Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
PART III The State of Knowledge
9 The Known and the Unknown The Panel on Work, Family, and Community was established to explore significant policy and research issues associated with changing patterns of work and family structure as they affect children's socialization and education. In particular we focused on how families, employers, and various formal and informal community institutions have adapted and the consequences for children. In this study, we have sought (1) to document the nature and extent of change in children's lives, (2) to review the status of existing knowledge concerning the effects of change on children's experiences and development, and (3) to suggest promising directions for future research intended to influence public-sector and private-sector policies toward working families and their children. What have we learned? Work cannot be viewed as a single uniform condition. The nature of the work experience and the meaning of work may lead to different conse- quences for children and families in different circumstances. A fundamental conclusion of our study that underlies all others is that work (i.e., paid employment) cannot be viewed as a single uniform condition experienced the same way by all parents with consistent effects on all children. It is instead the distinctive characteristics of work, such as the nature of the job, the workplace, work scheduling, earnings, work history, and the meaning of work, that determine how parents' em- ployment affects the well-being of their children. Contrary to strong popular opinion on both sides of the issue, there is no compelling evi- 311
312 THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE dence to suggest that mothers' or fathers' labor force participation has only good or only bad consequences for all children in all social, eco- nomic, and cultural circumstances. It seems to have varying effects (some good and some bad) depending on how the conditions of work interact with family processes and the roles of formal and informal community institutions (e.g., schools, churches, social service agencies, recreation centers, and neighborhood groups). There is no simple, predictable, linear relationship, for example, between parents' work status and chil- dren's academic achievement and their attitudes about work. It is there- fore not work alone but the complex links between and among work, family, and community as they directly and indirectly influence chil- dren's daily experiences that determine whether parental employmentâ mothers' or fathers' or both parents'âwill produce positive, negative, or neutral outcomes in children. Existing research paradigms are generally inadequate and inappro- priate for understanding the complex effects of work on children and their families. Heretofore, many researchers have viewed parental em- ployment as a simple, dichotomous variable. Most studies have con- centrated on maternal employment and ignored paternal or parental employment, as well as work by children themselves. Furthermore, from our review it is clear that most studies have focused on discrete aspects of the dynamic relationships and interactions among work, family, and community without taking into account a variety of intervening vari- ables. For example, studies of the effects of maternal employment on school achievement among boys and girls have generally concluded that there are neglible differences between children with working and non- working mothers when there is a control for socioeconomic level. How- ever, work may have significant effects on such things as spousal rela- tionships and mothers' sense of happiness, which may significantly affect family functioning and, in turn, children's performance in the classroom. As Bronfenbrenner and Crouter (Chapter 3 in this volume) point out "Studies that are limited to searching for differences in the characteristics of children solely as a function of the mother's employment status have clearly reached the point of diminishing returns. The focus of investi- gation must shift to the exploration of intervening processes both within and outside the family. This shift, in turn, requires the use of more complex research paradigms. . . ." There is growing evidence that men and women work for similar reasons and that income alone is not the only motivating factor. De- pending on the conditions and the meaning of work to the parent or parents, employment may carry with it status, prestige, a sense of com- petence, independence, and higher self-esteem, or the reverse. Jobs
The Known and the Unknown 313 may provide important peer relationships. Parental employment may offer new and positive role models for children. As the review by Bloom- Feshbach, Bloom-Feshbach, and Heller (Chapter 8 in this volume) sug- gests, there is some evidence that how parents, especially mothers, feel about their work may affect how they feel about themselves and their children. In turn it may affect children's attitudes about themselves and their parents and their educational and career aspirations. Race, eth- nicity, and religious background, as well as educational attainment, socioeconomic status, and age, may be significant determinants of moth- ers' attitudes about work. In general, however, research has not explored the extent and ways in which the varying conditions and meaning of work for both mothers and fathers influence child outcomes as well as parents' perceptions of their children. Existing research has also largely failed to account for the fact that the consequences of the parental work experience may be different for parents and children. For example, immediately following divorce, working outside the home may be essential to the mother's adjustment and well- being. On the other hand it may have negative consequences for her children, who may feel doubly abandoned, especially if the mother did not work before the divorce. These types of consequences may vary for children of different ages and sexes. In sum, as several papers in this volume have shown, work is a complex variable and its effects on children are intricately related to a variety of other factors, such as the age and sex of the child, socioeconomic level, family income, race and ethnicity, family structure, presence and age of siblings, parent education and job satisfaction, parent-child relation- ships, and peer relationships, to name just a few. Inevitably therefore, it is difficult to identify the distinctive characteristics of children whose sole parent or whose mother and father are in the paid labor force. Moreover, as more children grow up in families in which one or both parents are working on a full-time or part-time basis, the meaning of the work experience for parents and the consequences for their children may become almost as diverse as the families and children themselves. Indeed, to try to isolate the effects of parental employment, as a single variable, on children is like trying to identify the consequences of in- dustrialization or urbanization. Although we have identified no single overall effect on children that results from their parents working, we know that paid employment creates or adds to family income and decreases family time. From our review of the existing literature a major conclusion is that the simple fact of parents working outside the home has no universally
314 THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE predictable direct effect on children. It does, however, ensure that chil- dren will be materially better off and will have less time together with their employed parent or parents. As we have previously noted, the social and economic environments in which children are reared are generally agreed to be the most sig- nificant indicator of their overall well-beingâhealth, educational achievement, later employment, and earnings. In terms of family in- come, children are better off if both parents or a sole parent are in the paid labor force. Children in single-parent families are more likely to be poor, particularly if the parent is not working. Thus for example in 1979 (the most recent year for which we have complete data) of the 9.7 million children who lived in families with income below the poverty level, 5.5 million, almost 57 percent lived in female-headed families (Bureau of the Census, 1981). Almost 85 percent of the 3.3 million children in single-parent families whose mothers did not work lived in poverty, in contrast to 31 percent of those whose mothers worked at least some time during the year and 12 percent of those whose mothers worked full time all year round. Of the 3.8 million poor children living in husband-wife families, 65 percent had nonworking mothers. Only 2.2 percent of those children whose fathers worked full time all year and whose mothers worked at some time during the year were poor. (Al- though the Census Bureau's measure of poverty does not include such noncash benefits as food stamps, most of these children would still be living in poverty regardless of whether their families received such ben- efits.) Economic well-being is not necessarily correlated with positive child outcomes nor does it necessarily maximize the well-being of all family members. However, as noted in the reviews by Bronfenbrenner and Crouter (Chapter 3 in this volume) and by Heyns (Chapter 7 in this volume), lack of income is frequently correlated with negative cognitive, social, and developmental outcomes in children and often with family stress and related problems. Although the value of work and related earnings varies for families at different income levels (i.e., depending on the extent to which taxes, day-care expenses, transportation ex- penses, etc., reduce net earnings gains), parental employment clearly enhances families' economic well-being (Ferber and Birnbaum, Chapter 4 in this volume). Paid employment is essential for most families headed by women if income is to be above the poverty threshold. (Obviously, wage levels and hours worked are also important.) It may mean the difference between adequate and inadequate housing, nutrition, cloth- ing, and health care. Although the number and proportion of poor two- parent families is substantially smaller regardless of whether one or both
