The Impacts of Non-Parental Care on Child Development - August 1999

1.1 Context

Non-Parental care (NPC) is a common experience for Canadian children, about 40% of children aged 0 to 5 are cared for on a regular basis in some type of care arrangement (National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth data). Most of these children are cared for outside their home and just under one third receive care in a licensed care arrangement. This bibliography represents a focused review of relevant literature on NPC that was used to guide the framework for research on the impacts of this type of care on children's development. Articles were selected for inclusion based on their ability to contribute to the development of instruments for measuring NPC in a national survey, such as the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY).

There is a lack of consistency in the literature surrounding the definition of child care. The term non-parental care has more recently emerged to reflect the heterogeneity of the type of child care arrangements utilized by parents. Some authors use the term non-familial care interchangeably with non-parental care. Both terms refer to care arrangements in which the child is cared for by someone other than his/her parents (and includes children cared for by relatives). It can include care inside or outside of the child's home. This is the definition that will be used for the purpose of this research.

NPC is often subdivided according to the location of the care (i.e. whether care is received in or out of the child's home). Care in the child's home includes care by a relative or a non-relative. Non-relative in-home caregivers can include nannies who are provided room and board in the child's house and other in-home caregivers who come into the child's house during the day. These non-relative in-home caregivers may be arranged through agencies, however they are not typically regulated beyond normal business regulation (Beach, Bertrand, & Cleveland, 1998). Care outside the child's home can take several forms: care in someone else's home by a licensed provider (regulated family daycare); care in someone else's home by an unlicensed provider (unregulated family daycare); care in a relative's home; group-care in a licensed daycare centre; and care in a before or after school or enrichment program. Family child care, family daycare, and daycare home are terms often used to refer to the care of unrelated children in the home of the care provider.

Section 2 is the annotated bibliography which includes six sections: (1) Theories, concepts, and definitions; (2) Quality of Care; (3) Infants and non-parental care; (4) Preschoolers and non-parental care; (5) After-school non-parental care; and (6) Non-Parental care selection. An overview of each section in the annotated bibliography is presented below.

1.2 Theories, Concepts, and Definitions

Section 2.1 covers the main theories, concepts and definitions that inform empirical research on NPC. Several theories from developmental psychology have been applied to the topic, particularly concerning its influence in the first few years of a child's life. The most significant include attachment, socio-biological, cognitive and social stimulation theories, and theories of intentionality.

Attachment theorists argue for the significance of an infant's relations with an adult attachment figure as a prerequisite for the child's subsequent psychological development. While a number of attachment theorists acknowledge that children form attachments to several people during early childhood, including fathers and other caregivers, the mother-infant relationship has been considered at the base of the hierarchy of relationships. Thus this theory views separation of the infant from the mother during the first year of life as a risk factor for emotional maladjustment.

Socio-biological theories suggest that the closer the genetic relation of a caregiver to a child, the greater the caregiver's investment in providing the best quality of care for that child. In other words, relatedness increases one's level of positive attitudes and behaviours toward a child. It is not surprising then, that socio-biological theorists privilege parental or relative care over other forms of child care.

Cognitive and social stimulation theories are built on the thesis that providing young children with a positive and healthy learning environment, which includes a responsive adult, will promote their cognitive development, whereas the absence of such stimulating opportunities will delay or depress development. These theories advocate that it is the quality of the care rather than the relatedness of the person providing the care that is important.

The concept of intentionality (Galinsky, Howes, Kontos, & Shinn, 1994) addresses the issue of the care provider's motives for providing care. It refers to the care provider's commitment toward caring for children. Providers who are more committed to the child and his/her development are more likely to "pursue opportunities to learn more about child care and education" (p. 60). Such providers would, as a result, offer higher quality care that should lead to positive development outcomes for the child.

While psychological developmental theories continue to guide the types of questions posed by NPC researchers, in recent years, the approach researchers take in collecting data has been influenced by ecological theories of human development. One author explains:

In their attempts to understand the influence of child care on children's development, researchers have come to understand that these influences are enmeshed in multiple contextual layers that jointly conspire to produce child outcomes. Development typically occurs in multiple contexts (e.g., family and child care), according to Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1986), and the developmental processes that take place in these various contexts are not independent. Bronfenbrenner has termed studies designed to identify the joint influences of multiple settings on development mesosystem models. —Kontos, 1994, p.87

Research from this perspective suggests that prediction of children's social, cognitive, and/or language development is increased when both child care and family characteristics - and more recently mother's employment experiences as well - are combined. In other words, particular factors or processes, be they family attitudes, values, or interaction patterns, or child care quality or work stress, will likely turn out to be less important in their own right, especially if other forces of influences are controlled, as they will be in interaction with each other. Available research draws attention to three kinds of interactions that might be discerned, one reflecting compensatory or protective processes, another, lost resources, and a third, multiple risks/risk accumulation.

