, common questions and answers that employers r a i s e about the t o p i c , and, l o c a l e x a m p l e s o f c o m p a n i e s t h a t have become in v o l v e d i n t h i s form of c h i l d care. Because the video was designed to be a marketing t o o l on t h e t o p i c and i n t e n d e d t o i n f l u e n c e b o t h knowledge and a t t i t u d e of the t o p i c , one s p e c i f i c American p r o d u c t i v i t y 26 study of a company who became i n v o l v e d i n c h i l d c a r e , and measured i t s economic v a l u e to the company, was f e a t u r e d throughout the video. L o c a l examples of companies i n v o l v e d i n employer-supported c h i l d care were includ e d , ( i i ) Research Speakers E x p e r t s were i n v i t e d to p r e s e n t i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e i r s p e c i f i c areas of e x p e r t i s e on the research t o p i c . A balance of p e r s p e c t i v e s were sought i n s e l e c t i n g speakers who would b e s t answer th e i n t e r e s t s and q u e s t i o n s t h a t e m p l o y e r s i n i t i a l l y have about the t o p i c . These questions and concerns were i d e n t i f i e d i n the review of the l i t e r a t u r e . Speakers i n c l u d e d an i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h e r who gave the k eynote address and was f e a t u r e d i n the v i d e o as the author of the American p r o d u c t i v i t y study, a l o c a l personnel o f f i c e r whose company has been s u c c e s s f u l l y i n v o l v e d i n e m p l o y e r - s u p p o r t e d c h i l d c a r e f o r f i v e y e a r s , a renowned Canadian researcher on the t o p i c , and a p r o v i n c i a l government c i v i l s e rvant who i s responsible f o r l i c e n s i n g procedures of c h i l d care centres i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Subjects The group of s u b j e c t s were i d e n t i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : 1. c o r p o r a t e management p e r s o n n e l who a r e i n a p o s i t i o n to take forward a recommended pl a n of a c t i o n , 27 2. personnel or human r e l a t i o n s o f f i c e r s who are res p o n s i b l e f o r personnel matters and records, 3. a v a i l a b l e as a group f o r research purposes. The s u b j e c t s f o r the research are members of a p r o v i n c i a l p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n f o r p e r s o n n e l o f f i c e r s . The e x e c u t i v e of t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n was approached and agreed t o organize and present a seminar on the t o p i c f o r i t s members. These s e l f - s e l e c t e d s ubjects r e c e i v e d a f l y e r a d v e r t i s i n g the se m i n a r , p a i d a f e e and were r e g i s t e r e d t o a t t e n d . The seminar was j o i n t l y o r g a n i z e d by the r e s e a r c h team and a member of the a s s o c i a t i o n ' s e d u c a t i o n a l committee. C o n s t r u c t i o n of the Instrument A pre and post t e s t design was s e l e c t e d as the re s e a r c h s t r a t e g y because e a r l i e r s t u d i e s i n North America on t h i s t o p i c had c o n s i s t e d of mail surveys. A s u r v e y f r o m t h e A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y o f P e r s o n n e l A d m i n i s t r a t o r s was s e l e c t e d from t h e i r 1988 n a t i o n a l survey i n the U n i t e d States to ensure r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y and was then converted to the pre/post t e s t used i n t h i s study. The o r i g i n a l survey was constructed according to the c r i t e r i a d e s i r e d f o r t h i s study: A t t i t u d e Knowledge Respondent and Company P r o f i l e 28 In the event t h a t i t was needed, c o p y r i g h t p e r m i s s i o n from the S o c i e t y was ob t a i n e d . C o n s i d e r a b l e a l t e r a t i o n was neces s a r y t o convert the o r i g i n a l survey to a pre and p o s t t e s t instrument model. Advice was sought on content terminology from the study's b u s i n e s s a d v i s o r s and o b t a i n e d a l s o i n the p i l o t s t u d i e s . N e c e s s a r y a l t e r a t i o n s were made s p e c i f i c a l l y i n terms used that r e f l e c t e d a d i f f e r e n c e between common terms i n the United S t a t e s and Canada i n the area of c o r p o r a t e p e r s o n n e l / human r e l a t i o n s . P r i o r t o the f i n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of the instrument, the s e r v i c e s of the Educational Measurement Research Group (EMRG) at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia were c o n t r a c t e d f o r f i n a l d e s i g n o f the i n s t r u m e n t and c o n s u l t a t i o n on d a t a a n a l y s i s . The f i n a l copy of the r e s e a r c h i n s t r u m e n t was designed by EMRG. Design features included a cover l e t t e r to the respondents, a subject research permission form and a t e s t format that permitted computer scan of the r e s u l t s (Appendix A) . EMRG was a l s o c o n t r a c t e d t o a d m i n i s t e r the t e s t s i n p e r s o n . They a l s o s e t up a c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e system whereby each s u b j e c t r e c e i v e d a pre and post t e s t w i t h a matched randomly a s s i g n e d i d e n t i t y number. The c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e l i s t i s h eld i n confidence at EMRG. The p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t , with accompanying documents, i s presented i n i t s e n t i r e t y i n Appendix A. 29 ( i i i ) P i l o t Studies Two p i l o t s t u d i e s were conducted to measure and improve content and c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y . The f i r s t p i l o t study was conducted with a group of ten p i l o t s u b j e c t s . I t c o n s i s t e d of a three-quarters day seminar on the t o p i c . The treatment was designed to approximate the r e s e a r c h t r e a t m e n t and members o f t h e r e s e a r c h team a d m i n i s t e r e d i t . The s u b j e c t s v a r i e d from s e n i o r c o r p o r a t e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s t o mature s t u d e n t s . The s e t t i n g was the residence of one of the research team members. M a t e r i a l s were p r e p a r e d and u s e d f o r t h e p i l o t t r e a t m e n t . E x t e n s i v e d i s c u s s i o n and e v a l u a t i o n followed the treatment and records were kept of a l l recommendations and advice. The time taken t o c o m p l e t e t h e p r e and p o s t t e s t was measured and a l l m a t e r i a l s were kept for l a t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . As a r e s u l t of the f i r s t p i l o t study, r e v i s i o n s were made to the treatment and instrument. A second p i l o t study was conducted p r i o r to the research seminar (treatment) to ensure that the language and content r e f l e c t e d the c o n s t i t u e n t groups of the research s u b j e c t s : ( i ) p u b l i c s e c t o r p e r s o n n e l management o f f i c e r s ( i i ) p r i v a t e s e c t o r p e r s o n n e l management o f f i c e r s ( i i i ) crown c o r p o r a t i o n personnel management o f f i c e r s . 30 The second study had s i x subjects from these groups. The p i l o t i n s t r u m e n t s were a n a l y z e d and t h e s u b j e c t s were i n t e r v i e w e d f o r t h e i r recommendations and impressions of the c o n s t r u c t of the in s t r u m e n t . F u r t h e r minor r e v i s i o n s were made. Conduct of the Research The seminar was held on January 23, 1990. A l e c t u r e and f i l m t h e a t r e was the s i t e of the research. The events of the day were f i l m e d f o r a v i s u a l and w r i t t e n record of the treatment. The observers of the seminar i n c l u d e d the two p r o j e c t P r i n c i p a l I n v e s t i g a t o r s , the Western Representative of the C h i l d Care I n i t i a t i v e s Fund, Health and W e l f a r e , Canada ( s t u d y f u n d i n g agency) and t h e p r o j e c t p e r s o n n e l ( P r o j e c t Researcher, Research Coordinator, P r o j e c t Manager, three Graduate A s s i s t a n t s ) . An e x t e n s i v e binder on the t o p i c of employer-supported c h i l d c a r e t h a t r e i n f o r c e d the main p o i n t s of the treatment was presented to each respondent a f t e r they had completed the post t e s t . The r e s e a r c h instrument was ad m i n i s t e r e d by the author and a c o n s u l t a n t from EMRG. The c o n s u l t a n t c o l l e c t e d the t e s t s at the end of the day and took them back to EMRG f o r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . 31 A n a l y s i s of the Data The p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t q u e s t i o n s were c o d e d and ana l y z e d . The p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t questions f o r t h i s study were s e l e c t e d from the l a r g e r study and s t a t i s t i c a l procedures were completed. Pre and post frequency comparisons were examined at the i n d i v i d u a l item l e v e l to i d e n t i f y numerative changes between the p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t research items. F a c t o r a n a l y s i s was then c o n d u c t e d f o r t h e e n t i r e instrument. The l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e was set at .3 i n each f a c t o r column. Two-way cross t a b u l a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d changes of s i g n i f i c a n c e . A Chi-Square "goodness of f i t " procedure was used. The l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e was set at .05. Summary Th i s chapter has o u t l i n e d the procedures. Each p r o c e d u r e was s e l e c t e d from the knowledge gained from the r e v i e w o f the l i t e r a t u r e , c o n s u l t a t i o n from the business a d v i s o r s to the study, the d i r e c t i o n of the p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s and the t h e s i s committee and the advice of the D i r e c t o r of the U.B.C. Educational Measurement Research Group. Re s u l t s of the study are presented i n Chapter 4. 