This is the Authors’ Original Manuscript of an article
submitted for consideration in Child Care in Practice
[copyright Taylor & Francis]; Child Care in Practice is
available online at http://www.tandfonline.com/[Article DOI
10.1080/13575279.2013.859566].
Title:
Prevalence and predictors of grandparent childcare in Ireland: Findings from a
nationally representative sample of infants and their families.
Authors:
Dr Sinéad McNally, School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin
Dr Michelle Share, Children’s Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin
Dr Aisling Murray, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin
Corresponding author contact details:
Dr Sinéad McNally, Aras an Phiarsaigh, School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin
Email: mcnalls1@tcd.ie Ph. 00353 (0)876412276
Abstract:
Introduction: Anecdotal evidence suggests that grandparents provide a substantial
amount of childcare support to parents of infants in Ireland yet there has been little
attention to the provision of grandparent childcare at policy-level. Using nationally
representative data on childcare provision in the Republic of Ireland, this study
examined the prevalence of grandparent childcare provision for very young children,
and associations between this choice of childcare and key infant, family, and
community factors.
Method: Using archived data from the Infant Cohort of the Growing Up in Ireland
study, descriptive data regarding use of grandparents as childcare providers was
outlined. A series of bivariate analyses were then conducted to examine the
independent association between a range of infant, family, and community variables
and use of grandparent childcare. Finally, a multivariate analysis using binomial
logistic regression was used to examine the association of each of these variables in
a fully adjusted model.
Results: 38.6% of infants experienced non-parental childcare: 12.4% were looked
after by grandparents, 15.7% by other home-based carers and 10.5% in childcare
centres such as crèches. Grandparents were the cheapest source of childcare but
also provided fewer hours on average. Multivariate analysis indicated the importance
of parental income, age, and education in choosing grandparental childcare, with
younger, less well-off parents using grandparent childcare more than any other type
of childcare.
Discussion: The findings suggested that, whether by choice or economic pressure,
grandparents represent an important resource in terms of providing childcare for
infants. Current childcare policy needs to be cognisant of the significant contribution
of grandparents in helping families with young children participate in the labour force.
Constraints on the amount of care grandparents are able to provide may have
knock-on constraints for parents’ participation in the labour-force and earnings.
Key words:
Childcare; grandparents; infants; policy; Ireland
Introduction
In Ireland in the era known as the Celtic Tiger (1995-2008), major demographic shifts
have taken place which includes women’s labour force participation and an increase
in the numbers of lone parents. These are important factors to our understanding of,
and response to, childcare provision in Ireland and, in particular, childcare provided
by grandparents.
Over the last two decades there has been a substantial increase in women’s
workforce participation. In 1990, just 35 per cent of women aged 15-to-64 years were
in paid employment (Russell et al., 2002). In 2001, at the peak of the Celtic Tiger
period, this figure had increased to 54.6 per cent. It subsequently rose steadily to
60.7 per cent by 2007 but, with the recent period of economic decline, fell back to 56
per cent in 2011 (CSO, 2011: Table 2.1).
The number of lone parents in Irish households has increased during the period
2002-2011. The vast majority (87%) of these households are headed by women
(CSO, 2012) and this has implications for the provision of grandparent childcare.
One third of lone parents with pre-school children and just under a half (48%) of lone
parents with primary school-aged children were at work in the first quarter of 2005
(CSO, 2006).
The provision of childcare services remains a government policy priority, reflected in
the 2010 introduction of the Free Pre-School Year Scheme1. This scheme has
supported the growth of pre-school places, yet provision of childcare by relatives to
pre-school and school-aged children, continues to be an important resource for
many parents.
Ireland’s 2007 Quarterly National Household Survey (QNHS) indicated that while
parents/guardians were still the main carers during working days for families with
preschool children (64%) and those with primary school going children (81%), unpaid
relatives (9%) were an important source of non-parental childcare for families with
children under the age of 12, and were the most commonly used type of childcare for
The FPY is applicable to children aged three years and two months and less than four
years and seven months prior to the commencement of the new pre-school year
[http://www.dcya.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=%2Fdocuments%2FECCEScheme%2Fintro.html]
1
primary school children. Parents of pre- and primary school children also used paid
relatives as a source of childcare with four per cent and three per cent of parents
reporting using this form of childcare respectively (CSO, 2009). The figures, which
predate the introduction of the Free Pre-School Year scheme, do not tell us who the
paid or unpaid relative carers are. It is likely that grandparents provide a
considerable amount of such childcare.
