Paper code: 2458

1

Parents views on their use of multiple and changeable care - Using computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) in the Child Care Choices (CCC) study

Cathrine Neilsen-Hewett

Macquarie University cathrine.neilsen@mq.edu.au

Linda J. Harrison

Charles Sturt University

Alan Taylor Macquarie University

Naomi Sweller

Macquarie University

Jennifer Bowes

Macquarie University

Author Note. This study was supported by grants from Macquarie University, the Australian Research Council and the New South Wales Department of Community Services. Our thanks go to the parents, children and organizations that contributed to the Child Care Choices Study.

Abstract

This study uses longitudinal telephone survey data gathered from using a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) facility to examine families’ use of multiple and changeable patterns of child care over the prior-to-school years. Despite the increasing use of multiple care arrangements, little is understood about why parents use mixed care or change the care arrangements for their child. Six-hundred and seventy-seven children and families were recruited from long day care centres and family day care schemes in metropolitan and rural New South Wales with 257 families participating in all six waves of the study. A factor analysis on the reasons offered by parents for their use of multiple care revealed two main factors: (1) families were in control of their child care choice or (2) families chose child care in response to outward pressure. The majority of children in all age groups did not change child care arrangements with most of the rest changing once only. Most parents felt that changing their child’s care arrangement was their choice although a substantial minority of parents felt the change was definitely out of their control. Parental choice may be an important factor in perceptions of quality in child care. Key words: childcare, multiple care, changeable care, parent choice, urban-rural

Changing patterns of maternal employment has witnessed a trend toward increasing

numbers of children enrolled in out-of-home care. In Australia non-parental care incorporates both formal (e.g. long day care centres or family day care) and informal arrangements (e.g.

Paper code: 2458

2

care with relatives, friends, sitters or a nanny), with parents using a combination of different care arrangements depending upon their needs (Harrison et al.,2009). Parents may use a combination of different care arrangements depending upon their needs. This study uses longitudinal telephone survey data gathered through a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) facility to examine families’ use of multiple and changeable patterns of child care over the prior-to-school years. The motivations behind their choices were of particular interest.

Researchers examining children’s child care experiences have focused primarily on the types of child care used and the consequences of non-parental care experiences for children’s short- and long-term adjustment. Far less attention has been paid to understanding why parents choose different care arrangements, whether parents are satisfied with the care their child receives and why parents change their child’s care arrangement. Parents access child care for many reasons; for some it is a forced choice. For some parents, the need to work overrides the option of staying at home to care for children full-time (Baxter, 2008; Hand & Hughes 2004). The increasing costs involved in raising a family often mean that it is difficult to support a family on one income (Baxter, 2008). Others use care to provide additional developmental opportunities for their child or to participate in community and personal activities (AIHW, 2003).

Multiple and changeable child care arrangements are becoming increasingly prevalent. Recent research findings emerging from the US suggest at least 15% of children under the age of 5 years regularly attend more than one child care arrangement (Morrissey, 2009). In research by Tran and Weinraub (2006), 46% of infants were found to be cared for in multiple concurrent arrangements, while 39% of the sample experienced at least one change in care arrangement between 6 to 15 months. Similar patterns of attendance have been recorded in Australia with up to 57% of two-year olds attending two early childhood services a day, with a “substantial” number in three or more services a day (Rodd, 1996). In their longitudinal study of 145 children in Sydney, Harrison and Ungerer (2000) recorded the number of changes of care that children experienced from birth to age six. Over this period a third of children had experienced highly changeable child care, an average of 12 different arrangements from nine to 15. More recent Australian research has shown that 32% of children under the age of 5 years (Qu & Wise, 2004) and 37% of 4 to 5-year-olds (Harrison et al., 2009) regularly experience more than one form of care arrangement each week. Attachment theory points to the importance of predictability and familiarity in the establishment of warm trusting relationships with carers and peers, and to provide the emotional security necessary for play and exploration (Rolfe, 2004). Unstable child care arrangements may work against such predictability and familiarity.

Research has pointed out the need to examine interactions between family demographics and young children’s child care experiences (Tran & Weinraub, 2006). The decisions families make about the type of child care they choose for their child directly and indirectly shape their children’s experiences. According to Blau’s (1991) framework of child care usage, parents’ child care choices are based on their families’ need for care, parental preference, desired quality of non-parental care, budget constraints, as well as the other options available to them. For example, limited availability of extended family members may force parents into using more formal care arrangements or a combination of care by family

Paper code: 2458

3

members and other types of child care. Closer examination of this framework identifies two opposing hypotheses governing the selection process: (a) families are in control of their child care choice or (b) families choose child care in response to outward pressure(s).

Despite the increasing use of multiple care arrangements, very little is understood about family attitudes to care, that is, why parents use mixed care or the underlying reasons motivating parents to change the care arrangements for their child. Recent research by Gordon and Hognas (2006) showed that greater stability of care arrangements was associated with the use of preferred care. That is, mothers who were able to enroll their baby in the kind of care that they said they preferred, were less likely to change their child care arrangements within the first 12 months of their child’s life. Earlier research by Goodfellow (1999) suggested that the high cost of formal centre-based care and lack of available care were major factors in parents’ use of multiple arrangements. On the other hand, Ochiltree and Edgar (1995) reported that parents used varied settings because of changing family circumstances or wanting to maximise the quality of the child’s care. Harrison and Ungerer (1997, 2002) found that many mothers preferred to leave their infants with someone they felt comfortable with and could trust – such as their husband, grandparents, close relative or friend. As a result of this preference, and perhaps the limited availability of these alternative carers, babies received care from a number of different adults.