32 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS I n t r o d u c t i o n T h i s c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s of a n a l y s i s o f the data. A p r o f i l e of the companies and subjects w i l l f i r s t be g i v e n to p r o v i d e a l i m i t e d b a s i s f o r g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y . The r e s u l t s of the primary research item of involvement w i l l come next. F o l l o w i n g t h i s and to provide supporting evidence f o r the primary research question, the r e s u l t s of three q u e s t i o n s that t e s t e d p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t perceptions of o b s t a c l e s w i l l be g i v e n . The c h a p t e r w i l l c o n c l u d e w i t h an o v e r a l l statement of r e s u l t s . P r o f i l e of the Companies and Subjects A t o t a l of f o r t y people p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the seminar, r e p r e s e n t i n g 38 i n s t i t u t i o n s . A p r o f i l e of the companies represented showed that: - over 63% were l o c a t e d on the Lower Mainland; - while the average number of employees was 2,000, 66% of the companies counted fewer than 1,000 employees; - the m a j o r i t y o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s (66%) r e p o r t e d t h e i r companies were at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y u n ionized, and - 61% of the companies were p u b l i c and 39% were p r i v a t e l y owned. Most of the seminar p a r t i c i p a n t s were personnel managers or human resource managers. A p r o f i l e of the su b j e c t s showed: 33 - the average tenure was 10.8 years; over 67% were with the company they represented f o r l e s s than ten years; - the average age of the subjects was 43.5 years; - o n l y 36.6% were parents with c h i l d r e n under 12 years; and - female subjects outnumbered males 33 to 7. To the e x t e n t t o which o t h e r members of the p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s h a r e s i m i l i a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i t i s not un r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t s i m i l i a r r e s u l t s as p r e s e n t e d below would a l s o a p p l y t o o t h e r members as w e l l as the research s u b j e c t s . R e s u l t s Of The Primary Research Problem "A m u l t i - m e d i a p r e s e n t a t i o n about the t o p i c of employer-supported c h i l d care w i l l be e f f e c t i v e i n i n c r e a s i n g p o t e n t i a l involvement of companies i n c h i l d care." To c o n f i r m the r e s e a r c h problem, r e s p o n s e s from one g e n e r a l p r e t e s t item of the respondents' company involvement i n c h i l d care was compared with a general p o s t t e s t item of the l e v e l of respondent i n t e r e s t i n meeting employees' c h i l d care needs. To p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l s u p p o r t o f e v i d e n c e f o r t h e r e s e a r c h p r o blem, t h r e e p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t i t e m s were compared. 34 P r e t e s t I n v o l v e m e n t and P o s t t e s t I n t e r e s t i n E m p l o y e r - Supported C h i l d Care At the p r e t e s t , the respondents were asked t o r e p o r t t h e i r companies' "current l e v e l of involvement i n c h i l d c a r e " , according to a category of f i v e p o s s i b l e responses (see F i g u r e 1 and T a b l e 1 ) . 15% s a i d t h a t t h e i r companies were "not i n v o l v e d i n c h i l d care". At the p o s t t e s t , the r e s p o n d e n t s were asked t o then r e p o r t t h e i r " i n t e r e s t i n meeting employees' needs". A l l respondents reported involvement. 40% of the respondents were at the p r e t e s t " d i s c u s s i n g " l e v e l of involvement i n c h i l d care and a t the p o s t t e s t t h a t p ercentage had d e c l i n e d t o 35%. 42.5% were at the p r e t e s t "researching" l e v e l and at p o s t t e s t , only 10% respondents were at that l e v e l . The biggest change occurred at the "developing an o p t i o n " l e v e l of involvement: whereas only 2.5% reported that l e v e l at t h e p r e t e s t , 32.5% r e p o r t e d b e i n g a t t h a t l e v e l by the p o s t t e s t . By the p o s t t e s t , one company had a l s o moved to the expanding an o p t i o n l e v e l and one company was r e v i e w i n g or r e v i s i n g t h e i r c h i l d care s e r v i c e s . TABLE I : COMPANY LEVELS OF INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD CARE Uninvolved Disc u s s i n g Researching Developing T o t a l P r e t e s t 6 16 17 1 40 Postest 0 14 10 13 37 T o t a l 6 30 27 14 77 35 FIGURE 1: COMPANY LEVELS OF INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD CARE Number of Companies  20 -fl Unlnvsli.4 OL«WI*A« fl...«t«hln| Qttralstlflf Olh« Levels of Involvement _ • Initial Resul ts _3 F ina l Resul ts Supporting Research Questions Three p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t items were analyzed to measure the change i n o p i n i o n of how the r e s p o n d e n t s p e r c e i v e d o b s t a c l e s to a company being i n v o l v e d i n c h i l d c a r e . The three o b s t a c l e s are: 1. lack of evidence of c h i l d care s e r v i c e s p r o v i d i n g long term b e n e f i t s to the company 2. corporate l i a b i l i t y 3. e q u i t y . To answer these q u e s t i o n s , the respondents s e l e c t e d an "o b s t a c l e " l e v e l from a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e (1 - not an o b s t a c l e , 5 - major o b s t a c l e ) . 36 Nonparametrie t e s t s were used to determine the r e s u l t s because the data was c a t e g o r i c a l and o r d i n a l . Frequencies and c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s were examined. A chi-square t e s t was used t o a n a l y z e t h e d a t a b e c a u s e " t o d e t e r m i n e whether two f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n s d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y f r o m e a c h o t h e r " . 2 0 The l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e was set at .05. The respondents were asked t h e i r p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t p e r c e p t i o n of t h r e e o f t - c i t e d o b s t a c l e s to i n v o l v e m e n t i n employees' c h i l d care: lack of evidence of long term b e n e f i t s t o t h e company, c o r p o r a t e l i a b i l i t y , and e q u i t y . The respondents viewed a l l three o b s t a c l e s as l e s s of a p o s t t e s t o b s t a c l e . The g r e a t e s t change o c c u r r e d with the o b s t a c l e of long term b e n e f i t to the company. P r i o r to the seminar, over 51% of the respondents saw lack of evidence as an important or major p e r c e i v e d o b s t a c l e . At the c o n c l u s i o n of the seminar, 15% r e p o r t e d t h i s p e r c e i v e d o b s t a c l e a t t h e s e l e v e l s . The f i n d i n g i s s i g n i f i c a n t . TABLE I I : LACK OF EVIDENCE TO BENEFIT TO COMPANY AS AN OBSTACLE TO INVOLVEMENT No Minor Average Import. Major Obstacle Obstacle Obstacle Obstacle Obstacle T o t a l P r e t e s t 7 8 4 11 9 39 P o s t t e s t 13 14 6 3 3 39 T o t a l 20 22 10 14 12 78 x 2 = 20.461 DF = 4 3 7 FIGURE! 2: LACK OF EVIDENCE OF BENEFIT TO COMPANY AS AN OBSTACLE TO INVOLVEMENT Percentage of Responses  60* - i l 4 9 * - ' 4 0 * -No OO.Uoli Minor Awrojo Inaoi lMl Malor Degree of Perceived Obstacle _• Initial Raoulli 23 Final Resulta The p e r c e i v e d o b s t a c l e s of corporate l i a b i l i t y and e q u i t y were a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e d u c e d . The r e d u c t i o n i n the o b s t a c l e of equity i s included because i t i s o f t e n l i s t e d as a major o b s t a c l e . The alpha l e v e l was relaxed to 1.0 f o r t h i s e x p l o r a t o r y r e s u l t because i t may be of i n t e r e s t t o the reader. TABLE I I I : CORPORATE LIABILITY AS AN OBSTACLE TO INVOLVEMENT No Minor Average Import. Major Obstacle Obstacle Obstacle Obstacle Obstacle T o t a l P r e t e s t 4 6 9 14 7 40 P o s t t e s t 11 12 8 5 4 40 T o t a l 15 18 17 19 11 80 x 2 = 25.433 DF = 4 38 CORPORATE LIABILITY AS FIGURE 3: AN OBSTACLE TO INVOLVEMENT Percentage of Responses  60* -A ! 46* -40*--M« O..IMI* Wlnvr A m u ! l»».rl»al M.10I Degree of Perceived Obstacle M l Initial Haaults LZ2) F inal Haaulta According to Figure 3, the perception that corporate l i a b i l i t y i s an o b s t a c l e was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e d u c e d . P r i o r t o the s e m i n a r , 53% r e p o r t e d t h a t c o r p o r a t e l i a b i l i t y was an important or major perceived o b s t a c l e . At the c o n c l u s i o n of the seminar, 23% re p o r t e d t h i s p e r c e i v e d o b s t a c l e at these l e v e l s . There was a l s o an increase i n seven companies who no longer viewed corporate l i a b i l i t y as an o b s t a c l e at the end of the s e m i n a r . S e v e r a l s p e a k e r s a d d r e s s e d t h i s p e r c e i v e d o b s t a c l e i n depth. TABLE IV: EQUITY AS AN OBSTACLE TO INVOLVEMENT No Minor Average Import. Major Obstacle Obstacle Obstacle Obstacle Obstacle T o t a l P r e t e s t 12 12 7 6 3 40 P o s t t e s t 13 17 8 1 1 40 T o t a l 25 29 15 7 4 80 x 2 = 7.810 DF = 4 39 FIGURE 4: EQUITY AS AN OBSTACLE TO INVOLVEMENT Percentage of Responses  8 0 » -A : * NB 0*.lwl. Mln.i AMMM? l»».ru.l M.t.r Degree of Perceived Obstacle Initial F U i u l t * _2 F inal R e s u l t ! As shown i n Figure 4, the perception of equity as a p e r c e i v e d o b s t a c l e was s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced. P r i o r to the seminar, 23% of the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n d i c a t e d that equity was an important or major o b s t a c l e . F o l l o w i n g the seminar, o n l y 5% of th e s e p a r t i c i p a n t s s t i l l held these views. Summary T h i s chapter has presented the r e s u l t s of the res e a r c h . Three o b s t a c l e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced. Frequency changes i n the o v e r a l l q u e s t i o n of involvement i n employees' c h i l d care needs c l e a r l y show a s h i f t from weaker i n t e r e s t p r i o r to the seminar to stronger i n t e r e s t a f t e r the seminar. 