The Known and the Unknown 315 parents work, poverty is almost negligible when both parents work. Among moderate-income and upper-income families, earnings that re- sult when both parents work may contribute to a more comfortable standard of living and thereby provide children with opportunities that enhance their development, such as extracurricular programs, summer programs, and family vacations. From our review of the existing data and research literature, we also conclude that children of working parents spend less time each day with their mothers, fathers, or both and more time in settings away from their homes and in the care of other adults. Increasing numbers of preschool children are spending some portion of their day in day-care centers, in preschool programs (in and outside of schools), or in family day-care homes. Many other very young children who remain at home are cared for by family members or nonrelatives while their parent or parents are at work, or are cared for by other parents who share re- sponsibilities on a cooperative basis. School-age children are spending more of their nonschool time in a variety of settings (e.g., recreation centers, extended day programs in schools, after-school care arrange- ments) about which there is little systematic information. Although data do not exist, there are also undoubtedly a significant number of children, both preschool and school age, who are left alone without any formal care arrangement during the hours when their parent or parents are working. There is little firm evidence of the effects of various care arrangements or lack of care arrangements on children, although we do know that children cared for in groups tend to get more colds and flu than other children. Some emerging studies seem to suggest negative effects on cognitive and personality development among middle-class boys whose mothers work full time, although these findings are not firm. The effects of substitute care or the lack of organized, supervised arrangements on outcomes such as maternal attachment and peer orientation seem to depend largely on the quality of that care, the characteristics of the child (e.g., age, health, sex), and the attitudes of the working parents about their jobs and their children. Working mothers in both single-parent and two-parent families spend approximately as much time each day in the direct physical care of their children as mothers who are housewives do. Evidence also suggests that at all socioeconomic levels, fathers in two-parent families in which the mother works spend some more time in child care than do husbands with nonworking wives (Moore and Hofferth, 1979). Nevertheless, as Ferber and Birnbaum (Chapter 4 in this volume) suggest, the overall difference in the level of father's participation is relatively insignificant.
316 THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE Mothers continue to carry primary responsibility for child and home even when they work full time. As a result, working mothers generally carry a large responsibility for home-related tasks in addition to their jobs. This burden is increased if the father travels frequently in con- nection with his work. It is even greater for single mothers. Research generally has not addressed the particular circumstances of single fath- ers, although the popular media have recently highlighted them. It is reasonable to assume that single fathers share many of the problems of single mothers who are combining work and parenting responsibilities; however, they are likely to have more income available to solve such problems than do women who head families. There is some evidence that working parents, especially working mothers, are likely to spend much of their nonwork time with their children rather than in other pursuits. We have found no evidence, however, that parents whose work schedules are somewhat more flexible than the standard nine-to-five work day (e.g., those working flexitime schedules or off-peak shifts), spend more time with their children. Ex- cept for complaints by parents about time constraints and a sense of pressure, the consequent effects of the time crunch for their children are also unclear. In addition the implications for the quantity and quality of parent-child interactions among parents who work full time as op- posed to part time are not fully understood. Families are making their own personal adaptations to changing work patterns. Parents seem to be responding and coping in a variety of ways, but some circumstances permit more successful adaptation than others. As work patterns and related patterns of family structure continue to change, there is increasing evidence that families are adapting in a va- riety of waysâsome more, some less successfully. Parents, for example, are making greater use of private preschool and nursery school pro- grams, of commercial child care services, and of public- and private- school extended day-care programs for child care. Working parents are also more frequently choosing private-school alternatives to public ed- ucation, although it is unclear whether parents, in particular mothers, go to work in order to afford private education or whether having ad- ditional income leads them to choose private schools. Parents are ar- ranging carpools to manage their own and their children's transportation needs. Some parents in two-earner families are opting to work alternate shifts in order to meet their child-care needs. Others are organizing multiple care arrangements, including schools, formal or informal family day care, and care by relatives, to ensure adequate coverage during the hours they are at work. Although the proportion of women who are
The Known and the Unknown 317 working part time has decreased over the last decade, some mothers still choose part-time employment in order to manage family and work responsibilities simultaneously; others may choose jobs that permit greater flexibility of work scheduling and work site. Little systematic information exists concerning the types of arrange- ments that families, especially families with school-age children, make to accommodate parental work roles and family responsibilities. Little is known as well about the extent to which such arrangements create or alleviate family stress, which in turn affects parent-child relations, spousal relations, and mothers' and fathers' sense of coping. Nor is it clearly understood which parents cope most successfully and why, or which fail and why. Indeed, both working families and those with an at-home parent, especially a mother, are changing their life-styles in important ways. Although a mother's employment status may be a significant variable in determining the goods and services that families purchase, income level may be more important. Moreover, the spillover effects occurring as a result of changes initiated by working families have con- sequences for traditional families as well. Changes are also occurring in the roles of the workplace, schools, and other community institutions, but conceptualization and measurement are not well developed. In our review of existing data sources and the research literature we also discovered evidence of changes that are occurring in other insti- tutions in our society outside the familyâin the workplace, in schools, and in other community institutions. The extent of these changes is difficult to determine, however, because systematic data are not avail- able. Moreover, it is difficult to assess what factors account for these developments and to determine the direct and indirect causes as well as the consequences for children, families, and the institutions them- selves. As noted in the Kamerman and Kingston review (Chapter 5 in this volume), both voluntarily and as a result of federal mandate many employers are beginning to adopt innovative policies and practices to meet the needs of a changing work force. In 1978 for example, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (P.L. 95-555), which requires that health insurance, disability, and sick leave benefits be paid for pregnancy and related absences on the same basis as any illness or disability. Similarly, from 1971, when the concept of flexitime was first introduced by an American company, to 1977 the proportion of the labor force covered by this provision rose to 6 percent. It rose to an estimated 10 percent by 1980.