Ireland’s National Children’s Strategy (Government of Ireland, 2000) recognises the
importance to children’s wellbeing of a mix of formal and informal supports. Yet there
is little attention to the provision of grandparent childcare at policy-level. Such care
constitutes an important aspect of intergenerational relationships and reciprocity and
sustains social and economic life (Lynch & Lyons, 2008).
With the changed and changing Irish demographic context it is important to have a
greater understanding of where grandparents are within the jigsaw of childcare
provision. International evidence reveals the important social support that they
provide for first and second generation immigrant families (Wall & Sao Jose, 2004).
Grandparents are also an important source of support to lone parents in helping
them to access employment and training (Sandfort & Hill, 1996) and in periods
following divorce or separation (Hetherington, 2003; Hogan, Halpenny & Greene,
2003). Parents also choose to have grandparents as childcarers, not just for
economic reasons, but for reasons of trust, commitment, shared understandings and
children’s happiness (Skinner & Finch, 2006) and for its flexibility relative to formal
childcare (Ochiltree, 2006).
International evidence attests to the widespread provision of childcare support by
grandparents. In Australia, where data on grandparents as carers are routinely
collected, 22 per cent of all children under the age of 12 months were regularly cared
for by grandparents (Goodfellow & Laverty, 2003). Mothers’ employment remains the
main reason why grandparents accept responsibility, but others feel obliged to care
(Goodfellow & Laverty, 2003). In Norway, 63 per cent of grandmothers and 56 per
cent of grandfathers report caring for their grandchildren monthly or more often
(Herlofsen & Hagestad, 2012). In the UK, mothers of under-fives are most likely to
receive help from grandparents with childcare, and grandparents represent a mostly
free alternative to formal childcare, in particular for women in low income jobs (Gray,
2005).
The provision of grandparent childcare in northern European countries has been
characterised as a ‘mother saver’ or ‘family saver’ function (Herlofsen & Hagsted,
2012). Grandparent childcare works as a ‘mother saver’ in countries where women’s
employment is not strongly supported by public childcare. In countries where there is
stronger support for public childcare and an emphasis on work-life balance,
grandparents fulfil a ‘family saver’ role in terms of the provision of extra support
(Herlofsen & Hagsted, 2012). Grandparents’ informal childcare provision often works
as the ‘glue’ that holds together the complex and varied childcare arrangements that
are required in the absence of integrated services (Skinner & Finch, 2006), indicating
the centrality of grandparents in the ‘jigsaw’ of care, both formal and informal.
There have been considerable gaps in Irish data on the prevalence of grandparent
childcare and on the nature and form of such care (Share & Kerrins, 2009). Arber
and Timonen (2012) point to US and European research that shows the prevalence
of grandparent care, with 40 to 60 per cent of grandparents indicating that they
provide occasional childcare to grandchildren. There is also limited knowledge
regarding the factors which may influence the use of grandparent childcare in
Ireland. While it is known that a range of child and family characteristics influence the
use of non-parental childcare, including infant temperament and maternal socioeconomic status (Sylva et al., 2007), the extent to which these factors influence the
use of grandparent childcare in particular is not well understood in Ireland.
The release of cross-sectional data from the Longitudinal Study of Children in
Ireland, Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) provides an opportunity to illuminate this issue
in an Irish context. Data from the Infant Cohort of GUI was used to examine the
prevalence and predictors of grandparent childcare provision in Ireland, providing
valuable information regarding which families were using grandparents as childcare
providers for young children in Ireland and the extent to which grandparents provided
this critical service to families.
Method
Participants:
The GUI sample comprised 11,134 9-month-old infants and their primary caregiver,
who was the biological mother in almost all cases. Age-eligible infants, who were
born between December 2007 and May 2008, were randomly selected from the
Child Benefit Register so as to be nationally representative of the Irish population.