Links between the use of multiple care arrangements and parental satisfaction have also been noted. In her study of multiple, concurrent child care arrangements, Morrissey (2008) found mothers who were least satisfied with their child’s primary child care arrangements were more likely to access a second arrangement than mothers who were happy with the primary arrangement. Research examining parental satisfaction with child care has found mothers using long day care were relatively more satisfied with their child’s care experience than those enrolled in family child care in relation to the amount of emotional, intellectual and language stimulation (Roopnarine, Mounts & Casto, 1986). On the other hand, parents using family day care viewed this form of care as being more home-like and nurturing. Parents involved in the LSAC study (Harrison et al., 2009) were more likely to give higher ratings to informal care arrangements, with the authors attributing higher parental satisfaction to the fact that informal care is often more flexible and typically involves a carer who is well known to the parents. In a study by Stipek, Milburn, Clements and Daniels (1992), parent’s decisions about the type of child care arrangements they enrolled in were governed largely by pre-existing beliefs about appropriate educational practices. That is, parents who placed less emphasis on the development of academic skills, identifying goals for their children such as independence and initiative, tended to select child care arrangements that were more child-oriented in their curricula. On the other hand, parents who subscribed to more academic goals such as reading and writing were more likely to choose child care arrangements that reflected this formal education orientation.

Findings from these three studies lend support to the argument that parents access different care arrangements based on pre-existing beliefs or ideals about the underlying features characteristic of that form of care. Parents may actively seek different forms of care in an effort to accommodate multiple needs, they may prefer their children to experience varied contexts or they may feel forced to place their child in multiple settings due to a lack of

Paper code: 2458

4

high-quality services or in response to variable work commitments. It is not clear from existing research how much control parents feel they have over their choice of child care arrangements. The possibility that parents are actively choosing multiple child care arrangements as a preferred option has implications for understanding both familial and child adjustment.

Goals of the current study

This study uses longitudinal data from the Child Care Choices Study to examine families’ use of multiple and changeable child care over the prior-to-school years. For the purpose of the study, multiple child care arrangements were defined as arrangements involving two or more concurrent non-maternal child care arrangements on a regular basis across seven days while changeable care was calculated as the number of changes in child care arrangements (either across-context or within-context) over a 12-month period. The study builds on previous research by examining the factors that motivate parents’ use of multiple concurrent child care arrangements with particular attention paid to factors that are either within or outside parental control. The current study is based on families using at least one regulated care setting (long day care or family day care). Three questions are addressed: (1) What kinds of child care arrangements do families make for their young children? (2) How satisfied are the families with their children’s child care arrangements? and (3) How much control do the parents feel they have over the arrangements they make for their children’s care?

Method

Participants Families were recruited from long day care centres and family day care schemes in

metropolitan and rural New South Wales. Long day care centres and family day care schemes were recruited at a ratio of 2:1. After gaining approval from centre/scheme management, researchers approached parents as they collected their children and invited them to participate in the study. Parents who returned the Expression of Interest forms and consented to be contacted by phone were interviewed about their current child care arrangements. Parents were also sent by mail a questionnaire about themselves, their child, their family and their relationship to the child and their family. Six hundred and seventy-seven children were recruited in Wave 1, comprising 343 boys (50.7%) and 334 girls (49.3%). Children ranged in age between 4 months and 4 years 2 months, with a mean age of 2 years 1 month. Numbers recruited were slightly higher in the metropolitan sample (N = 355, 52.4%) than in the rural sample (N = 322, 47.6%).

Patterns of participant retention were similar across the metropolitan and rural samples with 257 families participating in all six waves (135 urban families, 122 rural families). One-hundred and ten dropped out after Wave 1 (57 urban families and 53 rural families), while 161 families missed one or more years and then returned (81 urban families, 80 rural families). These patterns of retention and attrition produce the numbers of participants in each wave shown in Table 1. Table 1. Number of participants in each wave in the urban, rural and total samples

Paper code: 2458

5

Urban Rural Total Wave 1 355 322 677 Wave 2 236 207 443 Wave 3 263 230 493 Wave 4 240 215 455 Wave 5 213 184 397 Wave 6 183 165 348

Data collection overview

Data were collected annually via telephone interviews with the child’s primary caregiver, using a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) facility. In the majority of cases the primary caregiver was the mother (89.5%) although a sizeable minority were fathers (9.7%) or other relatives (i.e., grandparents). Telephone interviews were conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) for the first two years of the study and by ACNeilsen thereafter. Both companies used CATI facilities (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews) that converted responses to the mainly closed interview questions into numerical form in an SPSS file. In this way, files for analysis were made available quickly to the research team following completion of the annual telephone interviews. The interviews lasted from 30-45 minutes each year and focused on child care arrangements for the target child, demographic details about the family as well as questions about the target child’s health and development and parent wellbeing. The annual response rates to telephone interviews ranged from 51.5% to 73.9%. The following sections describe the specific variables and measures used in the analyses. Family characteristics of the recruitment sample

A number of key familial characteristics were recorded including family income, education level, culture and family size. The majority of mothers (78%) and fathers (79%) were Australian born. Of those who were born outside Australia, 13 percent of mothers and 12 percent of fathers were from English-speaking countries (Great Britain, Canada, America, New Zealand), 5 percent of mothers and 4 percent of fathers were from Asia, 1 per cent of mothers and 1 percent of fathers were from South America, and 1 percent of mothers and 3 percent of fathers were from Europe.