318 THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE With regard to schools, elementary and secondary school enrollments declined by almost 20 percent during the 1970s as a result of a significant decrease in the size of the eligible cohort. At the same time, nursery school enrollment more than doubled despite a significant decrease in the number of children in this age group. Many new public schools that were opened in the late 1960s and early 1970s are now closing, while private-school alternatives appear to be burgeoning. With regard to other community institutions, a variety of changes are becoming evident. Public and private day-care arrangements, for ex- ample, have developed rapidly. The number of children in federally funded day-care and preschool programs increased from about 300,000 in 1971 (200,000 in programs funded under the Social Security Act and 100,000 in Head Start) to 1.8 million in 1978 (more than 1 million in Social-Security-funded programs and more than 700,000 almost equally divided between Head Start and programs sponsored under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). Market responses to the child-care needs of working parents increased similarly, especially in the last half of the decade. Proprietary (for-profit) child-care chains, for example, were first established in the United States in the early 1970s. By 1980 there were 10 such commercial chains across the country accounting for about 5 percent of all of the country's 19,000 licensed centers. It is important to note that the majority of these public and private care arrangements are for very young children. Other changes among public and private community institutions in- clude the rapid growth of various self-help groups, such as those for parents without partners, those to counsel prospective parents on meth- ods of childbirth, those for parents of children with particular disabilities and handicaps, and those for working parents with very young children. Similarly, a variety of counseling and homemaker services have emerged, some publicly supported, others privately sponsored, and still others available in the marketplace. As the Kamerman-Kingston and Bell reviews (Chapters 5 and 6, respectively, in this volume) suggest, however, little systematic research has been done on workplace conditions, policies, and practices as they affect the personal-familial roles and relationships of employees; on the variations among employers; or on the factors accounting for, or effects of, these variations. Nor has attention been paid to the fit between supports provided by employers and those provided by other public or private, formal or informal institutions. Similarly, the role of the work- place in mediating (or exacerbating) the effects of inadequacies in ex- isting community institutions and supports has been largely overlooked in existing studies.
The Known and the Unknown 319 Given the limited range of institutions we have studied, the most significantâand the most obviousâlack of information regarding any type of response is about the community institutions: schools; informal supports, including kin, neighbors, friends; formal service systems; re- ligious institutions; small businesses; and neighborhoods. We believe that more is actually occurring than appears in the literature. We con- clude therefore that either the data are unavailable or the research has addressed the wrong questions. Most of the studies of those institutions impinging directly on children (family, neighborhood, school) or indirectly through their parents (the workplace) do not address family and child outcomes in a systematic way, nor do they take account of work patterns and work status as significant variables. Efforts at understanding the nature, extent, and consequences of adaptations by community institutions and responses to the changes we have described are limited by the lack of a conceptual framework that includes attention to these phenomena. Thus far re- searchers have not viewed the changing employment status of parents or of adults likely to become parents as salient to the study of schools or of other formal or informal community institutions. The extensive efforts we have made to review existing research from this perspective have been frustrated by (1) the absence of an appropriate conceptual framework among researchers working in the field and (2) the failure of most researchers to pay attention to the phenomenon. Little systematic research on community institutions exists. Most re- search views community institutions as serving very narrow, specialized functions (e.g., schools) or as responding to pathologies or problems rather than to ordinary or normal needs (e.g. social agencies). Some obvious exceptions exist, including several excellent studies of child-care services (e.g. Abt Associates, 1978); a national study of family services, including both formal and informal, market and nonmarket, religious and secular, practical and therapeutic services (Kahn and Kamerman, 1982); an in-depth study of social networks in one community and a subsequent study in four communities (Lein, 1977; Lein et al., in prog- ress); and a replication of an earlier, major study of a midwestern com- munity (Caplow et al., 1982). Apart from these and a few others, most existing research on community institutions has largely addressed formal and informal institutions as discrete entities. The configurations of for- mal service institutionsâpublic and privateâand informal organizations and helping networks have not been studied from the perspective of how they interrelate with one another. Nor has attention been paid'to how market services fit or to the role such institutions may play in mediating the effects of different parental work patterns on children.
320 THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE To date, the greatest concentration of research and program resources devoted to understanding and improving the effectiveness of children's education has largely been targeted on schools on the grounds that public policy for education can operate only on and through these institutions. A significant literature concerning those attributes of schools and school- ing that effectively contribute to education has developed in recent years (Rutter et al., 1979; Averch et al., 1972), as has a body of research on the implemention of innovative curricular and extracurricular programs by schools (McLaughlin and Herman, 1975; Elmore, 1978; 1979-1980). An important conclusion of this literature is that a complex interaction of external factorsâincluding emerging social, demographic, and eco- nomic trends; family functioning; workplace policies and practices; and the roles of other formal and informal community institutionsâinflu- ences what goes on in schools and the resultant effects on children. We conclude therefore that a better understanding is needed of the direct and indirect roles of these other institutions and their interrelationships to see how they support, fail to support, and/or mediate the outcomes of school programs. Little is known about the consequences for children of parental employ- ment or unemployment. Simple propositions regarding the positive or negative consequences of parents' work cannot be demonstrated and so- phisticated ones have generally not been investigated. Child outcomes, where they have been addressed, are conceived very narrowly. Much of the research on child outcomes ignores parental employment, or treats it as a global, uniform variable. Similarly, many of the studies we reviewed ignore the mediating role played by other institutions im- pinging on children and the other-than-family settings where children spend much of their time. Thus, we have found that the data on children and child outcomes are largely inadequate to explain variance. Most of the research on child outcomes is concentrated on cognitive and achievement measures narrowly defined. We kno,w little about social and emotional outcomes for children; values and attitudes; peer rela- tionships; problem-solving abilities; or behavioral outcomes such as dropping out of school, teenage employment, or family formation. We also know little about the effects of work on family processes that may in turn have consequences for children. Our measures for some of these outcomes are still relatively crude. More importantly, we do not know with any certainty to what factors we should attribute differences. Although it is clear that parental work is by itself neither helpful nor harmful to families and children, there is some evidence that the out-
