Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3, Spring 2003 ( 2003)
Center-Based Evening Child Care: Implications for Young Children’s Development Tokie Anme1 and Uma A. Segal2,3
With increasing numbers of women joining the evening/nighttime workforce, there is a need for quality childcare during these hours. This project, conducted in Japan, sought to compare the effects of child day care, child evening care, and child night care on the development and adaptation of young children. Caregivers completed a survey on the childrearing environment at home, their feelings of self-efficacy, and the presence of support for childcare. Childcare professionals evaluated the development of children. The results of the discriminant analysis indicate that factors in the home environment, not type of center-based care, explained developmental variance. KEY WORDS: child evening care; child development; childrearing environment; self-efficacy.
INTRODUCTION
found to be less anxious and have less problematic transitions to school. However, in a longitudinal study, such positive effects of high quality center care facilities were not discernible among all children sampled at age 13 years (Andersson, 1992). The formalization of center-based night care is rare in nations outside Japan. Even in Japan, few studies have assessed the influence of center-based night care on child development (Anme, 1998). This study sought to identify correlations between (a) the center-based care and young children’s social competence, vocabulary/motor/ intelligence development, problem behavior, and adaptation to center-based care, and (b) the childrearing environment provided by caregivers and children’s development.
The increased number of working mothers in Japan has led to the dramatic expansion of center-based child night care. High quality center-based night care is essential to provide a safe and comfortable environment for children whose parents are employed in the evening and night hours. Forty-one authorized night care facilities, centers that are licensed by the national government as meeting quality care standards, have been established since 1981, after the several highly publicized involuntary homicides (cases of neglectful death) in the existing low quality “Baby Hotels.” Baby Hotels are facilities that provide childcare services 24-hours-a-day for children from birth to 7 years of age. With the continued shortage of authorized facilities, over 120,000 children use nonauthorized, substandard Baby Hotels (Anme, 1996). Quality of care must be considered if the effects of early childcare are to be understood (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 1999a). Children from higher quality centers have been
METHODS Setting and Sample All authorized child day-care, evening-care, and night-care centers across Japan participated in the study. Centers unauthorized by the government were excluded as they often do not cooperate with external investigators. The subjects were all caregivers and service providers in the authorized facilities. Caregivers were surveyed regarding the home environment, and service providers evaluated the development of each child in the facility.
1
Hamamatu Medical University, Hamamatu, Japan. Department of Social Work, University of Missouri–St. Louis, U.S.A. 3 Correspondence should be directed to Uma A. Segal, Department of Social Work, University of Missouri–St. Louis, 8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, MO 63121; e-mail:
[email protected]. 2
137 1082-3301/03/0300-0137/0 2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
138
Anme and Segal