Demographics. Mothers represented a varied group in terms of age (mean age 33.6 years at the commencement of the study) and education (35 per cent had completed secondary school to Year 9, 10 or 12; 25 per cent had a tertiary diploma or trade qualification; and 39 per cent had a university or post-graduate degree). Fathers tended to be several years older than mothers and had similar levels of education. A chi square test shows that for both mothers (χ2 = 86.75, p < .001) and fathers (χ2 = 82.04, p < .001), the urban and rural populations did not contribute equally to the three levels of education. Inspection of the proportions in each level of education suggests that the urban sample (in Wave 1) had higher proportions than the rural sample of both mothers and fathers who had attained a university degree.

Family income. The families came from a range of household income levels with about half of the sample earning gross annual household incomes of $70,000 and over. Most

Paper code: 2458

6

of the parents were in paid work (78 per cent of mothers and 97 per cent of fathers). The urban sample had a significantly higher average gross income than the rural sample in Wave 1, t(583) = 9.62, p < .001 ($104,670 and $63,868 respectively). Equivalised income was also calculated, by dividing the total income by the square root of the number of people living in each household. The urban sample likewise had a higher average equivalised income than the rural sample, t(564) = 10.80, p < .001 ($56,188 and $31,889 respectively).

Family structure. Most urban and rural families had both the child’s natural mother and father living with the child (89.3% and 82.9% respectively). Rural families were more likely to have other children living with the respondent and the child, and when there were other children in the household, rural families (M = 1.07; SD = 0.98) tended to have more children than urban families (M = 0.56, SD = 0.67).

Family characteristics by retention pattern. As noted above there was attrition between waves, with some families dropping out entirely after Wave 1 and others participating in some but not all waves. Tukey’s HSD tests were used to assess pairwise comparisons of income between families who completed every wave, families who dropped out after Wave 1 and families who completed some but not all waves. Income was found to be significantly higher in families who completed every wave (M = $89,932, SD = $61,167) than in families who dropped out after Wave 1 (M = $72,037, SD = $43,087), q = 3.68, p = .04. There was no difference between families who completed some but not all waves (M = $88,752, SD = $56,778) and either other group. The same pattern held for adjusted income: families who completed every wave (M = $47,484, SD = $31,534) had significantly higher adjusted income than families who dropped out after Wave 1 (M = $38,097, SD = $24,292), q = 3.77, p = .04, while there was no difference between families who completed some but not all waves (M = $47,321, SD = $31,824) and either other group. There were no differences in total family size between patterns of participation.

There was a trend towards more educated families staying in the study. Higher proportions of parents with high school education dropped out after Wave 1 than either completed every wave or missed waves and returned; the opposite was true for parents with university degrees (see Table 2). Overall, families who completed every wave tended to have the highest average income, which is perhaps reflected in the trend towards higher levels of education in families who completed every wave. There were no sizeable differences in region of birth or family size across patterns of participation. Table 2 Educational qualifications of mothers and fathers Completed every

wave Dropped out after Wave 1

Missed waves and returned

Mothers Fathers

Mothers Fathers

Mothers Fathers

Less than HSC

23 (9.1%)

22 (9.2%)

24 (23.1%)

16 (19.3%)

23 (18.0%)

20 (17.7%)

HSC or 41 35 20 20 19 21

Paper code: 2458

7

equivalent (16.1%) (14.6%)

(19.2%) (24.1%)

(14.8%) (18.6%)

Tertiary diploma or trade qualification

62 (24.4%)

71 (29.7%)

20 (19.2%)

12 (14.5%)

31 (24.2%)

25 (22.1%)

University degree

128 (50.4%)

111 (46.4%)

40 (38.5%)

35 (42.2%)

55 (43.0%)

47 (41.6%)

Child Care Arrangements.

In each wave, parents were asked whether their children were in child care. Information was provided retrospectively for children aged above 1 year of age in the first wave of data collection.

Multiplicity of care. Parents were asked to list the number of formal and informal care arrangements they had used over the past 12 months. Formal child care arrangements included long day care, family day care and preschool. Informal care arrangements encompassed care by relatives (i.e., grandparents, aunts), neighbours, family friends or babysitters). Different forms of multiple child care were also examined, mixed formal care (e.g., preschool and long day care), and formal and informal care (e.g., long day care and grandmother care). A minimum number of hours of care was not set in order for the care arrangement to be counted as a secondary form of care.

Reasons for multiple care. In order to better understand the reasons for using multiple care, parents were also questioned about why they chose to use multiple care arrangements. Parents were given a number of reasons for using multiple care, and asked to rate the extent to which each of these applied to them on a scale of 1 “Does not apply” to 5 “Definitely applies” (see Table 5).