40 CHAPTER FIVE OVERVIEW OF THE STDDY T h i s c h a p t e r w i l l d i s c u s s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e f o u r research questions. Recommendations f o r f u r t h e r research w i l l be presented as they have been confirmed from the r e s u l t s of t h e s t u d y . The p r o c e d u r e s and c o n t e n t of the s i x - m o n t h f o l l o w - u p study w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . A summary w i l l conclude t h i s chapter. I m p l i c a t i o n s A l t h o u g h t h i s q u e s t i o n was examined a t the n u m e r i c a l change l e v e l only, a number of companies had i n c r e a s e d t h e i r l e v e l o f i n t e r e s t i n involvement i n c h i l d c a r e f o r t h e i r employees between the p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t . There a r e a number o f f a c t o r s t h a t must be c o n s i d e r e d when d r a w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s from t h i s f i n d i n g : 1. the change c o u l d have occurred without exposure to the t e s t treatment. 2. the change c o u l d have o c c u r r e d because of reasons that were not part of the t e s t treatment. 3. t h e t r e a t m e n t was e f f e c t i v e i n e n c o u r a g i n g the su b j e c t s to f u r t h e r i n v o l v e themselves i n c h i l d care fo r t h e i r employees. 4. t h e i r s t a t e d p o s t t e s t i n t e r e s t i n involvement w i l l not l e a d t o f u r t h e r a c t u a l involvement i n c h i l d c are. 41 G i v e n t h e s e c a u t i o n s , i t i s n o t a b l e t h a t 30% of the res p o n d e n t s had moved from non-involvement, d i s c u s s i o n or res e a r c h i n g l e v e l s at the p r e t e s t to development of an o p t i o n of c h i l d c a r e at the p o s t t e s t . We do not know from which p r e t e s t l e v e l each of the companies moved, but over the course of the seminar, there were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from twelve out of f o r t y companies that became f u r t h e r i n t e r e s t e d i n involvement of employer-supported c h i l d care. The s u p p o r t i n g q u e s t i o n s p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e treatment was e f f e c t i v e . Three o b s t a c l e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced: lack of evidence that c h i l d care s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e s long term b e n e f i t s to the company, corporate l i a b i l i t y when inv o l v e d i n p r o v i d i n g of c h i l d care s e r v i c e s , and, eq u i t y . In c o n c l u s i o n , the hypothesis i s proven. Three o f f - c i t e d o b s t a c l e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced. Although the g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n o f p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t i n v o l v e m e n t cannot be confirmed t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t , i t can be argued on the b a s i s of l o g i c t h a t the s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s i n the o b s t a c l e s prove t h a t the m u l t i - m e d i a p r e s e n t a t i o n on the t o p i c of employer-supported c h i l d care was e f f e c t i v e f o r t h i s group of s u b j e c t s . The i m p l i c a t i o n s of these r e s u l t s a re t h a t p e r s o n n e l o f f i c e r s who are motivated to seek information about the t o p i c 42 of employer-supported c h i l d care w i l l move to a higher l e v e l of involvement from t h i s multi-media p r e s e n t a t i o n . I t a l s o shows t h a t t h e s e p e r s o n n e l o f f i c e r s have moved t o a development l e v e l of involvement from a previous d i s c u s s i o n / r e s e a r c h l e v e l and t h a t b a r r i e r s t o i n v o l v e m e n t w i l l be reduced. The a d v i c e from the business a d v i s o r s was sound i n that t h e s e p e r s o n n e l o f f i c e r s l e a r n e d about the t o p i c from the multi-media p r e s e n t a t i o n . L o g i c a l l y , i t can be concluded that r e p e a t e d o f f e r i n g s o f t h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n would f u r t h e r encourage development of employer-supported c h i l d c a r e f o r s i m i l a r groups of personnel o f f i c e r s . Recommendations For Further Research Further study i s implied i n at l e a s t four areas. Expense of involvement i n employer-supported c h i l d care remains an o b s t a c l e . T h i s may be c o r r e l a t e d to the o b s t a c l e of a l a c k of evidence of long term b e n e f i t s to the company. Study i s c a l l e d f o r i n t h i s a r e a : p r o d u c t i v i t y s t u d i e s t o p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e of the c o s t / b e n e f i t s f o r a company when i n v o l v e d i n c h i l d care would reduce the one d i r e c t o b s t a c l e ( c u r r e n t l a c k of evidence) and may a f f e c t the o b s t a c l e o f expense. The o b s t a c l e of corpora t e l i a b i l i t y r e q u i r e s study. Is t h i s o b s t a c l e simply a lack of information about the nature of c h i l d care? Or i s i t a broader i s s u e that i n d i c a t e s companies are concerned about such l e g a l i s s u e s as p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t 43 c h a r g e s o f abuse or low q u a l i t y c a r e ? S i n c e c o r p o r a t e l i a b i l i t y i s a f f e c t e d by the type of c h i l d care o p t i o n chosen, i e . on or near s i t e c h i l d care, and i t would vary from company to company depending on the economic category of the company, a study i s c a l l e d f o r . The o b s t a c l e of e q u i t y appears to have been addressed a d e q u a t e l y i n t h i s m u l t i - m e d i a p r e s e n t a t i o n . Perhaps as employers l e a r n of the many o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e t o a company when a d d r e s s i n g the c h i l d care needs of t h e i r employees and see the t o p i c of c h i l d c a r e from an economic p e r s p e c t i v e , c h i l d c a r e can be p e r c e i v e d as an employee b e n e f i t w i t h i n a range of b e n e f i t s a v a i l a b l e to employees. Expense remains an of t e n - p e r c e i v e d o b s t a c l e . I t may a l s o be a genuine o b s t a c l e . The cost of involvement i n c h i l d care depends, again, on the option of employer-supported c h i l d care chosen by the company. S p e c i f i c ways of educating companies about the expense of the various options and comparing i t to the c h i l d c a r e needs of the company's employees c o u l d be examined. Costs c o u l d then be compared to the p r o d u c t i v i t y g a i n s t h a t c o u l d be expected from employer-supported c h i l d c a r e . One other study i s c a l l e d f o r . S o c i a l p o l i c y f o r c h i l d c a r e i s l a c k i n g i n Canada. The r o l e of the government, the e m p l o y e r a n d t h e e m p l o y e e / p a r e n t r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r examination. A study of companies c u r r e n t l y i n v o l v e d i n c h i l d care may r e v e a l employer a t t i t u d e s about t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of 44 t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r employees' c h i l d care, t h e i r reasons f o r becoming i n v o l v e d , and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of the long term b e n e f i t s to the company. S i n c e c o m p a n i e s v a l u e k n o w i n g what t h e i r more " i n n o v a t i v e " c o l l e a g u e s and c o m p e t i t o r s a r e d o i n g , t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n may convince the " f a s t f o l l o w e r s " to proceed with c h i l d care. Follow-up Study One l i m i t a t i o n a l r e a d y s t a t e d was the s h o r t n e s s of the treatment time. A one-day e d u c a t i o n a l seminar, even though the e f f e c t i v e n e s s has been proven to reduce o b s t a c l e s and s t r e n g t h e n an o p i n i o n , d i d change the r e s p o n d e n t s ' s t a t e d l e v e l of involvement i n c h i l d care. But how long w i l l such a treatment l a s t ? A binder of q u a l i t y m a t e r i a l s on the t o p i c of e m p l o y e r - s u p p o r t e d c h i l d c a r e , i n c l u d i n g ways to overcome o b s t a c l e s , was presented to the respondents a f t e r the p o s t t e s t had been concluded. The l a r g e r s t u d y , o f w h i c h t h i s s t u d y i s a s m a l l component, i n c l u d e s two follow-up s t u d i e s to determine i f the respondents d i d proceed with involvement i n c h i l d care w i t h i n t h e i r companies. One f o l l o w - u p study was conducted s i x months a f t e r the e d u c a t i o n a l seminar (Appendix B) and there w i l l be a f u r t h e r follow-up study one year l a t e r . 2 1 45 Summary T h i s study was conducted as a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n of p e r s o n n e l o f f i c e r s about t h e i r knowledge and a t t i t u d e towards involvement i n employer-supported c h i l d c a r e . The review of the l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l e d that s e v e r a l surveys have been done to examine company involvement i n t h i s t o p i c and o b s t a c l e s t o involvement. No s t u d i e s c o u l d be found t h a t attempted to change the l e v e l of involvement by a s p e c i f i c treatment. T h i s study d i d p r o v i d e evidence t h a t a q u a l i t y , multi-media p r e s e n t a t i o n about the t o p i c w i l l change the l e v e l of involvement of personnel o f f i c e r s . Since i t i s personnel o f f i c e r s who are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p o l i c y development i n t h i s a r e a of employee b e n e f i t s , t h e r e i s v a l u e to t h i s type of p r e s e n t a t i o n i n encouraging companies to become i n v o l v e d i n meeting the c h i l d care needs of t h e i r employees. 