The Known and the Unknown 321 comes for children may vary depending on a variety of child and parent characteristics, parental work characteristics, and a host of other factors. Among those factors that may make a difference are the age and sex of the child; the income, marital status, race, or ethnicity of the parents; the nature of the parent's job; and the meaning work has to that parent. In addition the extent and availability of supportive services, such as child care, relatives' help, and job flexibility, may play an important role. Given the multiplicity of antecedent and intervening variables, it may be very difficult to sort out differences in child outcomes and to account for them in any clear and consistent fashion. Certainly, current knowledge does not permit us to do so. As the Heyns review (Chapter 7 in this volume) suggests, most existing research on child outcomes in schools is narrowly focused on curriculum issues and cognitive outcomes or other types of test scores. Yet education goes well beyond this narrow view of schooling to include the family, the community, and changes in the world of work. Singly or in com- bination, they all influence children's education and life chances. The role of schools has evolved over time to accommodate the predominant needs and values of families in our society. At times in our history, schools have provided a variety of services, courses, and programs in addition to traditional curricular programs. At other times they have been more circumscribed in their functions, reflecting a strong societal value on maintaining child-rearing functions as a family matter (Cuban, 1980). Nevertheless, there has been no systematic attention paid to these evolutions and the consequences of particular developments for chil- dren, for their families, and for the capacity of the schools to perform their traditional educational role. As the reviews by Bronfenbrenner and Crouter (Chapter 3 in this volume) and by Bloom-Feshbach, Bloom-Feshbach, and Heller (Chap- ter 8 in this volume) indicate, most existing research is also focused on middle-class families. Only a few studies examine the coping behavior of black and other minority families, although black families have by far the longest history of maternal employment, particularly among mothers in married-couple families. Working families have been a dom- inant type in the black community for years and offer a much longer time frame in which to study the phenomenon, yet they have received little systematic analysis. The lower labor force participation rate of black single mothers compared to white mothers in the same situation raises a different set of questions that also has not been adequately addressed thus far. Similarly, we have found no existing research directed toward the
322 THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE study of such special families as migrant families, immigrant families, refugee families, native American families, or military families. As several of the reviews in the preceding section of this report point out, most studies have addressed maternal employment only. For the most part they have ignored the effects of paternal employment and/or the interrelated consequences of maternal and paternal employment. Although there is a growing body of research that documents the im- portance of the father in the socialization and psychological growth of children from early infancy onward, little attention has been devoted to the family as a system in which change in any one part inevitably affects others. Finally, our review of the existing literature suggests that much of the research on single-parent families has failed to disentangle single-parent status and family income from the nature and characteristics of mother's work and the presence or absence of formal and informal external sup- ports such as kin networks, neighborhood child-care facilities, and trans- portation arrangements. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Abt Associates (1978) National Day Care Study: Preliminary Findings and Their Impli- cations. Prepared for Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, Day Care Division, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates. Averch, H., Carroll, S., Donaldson, T., Kiesling, H., and Pincus, J. (1972) How Effective is Schooling? A Critical Review and Synthesis of Research Findings. Santa Monica. Calif.: Rand Corporation. Bureau of the Census (1981) Money income and poverty status of families and persons in the United States: 1980. Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 127. Wash- ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. Caplow, T., Bahr, H., Chadwick, B. A., Hill, R., and Williamson, M. H. (1982) Mid- dletown Families: Fifty Years of Change and Continuity. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press. Cuban, L. (1980) Schools as a community support system. Pp. 55-60 in C. Hayes, ed., Work, Family, and Community: Summary Proceedings of an Ad Hoc Meeting. Wash- ington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Elmore, R. (1978) Organizational models of social program implementation. Public Policy 26(Spring): 185-228. Elmore, R. (1979-1980) Backward mapping: implementation research and policy deci- sions. Political Science Quarterly 94(Winter):601-616. Kahn, A., and Kamerman, S. (1982) Helping America's Families. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press. Lein, L. (1977) Working Family Project: Family and Social Ties. Final unpublished report. U.S. Public Health Service, National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, Md.
The Known and the Unknown 323 Lein, L. et al. (in progress) Families and Communities: Helping Networks. McLaughlin, M., and Herman, P. (1975) Macro and Micro Implementation. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation. Moore, K., and Hofferth, S. (1979) Women and their children. Pp. 125-158 in R. E. Smith, ed., The Subtle Revolution: Women at Work. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Rutter, M., Maughan. B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., with Smith, A. (1979) Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and Their Effects on Children. London: Open Books.
10 A Research Agenda Implicit in our summary of what is known and what remains to be known about the effects of changing patterns of work and family on children's experiences and development is an agenda for future research. In ad- dition, each of the topical research reviews presented in Part II includes the authors' more focused suggestions for further study. A lengthly shopping list of additional studies, highlighting what we do not know but want to know, could certainly be added. Such a miscellaneous listing seems inappropriate, however, in light of our objective of proposing a new paradigm for studying the consequences of social change for chil- dren's socialization and education. Instead therefore, we pose a limited number of suggestions that both illustrate the approach presented in the previous chapter and are aimed at filling gaps in existing knowledge when the findings could significantly influence public- and private-sector decision making, public opinion, and/or popular beliefs. The major finding of this study is that employment by mothers, fath- ers, or both is neither universally good nor bad for children. To address questions concerning the effect of parental work on children, one must take account of the mediating forces of various adaptations (both suc- cessful and unsuccessful) by individuals, by families, and by other formal and informal institutions in our society. Understanding the capacity of children and their families to cope with changing work patterns and work status requires more and better structural analyses (e.g., studies of changes in the nature of work, child-care patterns, policies, and 324
Research Agenda 325 services). But such studies must be premised on a conceptual framework that includes the role and impact of intervening factors. It requires an understanding of the dynamic psychosocial interaction of a family or similar families (for example, racial and ethnic minorities; families shar- ing the same social, cultural, and economic characteristics; or perhaps geographical location) within primary (i.e., family, kin, and close friends), secondary (i.e., people, policies, and practices in local community in- stitutions), and tertiary (i.e., people, policies, and practices of the larger society) social systems. It depends on what psychosocial adaptive mech- anisms families and others in the primary social system develop in re- sponse to social, cultural, and economic environmental conditions and then transmit to subsequent generations. Finally, the outcomes depend on how the individual family and child integrate and act on experiences from the environment in which they live and manage. In short, our first and most fundamental recommendation is the need to base future re- search on a concept of individual and family adaptation that includes interaction with larger social systems and conditions in our society. In proposing further directions for future research that derive from this conceptualization, we would particularly stress the following: ⢠Improving the existing data base on children and on the work sit- uation and the work history of their parents ⢠Obtaining insights and knowledge concerning the kinds of adap- tations (successful and unsuccessful) now being made by working fam- ilies, employers, schools, and other community institutions ⢠Evaluating the direct and indirect outcomes of government policies, employment policies, and community services ⢠Improving the state of knowledge about the effects of employment, unemployment, and welfare on children's well-being. These suggestions are discussed in greater detail in the remainder of this chapter. IMPROVING THE EXISTING DATA BASE ON CHILDREN AND ON THE WORK SITUATION AND WORK HISTORY OF THEIR PARENTS The panel recommends that the existing data base on children in working families be improved (1) to pay more attention to the child and child outcomes and (2) to be more sensitive to the complexity of the parental work dimension and to the range of intervening variables we have iden- tified as significant. Examples of alternative approaches to accomplish- ing this include the development of better childhood social indicators;