Changeability in care. A change in the care arrangement was defined in terms of whether there was a change in carer or context. Parents were asked to indicate (1) how many times in the past 12 months their child had changed child care arrangements and (2) how many times in the preceding 12 months the child’s primary caregiver changed in their child care setting. Respondents were also asked to indicate their reasons for changes made in arrangements, from a predetermined list (see Figures #2 and #3). Parents responded on a 5-point scale the extent to which each if the reasons applied to them. Parents also rated the extent to which they felt they had control over the change: definitely your choice, somewhat your choice, neither your choice nor something imposed, somewhat out of your control, definitely out of control,

Satisfaction with care. Parents were asked to rate their levels of satisfaction with their overall weekly child care arrangements on a 5-point scale from “Not at all satisfied” to “Very satisfied”.

Results

Paper code: 2458

8

Children’s first experiences of non-parental child care. The average age at which children started care was 10.1 months (SD = 7.14 months). The majority of children (66.3%) started care in their first year of life. Most children had either one (n = 225, 50.1%) or two (n = 165, 36.7%) different child care arrangements in their first year of life. The most common type of care was long day care, followed by family day care which reflects the recruitment of families from these two care types (see Table 3).

On average children spent 21 hours in their first child care arrangement (SD = 14.7 hours, range = 1 to 99 hours), 14.3 hours in their second child care arrangement (SD = 11.8 hours, range = 1 to 70 hours), 10.4 hours in their third child care arrangement (SD = 9.0 hours, range = 1 to 40 hours) and 13 hours in their fourth child care arrangement (SD = 13.0 hours, range = 1 to 40 hours). Some children used informal care arrangements overnight, which accounted for the very long hours of weekly care.

Care arrangements in children’s first year of life were on the whole very stable. Parents were asked to rate whether they had changed child care arrangements for their child much in their first year of life. One-hundred and sixty-nine parents (78.6% of respondents) said the care was “not at all changeable” while 39 parents (18.1%) said the care was “somewhat changeable” and seven parents (3.3%) said the care was “very changeable”. Of children whose care changed, the majority (n = 18, 40.0%) of parents reported the care changed only once, with 10 children (22.2%) changing care twice in their first year of life. Table 3. Number (percentage of respondents) of children in each type of care in their first through fourth child care arrangements in their first year of life 11 2 3 4 Long Day Care 202 (45.9%) 51 (23.7%) 14 (28.0%) Family Day Care

91 (20.7%) 27 (12.6%) 6 (12.0%) 1 (14.3%)

Father2 49 (11.1%) 38 (17.7%) 5 (10.0%) 1 (14.3%) Grandmother 54 (12.3%) 60 (27.9%) 13 (26.0%) 4 (57.1%) Grandfather 1 (0.5%) 1 (2.0%) Uncle 1 (0.2%) Aunty 5 (1.1%) 6 (2.8%) 2 (4.0%) Other relative 3 (0.7%) 4 (1.9%) 2 (4.0%) Neighbour 1 (0.2%) 2 (4.0%) Family friend 8 (1.8%) 14 (6.5%) 2 (4.0%) Nanny/Paid babysitter

26 (5.9%) 14 (6.5%) 3 (6.0%) 1 (14.3%)

1 Parents were asked to give arrangements in order of hours of care

Paper code: 2458

9

2 While the focus of this study was on non-parental care, parents were asked about father care when this was on a regular daily / weekly basis, e.g., every Thursday.

Amount of non-parental care. Table 4 shows the mean number of hours children in

each age group spent in each type of child care, for children attending each type of care only (i.e., children who did not attend the type of care were excluded from the analyses). Values of N/A for standard deviations denote situations where only one child in the sample participated in that type of care. Blank cells refer to no children attending that type of care. On average children tended to spend a greater number of hours in long day care, preschool and family day care than in grandparent, other relative or other carer forms of child care. Children tended to spend longer hours in long day care and family day care than in preschool. This might be expected when considering the longer hours that long day care centres and family day care homes are available compared with preschools.

Paper code: 2458

10

Table 4 Mean (Standard Deviation) hours in each type of child care by child’s age.

Long Day Care

Pre-school

Family Day Care

Grand-parent

Other relative

Other carer

0 to 1 year olds

24.8 (12.2)

0 (0)

26.5 (12.2)

11.5 (7.3)

4 (N/A)

9.3 (3.9)

1 to 2 year olds

24.9 (12.0)

0 (0)

20.6 (10.6)

10.9 (6.6)

10.9 (5.8)

13.2 (10.6)

2 to 3 year olds

24.5 (12.6)

33 (N/A)

24.1 (12.0)

11.0 (8.6)

10.4 (6.7)

10.8 (7.0)

3 to 4 year olds

24.2 (12.4)

14.2 (9.0)

23.5 (11.7)

15.8 (16.5)

10.8 (11.3)

11.5 (11.8)

4 to 5 year olds

24.2 (11.9)

17.6 (9.4)

20.9 (10.5)

12.9 (13.6)

13.6 (14.7)

10.8 (10.3)

5 to 6 year olds

22.3 (12.6)

17.8 (9.3)

18.0 (20.3)

15.0 (24.3)

8.0 (8.2)

7.1 (5.1)

Multiple care arrangements. Figure 1 gives the percentage of children in each age

group who attended of the different care combinations: long day care only, preschool only, family day care only, informal care only (e.g., care by a grandparent, the respondent’s partner, another relative or a non-relative with no formal care), a mixture of formal and informal care (such as long day care and grandparent care) and mixed formal care (e.g., long day care and family day care but no informal care). The most frequent patterns of care across all age groups were long day care only and a mixture of formal and informal care. This reflects the sample characteristics: families were recruited from child care centres, with the majority being long day care centres. As children got older, there was an increasing trend for them to be enrolled in multiple care arrangements.