Interviews with the primary caregiver of that infant were conducted in the home when
the infant was 9-months-old, during the period September 2008 - March 2009.
The study child was the first born or only child in 41 per cent of families. The mean
age for primary caregivers was 32 years, 14 per cent were lone parents and 26 per
cent had been born outside Ireland (Williams et al., 2010).
Participation in the study was voluntary and written informed consent was obtained
from the primary caregiver prior to interview. Procedures and materials were
approved by an independent Research Ethics Committee convened specifically for
the Growing Up in Ireland study.
Procedures:
Field interviewers administered questionnaires to primary caregivers on a face-toface basis in the home. More sensitive questions were self-completed by
participants. Data were re-weighted prior to analysis so as to be representative of the
population on a selection of key indicators such as household social class, family
type and primary caregiver education.
Materials/Key Variables:
All the information used in this analysis was collected from the primary caregiver
during the main face-to-face interview. The questionnaire is available to download
from the Growing Up in Ireland website (www.growingup.ie). Information on childcare
arrangements, and key infant, family, and community variables predicted to be
associated with use of non-parental childcare based on childcare literature, are
described below.
Childcare Information: Primary caregivers were asked to provide details on all
regular non-parental care arrangements during the main interview, including hours
per week and relationship of the carer to the study child. They were also asked to
indicate the main type of childcare (where there was more than one), and the age of
the child when he/she first started in this arrangement. Questions about contact with
grandparents, including whether they lived abroad or were deceased, were asked in
a separate section of the questionnaire.
Infant Characteristics: These included infant gender, temperament, health, sibling
status (only child or one or more siblings), and age of entry into childcare. Following
Sylva et al. (2007), temperament was considered in the analysis of childcare
decision-making. Infant temperament was measured using the Infant Characteristics
Questionnaire (Bates et al., 1979). The primary caregiver rated the infant from 1 -7
on a set of items that form four subscales: ‘fussy-difficult’, ‘unadaptable’, ‘dull’ and
‘unpredictable’. Items on the ‘fussy-difficult’ sub-scale typically reflect negative
emotionality such as crying and making a fuss. Items on the ‘unadaptable’ scale
reflect how well (or not) the infant reacts to new experiences and people. Items on
the ‘dull’ scale reflect the infant’s social responsiveness. Items on the ‘unpredictable’
scale reflect the ease with which caregivers feel they can predict the infant’s needs.
For ease of analysis, continuous scores on the subscales were converted into
quartiles, with the highest quartile being the most fussy, least adaptable, most dull or
least predictable respectively.
Family Characteristics: Information on primary caregiver’s relationship status (lone
parent or with partner), primary caregiver education (four category variable: lower
secondary or less; Leaving Certificate; diploma; degree or above), primary caregiver
age (five category variable with groups from under 22 to over 35), primary caregiver
ethnicity (four category variable: Irish; White non-Irish; Black; Asian) and household
income were also provided by the primary caregiver during the interview. Household
income was recorded in the interview as an exact figure or as a ‘best guess
estimate’. This figure was then ‘equivalised’ to take account of the number and ages
of family members. Finally the equivalised income figure was divided into quintiles
with the wealthiest families being in the highest income quintile.
Location Characteristics: Location of the family home was summarised as either
‘rural’ or ‘urban’. Primary caregivers were asked direct questions about whether
there were other family members living in the area (to include partner’s family) and
whether “crèche, day-care, mother-and-toddler groups, etc” were available within
relatively easy access of their local area.
Data Analysis:
Descriptive data was explored on childcare practices in Ireland, including: (1) the
number of children in each type of regular childcare (exclusively parental,
grandparent care, other home-based care, or centre-based care); (2) the cost of, and
number of hours spent in, various forms of childcare; and (3) the reasons given for
choice of childcare.
A series of bivariate analyses using logistic regression were carried out to examine
independent associations between grandparent childcare use (versus all other forms
of non-parental childcare) and infant characteristics, family characteristics, and
community variables. Those variables which were significantly associated with
grandparent childcare use were included in a fully adjusted logistic regression model.