The return rate was 73.0% (1,949) and 74.6% (2,905), respectively, for caregivers and service providers. Table 1 provides the gender and age composition of the child population that was evaluated and the occupations of the parents. The distribution of boys, 1,510 (52.3%), and girls, 1,370 (47.7%), was fairly even. The largest number of children was between 4 and 5 years of age, with the percentages of those under 1 year (2.6%) and over 7 years (0.1%) being very small. Overview of Measures Indicators of childcare quantity, quality, stability, and type (day vs. night) along with measures of family background, mothering, child characteristics, and child adaptation to center-based care were obtained from questionnaires completed by the caregivers responsible for the children in the first 6 years of their lives. Caregivers completed Japanese versions of questionnaires on the childrearing environment (Caldwell & Bradley, undated) and on self-efficacy and support for childcare (Anme & Takayama, 1990, 1991, 1995). Childcare professionals evaluated children’s social competence, development in vocabulary/motor/intelligence, and problem behavior for each child using developmental scales standardized in Japan (Tumori, 1974). Table 1. Demographic Background Variable
N = 2,882
%
1,510 1,370
52.3 47.7
74 334 453 510 584 543 379 5
2.6 11.6 15.7 17.7 20.3 18.8 13.2 0.1
Gender of child Male Female Age (months) 0–11 12–23 24–35 36–47 48–59 60–71 72–83 84–96 Mother
All childcare professionals, already qualified in child development, were provided with a minimum of 8 hours of training to translate children’s development into the measures indicated on the child development scale. These variables, selected to be consistent with earlier studies by the NICHD (1999a), were then used to explore the relationship between type of care and child development. The three categories of childcare were identified by the time at which children left the center-based care: “Daytime care” (opening time until 6:29 p.m.), “Evening care” (6:30 p.m.–11:29 p.m.), and “Midnight care” (11:30 p.m.–2:00 a.m. the next day). Of the subjects, 1,210 (62.1%) were enrolled in “Daytime care,” 415 (21.3%) in “Evening care,” and 324 (16.6%) in “Midnight care.” Family and child variables included the child’s gender and age, child development, caregiver behavior, parent efficacy for care, and the existence of childcare support. Professional caregivers measured child development along four variables (social competence, vocabulary, motor, and intelligence development) that were categorized into 3-point items (normal, slightly delayed, delayed; Tumori, 1974). A problem behavior checklist composed of 46 items (stressful, autistic, depressed, restless, etc.) was used to assess behavior problems. Professionals were asked to rate the behavior of each child during the previous 2-month period as having being evidenced (no, sometimes, often). These service providers in the center-based childcare facilities also evaluated the health and disabilities of the children. Caregiver behavior was assessed based on responses (yes/no) to 12 activities in the home environment (Table 2). For analysis, the 25th percentile point was used as a cut-off for non-nominal items. Caregivers’ self-reports on the 5-point scale, (where 1 = always, 2 = often, 3 = sometimes, 4 = rarely, 5 = never) of Parental efficacy for care (Anme, 1998) measured caregiver affective state. Emotions evaluated were depression, anxiety, instability, stress, and exhaustion.
Father
RESULTS Occupation Service worker Self employed Professional White collar Blue collar Freelance Unemployed Other n/a
N
%
N
%
365 245 295 462 272 23 114 163 943
12.7 8.5 10.2 16.0 9.4 0.8 4.0 5.7 32.7
193 314 278 161 454 19 13 108 1342
6.7 10.9 9.6 5.6 15.8 0.7 0.5 3.7 46.6
The difference among types of care (3 categories) was examined by using items of child development, positive qualities of caregivers’ behavior, parent efficacy for care, and existence of care support. The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) statistical package was used for analysis. Stepwise linear discriminant analysis (forward selection) was used to predict child development (delayed or normal) and child adaptation to center-based care (adapted or not) with independent variables such as