Paper code: 2458

11

Figure 1. Percentage of children in each age group who attended each care pattern. Factor analysis. A factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed on the

reasons for multiple care revealed the existence of two main factors. Firstly, parents reported using multiple care for reasons that were out of their control, for example, “I can’t access enough hours of care in my preferred child care arrangement” or “My preferred child care arrangement is not consistently available”. This factor related to the ease and difficulty of accessing their preferred care arrangement. The second main factor related to reasons that were under the parents’ control and were seen as being beneficial to the child; “I don’t think it’s good for my child to stay in one type of care all the time” and “I like my child to be able to interact with different adults and children”. Items relating to the family moving and to the affordability of care did not load onto either factor, with low proportions of variance of these items accounted for by the 2 factor solution. See Table 5 for factor loadings when a two factor solution was retained.

Parental reasons for use of multiple care. Reasons scored by parents reflected two main factors: (a) families were in control of their child care arrangements or (b) families choice of child care were in response to outward pressure. Table 6 gives the mean ratings for each multiple care reason, by age of child. The convenience of the care arrangements and wanting the child to experience different arrangements and interact with different people

Paper code: 2458

12

were most likely to apply to parents’ decisions to choose multiple care arrangements. The affordability of care and that the family kept moving was least likely to apply. Table 5. Factor loadings and reproduced communalities for the two factor solution Factor

1 Factor 2

I don’t think it is good for my child to stay in one type of care all the time

.73 .06

It is good for my child to experience a centre and a family environment

.69 .03

I don’t think it is good for my child to be in formal care only .68 .07

I like my child to be able to interact with different adults and children

.73 -.07

I want my child to have a range of experiences so he/she will learn new things

.72 -.11

I want my child to spend some time with his/her family members .55 -.13

My child will not get the stimulation he/she needs in one type of child care

.54 .12

The arrangements are convenient for me .59 -.26

It is hard to find child care available during the times I need it -.05 .74

My preferred child care arrangement is not consistently available -.05 .79

I can’t access enough hours of my preferred child care arrangement

-.07 .78

The family keeps moving and I’m unable to keep my child in a stable routine

.09 .18

I cannot afford to use my preferred child care arrangement all the time

.19 .34

Note: Boldface indicates highest factor loadings

Paper code: 2458

13

Table 6. Mean (and SD) ratings for each reason for multiple care by age of child. 0 to

1 year olds

1 to 2 year olds

2 to 3 year olds

3 to 4 year olds

4 to 5 year olds

5 to 6 year olds

Reasons under parents control I don't think it is good for my child to be in formal care only

2.9 (1.9)

3.2 (1.6)

3.3 (1.6)

2.9 (1.7)

2.9 (1.6)

3.0 (1.7)

I don't think it is good for my child to stay in one type of care all the time

2.6 (1.5)

3.0 (1.6)

3.1 (1.6)

2.9 (1.6)

2.9 (1.6)

3.0 (1.6)

I like my child to be able to interact with different adults and children

3.5 (1.5)

4.1 (1.4)

4.1 (1.2)

3.9 (1.4)

3.9 (1.4)

3.9 (1.4)

I want my child to have a range of experiences so he/she will learn

3.3 (1.4)

3.7 (1.5

3.9 (1.4)

3.6 (1.5)

3.7 (1.5)

4.0 (1.4)

I want my child to spend some time with his/her family members

4.1 (1.4)

4.1 (1.5)

4.2 (1.4)

3.5 (1.8)

3.4 (1.8)

3.6 (1.8)

It is good for my child to experience a centre and a family environment

3.0 (1.6)

4.2 (1.3)

4.2 (1.3)

3.9 (1.5)

4.0 (1.5)

4.1 (1.3)

My child will not get the stimulation he/she needs in one type of child care

1.9 (1.1)

2.4 (1.6)

2.6 (1.5)

2.6 (1.5)

2.6 (1.6)

2.8 (1.6)

The arrangements are convenient for me

4.0 (1.5)

4.3 (1.1)

4.3 (1.1)

4.1 (1.2)

4.0 (1.3)

4.1 (1.2)

Reasons outside parents control My preferred child care arrangement is not consistently available

3.0 (1.8)

2.1 (1.6)

1.9 (1.4)

2.0 (1.4)

2.2 (1.6)

1.9 (1.5)

It is hard to find child care available during the times I need it

2.5 (1.8)

2.4 (1.7)

2.2 (1.5)

2.4 (1.6)

2.3 (1.6)

2.2 (1.6)

I can't access enough hours in my preferred child care arrangement

2.4 (1.7)

2.1 (1.6)

1.8 (1.3)

2.0 (1.4)

1.9 (1.5)

1.7 (1.4)

Paper code: 2458

14

Changes in Care Arrangements

The majority of children in all age groups did not change child care arrangement at all, with most of the rest of the children changing one time (see Table 7). Parents were also asked to indicate how many times in the preceding 12 months the child’s primary caregiver changed in their child care setting. Most children did not experience a change in carer. One parent in each of the 2 to 3 year old and 3 to 4 year old age groups reported a change in carer 20 times in the past year (see Table 8).