46 ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Labour Report, "The Labour Force," 1985. 2. Conference Board of Canada: see b i b l i o g r a p h y f o r i n f o r m a t i o n . 3. Cooke, K. (1986). Report of the Task F o r c e on C h i l d Care. Ottawa: Status of Women Canada ( S e r i e s 4). 4. S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1989. 5. Quote f r o m Study R e s e a r c h V i d e o : H i l d e A d e l h e l m , A l o u e t t e Search S e r v i c e s . 6. Conferemce Board of Canada, 1989. 7. B a l a n c i n g Work and F a m i l y R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ; P a r i s ; Helene; Conference Board of Canada: see b i b l i o g r a p h y f o r d e t a i l s . 8. C o n f e r e n c e B o a r d o f Canada: see b i b l i o g r a p h y f o r d e t a i l s . 9. See b i b l i o g r a p h y f o r d e t a i l s of Report, Rothman Beach A s s o c i a t e s , Toronto, Ontario. 10. I b i d , p. 62. 11. I b i d , p. 63. 12. I b i d , p. 100. 13. I b i d , p. 100. 14. M a y f i e l d , M. "Employer-Supported C h i l d Care i n Canada." J o u r n a l of The Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Young C h i l d r e n , Winter/Spring, 1985/86, p. 91. ' 15. U n i v e r s i t y Reserach C o r p o r a t i o n , 1982, as quoted i n M. M a y f i e l d , p. 94. 16. I b i d , p. 97. 17. T h i s i s c i t e d as a cost f a c t o r , according to M. M a y f i e l d , p. 102. 18. I b i d , p. 102. 19. Webster's New World D i c t i o n a r y ; Webster's New World; New York; 1988, p. 432. 47 20. B o r g , W a l t e r R. and G a l l , M e r e d i t h D. " E d u a t i o n a l Research"; 1989, Longman, Inc.; White P l a i n s , New York, p. 356. 21. "Not part of t h i s study". 48 BIBLIOGRAPHY American I n s t i t u t e of A r c h i t e c t s , B i b l i o g r a p h y on Design of  Pre-Schools, Day Care Centers, Kindergartens, and Nursery  S c h o o l s . The Information Centre, American I n s t i t u t e o f A r c h i t e c t s , 1735 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006 (202) 626-7300. 1987. American S o c i e t y f o r Personnel A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , "Employers and C h i l d Care: The Human Resource P r o f e s s i o n a l ' s View: 1988 C h i l d Care Survey Report". American S o c i e t y of Personnel  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Alexandra, V i r g i n i a . 1988. Anderson, K r i s t i n . Corporate I n i t i a t i v e s f o r Working Parents  i n New York C i t y : A Ten I n d u s t r y Review. C e n t r e f o r P u b l i c Advocacy Research, 12 West 37th S t r e e t , New York, NY 10018. 1983. Auerbach, J.D. "In The B u s i n e s s of C h i l d Care: Employer  I n i t i a t i v e s and Working Women", Praeger P u b l i s h e r s , N.Y. 1988. B e l s k y , J . and I. S t e i n b e r g . "The E f f e c t s of Day C a r e : A  C r i t i c a l Review". C h i l d Development, 1978. B r o n f e n b r e n n e r . U. "The E c o l o g y o f Human Development:  Experiments by Nature and D e s i g n " . Cambridge: Harvard u n i v e r s i t y Press, 1979. Burden, Dianne and Bradley Googins, Managing Work and Family  S t r e s s i n C o r p o r a t i o n s . Boston u n i v e r s i t y Balancing Job  and Home L i f e Study. Work/Family Monograph, A t t n : Dianne Burden, Boston u n i v e r s i t y of S o c i a l Work, 264 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215. 1987. Bureau of N a t i o n a l A f f a i r s , Inc., S p e c i a l Report. Work and  F a m i l y : A C h a n g i n g Dynamic. The Bureau of N a t i o n a l A f f a i r s , I nc. A t t n : C i r c u l a t i o n Department, 1231 25th S t r e e t , NW, Washington, CD 20037. (800) 372-1033. 1986. Burud, Sandra. Answers to the 10 Most Common Questions About Company C h i l d C a r e C e n t r e s . The Human R e s o u r c e s  P r o f e s s i o n a l . (1989, September/October), p.5-11. B u r u d , S a n d r a . C h i l d c a r e b e n e f i t s : The B u s i n e s s o f B u s i n e s s ? from Burud, Sandra L., C h i l d Care B e n e f i t s : P a s t t h e I n f a n c y S t a g e C o m p e n s a t i o n and B e n e f i t s  Management. V o l . 2, No. 2. P a n e l P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . Greenvale, N.Y. (1985, Winter). 49 Burud, Sandra. C h i l d Care B e n e f i t s : The P r o f i t Centre of the N i n e t i e s . Keynote Speech at Seminar Vancouver, B.C. (1990, January 23) Burud, Sandra et a l . Employer-Supported C h i l d Care: I n v e s t i n g  i n Human Resources. Auburn House P u b l i s h e r s , 14 Dedham S t r e e t , Dover, MA 02030. C a r n e g i e , J.P. and G u t t e s c h a l k , G.E. What Employees R e a l l y  Want From T h e i r Jobs. Psychology: A Q u a r t e r l y Review of Human Behaviour. 1986. C a t a l y s t . C h i l d Care I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e s : An O p t i o n f o r  Employer Support of C h i l d Care, Research Report No. 7. 250 Park Avenue South, New York NY 10013. (212) 777-8900. 1983. Changing Times. C h i l d Care: Get your boss to h e l p (1986, October), p. 81-83. C h i l d Care A c t i o n Campaign. " C h i l d Care: The Bottom L i n e , " Conference Tapes and White Paper on the Economic Impact of C h i l d Care. 99 Hudson St., New York, NY 10013. (21) 334-9595. 1988. C h i l d Care Information S e r v i c e of NAEYC. Information K i t on  E m p l o y e r - A s s i s t e d C h i l d Care. C h i l d Care I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e o f NAEYC, 1834 C o n n e c t i c u t A v e n u e , NW, Washington, DC 20009. (800) 424-2360. 1986. Community Design Centre, Inc. B i b l i o g r a p h y on C h i l d r e n and the  P h y s i c a l Environment: C h i l d Care Centers, Outdoor P l a y  E n v i r o n m e n t s , and O t h e r C h i l d r e n ' s E n v i r o n m e n t s . U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s o n - M i 1 w a u k e e , C e n t r e f o r A r c h i t e c t u r e and Urban Planning Research, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201. (414) 963-4014. 1980. Cooke, K. Report of the Task Force on C h i l d Care. Chairperson, Status of Women, Canada, December, 1985. Copeland, Tom. The S i c k C h i l d Care Dilemma: S o l u t i o n s f o r  B u s i n e s s . S t . Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, C e n t r a l Tower, 445 Minnesota S t r e e t , St. Paul, MN 55101. 1986. Day Care Information O f f i c e . "Status of Day Care i n Canada:  1989". N a t i o n a l Department of Health and Welfare Ottawa, 1989. D i v i s i o n of C a p i t o l Planning. The C h i l d Care Centre Handbook. (30 page sy n t h e s i s of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Prototype Document)." 50 D i v i s i o n of C a p i t o l P l a n n i n g , 1 Ashburton P l a c e , Room 611, Boston, MA 02108. (617) 727-5286. Ebner, C a r o l and Bath, Stephen. New study probes work/family c o n f l i c t . Vancouver's Business Report. (1990 J a n u a r y ) , p. 12-13. E h r l i c h , E. "The Mommy Tra c k " , B u s i n e s s Week M c G r a w - H i l l , Toronto. March 20, 1989, Emlen, Arthur C. and Paul Koren. "Hard to Find and D i f f i c u l t  to Manage: The E f f e c t s of C h i l d Care i n the W o r k p l a c e —  A Report to Employers". P o r t l a n d , Or.: P o r t l a n d S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , R e g i o n a l R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e f o r Human S e r v i c e s , 1984 Emlen, Arthur C , James Kushmuk, Paul Koren and L e s l i e Faught. "Community Shared: Corporate F i n a n c i n g of a C h i l d Care  I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e " . P o r t l a n d Or.: P o r t l a n d S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , R e g i o n a l R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e f o r Human S e r v i c e s , 1984. March, 1985 Emlen, A r t h u r C. "Does C h i l d Care A f f e c t P r o d u c t i v i t y ? " . Business Link, V o l . 2: No. 2., Summer, 1986. Employer A s s i s t e d C h i l d Care i n Texas. U n i t e d Way of Texas C h i l d Care Working Group. A u s t i n , Texas. (1988, May). E s t a b l i s h i n g S e r v i c e s Through the Workplace. U.S. Department of L a b our, O f f i c e o f the S e c r e t a r y , Women's Bureau; Pamphlet 23, Revised August, 1982. F e r n a n d e z , J o h n . C h i l d Care and C o r p o r a t e P r o d u c t i v i t y :  R e s o l v i n g Family/Work C o n f l i c t . L e x i n g t o n Books, D.C. Heath and Co., 125 Spr i n g S t r e e t , L e x i n g t o n , MA 01173. 1986. Fowler, Dora. A Guide to E f f e c t i v e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n Day Care. A s s o c i a t e s i n Human Development, P.O. Box 2561, P a l a t i n e , IL 60078-0256. (312) 991-7740. 1983. F r e d r i c k s , Beth, Robin Hartman, Gwen Morgan, and Fran Rogers. A L i t t l e B i t Under the Weather: A Look at Care f o r M i l d l y  111 C h i l d r e n . Work/Family D i r e c t i o n s , 9 Galen S t r e e t , Watertown, MA 02172. (617) 923-1535. 1986. F r i e d m a n , D. F a m i l y S u p p o r t i v e P o l i c i e s : The C o r p o r a t e  D e c i s i o n Making Process. Report #897, Conference Board: N.Y. (1987). 51 F r i e d m a n , Dana. C h i l d Care For Employees' K i d s . Ha r v a r d  Business Review.