|
Best Approaches to Quality Enhancement in the
Informal Child Care Sector
By Martha
McAlister
April, 2003
Non-parental child care spans a range of
environments from informal home settings to professional child
care centres. While much attention has been given to improving
the quality of centre based care, the informal child care sector
has remained relatively untouched and unaddressed. In this paper
I will look briefly at what we already know about the informal
child care sector, what is the current thinking on how best to
connect with this group and an examination of what has been done
thus far to provide quality enhancement measures to informal
caregivers.
Informal child care: what we know
A definition of informal child care is in order.
Generally it includes all types of care that are unregulated,
including care by a family member - in the child's home or in
the relative's home, care by a friend or neighbour and care by a
non-relative in the child's own home (often referred to as
"nanny" care). Frequently, informal care is carried out on a
part time basis, or during irregular hours such as weekends and
evenings. In the United States the term "kith and kin" is
usually used to describe informal child care. I have chosen to
use the term "informal" because it has no negative connotation
attached to it, where as the more common term "unregulated"
carries with it strong negative implications.
Little is known about informal child care, except
for the fact that it is by far the most frequently used type of
care. In the 1998 study of over 300,000 caregivers across
Canada, it was found that approximately 270,000 were unregulated
caregivers (Human Resources Development Canada, 1998, p.2).
Statistics Canada found similar results. In 1995, out of all the
children in non-parental care while their parents went to work
or school, 47% were with an unregulated caregiver (either in
their own home or in the caregivers home) and 22% were in the
care of a relative. This left less than 30% that were in some
form of regulated care, either centre or home based (Vanier
Institute of the Family, 2002, p. 161).
Frequently, child care advocates use these
figures to conclude that parents use informal care because they
have no other options. However, the 1997 study which interviewed over 4,000 parents in BC, found that
while the majority of primary caregivers would prefer to provide
care for their children themselves, allowing the spouse and
other relatives to provide care accounts for virtually all of
the remaining first preferences for child care. Only 3% would
allow a non-relative to provide care as a first choice (Human
Resources Development Canada and the British Columbia Ministry
for Children and Families, 1997).
We also know that most people who are providing
child care out of their home are mothers themselves. According to a 1998
Canadian Child Care Federation Survey of both the regulated and
unregulated family child care sector, 81% of unregulated childcare providers across Canada had
children of their own living with them. Staying at home with
their own children was identified as the number one reason for
doing family child care in the regulated sector.
An assumption that is often made by child care
advocates is that because it is unregulated, informal care is likely to be poor
quality. Certainly, with a void of information about this sector
the quality factor is unknown. As one study put it: "Ninety
percent of British Columbia children (264,747) are in one or
more of the following situations: informal family daycare; in
the care of a family member, relative or nanny; in illegal care,
or in self-care. Because statistics are only kept on the number
of licensed spaces in the province, there is no way of
differentiating between children in informal and in-home care
and children in illegal or in self-care." (Task Force on Child
Care, 1991, p.4).
There are a number of reasons why informal child
care is so frequently used. Many parents work irregular hours and find
informal care more flexible. Many parents prefer a more
home-like setting with smaller groups, especially for their
infants and toddlers. Cultural and linguistic familiarity is
easier to obtain in an informal setting. Informal child care is
often much more practical in rural areas (Doherty, 2001). For
all these reasons, we are likely going to continue seeing the
prevalence of informal child care.
Quality enhancement for informal
care: current thought on effective approaches
One excellent way of looking at the different
types of care is on a continuum from parents and relatives at
one end of the spectrum to child care centres at the other end.
The way we provide support and training to a caregiver will be
very different depending where on the spectrum they lie. The
'closer to home' a caregiver is (for example a parent, relative,
friend or close neighbour), the more likely the support will
resemble community development-like initiatives. On the other
hand, professionalization and regulation come into play the
farther from home a caregiver gets. Regulation is a tool that
provides a minimum standard safeguard which is primarily useful
when a parent is in the position of having to choose a virtual
stranger as a caregiver. Advanced professional training is
effective and appropriate in these settings. "One is not
necessarily better than the other is. The point of the continuum
is that there is a range of appropriate contexts in which
training is offered, and their effectiveness is greatest when
they match and support the needs of the person or group
receiving the training" (Morgan, Elliott, Beaudette & Azer,
2001, p. 21).
As we look across the spectrum, strategies to
improve access to good quality, affordable, regulated child care
are certainly in order. For example, in countries like Denmark
and Sweden where child care centres are well supported, more
families tend to use these spaces (Doherty). At the other end of
the spectrum, strategies that support a parent's decision to
stay at home (such as increased maternity leave benefits) are
also a move in the right direction, particularly given that so
many parents would prefer this option. However, approaching the
informal sector with the assumption that they are poor quality
and in need of regulation has not been a successful strategy so
far. The family support model makes a lot more sense,
particularly since so many of these caregivers are stay-at-home
moms, extended family and friends.
Current research out of the United States
highlights the distinction between the traditional approach to
kith and kin care and what is considered a more progressive
approach. For example, traditional strategies emphasized
compliance with regulation, differential payment rates and
focused on recruiting caregivers to become licensed. Newer
strategies include universal outreach to all forms of child
care, the use of family support models with particular attention
to cultural issues, finding other community people to reach out
to these providers, bringing resources to the providers and
policies that support parental choice (National Center for
Children and Poverty, 1998). Across the United States
organizations have sprung up that provide support to kith and
kin caregivers. Some of the challenges they have identified and
are trying to address include working with immigrant
populations, recruiting and maintaining participants and
tracking the results of outreach.
