Blog Entry 2 - 1/29/07

“Families in the News” Exercise
Select one family-related issue that interests you and collect at least five recent articles that deal with this issue, published in 2006-07 in newspapers or news magazines.

Finding affordable, quality childcare: a working woman's dilemma.

Article #1: High costs of child care can lead to lifestyle changes, adjustments; Some financially crunched parents feel push to relocate, change jobs, USA TODAY, April 18, 2006.

Parents are basing decisions about their jobs and families according to how much childcare they can afford. Since childcare costs are taking a large chunk out of incomes, they seek employers who offer subsidized childcare, relocate to more affordable housing, and work longer hours. In today’s economy young parents are having a difficult time raising families and getting ahead in their careers.

Journalist Stephanie Armour quotes specific expenses for childcare and preschool through direct interviews with working mothers who are experiencing the pressures of increasing costs of childcare: Margaret Schwartz, marketing consultant and mother of two four-year old boys in VA; Lisa Rivero, employee in communications and mother of a one-year-old in MA; Remi Adams, employee at a high-tech firm and mother of two in CA.

Armour also quotes figures tabulated by Chicago-based employee assistance provider ComPsych who has surveyed parents with regard to difficulties they have encountered in arranging for childcare. In her article, she quotes average infant child care fees which range from $4,000 to $13,000, according to the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, a network of more than 850 child care resource and referral centers based in Arlington, VA. Armour also quotes costs for preschool and child care programs in California at $4,000 -$5000 per year from a report by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California, a Washington-based organization of law enforcement officers. Finally, she quotes the variable average costs for child care for a 4-year-old in a licensed child care center in each of our states, information provided by the State CCR&R network (2005).

Armour’s statistical reporting appears to be of high quality. Her interviews with real families give specific numbers and a face to the average statistics. The other numbers used are quoted from reliable sources that have access to large numbers of parents who are requesting childcare and have an interest in researching and averaging childcare costs throughout the U.S.

The article focuses on the plight of the working mother (of the middle-income family) even if there are two parents working. Child-care fees are compared to other expenses such as food and college tuition. State to state comparisons are provided as well as reports of states with least affordable childcare: NY, MN, CA, and MA. Armour’s reporting avoids broad generalizations by using a variety of sources across the United States.

Article #2: Mayor Cieslewicz, community leaders announce new initiatives for childcare, fiscal responsibility, US States News, October 11, 2006.

Expenditures specifically targeting childcare funding are quoted from a news release issued by the office of the mayor of Madison, Wisconsin. The increased numbers for 2007 are compared to the 2006 budget. Explanations for the expenditures, including benefits to the taxpayers and childcare recipients are reported along with the figures.

The new investment in childcare will allow for more low-income children to have access to quality childcare. The funding will open up economic opportunities for low-income families, allowing them to participate fully in the workforce, which will also benefit the economy of Madison. The political ideology speaks to equality for all income levels.

Article #3: Gov. Doyle’s cabinet member, Secretary Gassman, presents $10,000 in grants to Wisconsin Rapids childcare agencies, US States News, September 6, 2006.

The facts in this article are quoted from a news release issued by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. It states the total amount of monies to be dispersed as well as the specific 10 recipients and the proposed use for the funds by each childcare center.

The purpose of the grants is to provide educational and professional development opportunities for childcare providers. The government expenditure is based on the belief that giving children the best start early in life will pay ample dividends later.

Article #4: Life’s Work: Putting in the hours and paying the price, The New York Times, December 3, 2006.

The article comments on women who spend too much time at their jobs so that their jobs undermine their health, their relationships with their children and with their spouse. It points out that the “extreme job” situation is detrimental to the employers whose employees lose focus as well as the parents and suggests solutions such as subsidies for after-school care and backup care, and the ability to telecommute. It is supportive of working mothers.

Journalist Lisa Belkin quotes the definition of “extreme job” as working 60 hours or more per week plus 5 additional characteristics out a list of 10, as put forth by the Hidden Brain Drain Task Force of the Center for Work-Life Policy. According to Belkin, the task force arrived at its current statistics of the number of extreme workers from two surveys and dozens of interviews and focus groups. She also interviews task force head Sylvia Hewlett for her interpretation. Belkin also quotes Catalyst, the research and consulting firm that aims to expand opportunities for women at work. The article highlights the price that is paid by some mothers who choose to get ahead in their careers and the need for more flexibility by employers.

Article #5: Nanny Hunt can be a ‘slap in the face’ for blacks, The New York Times, December 26, 2006.

Kantor points out that as more African-Americans move up the economic ladder, access to ‘better’ childcare is often elusive. These parents must often settle for non-credentialed nannies, rely on day care or scale back professional aspirations to spend more time at home.

