KATHOLIEKE
UNIVERSITEIT
LEUVEN
Child care in Flanders
Use, choice of child care type and
evaluation by parents
Karlien Vanpée
Leen Sannen
Georges Hedebouw
Project leader: Georges Hedebouw
Research commissioned by Kind en Gezin
Hoger instituut
voor de arbeid
iii
FOREWORD
Child-minding in Flanders is still in a period of rapid expansion and demand has never
been greater than it is today. More than 6 out of 10 parents regularly use day care for their
pre-school children. About half of nursery school children and 3 in 10 primary school
children regularly use out-of-school care.
For Kind en Gezin, the organisation that monitors child-minding for the Flemish
authorities, it is important to continue to follow developments closely from the perspective
of the consumer also. How many parents use child-minding facilities? When and under
what circumstances? What type of child-minding do they use and does everyone find
something that suits them? How do they evaluate the quality of child-minding facilities?
The aim of the study commissioned by Kind en Gezin from the Higher Institute for Labour
(HIVA) was to organise a large-scale survey of a representative group of parents with
young children in Flanders into their use of child-minding and the background to this. The
study was to cover both pre-school and schoolchildren. In addition to an analysis of about
2000 ‘standard’ Flemish families, use of child-minding by certain specific groups was also
investigated. These were: families with a disabled child, ethnic minority families,
disadvantaged families, one-parent families and families where the mother is unemployed.
The study was conducted in collaboration with a steering group consisting of staff from
Kind en Gezin and three external experts: Professor Dr. Lieve Vandemeulebroecke, Mrs.
Bea Van den Bergh and Mr. Jan Peeters. We would like to thank them for their critical
input to the drafting of the questionnaire and the drawing up of the report. Special thanks
are also due to Mrs. Bea Buysse, scientific advisor in the General Services Department of
Kind en Gezin, who chaired the steering group and was also responsible for Kind en
Gezin’s follow-up of the study.
We would also like to thank the large group of Flemish parents who took the time to
answer our lengthy questionnaire. Their spontaneous comments and additions created a
vivid picture of the busy everyday reality of child-minding. Research always awakes high
expectations that problems detected will be resolved. We share the parents' hopes that
the report will make a contribution to optimising child-minding provision.
iv
Foreword
With regard to HIVA, our thanks go firstly to the two researchers responsible for
designing the study and writing up the report. Karlien Vanpée took on the standard group
and Leen Sannen the specific target groups. We feel sure that this pilot study of all
aspects of child-minding will not only have proved professionally satisfying to them but will
also be of practical use for the future. Thanks are also due to HIVA’s IT department, which
successfully completed the major task of accurately inputting all the questionnaires into
the computer. Finally, we would like to give credit to the secretariat of the Social and
Economic Policy Sector, which was responsible for the final layout of the research report.
Georges Hedebouw
Project manager
HIVA - Social and Economic Policy Sector
v
CONTENT
Introduction
1
_______________________________________________________________________
Chapter 1 / formulation of the problem and method
3
1. Formulation
3
1.1 Child-minding in Flanders
3
1.1.1 Child-minding facilities accredited and subsidised by Kind en Gezin
4
1.1.2 Child-minding facilities registered with and supervised by Kind en Gezin, 5
but not acrredited and nod subsidised by Kind en Gezin
1.1.3 Child-minding facilities that have only complied with their duty to register,
but which are not accredited and not subsidised by Kind en Gezin
6
1.2 Choosing to use child-minding
6
1.3 Choosing the type of child-minding and place
7
2. Method
7
2.1 Definition of the research
7
2.2 Questionnaire
8
2.2.1 The standard group
8
2.1.1.1 Questions about the child concerned
8
2.1.1.2 Questions about other children in the family and their
child-minding
9
2.1.1.3 Questions about the parents and the family
9
2.2.2 The specific target groups