Center-Based Evening Child Care types of care (“Midnight care” or other), positive qualities of caregivers’ behavior (12 items), parent efficacy for care, and existence of care support. Wilks lambda was calculated to clarify the magnitude of effects. Wilks lambda (^) was calculated by stepwise discriminant analysis to estimate the strength of relations (Relations become stronger if Wilks Lambda (^) is nearer 1). All results were assessed significant at the p < .01 or p < .05 level, however, the variable “types of care” was not always selected as a related variable in all analyses. Table 2 reports differences in caregiver behavior across type of care. The “Midnight care” group evidenced fewer positive qualities in caregiver behavior than did other groups for some items such as “someone plays with child on weekdays” (12–23 months: “Day care” 2.1%, “Evening care” 2.5%, and “Midnight care” 4.4%, as follows), “child occasionally goes shopping with someone” (0–11 months: 0%, 0%, 15.4%, 48–59 month: 2.3%, 2.2%, 2.7%), “someone reads stories and comments on pictures in magazines” (48–59 months: 15.8%, 17.2%, 24.0%), “someone occasionally sings to child, or sings in presence of child” (48–59 months: 10.8%, 14.3%, 19.8%), “father (or father figure) or mother (or mother figure) supports childcare” (12–23 months: 8.5%, 7.6%, 12.7%), “child eats at least one meal per day, on most days, with mother (or mother figure) and father (or father figure)” (48–59 months: 1.9%, 2.7%, 4.5%). The “Evening care” group had fewer positive qualities in caregiver behavior than did other groups for the following items, “child occasionally has chance to go shopping with someone” (12–23 months: 2.8%, 3.3%, 2.9%), “child occasionally has chance to visit friends” (12–23 months: 33.7%, 45.8%, 32.8%, 48–59 months: 37.9%, 49.3%, 36.8%). However, no difference was found across groups on items related to child abuse and maltreatment, such as “parents neither slapped nor spanked in the child last week” and “parents neither slapped nor spanked child for mistakes.” Table 3 indicates the difference of child development between types of care. Childcare in the “Midnight care” group evidenced a higher rate of developmental delay than did other groups in motor development (48–59 months: 3.4%, 1.8%, 5.4%), intelligence development (12–23 months: 1.2%, 1.2%, 7.0%), and social competence (12–23 months: 2.5%, 1.9%, 9.5%). However, type of care was not correlated with either problem behavior or adaptation to center-based care. As indicated in Table 4, stepwise discriminant analysis was done to explain child development and adaptation to center-based care. Motor development was significantly related to health status (Wilks lambda (^) 0.93),
139 not slapping (0.88), and support for childcare (0.85). It was delayed in the presence of poor health conditions, slapping of the child, and the absence of support for child rearing. Development of intelligence was significantly related to singing songs together (0.95), and length of time spent playing with the child (0.91). Intelligence development was delayed in the in the absence of such stimulation. Furthermore, vocabulary development was significantly and positively related to self-efficacy for childcare (0.96), and social competence was significantly and positively related to self-efficacy for childcare (0.94) and singing songs together (0.91). The child’s adaptation to center-based care was significantly related to the presence of spousal support at home (0.90) and singing songs together (0.84). Child adaptation is increased when there is enough support for the spouse and someone sings with the child. Overall, these results suggest that it is not the type of centerbased care (day or night) but positive qualities in caregivers’ behavior, caregiver self-efficacy, and support for childcare that best predict child development and adaptation. DISCUSSION Center-based care through midnight is unique in Japan, reflecting the increase in the number of parents who work late into the