Parental reasons for changing care setting. The most common reasons for changing their child’s care place were that the child care was more conveniently located and that the previous arrangement became unavailable, with the least common reason being problems with the service such as change of management or conflict and the cost of the service (see Figure 2). As seen in Table 9, most parents felt that changing their child’s childcare place was their choice, though a substantial minority of parents felt the change was definitely out of their control. The most common reason for a change in carer was staff turnover, with very few parents citing problems with a caregiver as a reason for a change in carer (see Figure 3). The majority of parents of children in each age group felt that this change was definitely out of their control (see Table 10).

Table 7. Number of times children changed child care arrangements in the preceding 12 months: numbers (percentages) of children in each age group who changed child care between 0 and 6 times. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 to 1 year olds

48 (87.3%)

6 (10.9%)

1 (1.8%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

1 to 2 year olds

198 (77.3%)

49 (19.1%)

4 (1.6%)

4 (1.6%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (0.4%)

0 (0.0%)

2 to 3 year olds

289 (75.9%)

84 (22.0%)

2 (0.5%)

4 (1.0%)

1 (0.3%)

1 (0.3%)

0 (0.0%)

3 to 4 year olds

315 (79.7%)

71 (18.0%)

4 (1.0%)

4 (1.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (0.3%)

4 to 5 year olds

373 (82.2%)

64 (14.1%)

10 (2.2%)

4 (0.9%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (0.2%)

Paper code: 2458

15

5 to 6 year olds

339 (86.0%)

43 (10.9%)

7 (1.8%)

4 (1.0%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (0.3%)

0 (0.0%)

Table.8. Number of times there was a change of carer in the child’s care arrangements in the preceding 12 months: numbers (percentages) of children in each age group whose carer changed between 0 and 6 or more times.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more

0 to 1 year olds

48 (87.3%)

4 (7.3%) 1 (1.8%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

1 (1.8%)

1 (1.8%)

1 to 2 year olds

203 (74.9%)

35 (12.9%)

15 (5.5%)

8 (3.0%)

2 (0.7%)

4 (1.5%)

4 (1.5%)

2 to 3 year olds

236 (59.0%)

100 (25.0%)

35 (8.8%)

15 (3.8%)

7 (1.8%)

2 (0.5%)

5 (1.3%)

3 to 4 year olds

215 (53.9%)

109 (27.3%)

34 (8.5%)

21 (5.3%)

8 (2.0%)

3 (0.8%)

9 (2.3%)

4 to 5 year olds

248 (54.6%)

103 (22.7%)

48 (10.6%)

28 (6.2%)

14 (3.1%)

5 (1.1%)

7 (1.5%)

5 to 6 year olds

268 (68.0%)

53 (13.5%)

39 (9.9%)

19 (4.8%)

4 (1.0%)

6 (1.5%)

5 (1.3%)

Figure 2. Percentage of parents rating each reason for changing their child’s child care place by age1.

1 Note that total values for each age group exceed 100% because each parent gave more than one reason for changing the child’s child care place.

Paper code: 2458

16

Figure 3. Percentage of parents rating each reason for a change in their child’s carer by age2.

2 Note that total values for each age group may exceed 100% because each parents gave more than one reason for changing their child’s child care place.

Paper code: 2458

17

Table 9. Number (percentage) of parents of children in each age group who gave each rating regarding the extent to which the change in child care was their choice.

Definitely your choice

Somewhat your choice

Neither your choice nor something imposed

Somewhat out of your control

Definitely out of control

0 to 1 year olds

2 (28.6%)

2 (28.6%)

1 (14.3%)

2 (28.6%)

0 (0%)

1 to 2 year olds

29 (48.3%)

8 (13.3%)

2 (3.3%)

9 (15.0%)

12 (20.0%)

2 to 3 year olds

52 (54.7%)

7 (7.4%)

6 (6.3%)

18 (18.9%)

12 (12.6%)

3 to 4 year olds

53 (65.4%)

7 (8.6%)

3 (3.7%)

8 (9.9%)

10 (12.3%)

4 to 5 year olds

53 (65.4%)

5 (6.2%)

0 (0%)

8 (9.9%)

15 (18.5%)

5 to 6 year olds

26 (46.4%)

7 (12.5%)

5 (8.9%)

5 (8.9%)

13 (23.2%)

Paper code: 2458

18

Table 10 Number (percentage) of parents of children in each age group who gave each rating regarding the extent to which the change in child’s carer was their choice.