Central to a compensatory or protective conceptualization is the notion that vulnerability resulting from a child characteristic (temperament) or family attribute (poverty) is not realized when a compensatory child care experience serves to mitigate risks. For example, when a feature of the child (socially fearful) or the family (low income) does not exert its anticipated adverse influence because of social protection provided by a feature of child care (i.e. quality). The idea of lost resources suggests that although child care may serve as a protective factor for children at risk, it is possible that it may be a risk factor for children who are not at risk (i.e. who have adequate personal and family resources).

Finally, the idea of multiple risks deals with interactions among risk factors found in the child care setting, the family context, or within the child that can function to increase risks. Thus, when sources of risk accumulate - for example, high adult to child ratios or untrained staff in the child care setting, authoritarian parenting, and work stress - child development is likely to be compromised. However, in the face of high-quality care and supportive marital relations, work stress will probably exert little ultimate influence. To take another example, the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network found that when relatively insensitive mothering was coupled with either low-quality child care, with more than minimal amounts of child care, or with unstable child care arrangements, infants were more likely to develop insecure attachment than was otherwise expected.

1.3 Quality of Care

Section 2.2 deals with the important issue of the impact of quality of care on child development. Questions about quality first came to the fore when cross-national comparisons revealed that whereas North American studies were discovering the impact of daycare to be generally negative, studies out of Scandinavia were arriving at exactly the opposite conclusion. It became apparent that researchers needed to identify "child care factors" that affected the development of daycare-reared children, particularly factors that might be subject to policy intervention.

Identifying social structural features of care, particularly group size, quality of the physical setting, caregiver training, and caregiver-child ratios, measures that should potentiate warm, enriching, and sensitive interaction care, has proved remarkably successful. Furthermore, there seems to be "a general consensus" among researchers on the factors related to quality and on how the structural features of quality should be measured (Cleveland & Hyatt, 1997; Lamb, 1996). There is disagreement, however, on whether structural indictors alone are sufficient. Many now argue that process quality is equally, if not more, important. Process measures try to quantify the actual care received by children and involve the use of observational indicators (e.g., nature of caregiver-child interactions). The terms "process measures" and "dynamic measures" are used interchangeably in the literature. Like the former, dynamic measures are designed to assess the quality of the experience provided for children in child care facilities - notably the affective quality of interactions, the developmental appropriateness of the experiences and stimulation, and the sensitivity of the care providers' responses and initiatives (Lamb, 1996). Some studies have found structural and process/dynamic indicators to be highly correlated while others have not.

Unfortunately, research on quality has focused primarily on comparing family daycare to centre daycare rather than on determining the elements of quality that are important. In addition, most of the scales that have been developed to measure quality have been designed for and most often used in centre-based care. Little material exists on relative or home care, most likely because of the private nature of these forms of non-parental care arrangements and the difficulties in gaining access to them.

While staff training, group size, and even caregiver-child ratios have been implicated in studies of variation in daycare quality, the field still lacks specific knowledge about the point at which group size becomes too large, training insufficient, and ratios inadequate.

1.4 Infants and Non-Parental Care

Section 2.3 has been accorded to the effects of NPC on infants since most researchers (influenced by attachment theory and the idea that children's needs vary due to the different developmental stages they go through), make a conceptual distinction between infants and preschoolers. This separation between infants (birth - 2 years) and preschoolers (2 - 5) in the literature was solidified in the 1980s when a series of studies examined children receiving some kind of non-parental care on a routine basis in their first year of life. These studies stimulated a "firestorm" of controversy as they suggested that children in any of a variety of child care arrangements, including centre care, family daycare, and nanny care, for 20 or more hours per week beginning in the first year of life, were at an elevated risk of being classified as insecure in their attachments to their mothers at 12 or 18 months of age and of being more disobedient and aggressive when they are from 3 to 8 years old (Belsky, 1986, 1988).