(1986, M a r c h - A p r i l ) , p. 28-34. F r i e d m a n , Dana. " I s B u s i n e s s Good f o r C h i l d C a r e ? : The  Imp l i c a t i o n s of Employer Support." C h i l d Care Information Exchange. (January, 1986):9-13. Friedman, Dana E., Encouraging Employer Support t o Working  P a r e n t s . C e n t r e f o r P u b l i c Advocacy Research Inc., 12 West 37 S t r e e t , New York, N.Y., 10018, 1983. G a l i n s k y , E l l e n . "Corporate F a m i l i e s and Family L i f e . " In M. Yogman and T.B. Br a z e l t o n (eds), In Support of F a m i l i e s . Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, Cambridge, MA. 1986. G a l i n s k y , E l l e n and Diane Hughes. "Women i n the Workforce." In A.E. G o t t f r i e d and A. G o t t f r i e d ( e d s ) , M a t e r n a l Employment and C h i l d r e n ' s Development L o n g i t u d i n a l Research. New York, NY. 1987. G i b b - C l a r k , Margot. Absence f o r p e r s o n a l reasons r i s e s 100 percent i n 10 years. Globe and M a i l . (1988, June 23). p. BI. Goelman, H. and A. Pence. "Toward the Ecology of Day Care i n  Canada: A Research Agenda f o r the 1980's". Canadian J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n , Volume 10, Number 4. T o r o n t o , O n t a r i o . 1985. Grant, L., Sai-Chew, P., and N a t a r e l l i . F., " C h i l d r e n at Work:  An I n v e n t o r y o f W o r k - R e l a t e d Day C a r e i n Canada." Toronto: S o c i a l Planning C o u n c i l of M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto, 1982. Greenman, James. C a r i n g P l a c e s , L e a r n i n g Spaces. Exchange Press, P.O. Box 2890, Redmond, WA 98073. 1988. Greenman, James and Robert Fuqua, e d i t o r s . Making Day Care  B e t t e r : T r a i n i n g , E v a l u a t i o n and the Process of Change, Tea c h e r s C o l l e g e P r e s s , P.O. Box 1540, Hagerstown, MD 21741. (800) 638-3030. 1986. Howe, N. and L. M o l l e r . "A Sense of S e c u r i t y : Parent and C h i l d  Views Regarding Work-Related Day Care". J o u r n a l of the C a n a d i a n A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Young C h i l d r e n , T o r o n t o , O n t a r i o . Spring 1988. Human Se r v i c e s Risk Management Exchange. Handle with Care: How  to Reduce L i a b i l i t y R i s k s i n Programs T h a t S e r v i c e  C h i l d r e n . C h i l d , Inc., 8129 N. Lamar, Box 168, A u s t i n , TX 78753. (512) 451-7361. 1986. 52 Johnson, L. , and Dinsen, J . "The K i n Trade: The Day Care  C r i s i s i n Canada". Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1981. Kamerman, S. " F a m i l i e s That Work: C h i l d r e n In A Changing  World". N a t i o n a l Academy Press, Washington, 1982. Kamerman, S h e i l a . M a t e r n i t y P o l i c i e s and Working Women. Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, New York, NY. 1983. Kamerman, S h e i l a and A. Kahn. The R e s p o n s i v e W o r k p l a c e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 136 W. Broadway, I r v i n g t o n , NY 10533. 1987. Kra s h i n s k y , M. "Day Care p o l i c y i n the 1980s" Colloquium on the Economic S t a t u s o f Women i n the Labour M a r k e t , Economic C o u n c i l of Canada. Montreal, November 1984. Lee, Jenny. Your Money Column. Vancouver Sun. (1990, January 29). p.B2. Lero, D.S., Factors I n f l u e n c i n g Parents' Preferences f o r , and Use of A l t e r n a t i v e C h i l d Care Arrangements f o r Pre-School Age C h i l d r e n : F i n a l Report. Ottawa: M i n i s t r y o f H e a l t h and Welfare, 1981. Lou i s e C h i l d Care Management S e r i e s . O p e r ating P r o f e s s i o n a l  Day Care Centers. Louise C h i l d Care, 336 S. Aiken Avenue, P i t t s b u r g h , PA 15232. (412) 661-0303. 1986. McBride-King, J . and He'le'ne P a r i s "Balancing Work and Family  R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s " . C a n adian B u s i n e s s Review. Ottawa, O n t a r i o . Autumn, 1989. Magid, Renee Y. When mothers and f a t h e r s work: How employers can help. Personnel. (1986, December), p. 50-56. M a r t i n , S h i r l e y . M.P., C h a i r p e r s o n , S h a r i n g t h e  R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : Report of the S p e c i a l Committee on C h i l d  Care. March, 1987. M a y f i e l d , Margie. C h i l d Care B e n e f i t s : The P r o f i t Centre of  the N i n e t i e s . P a n e l l i s t Speech at Seminar. Vancouver, B.C. (1990, January 23). M a y f i e l d , Margie I. Employer-Supported C h i l d Care i n Canada. U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , Health and Welfare, Canada. March 1985. M a y f i e l d , M a r g i e . " W o r k - R e l a t e d C h i l d C a r e i n Canada". Women's Bureau, Labour Canada, Ottawa, O n t a r i o . 1990. 53 Milburn, D. " E a r l y Childhood Education: Some Thoughts on Scope  and F u n c t i o n " . The Study of Edu c a t i o n : Canada, 1982. Ottawa: Canadian S o c i e t y f o r the Study of E d u c a t i o n , 1982. M i n i s t e r s Responsible f o r the Status of Women. " I n t e g r a t i o n of Work and Family R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s : Report on S t r a t e g i e s " . Government of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario November, 1989. Morgan, Gwen. Managing the Day Care D o l l a r s : A F i n a n c i a l  Handbook. G r i f f i n House, 3706 O t i s S t r e e t , P.O. Box 275, Mt. R a i n i e r , MD 20712. (301) 779-6200. 1982. NEAYC. Information K i t on Employer A s s i s t e d C h i l d Care. C h i l d Care Information S e r v i c e of NAEYC, 1834 Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington DC 20009. (202) 232-8777 or (800) 424-2360. N e l s o n , E l e a n o r . A Case H i s t o r y : The Conso r t i u m Model a t  Prospect H i l l Parents' and Ch i l d r e n ' s Centre. 200 F i f t h Avenue, Waltham, MA 02154. N e l s o n , E l e a n o r . Parent Support S e r v i c e s at the Workplace:  What's I n v o l v e d ? . W o r k p l a c e C o n n e c t i o n s , 200 F i f t h Avenue, Waltham MA 02154. (617) 890-5483. 1986. Neugebauer, Roger, e d i t o r / p u b l i s h e r . C h i l d Care Information  Exchange. The D i r e c t o r ' s Magazine. Exchange Press, P.O. Box 2890, Redmond, WA 98073. (206) 883-9394. New Ways t o Work. A S e l e c t e d B i b l i o g r a p h y on Work Time  Options. 149 Ninth S t r e e t , San F r a n c i s c o , CA. 1983. N i t k i n , D. "A Look at the Rearguard of the Vanguard: Employer  A s s i s t e d C h i l d Care i n Canada. The C o r p o r a t e E t h i c s Monitor. Ottawa, Ontario. 1989. Parliament, J.B. "Women Employed Outside the Home". Canadian S o c i a l Trends. S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Ottawa, O n t a r i o . Summer 1989. P o t t e r , Joyce M. "Family-Related Programs: S t r a t e g i c Issues". Canadian Business Review, Ottawa Ontario, Autumn, 1989. Powell, D.R. "The I n t e r f a c e Between F a m i l i e s and C h i l d Care  Programs: A Study of Parent-Caregivers R e l a t i o n s h i p s " . D e t r o i t : The M e r r i l l - P a l m e r I n s t i t u t e , 1977. 54 P o w e l l , D.R. "Towards a S o c i o - E c o l o g i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e o f  R e l a t i o n s Between parents and C h i l d Care Programs". In S. Kilmer (Ed.), Advances i n E a r l y Education and Day Care. ( V o l . 1 ) . Greenwich, Connecticut. 1980. P r e s c o t t , E., Jones, E., Kritchevsky, S., M i l i c h , C. and Haselhoef, F. "Assessments of C h i l d Rearing Environments:  Part I: Who Thrives i n Day Care?", Part I I : An  Environmental Inventory", Pasadena, Ca. P a c i f i c Oaks C o l l e g e , 1975 Ransom, Cynthia; Aschbacher, Pamela and Burud, Sandra. The ret u r n i n the c h i l d - c a r e investment. Personnel  A d m i n i s t r a t o r . (1989, October), p. 54-58. Resources f o r C h i l d Care Management (RCCM). Business L i n k : The Report on Management I n i t i a t i v e s f o r Working Parents, Q u a r t e r l y newsletter. RCCM, 261 S p r i n g f i e l d Avenue, S u i t e 201, Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922. (201) 665-9070. Roff, Lucinda Lee and Klemmack, David L., Employers' R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r S o c i a l S e r v i c e s : P u b l i c P e r c e p t i o n s . S o c i a l Work, 1985. Schmidt, Veronica J . and Scott, Norman A. Personnel  A d m i n i s t r a t o r . (1987, August), p. 40-46. S e r i e s 4: C h i l d Care - The Employees Role. Background paper f o r the Report on the Task Force on C h i l d Care. Status of Women, Canada, December, 1985. Thomas, Li n d a Thiede and Thomas, James E. The ABCs of c h i l d c a r e : B u i l d i n g B l o c k s of Competitive Advantage. Sloan  Management Review. Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology, (1990, Winter) p. 31-41. Tr a v e r s , J . , Beck, R. and B i s s e l , R. "Measuring The Outcomes  of Day Care". In J . Travers and R.J. L i g h t (Eds.) E v a l u a t i n g E a r l y Childhood Demonstration Programs. Washington, D.C: Nat i o n a l Academy Press, 1982. T r a v i s , Nancy and J o e P e r r e a u l t . Day C a r e P e r s o n n e l  Management. G r i f f i n House, 3706 O t i s S t r e e t , P.O. Box 275 Mt. R a i n i e r , MD 20712. (301) 779-6200. 1981. We l l e s l e y School-Age C h i l d Care P r o j e c t . No Time to Waste: An  A c t i o n Agenda For S c h o o l - A g e C h i l d C a r e . W e l l e s l e y C o l l e g e C e n t r e f o r Re s e a r c h on Women, W e l l e s l e y , Ma 02181. (617) 431-1453. 1988. 55 White, Robert, "Changing Needs of Work and Family: A Union  Response"• Canadian Business Review, Ottawa, O n t a r i o 1989. W i n f i e l d , F a r i l e e E., Ed. The Work and Family Source Book. P a n e l P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . 14 P l a z a Road, G r e e n v a l e , NY 11548. (516) 484-0006. 1989. Wojahn, E l l e n . B r i n g i n g up baby. The myths and r e a l i t i e s of day care INC. (1988, November) p. 64-74. Work-Related Day Care: An Annotated B i b l i o g r a p h y . S o c i a l Planning C o u n c i l of Metro p o l i t a n Toronto. 