Child Care Resource and Referral (CCRR) programs
began in British Columbia in 1991, with the goal of improving
the quality of child care and a focus on family based care. Many
of their program ideas have been innovative and shown to be
highly successful. The rapid growth in their membership
indicated that they were meeting a need. Aspects of the program
such as toy libraries, drop-in groups, neighbourhood networking,
home visits, newsletters and workshops are all in keeping with
progressive thinking about how to reach informal caregivers.
However, with a huge emphasis on requiring minimum regulations
in order for unlicensed providers to access services, the
informal sector has been vastly underrepresented within the
membership. Most of the growth has been in the licensed family
child care sector.
Some child care advocates believe that what we
need to do to improve the quality of care is to increase
regulation. If, however, we view the goal of quality child care
as wanting caregivers to become the best that they can be, then
education, based on a delicate balance between support and
challenge, is what is needed to bring us above that bottom line.
Further, education needs to be seen as more than just another
regulation. If a balance of support and challenge is the best
approach, we need to be able to look at each other with
acceptance and belief in potential, challenging caregivers to
develop beyond current boundaries by first providing
unconditional positive regard.
When reaching out to the informal sector of
caregivers, it is important to keep in mind the fundamental
principles of support and challenge. It calls for using
approaches that more closely resemble family support models than
regulation models. According to the Canadian Association of
Family Resource Programs, some of the guiding principles of
family support include; being open to all families, focusing on
wellness and prevention, encouraging peer support, affirming
lifelong learning and promoting relationships based on equality
and respect for diversity. Family support programs can include;
drop-in programs, community outreach, parent/caregiver support,
peer contact, parent education, toy lending, recreation and
community development. The focus is always based on looking at
community capacity and strengths rather than deficits.
With the family support model in mind, we can see
a range of methods for working with informal caregivers. CCRRs
are already doing many of these. One example is that of
outreach, or home visiting. Home visiting is "a strategy for
offering information, guidance and emotional and practical
support directly to families in their homes" (Powers & Fenichel,
1999, p. 4). CCRRs have had some success with their home
visiting programs. However, they differ substantially from the
family support model by having professional vistors rather than
lay/peer visitors, and by emphasizing compliance to regulation.
Though home-based support programs have been
widely utilized within the realms of social work and health
care, the concept of home visits with an early childhood focus
is quite new. In the past, home visitors were often patronizing
professionals or haughty volunteers coming into the home to
address a deficit or perceived risk (Myers, 1987). This approach
has evolved to include models which make use of peers or
mentors, and focus on the strengths that are already in place
within the family. Within the various home visitor programs in
existence today, you may see some aspects of both of these
models. In 1999 Stefanie Powers and Emily Fenichel examined an
array of programs covering a 20 year period, looking for
commonalities and best practices. They identified some key
elements in a successful home visiting program. These include:
clearly defined goals and objectives, home visitors who know how
to reach the goals and objectives, carefully recruited and
well-trained home visitors, collaboration with other community
resources, adequate and stable funding and evaluation and
continuous quality improvement.
For informal caregivers, the primary goal would
be to form a trusting relationship in order to decrease
isolation and encourage a connection with other resources in the
community. Caregivers would be encouraged to access existing
programs in their neighbourhood including toy libraries,
drop-ins, library story times and CCRR workshops.
Summary
Informal child care continues to be the most
utilized form of care in Canada. With a lack of information about the quality of
care, we need new and innovative ways of making a connection
with these caregivers. Traditional methods of focusing on
regulation have not been successful and current approaches out
of the United States suggest that family support models are more
appropriate. Peer home visiting programs are just one example of
how we can connect with caregivers in a way that is
non-authoritarian, supportive and strength based.
The saying goes, "seek first to understand then
to be understood" (Covey, 1989, p.237). Only when people feel
truly understood, and not under threat, can they open up and be
willing to grow. Respectfully connecting with a caregiver as an
equal, allows a blossoming of relationship that is the basis of
all growth.
Reference List
Canadian Association of Family Resource Programs.
(July , 2000). The guiding principles
of family support. Retrieved on March
31, 2003 from website
www.frp.ca/g_PositionPapers.
Canadian Child Care Federation. (1998).
Providing home child care for a living; A
survey of providers working in the regulated and unregulated
sector (ISBN No.
0-9696697-4-7).Ottawa, ON.
Human Resources Development Canada. (1998). Our child care workforce; From
recognition to remuneration, executive summary
(ISBN No. 0-9683704-2-X). Ottawa, ON.
Human Resources Development Canada and the
British Columbia Ministry for Children and Families. (1997).
Provincial child care needs assessment survey (ISBN No.
0-726-3616-8). Ottawa, ON.
Morgan, G., Elliott, K., Beaudette, C., & Azer,
S. (2001). Non-licensed forms of
childcare in homes: Issues and recommendations for State support.
Wheelock College Institute for Leadership and Career
Initiatives. Retrieved March 29, 2003 from the National Child
Care Information Centre online library website, www.nccic.org.
National Centre for Children and Poverty, (1998). Child care by kith and kin: Supporting
family, friends and neighbors caring for children.
Retrieved March 29, 2003 from the Bank Street website,
www.bankstreet.edu/kithandkin/other.
Powers, S., & Fenichel, E. (1999).
Home visiting: reaching babies and families
"where they live". Retrieved March 10,
2003 from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED439558.
Task Force on Child Care. (1991).
Showing we care: A child care strategy for the
90's: Summary report and minority report
(ISBN No. 0-7726-1296-X). Victoria, BC.
Vanier Institute of the Family. (2002). Profiling
Canada's families II (ISBN No. 0-919520-71-5). Ottawa, ON.
|