9
2.3 Sample
10
2.3.1 The standard group
10
2.3.2 Questioning of the specific target groups
11
2.3.2.1 Description of the specific target groups
11
2.3.2.2 Selection and questionnaire
13
2.4 Response and representativeness
15
2.4.1 Overall response
16
2.4.2 Representativeness of the questionnaires for pre-school children
16
2.4.2.1 Response and educational level of the mother
16
2.4.2.2 Response and use of child-minding
17
vi
2.4.3 Weighting to correct for non-response for the pre-school children
2.4.4 Representativeness of the questionnaires for schoolchildren
2.4.5 Weighting to correct for non-response for schoolchildren
3. Conclusion
Content
18
19
20
21
Part 1 / Child-minding used by ‘standard’ parents
23
_______________________________________________________________________
Chapter 2 / Use of child-minding
25
_______________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
25
2. Use of child-minding for pre-school children
25
2.1 The number of users
25
2.2 The intensity of child-minding
26
2.2.1 Patterns of use
26
2.2.2 Intensity measured in number of hours
28
2.2.3 Intensity on different days of the week
29
2.2.4 Arrangements that differ from week to week
31
2.3 Times that child-minding is used
31
2.4 Reasons for the use of child-minding
32
2.4.1 Reasons for use of child-minding
33
2.4.2 Reasons for not using child-minding
33
2.5 Factors determining the use of child-minding
35
2.5.1 Working hours of the mother and use of child-minding
36
2.5.2 Work regime of the mother and use of child-minding
37
2.5.3 Educational level of the mother and use of child-minding
38
2.5.4 Occupation of the mother and use of child-minding
39
2.5.5 Net monthly income and use of child-minding
40
2.5.6 Use of child-minding by age of the child
41
2.5.7 Use of child-minding by province
42
2.5.8 Use of child-minding by degree of urbanisation
43
2.5.9 Multivariate analysis
44
3. Use of child-minding for schoolchildren
44
3.1 Number of users and intensity of child-minding
45
3.2 Reasons for use of child-minding
48
3.2.1 Reasons for use of child-minding
48
3.2.2 Reasons for not using child-minding
49
3.3 Factors determining the use of child-minding
50
3.3.1 Working hours of the mother and use of child-minding
51
3.3.2 Work regime of the mother and use of child-minding
51
3.3.3 Educational level of the mother and use of child-minding
52
3.3.4 Occupation of the mother and use of child-minding
53
3.3.5 Net monthly family income and use of child-minding
54
Content
vii
3.3.6 Use of child-minding by province
3.3.7 Use of child-minding by degree of urbanisation
3.3.8 Multivariate analysis
4. Conclusion
55
55
56
57
Chapter 3 / Types of child-minding used
61
_______________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
2. Types of child-minding use for pre-school children
2.1 The most important types of child-minding
2.2 All types of child-minding used
2.3 Type of child-minding used according to time
2.4 The cose of informal child-minding
2.4.1 The cost of informal child-minding
2.4.2 The cost of formal child-minding
2.4.3 Cost of domestic staff
2.5 Distance to the child-minding facility
2.5.1 From home to the child-minding facility
2.5.2 Place wher child-minding is provided by grandparents or other family
members
3. Types of child-minding used for schoolchildren
3.1 The most important types of child-minding
3.2 All types of child-minding used
3.3 The cost of child-minding
3.3.1 The cost of informal child-minding
3.3.2 The cost of formal child-minding
3.3.3 Cost of domestic staff
3.4 Distance to the child-minding facility
3.4.1 From home to the child-minding facility
3.4.2 From school to the child-minding facility
3.4.3 Place where child-minding is provided by grandparents or other family
members
4. Conclusion
61
61
61
63
65
68
68
69
71
71
71
72
72
73
76
78
78
79
81
82
82
83
83
84
Chapter 4 / Choice of child-minding
87
_______________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
2. Choice of child-minding for pre-school children
2.1 Weighing up the three types of child-minding
2.2 Reasons for preferences for one type of child-minding or another
87
88
88
89
viii
Content
2.2.1 Statements presented to the parents about the possible advantages
and disadvantages of the different types of child-minding
2.2.2 The parents’ comments
2.2.2.1 Educational considerations