Definitely your choice

Somewhat your choice

Neither your choice or something imposed

Somewhat out of your control

Definitely out of your control

0 to 1 year olds 0 (0%)

1 (14.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (14.3%) 5 (71.4%)

1 to 2 year olds 5 (7.4%) 3 (4.4%) 8 (11.8%) 3 (4.4%) 49 (72.1%) 2 to 3 year olds 13 (7.9%) 5 (3.0%) 18 (11.0%) 14 (8.5%) 114 (69.5%) 3 to 4 year olds 7 (3.8%) 8 (4.3%) 15 (8.2%) 8 (4.3%) 146 (79.3%) 4 to 5 year olds 7 (3.4%) 5 (2.4%) 13 (6.3%) 15 (7.3%) 166 (80.6%) 5 to 6 year olds 6 (4.8%) 1 (0.8%) 13 (10.3%) 14 (11.1%) 92 (73.0%) 6 to 7 year olds 6 (15.4%) 3 (7.7%) 2 (5.1%) 2 (5.1%) 26 (66.7%)

Paper code: 2458

19

Satisfaction with care. Table 11 shows the mean satisfaction rating for each type of care for each age

group. Overall parents reported being reasonably satisfied with all forms of care. Few parents reported being not at all satisfied with any type of care, with only some long day care centres receiving any of the lowest ratings. Over half of parents reported being very satisfied with their care arrangements, regardless of the type of care involved. Table 11 Mean (Standard Deviation) satisfaction ratings given by parents for each type of care by age of child. LDC Presch

ool FDC Grand-

parent Other relative

Other carer

0 to 1 year olds

4.4 (0.5)

4.6 (0.6)

4.9 (0.3)

4.0 (n/a)

4.3 (1.0)

1 to 2 year olds

4.5 (0.6)

4.5 (0.8)

4.8 (0.5)

5.0 (0.0)

4.7 (0.5)

2 to 3 year olds

4.5 (0.6)

5.0 (n/a)

4.7 (0.6)

4.7 (0.6)

4.5 (1.0)

4.6 (0.5)

3 to 4 year olds

4.4 (0.7)

4.6 (0.7)

4.7 (0.5)

4.7 (0.6)

4.5 (0.8)

4.6 (0.6)

4 to 5 year olds

4.4 (0.8)

4.7 (0.5)

4.6 (0.6)

4.9 (0.4)

4.7 (0.5)

4.5 (0.8)

5 to 6 year olds

4.5 (0.8)

4.6 (0.6)

4.6 (0.6)

4.8 (0.6)

4.6 (0.8)

4.6 (0.8)

Discussion

This study examined families’ use of and motivations for combining or changing their

child’s child care arrangement in the prior-to-school years. On average, children were more likely to attend care on a part-time than a full-time basis with two to three days of care being a common pattern, a finding which is consistent with recent reports from the Longitudinal Study of Australian (Harrison et al., 2009). An issue of particular interest was families’ use of multiple care arrangements (more than one child care arrangement a week) and the changeability of care (how many times in 12 months, the child care centre was changed or the carer was changed within a care setting). Children were more likely to be in a single care setting than in multiple arrangements. While multiple arrangements were used by about a third of the sample, these were generally no more than two arrangements a week and likely to involve grandparents supplementing the formal care in the primary care setting (long day care, family day care and later, preschool).

The reasons parents gave for their use of multiple care arrangements reflected two main motivational orientations: parents’ were either in control of their child care choice or parents selected multiple care in response to outward pressures. The main reasons affirmed by parents included a mix of convenience and concern for their child’s best interests, suggesting that the decision is a deliberate rather than a default one based on access issues. However, the nature of the sample needs to be kept in mind when generalizing this conclusion. These were families who had gained a child care place and who were able to afford formal care.

Paper code: 2458

20

Parents of infants (under 1 year) were more likely than parents of older children to agree that their use of multiple care arrangements was in response to outward pressures, with many indicating that their preferred care was not consistently available or that they could not access enough hours in their preferred form of care. This finding is consistent with research reported by Goodfellow (1990), who found that multiple care arrangements were largely the result of factors outside parents’ control (such as availability and accessibility of child care). Interestingly, these factors were identified by parents as reasons given for changes made to their child care arrangements. According to the reasons offered by parents, changes in child care arrangements were most often as a result of a more convenient child care arrangement becoming available or because a previous arrangement became unavailable.

The number of times children changed their child care arrangements was reasonably consistent over the 6 years of the study, with the majority of the sample experiencing very few changes over a 12 month period. Overall changes in child care arrangements were less frequent than previously reported (NICHD, 2001). Children aged between 2 and 3 years experienced the most changes compared with other age groups with 22% experiencing at least one change in a 12 month period. Care arrangements were most stable among infants and children in their year prior to school with 87% and 86% respectively experiencing no changes in care over the 12 month period. Two children in the study experienced up to six changes over a 12 month period. These findings are particularly significant given research findings showing negative associations between unstable care arrangements and various child outcomes (e.g., De Shipper, Tavecchio, van IJzendoorn, & van Zeijl, 2004; Harrison & Ungerer, 2000; NICHD ECCRN, 1997a, 1997b, 1998).