326 THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE continued maintenance of selected data series; the conduct of secondary analyses of existing large-scale data sets; and the development of new, well-designed cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Illustrations of each are presented below. Childhood Social Indicators At present, our knowledge of what is happening to children as a con- sequence of major social changes occurring in the society, including changing work patterns and related changes in family life-styles, is lim- ited both by the inadequacy of existing research and the brevity of the time period in which these phenomena have taken place and received scholarly attention. Undoubtedly, many children will adapt to these changes as their parents make necessary adjustments in their daily lives. Some will experience stress. Others, who are more fragile or who are reared in more vulnerable families (e.g., those who are poor) under difficult circumstances, may have more serious problems. Given the nature, extent, and pace of change in family structure and functioning, schools, peer groups, and neighborhoods, it is essential that researchers begin to assess what the consequences are for children's social, emo- tional, physical, and intellectual development. Childhood social indicatorsâquantitative or statistical measures of specified conditions of children's livesâare now beginning to be de- veloped in order to assess what is happening to children over time. These indicators represent new ways of measuring key aspects of chil- dren's development, including their physical health, social and intellec- tual competence, ethical and moral values, attitudes, and aspirations, as well as other aspects of their well-being. If our goal is to be able to better assess the impact of social change on children, to focus social science research more directly on the consequences for children, then improving the quantity and quality of statistical data on children and improving measures of child development are important research prior- ities. Included here are the maintenance of basic national statistical series, the conduct of periodic surveys of children, and the development of new methods for measuring family functioning and child develop- ment. Maintenance of Existing Data Sources Containing Information on the Socialization and Education of Children in a Changing Context Children are growing up in a rapidly changing society with everyday experiences seemingly different from those of children who grew up a
Research Agenda 327 generation ago. They are more likely than ever before to live for at least some period of time in a single-parent family, and they will probably have only one or two siblings. As adults, they are likely to live in a very different world, one in which men as well as women will be active participants in child rearing and related parental responsibilities, as well as active participants in the labor force. Accordingly, it is important to know whether current patterns of socialization and education are pre- paring children for their future roles in society. Implicitly, there is a shift from concentrating on the effects of parental employment per se to a study of the conditions under which children grow and prosper, given a changed reality. Which antecedent and intervening variables matter? Which familial and nonfamilial characteristics and supports make a difference? What views do children (preadolescents and adolescents) hold of adult roles at work and at home? How realistic are children in assessing what they are likely to be and to do when they are grown up? Do girls see themselves as workers outside the home or as homemakers who'care for their own children? Do boys see themselves as married to working women or to women who are at home during the day doing housework and preparing elaborate meals for their return at night? Do boys see themselves as fathers diapering a baby, feeding a toddler, picking up a child after school, or is this all viewed as women's work? Which children, with what characteristics, from which types of fam- ilies, with what parental characteristics seem best prepared for these changing realities? What other attributes do they possess as regards school achievement, occupational aspirations, peer relationships, lead- ership capacities, values, and attitudes? Can we, for example, use sur- veys that include retrospective data to account for different outcomes by backward mapping, unraveling the multiple variables described ear- lier related to parental work status, family interaction, and the presence and type of institutional supports? What is the role played by school, television, employers, and other formal and informal institutions in the shaping of children's views and behavior, and which are most significant, how are they significant, and why? At the very least we believe existing data series containing information of these types should be maintained and indeed enriched in order to provide data on family and institutional responses as well as child out- comes. Where such information does not already exist, efforts should be made to begin to collect it, preferably as added features of existing surveys. The purpose here is to begin to develop a data base that will permit the monitoring of changes over time. Given the monetary and time costs involved in carrying out new studies, especially longitudinal
328 THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE studies, continued maintenance of certain existing data series becomes enormously important. Several now exist (e.g., Panel Study of Income Dynamics, The National Longitudinal Surveys, the National Survey of Children, The National Survey of Family Growth, the Children's Time Study, and the new Survey of Income and Program Participation), and extensive prior investment has begun to generate, or could generate, significant findings. Funding for several of these is currently in jeopardy. Nevertheless, they provide unusually valuable potential for secondary analyses. Secondary Analyses of Existing Data One immediate possibility is to explore those large-scale data sets, both cross-sectional and longitudinal, that include at least some data on pa- rental employment, child outcomes, and selected intervening variables. Researchers might test hypotheses concerning how various support sys- tems (directly or indirectly, individually or collectively) influence how changing patterns of labor force participation affect children. Inde- pendent variables would include factors such as work status of parents and youth (e.g., hours, occupation), socioeconomic level, family struc- ture, and age and sex of the child. Dependent variables would be child outcomes of various types, such as school achievement, the formation of values and attitudes toward work, education, family formation, peer interactions, and parent and sibling relationships. The intervening var- iables would include those support systems that influence children's socialization, such as schools, community social services, television, and the other media. The purpose of such secondary analyses would be to examine the extent to which existing data (that correlate family structure and the work status of parents and youths with various outcomes among children of different sexes, at different ages, and in families with dif- ferent structures and work patterns) also yield an understanding of the role of various support systems (e.g., schools, workplace policies and practices, other formal and informal institutions), and what accounts for variations in outcomes among children. Existing data sets which lend themselves to such analyses include the surveys mentioned above as well as the Seattle-Denver Income Main- tenance Study. Cross-Sectional Studies Cross-sectional studies continue to yield important information. Any new studies of the consequences of changing patterns of work and family
Research Agenda 329 on children should provide greater specificity with regard to parent, child, and workplace characteristics, as well as the presence or absence of alternative support systems. Similarly, institutional studiesâof schools, community services, and the workplaceâshould include attention to the family and employment characteristics of adults and where possible to some child outcomes as well. Particular attention should be paid to the role of such factors as the age of the child when the parent commenced working (or stopped work- ing) and the child's age at the time of the study; the sex of the child; family structure, income, and race and ethnicity; parents' education and occupation; parents' job and salary, hours, and place of work; com- muting time to the workplace; parents' attitude toward work and work history; and type and continuity of child care. All these factors seem to influence how parental employment affects children. Of special impor- tance where young children are concerned is how parents view these arrangements, what their preferences might be, and what other support systems (e.g., friends, neighbors, workplace, kin) exist and what role they play. Some indication of who provides the data is also important. For ex- ample, in reports of children's attitudes and behavior, whether mother, father, or child is the source of the information obviously could make a significant difference, as it would for parent or teacher reports, or for employer and employee reports. Longitudinal Studies Most relevant research has been cross-sectional. By definition such methodology precludes any possibility of assessing long-term effects and changes over time. Since the long-term consequences of the major social changes we are highlighting cannot be discerned from a snapshot in time, existing research has not adequately explored (1) changing em- ployment patterns over the course of the family life cycle; (2) changing aspects of the family system as adaptations are made, or not made, to new patterns of work and family structure; (3) evolving roles and re- lationships among community institutions (e.g., the schools, social serv- ice agencies, churches, neighborhood groups); and (4) changes in child outcomes as children develop and mature. A major recommendation of several of the papers included in Part II of this volume, therefore, is that future studies should include more opportunity for obtaining data on long-term effects. Ideally, longitudinal studies would include attention to the changing characteristics of chil- dren, of the family system, and of the context and content of the ex-