night. This investigation explored the influence of center-based night care in comparison to day and evening care. All night care centers in this study had passed governmental standards and attempted to ensure that the natural circadian rhythms for children, such as sleep, eat, and play, were well maintained. This is the first nationwide study of center-based night care that assesses child development and adaptation based on the complex relations among factors, including the quality of caregiver behavior. Several recent large-scale, center-based childcare studies conducted outside Japan have documented relations between early and/or extensive childcare experience, noncompliance, and problem-behavior, even after controlling for selection effects (Bates et al., 1994; Baydar & Brooks-Gunn, 1991; Belsky & Eggebeen, 1991; Borge & Melhuish, 1995; Park & Honig, 1991; Vandell & Corasaniti, 1990). Divergent results emerged from the current investigation, which found little evidence that the amount of time children spent in nonparental care in the first 2 or 3 years of life is, in and of itself, systematically related to children’s self-control, compliance, or problem behavior by age 3 years. In light of prior studies and contemporary theory
Weekday play with child Rarely 1–2 times/week 3–4 times/week 5–6 times/week 7 times/week Shopping with child Rarely 1–2 times/month 1–2 times/week 3–4 times/week 7 times/week Reading to child Rarely 1–2 times/month 1–2 times/week 3–4 times/week 7 times/week
Age of Child
2* 18* 1* 4*
N
18.0 72.0 4.0 16.0
%
0–11 Mos
2.1 13.5 7.0 4.6 71.6 2.8 4.9 51.7 20.2 19.9
9* 16* 169* 66* 65*
%
7** 44** 23** 15** 234**
N
12–23 Mos
Day Care
2.3 7.3 47.9 25.2 16.8 15.8 17.6 32.5 16.4 16.3
102* 114* 210* 106* 105*
%
15** 47** 310** 163** 109**
N
48–59 Mos
9*
N
100.0
%
0–11 Mos
4* 12* 81* 15* 8*
3** 33** 12** 7** 61**
N
3.3 1.0 67.5 12.5 6.7
2.5 27.7 10.2 5.9 51.3
%
12–23 Mos
Evening Care
Table 2. Type of Care and Caregiver’s Behavior
39* 42* 56* 38* 47*
5** 29** 141** 37** 16**
N
17.6 18.9 25.2 17.1 21.2
2.2 12.7 61.6 16.2 7.0
%
48–59 Mos
2* 2* 5* 3* 1*
N
15.4 15.4 38.5 23.1 7.7
%
0–11 Mos
2* 3* 35* 14* 14*
3** 19** 2** 4** 40**
N
2.9 4.4 51.5 20.6 20.6
4.4 27.9 2.9 5.9 58.8
%
12–23 Mos
Midnight Care
44* 35* 45* 24* 27*
5** 20** 87** 36** 32**
N
24.0 19.1 24.6 13.1 14.8
2.7 11.0 47.8 19.8 17.6
%
48–59 Mos
140 Anme and Segal
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Singing to child Yes No Nonprimary caregiving parent supports childcare Rarely 1–2 times/month 1–2 times/week 3–4 times/week 7 times/week Eats at least one meal daily with both parents Rarely 1–2 times/month 1–2 times/week 3–4 times/week 7 times/week Visits friends occasionally Rarely 1–2 times/month 1–2 times/week 3–4times/week 7 times/week 2.2 6.3 20.6 8.6 56.2
33.7 39.3 16.3 1.8 2.1
7* 20* 65* 27* 177*
110* 128* 53* 6* 6*
245** 198** 137** 26** 15**
12** 17** 128** 53** 405**
551** 67**
37.9 30.6 21.2 4.0 2.3
1.9 2.6 19.8 8.2 62.8
89.2 10.8
55* 43* 14* 0* 1*
5* 4* 20* 5* 69*
45.8 35.8 11.7 0.0 0.8
4.2 3.4 16.9 4.2 58.5
113** 74** 21** 4** 2**
6** 6** 59** 38** 109**
192** 32**
49.3 32.3 9.2 1.7 0.9
2.7 2.7 26.3 17.0 48.7
85.7 14.3
22* 25* 16* 3* 1*
1* 7* 16* 6* 25*
32.8 37.5 23.9 4.5 1.5
1.6 11.1 25.4 9.5 39.7
67** 57** 34** 7** 3**
8** 4** 35** 18** 106**
138** 34**
36.8 31.3 18.7 3.8 1.6
4.5 2.2 19.6 10.1 59.2
80.2 19.8
Center-Based Evening Child Care 141
142
Anme and Segal Table 3. Type of Care and Child Development Day Care
Motor development 48–59 month* Normal Slight delay Delayed Total Intelligence development 12–23 month* Normal Slight delay Delayed Total Social competence 12–23 month* Normal Slight delay Delayed Total
Evening Care
Midnight Care
N
%
N
%
N
%
874 19 12 905
96.6 2.1 1.3 100.0
318 5 1 324
98.1 1.5 0.3 100.0
106 6 0 112
94.6 5.4 0.0 100.0
397 4 1 402
98.8 1.0 0.2 100.0
167 2 0 169
98.8 1.2 0.0 100.0
40 3 0 43
93.0 7.0 0.0 100.0
385 8 2 395
97.5 2.0 0.5 100.0
157 3 0 160
98.1 1.9 0.0 100.0
38 4 0 42
90.5 9.5 0.0 100.0
*p < .05.