Results
The importance of a reliable source of childcare is likely to come to the fore around
nine months of age as the entitlement to statutory maternity leave in Ireland for
working mothers comes to an end.
In terms of regular childcare arrangements, Table 1 shows that 61.4% of infants had
no regular non-parental care, 12.4% were looked after by grandparents, 15.7% by
other home-based carers (e.g. childminders) and 10.5% in childcare centres such as
crèches. Table 1 further shows that grandparents were the cheapest childcare
providers (mode2 [66.3%] = “€49 or less”) but also that on average they provided
fewer hours (M=21.5, F[2,4262]=119.39, p <.001) and fewer days of care (M=3.3,
F[2, 4264]=81.36, p<.001) than other categories of carer.
Insert table 1 here.
As the cost of care for the different providers is confounded by differences in the
weekly duration, Table 2 compares the cost of grandparent care with care provided
by other home-based carers and centres for those infants who were typically looked
Note that cost in the archived anonymised micro data file (AMF) is grouped into
categories rather than as continuous data. The lowest category, €49 or less, also
includes all the unpaid carers.
2
after for 40 hours per week only. However, we can still see that almost half (44.2%)
of the grandparents who were looking after infants full-time were in the lowest-paid
category of €49 per week or less. This is in marked contrast to other home-based
carers and childcare centres which are heavily clustered towards the upper end of
the cost scale; in particular, just under half (49.2%) of the childcare centres were in
the highest category of “€200 or more per week”.
Insert table 2 here.
While Table 2 suggests that low cost is probably a strong driver in the choice of
grandparent care over other care types, this inference is not supported by the
primary caregivers’ own answers to the question on ‘the single most important
reason for choosing this main form of childcare’. Only 4.2% said cost was the most
important reason while the majority of primary caregivers (67.2%) said it was “quality
of the care provided”. Primary caregivers using grandparent care were more likely to
cite quality of care as the main reason (74.0%) than those using other home carers
(66.9%) or centre-based care (60.5%; x2 = 52.48, df =2, n=4269).
A disadvantage of asking parents to justify their choice of childcare once that choice
has been made, however, is that it may be more difficult to admit even to oneself that
quality was not the principle determining factor. This paper will further explore the
use of grandparents as the main childcare providers for infants by employing a
logistic regression model to identify which infant, family and community
characteristics are associated with grandparent childcare use.
Examining the relationship between the use of grandparent childcare and infant,
family, and community variables, significant independent associations were found
between grandparent childcare use and (1) infant temperament3 (2) sibling status (3)
age of entry into childcare (4) household income (5) primary caregiver education (6)
primary caregiver age (7) relationship status and (8) having family living nearby.
Those variables that were not independently associated with grandparent childcare
included infant gender and health status at nine months, having crèche facilities
nearby, location (urban or rural), and these variables were not included in the fully
adjusted multivariate model.
Table three presents both the unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios for each of the
eight variables listed above which were significant in the bivariate analyses. In both
the unadjusted and fully adjusted models, less adaptable children were more likely to
be in grandparent childcare than other forms of childcare. ‘Dull’ infants were less
likely to be in grandparent childcare but this association did not hold when other
variables were controlled for. Infants with one or more siblings were less likely to be
in grandparent childcare even controlling for other characteristics.
Only the ‘Dull’ and ‘Unadaptable’ subscales were significantly associated with choice of
grandparent childcare use. The ‘fussy-difficult’ and ‘unpredictable’ subscales were
therefore excluded from the fully adjusted model and are not reported in table three.
3
Family income, primary caregiver age, and primary caregiver education were
significantly associated with use of grandparent childcare in both the unadjusted and
fully adjusted models: families with lower incomes were significantly more likely to
use grandparent childcare than higher income families; primary caregivers younger
than 30 years were more likely than caregivers in their early thirties to use
grandparent childcare, and caregivers aged 35 or more were significantly less likely
to use grandparent childcare; caregivers with lower secondary, Leaving Certificate,
or non-degree education were significantly more likely than caregivers with a degree
to use grandparent childcare. While lone-parent status was associated with greater
likelihood of using grandparent childcare on a bivariate basis, this association did not
hold when controlling for other infant and family characteristics.