330 THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE periences in which children and their families are exposed over the life course. Of particular importance is the extent to which norms and ex- pectations are changing with regard to the participation of husbands and wives in work and family life. An alternative to launching new and expensive longitudinal studies might be to piggyback questions onto such existing studies as the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the National Longitudinal Survey and to do special studies on subpopulations, such as low-income single parents. OBTAINING INSIGHTS AND KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING THE KINDS OF ADAPTATIONS (SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL) NOW BEING MADE BY WORKING FAMILIES, EMPLOYERS, SCHOOLS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS The objective here is to learn more about (1) the experience of individual family members (parents and children) within the family itself, in their neighborhoods, and in peer groups; which families cope well with the demands of the two worlds of work and family life, which have difficulty, and with what consequences for children; (2) how different types of institutions (large and small firms, formal and informal organizations, market and nonmarket services) are responding to the changes now being experienced by employers, employees, consumers, and client groups; (3) how different countries at comparable levels of development are responding, and what their experiences have been, with what results. Surveys, case studies, ethnographic studies, natural experiments, and cross-national studies offer alternative approaches to gathering this in- formation. Illustrations follow below. Adaptations by Different Types of Working Families Everything we know about how social change occurs and how society functions suggests that familiesâparents and childrenâmust be making all sorts of adaptations on an individual basis. As we have suggested, parents are coping in a variety of ways, some more, some less success- fully. How they copeâthe methods they use and their effectivenessâ have implications for them, for their children, and for a variety of in- stitutions. How widespread are the kinds of adaptations we observe among some families? What exactly are they doing and what do they view as helpful, for whom, under what circumstances, and why? Researchers know very little about the daily life experiences of chil- dren and parents in working families (or for that matter in families with an at-home mother). For example, exactly where and how do children
Research Agenda 331 spend their days? How do they and their parents use their time? What kinds of community services and institutions do working families of different types use, for what purposes, with what consequences? How are these experienced? Do working parents make different choices con- cerning schools, and do they view schools differently than do nonworking parents? What does work provide in the way of in-kind benefits, to which families, with what results? What are the implications for the significant differential that exists among those receiving and those not receiving these benefits? In many families the major burden or adaptation may be carried by the parents themselves as they perform their primary child-caring and child-rearing responsibilities despite significantly less time and with less or different kinds of outside help. Among married-couple families, to what extent are husbands and wives making different personal adjust- ments in order to cope with these new realities? For example, which parents are choosing to work different shifts or different hours in order to ensure the presence of at least one parent at home all or most of the time? Are these choices made because the parents prefer caring for their children themselves or because the alternative resources for child care are nonexistent or inadequate? What are the consequences of such pat- terns for the family system (e.g., spouse relations, parent-child relations) and for parents' capacity to monitor and supervise their children's ac- tivities, as well as for children's development? Life-cycle events affect work and family interactions, too. If marriage or the decision to have a child can alter a person's decision to have a career (or the kind of career to have), a new job, a promotion, or a transfer can affect parents' use of time; their patterns of familial, social, and community relationships; and their attitudes and behavior toward their children. What is not known, however, is what differentiates those families and work organizations in which events are constructively han- dled from those in which the effects are deleterious. Yet this kind of information is important for families in managing their own affairs and for employers in developing policies. Which parents with what characteristics are coping well, which are not, and by what criteria? Are parents, for example, experiencing more stress even though in the short run they seem to be managing ade- quately? Are they experiencing more stress that is leading to identifiable problems for themselves or their families (e.g., marital problems, so- matic problems, work problems, behavior problems toward children)? Are those families that are usually viewed as especially vulnerable (low- income families, single-parent families, black or Hispanic families) more likely to experience difficulties as a consequence of both parents work-
332 THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ing? To what extent do class, race, and family structure so overwhelm all other factors that the work status of parents may be impossible to isolate as a significant variable? Or in contrast, is the income effect so strong as to overwhelm all else for low-income families? How do parents think others are managing and how do they view the consequences for their children? Who do they think should be respon- sible for facilitating whatever adaptations and responses need to be made? What does coping well mean? Does it mean that parents do not say they are experiencing undue stress, that they do not attribute any problems to their children as a consequence of the changes in their own life-style, or that by some objective criteria, no such problems can be identified? Among those parents who seem to be coping successfully, which in- stitutions (e.g., employers, neighbors, friends, kin, schools, community services) do they view as helpful, why, and in what ways? Institutional Adaptations All that we know about society would indicate that those community institutions serving families and children will be responding to the changes in their client-consumer groups, although there may be a time lag before such adaptations emerge and are recognized. Thus far what has been learned from existing research suggests very limited responses. It would seem that where community institutions are concerned (for- mal and informal service systems, market and nonmarket services, and so forth), one major problem has been the lack of an adequate con- ceptualization of the domain and a concomitant failure to ask questions relating what these organizations do or do not provide, and why, to changes in their client-user population and the effects on children. For example, to what extent is the market responding to these new needs? Which families use the market and which are excluded from obtaining such help through the market, with what consequences? Could more cash and personal disposable income ensure access to private services or goods, and would they provide an adequate substitute or equivalent for collective goods? Are existing social service agencies designed to serve only those with identifiable problems? If so, where do families go who do not view themselves as having problems but want some help managing compli- cated routines, such as regular child care, care of a temporarily ill child, and care of a child when school is closed? As suggested in the Bell review (Chapter 6 in this volume), in some ways it might be helpful to view small firms as a kind of community