about the complex ecology of child development, the general absence of strong or consistent effects of the variable “type of care,” by itself, may not be surprising. The compensatory-process, and lost-resource perspectives outlined in the introduction led to the anticipation of findings that highlight interactions between quality and quantity of care and child development more than main effects of the type of care. Although quality was the most consistent predictor of child development, the
amount of explained variance was modest, and standardized regression coefficients never exceeded 0.26 in the cumulative-experience analysis and/or 0.16 in the lagged and concurrent analysis. On the basis of analyses employed to identify selection-effect variables, several of the maternal and family characteristics that distinguished between families that participated in this study and those who did not may be systematically related to childcare quality. Nevertheless, the high rate of return and the highly homogeneous nature of Japanese society may minimize these effects. That caregiver behavior was more strongly related to child development and adaptation than were childcare types is consistent with results of prior examinations of the effects of childcare on infant-mother attachment (NICHD, 1998b). The principal conclusion of this largescale, multisite research project is that caregiver behavior may be more important in explaining children’s early social, vocational, motor and intelligence development, and adaptation than whether parents routinely use the services of high quality center-based night care facilities. Literature does suggest, however, that center-based care exerts some influence on children. Studies report that the quality of care is the most consistent childcare predictor, with higher quality of care relating to greater social competence and cooperation and less problem behavior at both 2 and 3 years of age (NICHD, 1998a). More time in care and more numerous care arrangements (i.e., less stable care) are predictors of negative outcomes for children at 2 years of age (NICHD, 1999b). Furthermore, greater experience in groups with other children predicted more cooperation and fewer problems at both 2 and 3 years of age. Further followup research with the current sample will investigate less obvious effects of childcare that may emerge later in development.
Table 4. Child Development and Adaptation
Motor development*
Intellectual development* Vocabulary development** Social competence* Child adaptation to center-based care* *p < 0.01; **p < 0.05.
Item
Rank
Wilks Lambda ˆ
Standardized Discriminant Coefficient (SDC)
Good health status No slapping Support for childcare Singing songs Sufficient playtime Self-efficacy for childcare Self-efficacy for childcare Singing songs Support for childcare Singing songs
1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
0.93 0.88 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.96 0.94 0.91 0.90 0.84
0.600 0.550 0.530 0.810 0.690 1.000 0.700 0.657 0.810 0.641
Center-Based Evening Child Care REFERENCES Andersson, B. (1992). Effects of day care on cognitive and socioemotional competence of thirteen-year-old Swedish schoolchildren. Child Development, 63, 20–36. Anme, T. (1991). Index of child care environment. Journal of National Rehabilitation Center for the Disabled, 12, 29–36. Anme, T. (1995). Risk assessment using evaluation of environmental stimulation in Japan. National Roundtable on Child Protective Services Risk Assessment, 9, 37–47. Anme, T. (1996). Evaluation for child care environment. Tokyo, Japan: Kawasima Publications. Anme, T. (1998). Evaluation of child care environment for 18 month child. Japanese Journal of Public Health, 44(5), 346–352. Anme, T., & Takayama, T. (1990). Evaluation of home stimulation for normal and handicapped children in Japan. In Takayama, T. (Ed), Early childhood toward the 21st century (pp. 427–430). Hong Kong: Yew Chung Education Publishing Company. Bates, J., Marvinney, D., Kelly, T., Dodge, K., Bennett, T., & Pettit, G. (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. Belsky, J., & Eggebeen, D. (1991). Early and extensive maternal employment and young children’s socioemotional development: Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 1083–1110. Borge, A., & Melhuish, E. (1995). A longitudinal study of childhood behavior problems, maternal employment, and day care in rural
143 Norwegian community. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 18, 23–42. Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (undated). Home observation for measurement of the environment. Center for child development and education: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (1998a). The NICHD Study of early child care. Psychiatric Times, 15(3), 71–72. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (1998b). Relations between family predictors and child outcomes: Are they weaker for children in child care? Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 1119–1128. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (1998c). Early child care and self-control, Compliance and problem behavior at twenty-four and thirty-six months. Child Development, 69(3), 1145–1170. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (1999a). Child outcomes when child care center classes meet recommended standards for quality, American Journal of Public Health. 89, 1072–1077. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (1999b). Child care and mother-child interaction in the first three years of life. Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 1399–1413. Park, K., & Honig, A. (1991). Infant child care patterns and later teacher ratings of preschool behaviors. Early Child Development and Care, 68, 89–96. Tumori, S. (1974). Developmental evaluation. Kyusyu, Japan: Kyusyu Daigaku Syuppan. Vandell, D. L., & Corasaniti, M. A. (1990). Child care and the family: Complex contributors to child development. New Directions for Child Development, 49, 23–37.