The facts are derived from personal interviews with four African-American upper middle-class working parents, the owner of Morningside Nannies of Houston/President of the International Nanny Association, owner of Nanny Boutique of Chicago, owner of White House Nannies, a socialworker in Brooklyn who specializes in parent-nanny relationships, and three nannies, Polish, Russian and Jamaican. The sources, although varied, represent subjective views. The article presents an emerging problem of which I imagine few people are aware. As the numbers of these situations increase, more dialog will be necessary.

The main debates/issues illustrated in these articles are how women are pressed to juggle child care and careers and should companies step up to the problem by being more flexible and/or subsidizing childcare; and should various levels of government help out so that parents can work, be productive community members, and fulfill personal goals.

Armour, Belkin, and Kantor are sympathetic to the problems of their interviewees. The purpose of their articles is to make the public aware of childcare concerns that exist and how parents, in particular mothers, struggle with their decisions to hold a job while worrying that their children are being properly cared for. Those mothers who put in extreme hours at their jobs may be financially successful, enough to pay for childcare, but they are depriving the children and spouses of a quality relationship. The articles point out the dilemma of women in the workforce today and how our nation needs to address childcare, parental leave, better afterschool programs and policies to promote flexible work options that don’t force parents to forgo benefits, equitable pay, and career prospects. The local government press releases are more political in nature, touting the ‘good job’ they are doing in the arena of childcare. Political or not, the bottom line is that they are making progress and that is what counts. People should not become complacent about the issue, however, because there is much more to be done. In the instances of these five articles, the media is helpful in portraying a family issue that seriously requires leadership.

Blog Entry 1 - 1/22/07

Explain the debate surrounding the contemporary changes in American families (“American Family Decline” debate). According to Popenoe, what indicates that American family is in decline? What are the Stacey’s and Cowan’s critiques of his argument? What position would you take in this debate and why?

According to Popenoe, families have grown smaller in size, become less stable, and dissolve sooner. Less energy is invested into family life and individuals are more concerned about their personal pursuits, resulting in reduced social power of the family. This has led to the decline of familism and child-centeredness in American society and culture (Popenoe 528). He observes that there has been a sharp drop in the fertility rate, declining from 3.7 children per family in the late 1950’s to 1.9 in 1990. He notes that women are having fewer children and the American population contains a smaller proportion of children than ever before (Popenoe 530). American culture has shifted such that the role of the adult female as the full-time home-maker and that of the adult male as the sole breadwinner has virtually ended. There has also been an increase in single-parent families as a result of the “growing incidence and acceptance of divorce, especially divorce involving children” (Popenoe 531). The year 1974 marked the point at which more marriages ended in divorce than in death, with the divorce rate approaching 50%. Children of divorced parents are much more likely to enter an unstable marriage as adults, possibly leading to a progression of unstable families in the future (Popenoe 532). Americans have been investing much more time in themselves instead of family life. As a result, it is now the nuclear family that is breaking up.

The institution of marriage has been in steep decline and the proportion of women aged 20 to 29 who had never married more than doubled from 1960 to 1990 (Popenoe 532). Society has become more accepting of unmarried adults and the traditional belief that marriage is a social obligation has faded considerably. Survey data has found that the relationship between being married and being relatively happy in life has weakened (Popenoe 533). The acceptance of non-marital cohabitation has reduced the pressure for many couples to marry and the numbers of non-marital households have been growing. Fewer persons are marrying, they are marrying later, divorce has become more prevalent, and fewer children are being born (Popenoe 534).

Popenoe groups the evidence for family decline into three broad categories: demographic, institutional, and cultural. Family groups have decreased in size, persist for shorter amounts of time, and incorporate a smaller percentage of the average person’s life. Individual family members have become more autonomous and less bound to the family group, making the family less cohesive. Wives have become more economically independent, and therefore less dependent on husbands for support, increasing the propensity for divorce. Decline in parental influence on children has led to the brainwashing of American adolescents by the mass media, forcing the family groups further apart (Popenoe 536). There has been suggestion of a decline in the amount of time parents spend with their children, and income to the majority of households is not shared with children, causing children to fall economically behind others. The value placed on family in our culture has diminished and familism as a cultural value has waned in favor of self-fulfillment (Popenoe 537). Children cannot live their lives apart from family if they are to become successful. The trends seen today will likely have adverse consequences for children (Popenoe 540).

Stacey and Cowan reject much of the basis of Popenoe’s argument but they do agree the family unit has changed. Stacey rejects Popenoe’s definition of the family as an institution and instead calls it “an ideological, symbolic, construct that has a history and a politics” (Stacey 545). The structural-functionalist approach to family sociology is inherently flawed and it is anthropologically incorrect to claim that the family was “once the only social institution in existence” (p.538). Popenoe proceeds to use the 1950s as a baseline for assessing the following decline in family history, but admits that it was in fact a culturally anomalous decade. Family decline is therefore exaggerated and distorted in his explanation. Popenoe argues that if one does not believe that the family has declined, he or she must believe that either the family has strengthened or remained unchanged. Stacey disputes this claim, stating that his argument is only true if one accepts his institutional view of the family, which she rejects (546). She shares his concern about the nation’s children but believes that divorce does not harm children nearly as much as he has claimed. Studies suggest that it is not the loss of a parent, but the hostile emotional environment surrounding the loss that causes the emotional damage. Family sociologists should be directing attention to social policy reforms that could mitigate the deleterious effects of divorce on the large percentage of suffering children (Stacey 547). Instead of pushing to end divorce, Stacey proposes legislation which would make the transition for youth easier.