With regard to community variables, having family nearby was a significant predictor
of use of grandparent childcare in both the unadjusted and adjusted models. Infants
who experienced non-parental childcare before six months of age were more likely to
have been placed in grandparent childcare than infants who were placed in childcare
at a later age. However, this significant association was not found when the infant’s
and family’s characteristics were controlled for.
Insert table 3 here.
Discussion
This study sought to examine the extent to which grandparents provided childcare to
infants in Ireland, and the factors which were associated with choosing grandparent
childcare rather than other forms of non-parental childcare. The findings indicate that
whether by choice or economic pressure, grandparents represent an important
resource in terms of providing childcare for infants and were they to ‘leave the
market’, this would be a big deficit that other providers would either have to make up
or more parents would have to stay at home full-time.
Despite the fact that primary caregivers themselves asserted that quality was their
primary concern when selecting grandparent over other types of care, the regression
analysis strongly indicates that wealthier families are less likely to avail of
grandparent care than their less well-off peers. The regression analysis also
highlighted significant associations between infant, family, and community factors
and use of grandparent childcare at nine months. Infant temperament characterised
by poor adaptability was associated with greater grandparent childcare use than for
children who displayed greater adaptability. While parental relationship status was
not a significant factor when all other infant, family and community variables were
controlled for, the primary caregiver’s income and age were strongly associated with
grandparent childcare, indicating that grandparent care is most used by parents who
are more financially constrained. Income and age of parent were the most salient
factors in childcare use. Education was also an important factor, with primary
caregivers with the lowest education significantly more likely than those with the
highest education to use grandparent childcare. Unsurprisingly, having family nearby
was associated with greater use of grandparent care than if family was not nearby,
suggesting that accessibility and ease of contact or use was a factor in this type of
childcare. Having a crèche nearby was not associated with reduced grandparent
use.
Another factor of note with potential policy implications for the current cohort is that
grandparents appear less likely to be a non-parental childcare provider for infants
who have siblings. This raises the question as to whether they will continue to
provide care when the study children who are currently the only child in the
household are joined by younger siblings. It also appears that grandparents are less
likely to provide full-time care (i.e. 40 hours per week) but whether this is because
they [the grandparents] do not wish to or are unable to do so, or whether parents
who work part-time prefer the flexibility of grandparent care over professional
childminders or centres is unclear. If the former is the case, constraints on the
amount of care grandparents are in a position to provide may have knock-on
constraints for parents’ participation in the labour-force and earnings. The Irish
Longitudinal Study of Aging reported that nearly half of all older adults (47%)
provided care to their grandchildren or great-grandchildren (Kamiya & Timonen,
2011) although this varied by age of the grandparent with those aged 50-64 years
and those aged 75 years or older less likely to provide care than grandparents aged
65-74 years, perhaps reflecting less availability among youngest grandparents and
less ability among the oldest.
Conclusion
This paper used archived data on childcare provision by relatives to examine the
prevalence, and factors associated with the use, of childcare specifically provided by
grandparents. As such, the study fills in significant gaps with regard to existing
knowledge on the role of grandparents as childcare providers to infants in Ireland.
The study is limited, however, in that it does not look at the possible effects of early
experience of grandparental childcare on child outcomes. Both positive and negative
child outcomes have been associated with experience of early childcare (Melhuish,
2004). The cross-sectional nature of this study means that the potential differential
impact of experiencing grandparent childcare versus other types of childcare cannot
be examined at this point. However, associations between experience of
grandparental childcare in infancy (as opposed to other forms of childcare) and later
child cognitive and social and emotional outcomes can be examined once the
second wave of data from the Infant Cohort at three years is available.