1982. Z i g l e r , E. and Gordon, E. (Eds.) "Day Care: Science and S o c i a l  P o l i c y Issues". Boston: Auburn House, 1982 APPENDIX A: Test Instruments 58 CONSENT FORM c EMPLOYER-SUPPORTED CHILD CARE SURVEY U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A F A C U L T Y O F E D U C A T I O N 2125 M A I N M A L L V A N C O U V E R , B . C . V 6 T I Z 5 D O U G L A S C O L L E G E D E P A R T M E N T O F S O C I A L S E R V I C E S B O X 2503 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R , B . C . V 3 L 5 B 2 I have read (he enclosed letter and understand that I will be asked to complete a questionnaire, to listen to an informational presentation on employer-supported child care, and to complete a second questionnaire. I understand that I may refuse to participate in the session and may withdraw at any time without any penalty. 1 understand that all information will be kept anonymous. I acknowledge signing and receiving a copy of this consent form for my own records. Signature Name Date EMRG/UBC L9:12: !4-.89:PROJECTS:CHILD:CONSENT Page 2 59 XL PRE-TEST DIRECTIONS: Please use the daik pencil provided and indicate your response by filling in the appropriate bubble completely. If you wish to change your answer, erase all traces of the wrong mark and darken the correct bubble. FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY. S E C T I O N I: C U R R E N T I N V O L V E M E N T A . Categorize your company's levels of involvement in meeting employees' child care needs. N . B . " C h i l d care needs" refers lo care for cliildren (aged 0 to 12 years) in licensed family day care or group child care settings. ( j N O T I N V O L V E D in child care O D I S C U S S I N G the topic O R E S E A R C H I N G the topic O D E V E L O P I N G an option (i.e., close to implementing) O C H I L D C A R E in place O R E V I S I N G / E X P A N D I N G our child care B. Based on your perception of the child care needs of your employees, how adequately is your company meeting its perceived employees' child care needs? O Very adequately O Adequately O Less than adequately o Unsure O Not at all S E C T I O N II: K N O W L E D G E A . General Knowledge T o what degree have you heard of each of these topics related to employer-supported child care? 1) Proposed federal legislation on cliild care none little some lot o o o o EMRG/UBC IAOI O3:90:PROJECTS:CHILD:PRE 2) "Workforce 2000", the Hudson Institute (U.S.) report of labour conditions and skill shortages none little some lot o o o o 3) The Conference Board of Canada 1989 Report ' "The Corporate Response to Workers with Family Responsibilities'' none little some lot o o o o 4) Needs assessment procedures to determine your em-ployees' child care arrangements none little some lot o o o o 5) Employer costs when choosing child care benefits none little some lot o o o o 6) Research on the effects of child care assistance on productivity, absenteeism, and other employee behav-iours none little some lot o o o o 7) Provincial procedures necessary to establish licensed child care centres none little some lot o o o o Page I 8) Tax advantages of flexible child care benefit plans none little some lot o o o o B. Options A broad range of options exist for a company to respond to the child care needs of its employees. 1) Information and Referral Services 2) Financial Assistance 3) Direct Child Care Services 4) Flexible Personnel Policies 1) Information and Referral Services Specify if your company has considered and/or implemented any of the information/referral options listed below: (Fill one bubble for each option) 1 = Unfamiliar with option 2 = Currently considering 3 = Implemented 4 = Considered and rejected 5 = Have not considered a) Information and referral/counselling services (includes employer-supported child care) 1 2 J 4 s o o o o o b) Company-sponsored parent education workshop/semi-nars 1 2 ) 4 5 O O O O O c) Counselling services to help parents cope with the stress of family demands 1 2 J 4 » O O O O O d) Parent resource centres at work, eg. library for informa-tion on child-rearing issues 1 2 3 4 9 O O O O O e) Oilier: (Please specify) 2) Financial Assistance The organization financially supports, in whole or part, the development and/or operation of a selected child care benefit. These options permit the employer to select the degree to which the company wishes to become involved financially with the employee/parent. Instructions: Specify if your company has considered and/or implemented any of the financial assistance initiatives listed below: (Fill one bubble for each option) 1 = Unfamiliar with option 2 = Currently considering 3 = Implemented 4 = Considered and rejected 5 = Have not considered a) Financial corporate contribution to community cliild care service 1 2 3 4 0 OOOOO b) In-house corporate contribution to community child care service 1 2 3 4 S O O O O O c) Flexible employee benefit plan (cafeteria style) 1 2 3 4 a O O O O O d) Employee reimbursement plan for child care (voucher system) 1 2 3 4 9 O O O O O e) Employee discounts offered at specific cliild care centres (vendor system) 1 2 3 4 9 O O O O O f) A policy for family responsibility days (including cost of sick child care) 1 2 3 4 9 O O O O O g) Other: (Please specify) EMRG/UBC UfcOl :03:90:PROJEClS:CHILD:PRE Page 3) Direct Child Care Services Instructions: Specify i f your company has considered and/ or implemented any of the child care services listed below: (Fill one bubble for each option) 1 = Unfamiliar with option 2 = Currently considering 3 = Implemented 4 = Considered and rejected 5 = Have not considered a) Child care centre as part of corporate structure at or near work site ' * * * • (eg. child care staff are U U V A A J employees of the company) b) Child care centre as separate from corporate structure at or near work site 1 * 5 4 " (eg. child care staff are employees of a non-profit society) OCX XX) c) Employer-consortium arrangement with other companies for a child care centre 1 2 3 4 9 o o o o o d) Employer contributions to after-school programs in the community 1 2 3 4 8 O O O O O e) Financial contribution by employer to community-based non-profit society 1 2 3 4 6 OCXX)0 f) Chi ld care services for employees whose children are sick 1 2 3 4 8 O O O O O g) Family day care networks, ie. a system of licensed day care homes with spaces reserved for employees 1 2 3 4 0 ( X X J O O h) Other: (Please specify) 4) Flexible Personnel Policies Instructions: Specify below if your company has consid-ered and/or implemented any of the alternative work schedules listed below: (Fill one bubble for each option) 1 = Unfamiliar with option 2 = Currently considering 3 = Implemented 4 = Considered and rejected 5 = Have not considered a) Flex-time (variable-daily/weekly) 1 2 3 4 0 O O O O O b) Part-time work options 1 2 3 4 5 O O O O O c) Job sharing 1 2 3 4 0 O O O O O d) Work at home programs (flex-place) 1 2 3 4 0 O O O O O e) Special summer or holiday hours for child care needs 1 2 3 4 0 O O O O O £) Paid maternity leave in addition to statutory level 1 2 3 4 0 O O O O O g) Unpaid leave time for family responsibilities 1 2 3 4 0 O O O O O h) Other: (Please specify) EMROAJBC LO:OI :03:90:PROJECTS:CHILD:PRE Page 3 62 SECTION m; ATTITUDES A. Perceived Obstacles Instructions: Indicate the extent to which you believe the following are an obstacle to implementing an em-ployer-supported child care program in your company: (Fill one bubble only) 1 = Not an obstacle 5 = Major obstacle 1) Expense of child care assistance or services 1 2 3 4 0 O O O O O 2) Corporate liability when involved in providing of child care services 1 2 3 4 8 O O O O O 3) Concern that employees without children will object to child care benefits 1 2 3 4 < O O O O O 4) Inability to be fair to all employees with child care needs 1 2 3 4 8 O O O O O 5) Uncertainty as to employees' child care needs 1 2 3 4 9 O O O O O 6) Unfamiliarity with child care options 1 2 3 4 8 O O O O O 7) Complexity of child care licensing procedures 1 2 3 4 0 O O O O O 8) Unfamiliarity with child care licensing procedures 1 2 3 4 8 O O O O O 9) Shortage of qualified child care professionals 1 2 3 4 6 O O O O O 10) Lack of evidence of child care services providing long term benefits to the company 1 2 3 4 8 O O O O O E M R G / U B C L0:01:03:90:PROJECrS:CHILD:PRE 11) Lack of commitment from senior management 1 2 1 4 s O O O O O 12) Possible pending legislation on a national child care program 1 2 3 4 8 O O O O O 13) Belief that business should not be involved in family matters 1 2 3 4 8 O O O O O 14) Other: (Please specify) B. Opinions on Child Care Legislation Instructions: Specify the position most closely repre-senting your personal viewpoint: 1 = Strongly Agree 2 = Agree 3 = Disagree 4 = Strongly Disagree 1) The federal government should invest more dollars in providing child care programs 1 2 3 4 o o o o 2) The funding of child care services is primarily the responsibility of: 2.1 The employee 1 2 3 4 O O O O 2.2 The employer 1 2 3 4 O O O O 2.3 The government 1 2 3 4 O O O O 3) The funding of child care services should be shared between government and employers 1 2 3 4 O O O O Page 4 B. Opinions on Child Care Legislation, Cont'd.. Instructions: Specify the position most closely represent-ing your personal viewpoint: 1 = Strongly Agree 2 = Agree 3 = Disagree 4 = Strongly Disagree 4) Tiie funding of child care services should be shared between government and employees 1 2 3 4 o o o o 5) The funding of child care services should be shared between employers and employees 1 2 3 4 OOOO 6) The funding of child care services should be shared by employees, employers, and government 1 2 3 4 OOOO 7) Additional tax credits/deductions should be given to employers for providing child care assistance 1 2 3 4 OOOO 8) Government grants should be provided for employer-supported child care programs, ie. vouchers, start-up costs, and staff training 1 2 3 4 OOOO 9) Government dollars should be spent on establishing group liability insurance pools for licensed child care programs 1 2 3 4 OOOO 10) Government funding should be directed toward studying possible economic effects (costs/benefits) of child care benefit plan 1 2 3 4 OOOO 11) The inclusion of a child care option should be a mandatory component of a flexible cafeteria-type plan 1 2 3 4 oooo C O M M E N T S EMRG/UBC L0:0l :03:9O:PROJECrS:CI IILD:PRJE Dear I R M A Member: In order to complete the research component of this seminar, we now need your participation in the post-test. Please answer each question as completely as possible. Your comments and opinions will be valuable to the project. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, Carol Ebner, B . A . Project Researcher Instructor Early Childhood Education Douglas College EMRG/UBC LftOl 03:89:PROJECTS:CHILD:LETTER Page 1 POST-TEST ID Number: EMPLOYER-SUPPORTED CHILD CARE SURVEY D I R E C T I O N S : Please use the dark pencil provided and indicate your response by filling in the appropriate bubble completely. If you wish to change your answer, erase all traces of the wrong mark and darken the correct bubble. FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY. Section I - C U R R E N T I N V O L V E M E N T Which of the following would now best describe your interest in meeting your employee's child care needs? (Please fill the appropriate bubble) Ql) I plan to D I S C U S S the child care topic 0 2) I plan to R E S E A R C H the employee's child care needs 0 3 ) I plan to D E V E L O P an option for child care support or service 0 4 ) I plan to E X P A N D an option for child care support or service 0 5 ) I plan to R E V I E W O R R E V I S E child care support or service 0 6 ) Otlier (Please specify) EMRG/UBC LfcOl :03:89:PROJECTS:CHILD:POST Section B - KNOWLEDGE A. General Knowledge: Instructions: Fi l l the appropriate bubble. After participating in tliis seminar, do you know more about the following topics related to employer-supported child care? 1) Proposed federal legislation on child care YE8 NO UNSURE o o o 2) "Workforce 2000", the Hudson Institute (U.S.) report of labour conditions and skill shortages YES NO UNSURE o o o 3) The Conference Board of Canada 1989 Report "The Corporate Response to Workers with Family Responsibilities" YES NO UNSURE o o o 4) Needs assessment procedures to determine your employee's child care arrangements YES NO UNSURE O O 0 5) Employer costs when choosing child care benefit options YE8 NO UNSURE o o o 6) Research on the effects of child care assistance on productivity, absenteeism, and otlier employee behav-iours YES NO UNSURE o o o Page 1 7) Provincial procedures necessary to establish licensed child care centres Y E S N O U N S U R E o o o 8) Tax advantages of flexible child care benefit plans Y E S N O U N S U R E o o o B. Options: You now know there are at least four different child care options: 1) Information and Referral Services 2) Financial Assistance 3) Direct C h i l d Care Services 4) Flexible Personnel Policies 1. Information and Referral Services D o you personally flunk your company will now consider and/or implement any of the information/ referral options listed below? Instructions: F i l l one bubble for each option. 1 = W i l l Consider 2 = W i l l Implement 3 = W i l l neither Consider nor Implement 4 = Already Implemented a) Information and referral/counselling services (includes employer-supported child care) 1 2 3 4 OOOO b) Company-sponsored parent education workshop/seminars 1 2 3 4 OOOO c) Counselling services to help parents cope with the stress of family demands 1 2 3 4 OOOO d) Parent resource centres at work eg. library for informa-tion on child-rearing issues 1 2 3 4 OOOO e) Other (please specify) If you indicated " W i l l neither Consider nor Im-plement" for any of the information/referral options listed above, please give reasons: 2. Financial Assistance D o you personally think that your company will now consider and/or implement any of the financial as-sistance initiatives listed below? Instructions: F i l l one bubble for each option. 1 = W i l l Consider 2 = W i l l Implement 3 = W i l l neitlier Consider nor Implement 4 = Already Implemented a) Financial corporate contribution to community child care services 1 2 3 4 OOOO b) In-house corporate contribution lo community child care services OOOO c) Flexible employee benefit plan 1 2 3 4 OOOO d) Employee reimbursement plan for cliild care (voucher sys,em) 6666 e) Employee discounts offered at specific cluld care centres (vendor system) 1. 2 3 4 OOOO f) A policy for family responsibility days (including cost of sick child care) 1 2 3 4 OOOO g) Other (please specify) EMRG/UBC UhOI 03:89:PROJECTS:CHn,D:POSr If you indicated " W i l l neither Consider nor Imple-ment" for any of the areas of financial assistance possible, please give reasons: 3. Direct Child Care Services D o you personally think that your company will now consider and/or implement any of the child care services listed below: Instructions: F i l l one bubble for each option. 1 = W i l l Consider 2 = W i l l Implement 3 = W i l l neither Consider nor Implement 4 = Already Implemented a) Child care centre as part of corporate structure at or near work site ' 2 ? 4 (eg. child care staff are employees of the company) O O O O b) Child care centre as separate from corporate structure at or near work site l i t 4 OOOO (eg. cliild care staff are employees of a non-profit society) c) Employer-consortium arrangement with other compa-nies for a child care centre 1 2 3 4 O O O O d) Employer contributions to after-school programs in the community 1 2 3 4 OOOO e) Financial contribution by employer to community-based non-profit society 1 2 3 4 (XXX) f) Cliild care services for employees whose children are sick 1 2 3 4 OOOO g) Family day care networks, ie. a sytem of licensed day care homes with spaces reserved for employees 1 2 3 4 O O O O h) Other (please specify) If you indicated " W i l l Neither Consider nor Imple-ment" for any of these services listed above, please state any reasons for not proceeding: 4. Flexible Personnel Policies D o you think that your company will now consider and/or implement any of the alternative work sclicd-ules listed below? Instructions: F i l l one bubble for each option. 1 = Wil l Consider 2 = W i l l Implement 3 = Will neither Consider nor Implement 4 = Already Implemented a) Flex-time (variable daily/weekly) 1 2 3 4 OOOO b) Part-time work options 1 2 3 4 OOOO c) Job sharing 1 2 3 4 OOOO d) Work at home programs (flex-place) 1 2 3 4 OOOO e) Special summer or holiday hours for child care needs 1 2 3 4 OOOO f) Paid maternity leave in addition to statutory level* 1 2 3 4 OOOO g) Unpaid leave time for family responsibilities 1 2 3 4 OOOO EMRG/UBC U):01:03:89:PROJGCTS:CHILD:POST h) Other (please specify) D o you consider Flexible personnel policies a form of employer-supported child care? y«* no o o If you indicated " W i l l neither Consider nor Imple-ment" for any of the flexible personnel policies, please give your reasons: Comment Section ffl - ATTiTUPES A. Perceived Obstacles InstructionsiAs a result of this presentation, indicate the extent you believe the following S T I L L to be an obstacle to implementing an employer-supported child care program in your company: 1 = Not an obstacle 5 = Major obstacle 1) Expense of child care assistance or services 1 2 3 4 9 OOOOO 2) Corporate liability when involved in providing of child care services 1 2 3 4 9 OOOOO 3) Concern that employees without children will object to cliild care benefits 1 2 3 4 9 ( XJOC..XJ 4) Inability to be fair to all employees with child care needs 1 2 3 4 9 OOOOO 5) Uncertainty as to employees' child care needs 6 6 6 6 6 6) Unfamiliarity with child care options 6 6 6 6 6 7) Complexity of child care options 66(566 8) Unfamiliarity with child care licensing procedures 6 6 6 6 6 9) Shortage of qualified child care professionals 6 6 6 6 6 10) Lack of evidence of child care services providing long term benefits to the company 6 6 6 6 6 11) Lack of commitment from senior management 1 2 3 4 5 OOOOO 12) Possible pending legislation on a national child care program 66666 13) Belief that business should not be involved in family matters 6 6 6 6 6 14) Other (please specify) EMRG/UBC lAOi «3:89:PROJECTS:CHILD:POST 69 B. Opinions on Child Care Legislation Instructions: After participating in this multi-media presen-tation, specify the position now reflecting your personal viewpoint: 1 = Strongly Agree 2 = Agree 3 = Disagree 4 = Strongly Disagree 1) The federal government should invest more dollars in providing child care programs 1 2 3 4 OOOO 2) The funding of child care services is primarily the responsibility of 2.1 The employee 1 2 3 4 OOOO 2.2 The employer 1 2 3 ^ 4 OOOO 2.3 The government 1 2 3 4 OOOO 3) The funding of child care services should be shared between government and employees 1 2 3 4 OO(X) 4) The funding of child care services should be shared between government and employers 1 2 3 4 OOOO 5) The funding of child care services should be shared between employers and employees 1 2 3 4 OOOO 6) The funding of child care services should be shared between employees, employers and government 1 2 3 4 OOOO 7) Additional tax credits/deductions should be given to employers for providing cluld care assistance 1 ?