Cowan agrees with other critics that Popenoe’s analysis is seriously awry, but concedes that there should be concern about the state of family life. Cowan says his argument is “fundamentally flawed, scientifically and logically, in its inferences from data on family trends” because “correlation does not establish proof of causation,” a method Popenoe wrongfully incorporates into his analysis (549). For example, Popenoe proposes that divorce rate is heightened by self-centered attitudes, but we first need to know if and how such attitudes are linked to marital stability. In addition, Popenoe does not consider other causes of reduced family size such as the revolution in birth control technology, the strain of economic pressure, and the wariness of “traditional values” leading to a more cautious approach to marriage and having children (Cowan 549). In his research, Cowan finds an absence of negative attitudes towards children, and that there may be some advantages to mothers working outside of the home; the opposite of what Popenoe suggests (Cowan 550). He also makes it a point to say that research should be conducted with a developmental psychopathology approach, which incorporates more sophisticated models to predict the outcome of family dysfunction, instead of the speculation Popenoe often relied on (Cowan 551).

Although some of Popenoe’s techniques are not scientifically sound, I would take his side of the debate. Over the past two decades, women have seen a substantial increase in high paying and powerful job positions. As the traditional role of the woman as a home-maker fades to a remnant of earlier times, child care and upbringing become sensitive issues. I believe in the adage, “if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself,” and certainly this must apply to raising one’s own child. It seems that there would be a much higher chance that a child will be emotionally deprived if both parents are working full time than if one parent stays at home. The acceptance of the rising divorce rate enables young couples to wed before they are ready, with the idea that they can separate with little consequence down the line. The secularization of the wedding has turned the affair into a theatrical performance with less emphasis on the eternal union of the bride and the groom. The details of the ceremony and reception become the first priority and the desires of the guests are often fulfilled before the two to be married. Some women dream of the perfect fairytale wedding, planning the event even before the groom has been found! Children of divorced adults may be more likely to rush into cementing unstable relationships, leading to social instability. With the probability of dissolution of a first marriage at about 60%, the emotional well being of a record number of children is at risk (Popenoe 532).

The recent surge of non-marital cohabitation increases the chances for divorce, showing a lack of commitment. With increasing acceptance of this phenomenon, couples are choosing to have children without being married. This can deprive the child of a sense of security and makes it less complicated for one parent to take off. Permanent singleness and childlessness are also escalating trends as individuals have found ways to be happy other than starting a family. Increasing equality of women has led to the view of the traditional nuclear family in very negative terms and many women do not want to be bound as they have been in the past. In this sense, Popenoe regards the family decline as progress, moving away from outdated social traditions (535). In the past, women looked to financially sound men to support them, but this characteristic has become less important as women have gained more financial independence. A decline in parental influence over children has allowed the encroachment of mass media, leading to poor decision making skills. There is a chance that a decline in family cohesiveness will eventually lead to the decline in the viability of our species. Humans are only defined as successful, in an evolutionary sense, when they become grandparents. As the desire to raise a family lessens, our genetic material will become less varied, which will eventually lead to the inability of our species to evolve and survive changing conditions.

The pervasiveness of extracurricular activities and long working hours leaves less time for parents and children to spend time together. The family dinner hour is now an almost unknown occurrence and the time spent grabbing fast food has exceeded the planning of home cooked meals in many cases. The increasing ease of obtaining credit or loans has assisted those of lower socioeconomic status in starting a family, perhaps prematurely. After it is too late, families like these go bankrupt and children are deprived of a decent childhood.

I believe the type of family one grew up in will determine the viewpoint her or she will hold about the state of the family. I come from a fairly traditional type of family and the way I’ve seen some parents raise their children is shocking to me. As a child of one of the more “unstable” family types, you may have a much different idea of what a good upbringing is. I am amazed at the number of high school and college students who drink excessively and use drugs and I have to question where the parents were while they should have been teaching their children to pursue more constructive ways of entertaining themselves. If the parents focus most of their time on themselves, it is likely the children will follow suit. Rising selfishness and materialism leads to serious psychological and health problems, contributing to family dysfunction. With half of all married couples splitting at some point in their lives, the future stability of our community seems shaky at best. It is important to point out that these articles were published over thirteen years ago and updated data would aid in more accurately predicting the future of the family as we know it. From my personal experience, I would presume that we are still on the downward slope Popenoe described.