Finally, the OECD has recommended that family policies “need to find an optimal
balance between preparing families for life in the labour market and preparing the
labour market for the lives of families” (OECD, 2011). By providing a key piece in the
childcare jigsaw for many working families in Ireland, grandparents are helping
families achieve a balance between work and family life, yet childcare policy does
not formally recognise this contribution. The evidence presented here suggests that
current childcare policy needs to be cognisant of the significant contribution of
grandparents in helping families with young children participate in the labour force.
Acknowledgements
The Growing Up in Ireland data have been funded by the Government of Ireland
through the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs; have been collected
under the Statistics Act, 1993, of the Central Statistics Office. The project has been
designed and implemented by the joint ESRI-TCD Growing Up in Ireland Study
Team.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of participating families and the
work of the Growing Up in Ireland Study Team.
References
Arber, S. & Timonen, V. (2012). Contemporary grandparenting: Changing family
relationships in global contexts. Bristol: Policy Press.
[CSO] Central Statistics Office (2012). This is Ireland: Highlights from Census 2011,
Part 1. Dublin: The Stationery Office.
[CSO] Central Statistics Office. (2011). Women and Men in Ireland 2011. Dublin: The
Stationery Office.
[CSO] Central Statistics Office. (2009). Quarterly National Household Survey –
childcare module quarter 4 2007. Dublin: CSO.
Government of Ireland CSO (2011). Women and Men in Ireland 2011. Dublin: The
Stationery Office.
Goodfellow, J. & Laverty, J. (2003). Grandparents supporting working families:
satisfaction and choice in the provision of child care, Family Matters, 66: 1419. Available at: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2003/fm66/jg.pdf
Government of Ireland. (2000). Our children, their lives: Ireland’s National Children’s
Strategy. Dublin: The Stationery Office.
Gray, A. (2005). The changing availability of grandparents as carers and its
implications for childcare policy in the UK. Journal of Social Policy, 34 (4):
557-577.
Hetherington, E. (2003). Social support and the adjustment of children in divorced
and remarried families. Childhood, 10(2), 217-236.
Herlofsen K. & Hagestad, G. (2012). Transformations in the role of grandparents
across welfare states. In S, Arber & V. Timonen (Eds) Contemporary
grandparenting: Changing family relationships in global contexts. pp. 27-50
Bristol: Policy Press.
Hogan, D., Halpenny, A., & Greene, S. (2003). Change and continuity after parental
separation: children’s experiences of family transitions in Ireland. Childhood,
10 (2): 163-180.
Kamiya, Y. & Timonen, V. (2011). Older people as members of their families and
communities. In A. Barrett, G. Savva, V. Timonen and R.A. Kenny (Eds.),
Fifty Plus in Ireland 2011: First results from the Irish Longitudinal Study on
Ageing (TILDA). Available from
http://www.tcd.ie/tilda/assets/pdf/glossy/Chapter3.pdf. Accessed 8th April,
2013.
Lundström, F. (2000). Grandparenthood in modern Ireland. Dublin: Department of
Social and Family Affairs.
Lynch, K. & Lyons, M. (2008). The gendered order of caring. In U. Barry (Ed.),
Where are we now? New feminist perspectives on women in contemporary
Ireland pp.163-182. Dublin: New Island Press.
Melhuish, E. C. (2004). A literature review of the impact of early years provision upon
young children, with emphasis given to children from disadvantaged
backgrounds: Report to the Comptroller and Auditor General. London:
National Audit Office.
Ochiltree, G. (2006) The changing role of grandparents. In Commonwealth of
Australia (Ed.), AFRC Briefing, No. 2, pp: 1-9 Melbourne: Australian Institute
of Family Studies.
OECD (2011), Doing Better for Families, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264098732
Russell, H., Smyth, E., Lyons, M. & O’Connell, P. (2002). Getting out of the house:
women returning to employment, education and training. Dublin: Liffey Press.
Sandfort, J. & Hill, M. (1996). Assisting young, unmarried mothers to become selfsufficient: The effects of different types of early economic support. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 58 (2), 311-326.
Share, M. & Kerrins, L. (2009). The role of grandparents in childcare in Ireland. Irish
Journal of Applied Social Studies, 9 (1): 33-48.
Skinner, C. & Finch, N. (2006). Lone parents and informal childcare: a tax credit
childcare subsidy? Social Policy & Administration, 40 (7): 807-823.