_ 3 i. oooo 8) Government grants should be provided for employer-supported child care programs, ie. vouchers, start-up costs, and staff training 1 2 3 4 OOOO 9) Government dollars should be spent on establishing group liability insurance pools for licensed child care programs 1 2 3 4 OOOO 10) Government funding should be directed toward study-ing possible effects (costs/benefits) of child care 1 2 3 4 OOOO 11) The inclusion of a child care option should be a man-datory component of a flexible cafeteria-type benefit plan 1 2 3 4 OOOO C. General 1) D o you think your company could benefit by providing a child care option for its employees? y«a no o o If yes, how? 2) Has this seminar changed your thinking about em-ployer-supported child care? o o If so, in what ways? 3) Is there any additional information about tlie topic (hat you would like lo know more about? EMRO/UBC L0:0l fl3:89-.PROJECrS:CHILD:POST Page 5 4) Evaluation of the video: What new information on the topic of employer-sup-ported child care did tiie video present to you? 5) A n y additional comments for the presenters? Section r y . PROFILE Please provide the following information to assist in the analysis of our survey findings: (AU survey re-sponses are confidential) A. COMPANY PROFILE 1) Number of employees in the company ( B C only) Q under 25 O 2 5 - 5 0 O 51 - 100 O 101-500 Q 501 - 1,000 O 1001 - 5,000 O 5001 - 10,000 O over 10,000 2) Which category best describes your business? O a ) Manufacturing O b) Utilities, Transportation, Communication § c) Retail/Wholesale Trade d) Computer/Data Processing e) Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Q 0 Health Care (_) g) Education O h) Service Industry O •) Primary Resources Q j) Environmental Services C ) k) Construction O 1) Olher (please specify) 3) What is the geographic location of your B . C . business facility? a) East Kootenay b) Central Kootenay c) Okanagan-Boundary d) Lillooet-Thompson e) Lower Mainland f) Vancouver Island/Coast g) Cariboo-Fort George h) Peace River-Liard i) Skeena-Stikine j) Multi-site (please state locations by letter) 4) Which category best describes your business? Q Public sector Q Private sector 5) When considering all mid to senior management level employees in your company, what percentage are male? female? (should total 100% togetlier). percent male O don't know percent female 6) What number of male and female employees in your company are in the following age groups? Male Female Age Group under 20 years 2 0 - 2 9 3 0 - 3 9 40 - 49 5 0 - 5 9 60 or over 7) What percentage of your workforce is unionized? O 0% O 10% or less O 11% to 24% O 25% to 50% O 51% to 75% O 76% and over 8) What is the percentage of employees with cliildrcn under 12 years? 0 - 3 years 4 - 6 years 7 - 1 2 years % EMRG/UBC L0:OI *>3:89.PROJECTS:CHU,D:POST B. RESPONDENT PROFILE: 1) What is your tide? 2) How long have you have been with your company? years months 3) What access do you have to information about employees' needs for child care and how they resolve work/family conflicts? O direct (employees provide information to me) ( ) semi-direct (employee provides information to me through a supervisor O by unrd party report only 4) Age of respondent (last birthday): O under 20 years O 20-29 Q 30-39 O 40-49 0 50-59 O 60 o r over 5) OMaleO Female 6) Marital Status O Married C) Single O Divorced 8 Separated Widowed 7) To which ethnic or cultural group(s) do you or did your ancestors belong7 8) When you were a child, which did you attend: o child care centre O nursery/preschool O family day care ( ) kindergarten o none of the above O other (please specify) 9) Are you presently parenting one or more children under the age of 12? no o o 10) Which do/did your child(ren) attend? day care nursery/preschool family day care kindergarten Q not applicable Q other (please specify) 11) Have you attended a workshop on this topic in the last six months? y M no o o If yes, which organization sponsored the work-shop? 12) Comments - please write any comments you would like to share on employer involvement in child care. EMRGAJBC U):01:03:89:PROJECTS:C]ULD:POST Page APPENDIX B: Follow-up Study: R e s u l t s 73 APPENDIX B: FOLLOW-UP STUDY A l i m i t a t i o n of the study was i t s b r e v i t y . Although the seminar e f f e c t i v e l y reduced o b s t a c l e s and inc r e a s e d i n t e r e s t i n involvement i n employer-supported c h i l d care, a follow-up study would determine the seminar's l a s t i n g e f f e c t s . How long would such commitment l a s t ? A m a i l s u r v e y t h a t c o r r e s p o n d e d to key items i n the o r i g i n a l t e s t i n s t r u m e n t was d e s i g n e d and sent out to the research s u b j e c t s s i x months a f t e r the seminar. The s e r v i c e s of EMRG were contracted to a s s i s t with the design (Appendix A) of the follow-up study. The o r i g i n a l c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e d l i s t of s u b j e c t s a n d r e f e r e n c e numbers was u s e d t o a s s u r e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . A response time of two weeks was requested. A f u r t h e r telephone c a l l was made one week a f t e r the d e a d l i n e to tardy respondents. T h i r t y two out of f o r t y respondents returned the survey. Comparisons were made between a s e l e c t e d p r e t e s t or p o s t t e s t i t e m and a f o l l o w - u p study item. Comparisons were made by comparing i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s ' responses on each item. General L e v e l s of Involvement In response to a q u e s t i o n of change of i n t e r e s t i n the t o p i c of employer-supported c h i l d c a r e as a r e s u l t of the r e s e a r c h seminar, 35% o f the respondents s a i d t h a t t h e i r i n t e r e s t had changed, 54% s a i d that t h e i r i n t e r e s t had not changed, and 13% d i d not know i f there i n t e r e s t had changed. As to t h e i r company's l e v e l of involvement i n c h i l d care a f t e r the research seminar, 23% s a i d that the involvement had changed, 71% s a i d i t had not changed, and 6% d i d not know i f t h e i r company's l e v e l of involvement had changed. When c o m p a r i n g t h e s u b j e c t s ' p o s t t e s t l e v e l o f involvement and the follow-up study's question regarding t h e i r company's p r e s e n t l e v e l of i n v o l v e m e n t , t h e r e was a 27% i n c r e a s e i n companies' r e s e a r c h i n g and d e v e l o p i n g employer-s u p p o r t e d c h i l d c a r e . T h e r e was l e s s d i s c u s s i n g and re v i e w i n g the issue and more a c t i v e involvement i n employer-s u p p o r t e d c h i l d c a r e from the seminar i n J a n u a r y t o the follow-up study i n J u l y . TABLE V: LATER INVOLVEMENT IN EMPLOYER-SUPPORTED CHILD CARE Review/ Discuss Research Develop Expand Revise T o t a l P r e t e s t 15 5 7 2 1 30 Follow-up study 10 11 9 0 0 30 Change -5 +6 +2 -2 -1 8* x 2 = 12.438 DF = 3 = 8 companies increase involvement l e v e l APPENDIX C: Follow-up Survey 77 FOLLOW-UP STUDY ID Number: D I R E C T I O N S : Please use a dark pencil and indicate your response by filling in the appropriate bubble. If you wish to change an answer, erase all traces of the wrong mark and darken the correct bubble. Written comments are welcome. YOUR COMPANY'S INTEREST 1. Has your company's L E V E L O F I N T E R E S T changed as a result of the I R M A "Employer-Supported Child Care" seminar on January 23rd? YES NO DONT KNOW 2. Which O N E of the following would now B E S T describe your M A J O R interest in meeting your employees' child care needs? (Mark O N L Y one) 01 have D I S C U S S E D llic child care topic T ) I have R E S E A R C H E D (lie employees' child care needs ( ) I plan to D E V E L O P an option for child care (>cncfit l_ 11 plan to E X P A N D an option for child care benefit O i plan to R E V I E W or R E V I S E a child care benefit Comments: YOUR COMPANY'S INVOLVEMENT 3. Has your company's L E V E L O F I N V O L V E M E N T changed as a result of the January 23rd seminar on employer-supported child care? YES NO OOfTT KNOW 4a. Which O N E of the following B E S T describes your company's present level of involvement in meeting employees' child care needs? ( N . B . "Cl i i ld care needs" refers to care for children ages 0 to 12 years in licensed family day care or group child care settings.) O N O T I N V O L V E D in child care ( ) D I S C U S S I N G the topic O R E S E A R C H I N G die topic ( ) D E V E L O P I N G an option (i.e. close to implementing) 0 C H I L D C A R E in place 0 R E V I S I N G / E X P A N D I N G cliild care benefit 4b. Please list the child care options that your company is considering or implementing: Comments: EMRGAJBC 10:06:14:90:PROJIKH'S:CI IIUD:FOLLOW Page I — 5. H o w do you feel the government should increase its level o f assistance in child care benefits to employers? C ) Provision of tax credits directly to employees O Provision of tax credits to employers ( ) Direct funding to child care centers O Simplified regulations on setting up a child care center ( ) Deduction of pre-tax dollars as part of employee benefit plan 0 Financial incentives to implement a child care center C ) The government should N O T increase its level of assistance O Other Comments: 6. D i d the print materials provided at the I R M A seminar help you to clarify the topic of employer-supported child care? YES HO OONT KNOW (') •: ) ( ) If "yes", please indicate the areas of information you found most useful. (Mark all that apply) I ) The need for cliild care (.. • C h i l d care options (i.e. information and referral) (. ) The benefits of child care to the employer The state of the research on child care Comments: 7. If you did not proceed with employer-supported child care, why not? (Mark all that apply) O Lack of knowledge on how to proceed 0 Expense of child care assistance or services 0 Issue of corporate liability when involved in providing child care services 0 Concern that employees without children will object to child care benefits 0 Inability to be fair to all employees with child care needs 0 Uncertainty as to employees' child care needs 0 Unfamiliarity with child care options 0 Complexity of child care licensing procedures 0 Unfamiliarity with child care licensing procedures 0 ) Shortage of qualified child care professionals 0 Lack of evidence of child care services providing long term benefits to the company 0 Lack of commitment from senior management ( ) Possible pending legislation on a national cliild care program 0 Belief that business should not be involved in family matters 0 Unavailability of qualified cliild care consultant to assist with procedures 0 Lack of employee interest D Other Comments: E M R G / U B C L0:06:14:90:PROJECTS:CHILD:FOLLOW Page 

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.831.1-0098411/manifest

Comment

Related Items