Although parents’ decisions to use multiple care arrangements reflected considerable control, parental reasons with respect to changeability of care were more mixed. While many parents in the study felt that changes made to their child care arrangements were their choice, a substantial minority felt that changes in their child care arrangements were beyond their control. The majority of changes in child care arrangements were as a result of a staff turnover in children’s services. Not surprisingly, parents across all age groups viewed this as something beyond their control.

As has been found in previous research on parent satisfaction with child care (Harrison et al., 2009) parents in the Child Care Choices longitudinal study expressed a high level of satisfaction with the child care arrangements they had made for their child. The highest satisfaction was for care by grandparents and the lowest was for multiple care arrangements. Analysis of written comments from parents in the first year of the study (Bowes & Harrison, 2007) suggests that parents were not simply expressing satisfaction to justify their choices or to avoid noticing any shortcomings that might add to their guilt about placing their child in care. Their comments suggest that parents were observant and knowledgeable about what was happening in the child care settings and their own and their children’s reactions to it and they had negative as well as positive reactions to aspects of care.

Although previous studies have alerted us to the possible negative outcomes of multiple and changeable child care, few attempts have been made to investigate this phenomenon. Research published thus far suggests that changeable care may pose greater problems for children’s socio-emotional wellbeing and cognitive competence than the experience of multiple concurrent care arrangements (Harrison et al., 2009; NICHD ECCRN, 1998, Tran & Weinraub,

Paper code: 2458

21

2006). The possibility that parents are actively selecting multiple care arrangements for their children may help explain why multiple care arrangements do not always predict negative outcomes for children. In order to more fully understand this phenomenon, future research must include a closer examination of the families and children engaged in multiple attendance patterns and potential links with child adjustment outcomes.

Paper code: 2458

22

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2003). Australia’s welfare 2003. AIHW, Canberra.

Baxter, J. (2008). Is money the main reason mothers return to work after childbearing? A quantitative analysis of reasons for return to work. Journal of Population Research, 25, 141-60.

Blau, D. M. (1991). The quality of child care: An economic perspective. In D. M. Blau (Ed.), The economics of child care (pp.145-173). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bowes, J., & Harrison, L. (2007, July). Patterns of care involving regulated childcare settings: Parent perspectives. 15th Biennial Conference of the Australasian Human Development Association, Sydney.

Gordon, R. A., & Hognas, R. S. (2006). The best laid plans: Expectations, preferences, and stability of child-care arrangements. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 373-393.

Goodfellow, J. (1990). Multicare arrangement patchworks: The multiple use of formal and informal care in NSW. Report for New South Wales Department of Community Services, Office of Child Care, Sydney.

Hand, K. & Hughes, J. (2004). Mothers' reflections about work and family life. Family Matters, 69, 45-49.

Harrison, L. J. & Ungerer, J. A. (2002). Maternal employment predictors of infant-mother attachment security at 12 months postpartum. Developmental Psychology, 38, 758-773.

Harrison, L. J., & Ungerer, J. A. (2000). Children and child care: A longitudinal study of the relationships between developmental outcomes and use of non-parental care from birth to six. Paper presented at the Commonwealth Family and Community Services Panel Data and Policy Conference, Canberra, ACT.

Harrison, L. J., & Ungerer, J. A. (1997) Child care predictors of infant-mother attachment security at age 12 months. Early Child Development and Care, 137, 31 -46.

Harrison, L., Ungerer, J., Smith, G., Zubrick, S., Wise, S., with Press, F., Waniganayake, M., & The LSAC Research Consortium. (2009). Child care and early education in Australia - The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. (Social Policy Research Paper No. 40). Canberra: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia

Morrissey, T. W. (2009). Multiple child-care arrangements and young children’s behavioral outcomes. Child Development, 80, 59-76.

Morrissey, T. W. (2008). Familial factors associated with the use of multiple child-care arrangements. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 549-563

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2001). Child Care and Child Development, Childcare and Family Predictors of Preschool Attachment and Stability from Infancy. Developmental Psychology, 37, 847-862.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (1998). Early child care and self-control, compliance, and problem behavior at twenty-four and thirty-six months. Child Development, 69, 1145-1170.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (1997a). Child care in the first year of life. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 340-360.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (1997b). The Effects of Infant Child Care on Infant-mother Attachment

Paper code: 2458

23

Security: Results of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Child Development, 68, 860-879.

Ochiltree, G., & Edgar, D. (1995). Today’s child care, tomorrow’s children. AIFS Early Childhood Study Paper, no. 7. Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.

Qu, L., & Wise, S. (2004). Multiple child care arrangements in Australia. Family Matters, 69, 56-61.

Rodd, J. (1996). A week in the life of a four-year-old: A study of Victorian children’s patterns of usage of early childhood services. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 21, 37-42.

Rolfe, S. (2004). Rethinking attachment for early childhood practice. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin

Roopnarine, J. L., Mounts, N.S., & Caston, G. (1986). Mothers’ perceptions of their children’s supplemental care experience: Correlation with spousal relationship. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 581-588.

Stipek, D., Milburn, S., Clements, D., & Daniels, D. H. (1992). Parents’ beliefs about appropriate education for young children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 293-310.

Tran, H., & Weinraub, M. (2006). Child care effects in context: Quality, stability, and multiplicity in non-maternal child care arrangements during the first 15 months of