Opponents of this hypothesis identified problems with the concepts of insecure attachment, emotional insecurity, and social maladjustment: Moreover, research has been unable to elucidate possible mechanisms underlying these phenomena. According to one author, insecure attachment may be indicative of problems associated with separation but it may also be a reflection of earlier independence and autonomy (Clarke-Stewart, 1989). For example, the greater aggressiveness and lower compliance observed in follow-up studies of children who have received high amounts of non-parental care as infants may actually signify adaptive assertiveness. More importantly, some critics argued that the research under consideration lacked information on quality of care. Many studies are now finding that the positive or negative effects of age of entry to daycare on later child's group behaviour are significantly mediated by the daycare quality. In other words, an early age of entry into daycare, in particular group daycare is not, in itself, a risk factor. Early entry may have detrimental or beneficial effects depending on the quality conditions of the care setting and the family background of the child. The benefits of high quality NPC is most evident for children from low-income families. For example, O'Brien Caughy and colleagues (1994) found that children from impoverished environments who start attending daycare before their first birthday have higher reading recognition and math scores than children from comparable home environments who do not attend daycare at all. Yet, using subjects drawn from the same data set, Baydar and Brooks-Gunn (1991) reported that daycare during the first year was associated with poorer verbal abilities in 3- and 4-year-olds. Sometimes the positive effects of infant daycare on cognitive development may be "sleepers" and not appear until much later, as Broberg and colleagues (1997) found. In general, it seems clear that high-quality educationally oriented programs have positive effects on cognitive performance, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Evidence of effects on behavioural development, like cognitive development is also mixed. Nevertheless, the argument that extensive care in infancy results in maladjustment and increased problematic functioning later on continues to receive a fair amount of empirical support. For example, Bates, et al found that, even though child care experience in the first year of life did not predict behavioural adjustment, when child care experience in the second through fifth year was controlled, extensive care in the first year coupled with extensive care thereafter, was associated with increased problematic functioning in kindergarten. Others argue the effects of early child care on children dissipate over time. In other words, the special importance given to infant care may be misplaced. Although the question of whether behavioural adjustment is benign or has long term effects is still up for debate. Overall an association between non-parental care and behavioural problems continues even though the underlying nature of the association is not always clear. Furthermore, the special attention given to development during the first year in the literature suggests that this period might be a particularly vulnerable developmental period. Unfortunately, few studies that have focused on behaviour problems have assessed quality of care systematically. Thus, it is not known if these conclusions would still hold if the daycare settings were of high quality.

1.5 Preschoolers and Non-Parental Care

Section 2.4 is concerned with the effects of non-parental care on preschoolers. There are considerably more studies of preschoolers than of infants. Furthermore, researchers are more in agreement about, and willing to recognize the benefits of NPC for this age group, in particular with respect to cognitive development. Of the various forms of non-parental care, studies have found that children in daycare centres perform better on cognitive tests than children receiving in-home care, or family daycare (Kohen & Hertzman, 1998). When the centres are "typical community centres," the positive cognitive outcomes are more modest (Peisner-Feinberge & Burchinal, 1997). In the case of children from low-income families however, those who participate in any type of care arrangements outside the home, regardless of whether it is regulated or not, have superior cognitive skills to those who are cared for at home by a relative or those who use no other care arrangements (Kohen & Hertzman, 1998). While there are different developmental outcomes on the basis of type of care arrangement, again many researchers argue it is the quality of the care that is the determining factor.

On the issue of behavioural outcomes the evidence is a little less straightforward. Generally, preschoolers in centre care are found to be more socially competent (self-confident and outgoing) than children in daycare homes or with in-home caregivers. Such competence may aid them in adjusting to new environments, including kindergarten. There may even be something about the absence of the mother that encourages a positive orientation toward peers. On the negative side, concerns have been expressed that early rearing in a peer-oriented environment will deter the development of children's individuality and creativity. That is to say, in a peer culture, children become dependent on peers rather than adult authority. Under these circumstances, they may be less likely to conform to standards for socially acceptable behaviours.

1.6 After-School Care

Section 2.5 examines results from research on After-School Care (ASC). The term after-school care tends to be defined more broadly than the words themselves suggest. Since many parents work early mornings or late evenings, some children might be placed in various forms of non-parental care during these times. Therefore, many authors have expanded the term to include not only care in the afternoons (as is typically studied) but also mornings before school, as well as evenings. In their work on paid non-parental care outside daycare centres, the Human Resources Investment Branch (HRIB) of HRDC defined non-parental care as paid care on a regular basis (10 hours a week at least eight months of the year) while the parent(s) work or study.