Sylva, K., Stein, A., Leach, P., Barnes, J., Malmberg L-E and the FCCC-team.
(2007) Family and child factors related to the use of non-maternal infant care:
An English study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 118-136.
Wall, K. & Sao Jose, J. (2004). Managing work and care: a difficult challenge for
immigrant families. Social Policy & Administration, 38 (6): 591-621.
Wheelock, J. & Jones, K. (2002). ‘Grandparents are the next best thing’: informal
childcare for working parents in urban Britain. Journal of Social Policy, 31 (3):
441-463.
Table 1: Frequency of different categories of childcare provider with typical duration (hours and days
per week) and cost.
Frequency - %
61.4
(n=6796)
Grandparents
12.4
(n=1373)
Other
home-based
15.7
carers
(n=1739)
Centre-based care 10.5
(n=1163)
Parental care only
Mean Hours p/w
-
Mean Days p/w
-
Modal cost p/w
-
21.5 (SD=11.7)
3.3 (SD=1.4)
€49 or less (66.3%)
23.5 (SD=11.7)
3.5 (SD=1.3)
€91 - €100 (28.4%)
28.4 (SD=10.8)
4.0 (SD=1.2)
€151-€200
(28.5%)
Table 2: Comparison of childcare cost for a 40-hour week of care – with percentage distribution of
each type of childcare provider across each cost groupings.
49 or less
Grandparents
44.2
Other home-based carers5.7
Centre-based care
1.7
Total
12.5
Weekly Cost Category (€)
50 -99
100-149
150-199
200 or more
13.4
28.2
9.4
5.0
7.5
31.2
28.4
27.3
%
100
100
1.1
13.3
33.9
49.2
100
6.3
22.8
26.6
31.8
100
Table 3: Choice of grandparent childcare by infant, family, and community factors.
Temperament
Siblings
Income Quintiles
Unadjusted
OR
(95% CI)
Adjusted OR
(95% CI)
Adaptable
% of children
in
Grandparent
Childcare
31%
1
1
Less adaptable
38%
1.339*
1.314*
(1.23-1.59)
(1.08-1.6)
Not dull
33%
1
1
Dull
28%
.779*
0.834
(.67-.95)
(.68 – 1.02)
Only Child
35%
1
1
One or more
siblings
29%
.753*
0.837*
(.66-.86)
(.72-.98)
3.339*
1.467*
(2.59-4.30)
(1.06-2.03)
2.830*
1.688*
(2.24-3.58)
(1.28-2.22)
2.313*
1.569*
(1.88-2.85)
(1.24-1.98)
2.184*
1.683*
(1.81-2.64)
(1.38-2.06)
1
1
Lowest quintile
Second quintile
Third quintile
Fourth quintile
Highest quintile
44%
40%
35%
34%
19%
Primary caregiver
Education
Lower secondary
Leaving certificate
Non-degree
Primary caregiver
age
41%
34%
(1.99-3.91)
(1.01-1.74)
2.605*
1.656*
(2.21-3.1)
(1.37-2)
1.901*
1.449*
(1.59-2.27)
(1.19-1.76)
1
1
18-21
64%
4.303*
2.911*
(2.83-6.84)
(1.77-4.78)
3.077*
2.060*
(2.4-3.95)
(1.53-2.77)
1.927*
1.578*
(1.63-2.28)
(1.31-1.9)
56%
44%
31-35
29%
1
1
36+
19%
.551*
.586*
(.46-.66)
(.49-.71)
2.101*
1.105
(1.76-2.51)
(.87-1.4)
1
1
Lone Parent
Two-Parent
Age of entry
childcare
1.328*
21%
26-30
Family Nearby
2.486*
Degree
22-25
Relationship
Status
40%
Family near
36%
1
1
No family near
21%
.475*
.548*
(.41-.55)
(.46-.65)
1.396*
1.129
(1.2-1.63)
(.95-1.35)
1
1
Before 6 months
After 6 months
38%
30%
*p < .01; OR Odds Ratio; CI Confidence Interval