Research Agenda 333 institution, too. To what extent do small employers provide a kind of intimacy, an opportunity for personal relationships, greater flexibility in work hours, and more autonomy that may outweigh the more concrete benefits offered by larger firms? More specifically, there is a need for community and social network studies that would focus on the inter- relationship of schools, community services (market and nonmarket, religious and secular), informal supports, and small firms and would analyze the ways in which these institutions are or are not reponding to new family life-styles. Once again, a new conceptualization, a way of seeing connections among the relevant institutions and of collecting and assessing data, is needed. Given the growing evidence on the significance of environmental fac- tors in accounting for differences in child and family functioning, there is a need to learn which services and institutions are viewed as supportive and which are not and what the effects are of their presence and avail- ability. Where are responses emerging, why, and what could or should be done to facilitate their development where none have emerged yet? Why are certain responses likely to emerge in certain institutions? Which families benefit, and with what consequences? For example, some schools provide preschool programs and extended day programs for preschool and primary school children during the hours when schools are usually closed but parents are at work. Learning which schools provide such services, why, and with what results could lead to some conclusions about what other schools should do or could do. Large firms and unionized firms are likely to provide more generous fringe benefitsâ pensions, health insurance, vacations, sick leaves, and so forth. Women, minorities, and youth are much less likely to work in such firms, how- ever. What are the actual family consequences of differential treatment with regard to such potentially valuable in-kind benefits? Apart from compensation policies, which other employee policies and practices are important for worker-parents, why, and in what ways? Both public and private policy responses could be more informed if systematic data re- garding these developments and their consequences were available. Adaptations in Elementary and Secondary School Programs Clearly, there is need for a new approach to studying schools as com- munity institutions. Ultimately, any study of schools as they are adapting to these changes must pay attention to the school as a community service facility and to the family and the community as major intervening var- iables in education, as centers of learning themselves. The family must
334 THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE be addressed, also, as a significant, if not the most significant, deter- minant of how children make use of school. Schools in the United States are going through a period of immense challenge and change. Declining enrollments have led to closings and teacher layoffs. Voter resistance to bond issues and property tax in- creases has produced financial difficulties for schools in some areas and restructuring of school budgets in others. Other changes in elementary schools are being produced by state and federal antidiscrimination laws and by the political movements that led to the passage of these laws. For example, Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, mandated that all handicapped children are en- titled to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment possible. The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 called for recognition of the needs of children from non-English-speaking back- grounds. Similarly, vouchers and tuition tax credits that allegedly will provide parents and their children with a broader educational choice, loom large as possible future changes that will affect the role and op- erations of U.S. schools. Traditional school practices have also been challenged by legislation and litigation dealing with sex discrimination. There has been considerable publicity and debate about the decline over time in average College Board scores and to other indicators of declining academic achievement. Yet no one has questioned the con- tinuing deficiencies in the academic achievement of minority group chil- dren in comparison with their middle-class nonminority counterparts. Some observers have questioned the validity of the comparisons over time. After years of searching for scapegoats, such as television, family background, and other forces external to the educatonal system, there is a growing inclination to hold the schools accountable for the failure of students to master fundamental skills. Yet this new accountability is occurring at the same time that the resources for schools are becoming still more scarce, the regulatory constraints are continuing, major changes in how children are reared are extending to a larger portion of the population, and there is growing recognition of the complexity of factors which affect the ultimate outcomes for children. The impact on schools must be examined within this larger context. No systematic profile of changes over time in the policies and practices of U.S. schools is now available. While there are promising beginnings, there is little systematic information on which aspects of the curriculum seem to be critical in bolstering student achievement and fostering other educational goals. Children spend more of their daily lives in school than they do in any other single institution other than their families. Moreover, given the trends we have described for nursery and other
Research Agenda 335 preschools, exposure to school is beginning earlier for some and may be covering more time each weekday, too. There is need for research that would monitor what is occurring in the schools, with a particular focus on the impact of these changes on children. Despite the plethora of educational research studies done in the United States each year, there is no current survey program that provides a national picture of educational policies and practices broadly defined in a representative sample of schools. Such a survey, focusing on the whole range of school activities, not just narrowly defined aca- demic curricula, could provide a systematic picture of the variety of extracurricular programs (including special programs provided in some schools linking parents and school, the workplace and the school, and local social service organizations and the school) and the role these play in the ultimate consequences for children. Such information would be of use to parents; teachers; school adminstrators; policy makers at local, state, and federal levels; and researchers. Monitoring changes in ele- mentary and secondary school programs should be aimed at (1) devel- oping a systematic picture of what schools are now providing and how they relate to other formal and informal community institutions; and (2) assessing the factors accounting for differences in school policies and practices as well as the consequences for children's education and so- cialization. Natural Experiments Given the extensiveness of the social changes under discussion and the likelihood that the adaptation process is already occurring in families and in all other related institutions, the process may have been accel- erated in some cases. Unusual and interesting adaptations may have emerged. Parents are coping in various ways; some employers appear to have responded in modest ways; some schools and other community institutions have developed new programs as well. Attempts at studying a selected group of interesting policies or programs designed to provide help or support to families and children experiencing these changes could offer insights into what is happening, what might be helpful, and why. The findings of such natural experiments could provide the basis for formulating more refined hypotheses for subsequent testing. Cross-National Research Cross-national transfers of data and findings would add an important dimension to the study of societal adaptations to changes in parental
336 THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE work patterns and the consequences for children. While we did not conduct a systematic review of international research on changing pat- terns of parental employment, the nature of institutional responses, and the effects on children, there is an extensive literature on the experiences of several industrialized countries. The patterns of change are similar, the changes occurring earlier in some countries, which are therefore farther along already (e.g., Sweden, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary); or concurrently (e.g., France); or slightly later in others (e.g., Federal Republic of Germany). Far more extensive and deliberate gov- ernment policy responses have already emerged in many of these coun- tries, including substantial provision of out-of-home child-care services as well as work-related benefits for employees who are parents. The experiences of several European countries offer the opportunity for study in a natural laboratory in which one can hold constant parental employment (by the characteristics of the parents) while studying the effects of diverse institutional responses on a variety of outcomes for children. One such study compared the policies and programs of five European countries in addition to those of the United States, examining the nature of the policies, those factors accounting for differences among them, and their costs and benefits (Kamerman and Kahn, 1981). A recent Danish survey of the care of children from birth to age five (Gronhoj, 1981) includes data on parents, their employment status, and selected child outcomes. Research comparing selected outcomes for children in different countries could provide important insights into the consequences of alternative experiences for children, even though these would have to be placed in the context of the individual countries. EVALUATING THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT OUTCOMES OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES, EMPLOYMENT POLICIES, AND COMMUNITY SERVICES The panel recommends greater investment in evaluating the direct and indirect outcomes (including the costs and the benefits) of (1) the in- fluence of government policies at different levels (federal, state, local) and of different types (tax, transfer, grant) on institutions (schools, employers, social service agencies, and family members); (2) employ- ment policies and practices (benefits, services, alternative work sched- ules); and (3) community services and programs (formal and informal, public and private, market and nonmarket). Illustations follow.