The need for non-parental care does not end when children enter the elementary educational system at around 6 years of age, particularly as parental employment rates continue to rise in association with children's ages, and have always been higher for parents with school-age than pre-school-age children or infants. For many years now, great concern has been expressed about the safety and welfare of unsupervised or "latchkey" children. Early American studies of inner-cities found that unsupervised girls had poorer achievement test scores and poorer relationships with their peers at school (Woods, 1972). However, what most studies examining the effects of after school care have lacked is consideration of the extent and range of after-school care arrangements, and the multiplicity of arrangements that the child may be involved in at a given time. When these factors are incorporated, the amount of involvement in self-care is associated with later adjustment problems. Perhaps even more interestingly, contrary to popular belief, higher income families are most likely to use latchkey arrangements (Pettit, Laird, Bates, & Dodge, 1997). In addition, according to Vandell and Ramanan (1991), children of single-parent families who return home to their mother after school have more antisocial behaviours, more peer conflicts, and lower Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) scores than do children in other types of ASC, including self-care. Among lower Socio-Economic Status (SES) children, daycare and sitter/relative care appears to buffer the effects of low SES in that they show better adjustment and outcomes than their counterparts who are not involved in these types of care (Pettit et al., 1997).

1.7 Child Care Selection

Section 2.6 examines research on child care selection. In Canada, unregulated care outside the home (e.g. family child care) is the most prevalent form of care arrangement (Kohen & Hertzman, 1998). We know very little about why parents' choose this form over others. In studying the child care experience, it is vital to understand what influences parents' decisions about care arrangements. According to Fuller, et al. geographical location, maternal characteristics and family structure influence the child care selection process. Mother's employment during pregnancy, education and martial status (single) is positively associated with child care use. However, women who delay childbearing are less likely to place their children into regular non-parental care (at least in North America).

1.8 References

Bates, J.E., Marvinney, D., Kelly, T., Dodge, K.A., Bennett, D.S. & Pettit, G.S. (1994)."Child-care history and kindergarten adjustment." Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 690-700.

Baydar, N. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1991). "Effects of maternal employment and child-care arrangements on preschoolers' cognitive and behavioral outcomes: Evidence from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth." Developmental Psychology, 27, 932-945.

Beach, J., Bertrand, J. & Cleveland, G. (1998). Our child care workforce: From recognition to remuneration: A human resource study of child care in Canada. Child Care Human Resources Steering Committee, Ottawa, ON: Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data.

Belsky, J. (1986). "Infant daycare: A cause for concern?" Zero to Three, 6, 1-7.

Belsky, J. (1988). "The 'effects' of infant daycare reconsidered." Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 235-273.

Broberg, A.G., Hwang, C.P., Lamb, M.E. & Wessels, H. (1997). "Effects of daycare on the development of cognitive abilities in 8-year-olds: A longitudinal study." Developmental Psychology, 33(1), 62-69.

Clarke-Stewart, K.A. (1989). "Infant daycare: Maligned or malignant?" American Psychologist, 44, 266-273.

Cleveland, G. & Hyatt, D. (1997). Using the NLSCY to study the effects of child care on child development: Final report. Ottawa, ON: Human Resources Development Canada.

Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S. & Shinn, M. (1994). "The Study of Children in Family Child Care and Relative Care — Key Findings and Policy Recommendations." Young Children, 50(1), 58-61.

Kohen, D. & Hertzman, C. (1998). "The importance of quality child care." In Vulnerable Children, J. Douglas Willms (ed.). University of Alberta Press.

Kontos, S. (1994). "The ecology of family daycare." Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 87-110.

Lefebvre, P. & Merrigan, P. (1998). Parents' Conditions and Characteristics Employment and Children's Outcomes, Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development Canada.

O'Brien Caughy, M., DiPietro, J. & Strobino, D. (1994). "Daycare participation as a protective factor in the cognitive development of low-income children." Child Development, 65, 457-471.

Peisner-Feinberge, E.S. & Burchinal, M.R. (1997). "Relations between preschool children's child-care experiences and concurrent development: the cost, quality, and outcomes study." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 451-477.

Pettit, G.S., Laird, R.S., Bates, J.E. & Dodge K.A. (1997). "Patterns of after-school care in middle childhood: Risk factors and developmental outcomes." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 43(3), 515-38.

Ross, D.P, Scott, K. & Kelly, M.A. (1996) "Overview: Children in Canada in the 1990's." Growing Up in Canada, Statistics Canada. Catalogue no. 89-550-MPE, no.1.

Vandell, D.L. & Ramanan, J. (1991). "Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: Choices in after-school care and child development." Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 637-643.

Woods, M.B. (1972). "The unsupervised child of the working mother." Developmental Psychology, 6, 14-25.