Research Agenda 337 The Role and Impact of Government Policies Federal, state, and local government policies play an important role in influencing the nature and extent of these changes as well as the re- sponses to them. Federal policies affect employment and unemployment rates; income tax policies may influence wives' work decisions; income transfer policies may affect the decisions of both single and married mothers by providing either incentives or disincentives for working. Federal policies affect employer policies through direct legislation, tax incentives, and regulation. The federal government has been the major funder of publicly sub- sidized child care and related services. It also provides an extensive subsidy to parents through the child-care tax credit, which helps some parents in the purchase of whatever type of care they wish at a somewhat lower cost to themselves. The federal government has significantly sup- plemented the funding available to schools through such means as direct grants for special programs. It has imposed a variety of regulations on schools, adding to their administrative costs. The federal government has also provided subsidies to employers through tax deductions for the provision of certain benefits and services and to employees by attaching a tax-free status to the receipt of such services as pensions, health in- surance, child care, and counseling. To what extent have federal funds provided an incentive for schools to do more? To what extent have such funds (and the regulations ac- companying them) impeded greater responsiveness by the schools, or influenced them to emphasize only certain kinds of services, or in other ways skewed their policies or practices? Similarly, learning how federal policies influence employers' decisions to provide benefits and employ- ees' choice of benefits over cash wages could contribute to our under- standing of the factors influencing the development of new responses by employers. How are the current changes in federal funding and regulations affecting school functioning and child outcomes? Federal funds for social services, including much of the public funds for child-care services, have been substantially reduced. Funds for Title 20 of the Social Security Act are no longer required to be spent on specific groups (e.g., Aid to Families with Dependent Children recipi- ents). To what extent this will affect the quantity and quality of child care remains to be seen. State and local governments contribute to local social service agencies and often impose regulations and constraints on what they can do. More important, they are the major source of funding of primary and sec- ondary school programs and the major enunciator of educational policies
338 THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE and practices. And during the past decade there has been an enormous increase in the states' regulation of schools. What has been the role of state policies (e.g., funding, regulations) in influencing what schools do? To what extent have federal, state, and local government policies been interrelated? As tax revenues dwindle, these questions become all the more salient. There is growing interest on the part of many state legislatures in linking schools to other insti- tutions within the community, such as employers and social service agencies. What types of government policies might facilitate such link- ages, for what kinds of children and families, with what consequences? In addition, what will be the effects on these institutions of proposed policies, such as the federal tuition tax credit? Institutional Supports as Contributors to Family and Individual Autonomy or Dependency To the extent that work creates additional needs for families, new in- stitutional supports are likely to emerge over time. Indeed, we are increasingly aware of how strongly these supports can affect the ultimate outcomes for parents and for children. As already indicated we clearly believe it is important to study those types of supports (e.g., extended school day, cooperative child-care services, paid maternity and paternity leaves) that emerge or do not emerge, what factors account for their development or their lack of development, and what the likely conse- quences are for children. However, it is also important to develop some understanding of the consequences of different types of supports for family functioning. For example, there is a frequently expressed concern that those supportive benefits and services provided directly by govern- mentâor even indirectly through extensive public subsidyâfoster de- pendency on the part of those families who benefit. It would be im- portant to know whether, in fact, such provision does make families more dependent and what dependency means in this context, or whether family members can retain their autonomy despite the availability and use of such supports. What are the consequences for children? And how do they view their capacity for leadership, for stability in their lives, for autonomy? Does it matter, for example, whether provision is direct or indirect; that is, whether service auspices are public rather than private? Does it matter if the subsidy is given directly to the parent rather than funneled through the provider? If the services are purchased in the market, are the consequences for dependency or autonomy different, and if so, how, in what ways, and why? When employers are the pro- viders of benefits and services, do such practices create dependency
Research Agenda 339 among employees who are parents? If so, is there a difference between the effects of public provision and the effects of private provision? What is the relationship between government-provided and employer-pro- vided benefits and services? Such knowledge could make an important difference in the nature of public- and private-policy responses. IMPROVING THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT, AND WELFARE ON CHILDREN'S WELL-BEING For years, work and its effects on families have been studied as if paternal unemployment and maternal employment were potential problems for families and children. Over time the perspective has shifted somewhat, toward a partial redefinition of the issue. Now there are those who view maternal employment, like paternal employment, as a positive force for the development of children, just as there are those who view maternal unemployment, like paternal unemployment, as a problem. As we have pointed out repeatedly, most existing research views paternal and ma- ternal employment status as discrete and distinctive phenomena and most view employment as a single, undifferentiated variable. The basic theme underlying all our findings has been a complete rejection of this approach. Instead, we urge a holistic and systemic view of a very complex set of phenomena, in which many intervening variables play a potentially significant roles in influencing child outcomes. Ultimately, it may be discovered that it is the availability of a job for parentsâat a decent wage and with adequate benefitsâthat is the single most critical factor affecting children and how they develop. We have not here reviewed the consequences of unemployment (sole parent, sole wage earner in a married-couple family, one of two working parents). Yet it seems clear that this is an important topic for study. While the effects of current federal policies and the high and possibly still higher levels of unemployment are cushioned to some extent by unemployment insurance and related benefits, there are many economic, social, and psychological problems that may result from prolonged unemployment. Moreover, although some families may find the economic impact of a father's unemployment attenuated by the presence of a mother's earn- ings (even if at a lower level than the father's), other families have long integrated both parents' earnings into the family budget. Thus, the fam- ily economy can be as much disrupted by the loss of either parent's earnings as it was earlier when only the father worked and he became unemployed. How do families cope with prolonged unemployment? What are the
340 THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE consequences of the loss of one paycheck if there is only one earner in the family, and what difference does it make if the unemployed wage earner is the father or the mother? There is some evidence that the unemployment rate for low-income, married women is higher for those in families with unemployed husbands. How do families alter their role perceptions so that it is acceptable for wives to work when husbands are unemployed and for men to become more involved with home and family tasks? Are families more or less mobile when the wife is working and the husband becomes unemployed, and what are the consequences of this mobility or lack of it? What is the impact of parental unemployment on children of different ages: on their diets, health, and physical development; on their school achievement; on their attitudes toward their parents; on their self-per- ceptions; on their relationships with their peers; on their orientations to work and to family formation? Such information could be of major importance to policy makers and to the public at large. To provide answers to these questions, we need systematic studies of different types of families with different numbers of workers at different educational, occupational, and wage levels; with children of different ages at the time of parental unemployment; with different types of benefits entitlements for parents living in different kinds of communities; with different types of familial and nonfamilial supports available. TOWARD A POLICY AGENDA In response to the growing concern about how changing patterns of work and family structure affect the ways in which children develop, we have systematically reviewed the research on this subject and concluded that employmentâpaid workâhas no single, overall, uniform effect except to add to family income and decrease the amount of time parents have available for family tasks. Clearly, income is very important, es- pecially to parents. Indeed, income may be more important than ever to individual parents, given the growing number of single parents who are the sole source of support for their families, the increasing likelihood of single-parent status for women, and the need on the part of many low-income or moderate-income families for two paychecks in order to ensure a desired standard of living. Moreover, work and a job may carry with it concomitants other than money that are significant and potentially beneficial for adults and their children. Such concomitants include a sense of achievement, self-esteem, peer relationships, new role models, and so forth. If one were to conclude that work and what work brings
Research Agenda 341 with it are so important that the availability of a job for all those wanting one is an essential policy goal, we would still be faced with the critical tasks of knowledge building that we have laid out in this last chapter: (1) to identify those families in which work has had a beneficial impact on the family system, including the children; to explore which institutions have been supportive and how, the circumstances under which family and nonfamily adaptations have been effective and why, and the consequences for childrenâand ways to encourage those insti- tutions; (2) to identify those families and children for whom problems have emerged, exploring why these have occurred and how they could be avoided. Ultimately, therefore, this catalog becomes both a research and a policy agenda. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Gronhoj, B. (1981) Day Care of Preschool Children: A Problem for Parents and Local Authorities. Danish National Institute of Social Research Publication 103. Copenhagen: I Kommission Hos Teknisk Forlag Kobenhaven. Kamerman, S. B., and Kahn, A. J. (1981) Child Care, Family Benefits, and Working Parents. New York: Columbia University Press.