2.2.2.2 Service quality
2.2.2.3 Other considerations
2.3 The choice of the child-minding place
2.3.1 Timing of the choice
2.3.2 Length of the search
2.3.3 Information on which parents base their choice
2.3.4 Problems in finding a suitable child-minding place
2.3.4 Decisive arguments
2.4 Factors determining choice
2.4.1 Mother’s working hours and the choice of child-minding type
2.4.2 Work regime of the mother and the choise of child-minding type
2.4.3 Educational level of the mother and the choice of child-minding type
2.4.4 Occupation of the mother and choice of child-minding type
2.4.5 Net monthly family income and choice of child-minding type
2.4.6 Choice of child-minding type by province
2.4.7 Choice of child-minding type by degree of urbanisation
2.4.8 Multivariate analysis of the determinants
3. Choice of child-minding for schoolchildren
3.1 Weighing up the five types of child-minding
3.2 Reasons for preferences for one type of child-minding or another
3.2.1 Statements presented on the possible advantages and disadvantages
of the different types of child-minding
3.2.2 The parents’ comments
3.2.2.1 Educational considerations
3.2.2.2 Service quality
3.3 The choice of a child-minding place
3.3.1 Length of the search
3.3.2 Information on which parents base their choice
3.3.3 Problems in finding a suitable child-minding place
3.3.4 Decisive arguments
3.4 Factors determining choice
3.4.1 Mother’s working hours and the choice of child-minding type
3.4.2 Work regime of the mother and the choice of child-minding type
3.4.3 Educational level of the mother and the choice of child-minding type
3.4.4 Mother’s occupation and the choice of child-minding type
3.4.5 Net monthly family income and the choice of child-minding type
3.4.6 Choice of child-minding type by province
3.4.7 Choice of child-minding type by degree of urbanisation
3.4.8 Multivariate analysis
91
93
93
96
100
101
101
102
104
104
105
106
108
108
110
112
114
116
118
120
120
121
122
122
126
126
128
129
129
131
131
132
134
134
136
138
140
142
144
146
148
Content
4. Conclusion
ix
148
Chapter 5 / Evaluation of child-minding
151
_______________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
2. Evaluation of child-minding for pre-school children
2.1 Care provided by grandparents (or other members of the family, friends and
neighbours)
2.2 Child-minding provided by a day nursery or child-minding family
2.2.1 Satisfaction with a number of practical aspects
2.2.2 Satisfaction with child-rearing aspects
2.2.3 Satisfaction with the standard of care
2.2.4 Satisfaction with service aspects
2.2.5 Use of formal child-minding provision in the future
2.2.6 Recent trends in the quality of formal child-minding provision
2.3 Care provided by domestic staff, personnel from the PWA, au pairs, etc.
3. Evaluation of child-minding for schoolchildren
3.1 Care provided by grandparents (or other members of the family, friends,
neighbours, etc.)
3.2 Child-minding provided by IBOs, schools, day nurseries and child-minding
families
3.2.1 Satisfaction with a number of practical aspects
3.2.2 Satisfaction with child-rearing aspects
3.2.3 Satisfaction with the care
3.2.4 Satisfaction with service aspects
3.2.5 Use of formal child-minding provision in the future
3.2.6 Recent trends in the quality of formal child-minding provision
3.3 Care provided by domestic staff, personnel from the PWA, au pairs, etc.
4. Conclusion
151
152
152
152
153
154
154
155
156
157
157
158
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
165
166
Chapter 6 / Child-minding in specific circumstances
169
_______________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
2. Child-minding for pre-school children in specific cirumstances
2.1 Child-minding in the event of short-term illness of the child
2.2 Use of child-minding at difficult times
3. Child-minding for schoolchildren in specific circumstances
3.1 Child-minding in the event of short-term illness of the child
3.2 Use of child-minding on days off school and during the school holidays
3.3 Use of child-minding at difficult times
4. More than one child in child-minding
169
169
169
170
172
172
173
174
176
x
4.1 Combination of child-minding types
4.2 Problems experienced by parents who use child-minding for more than one
child
4.3 Total cost of child-minding
4.4 Time spent taking children to and collecting them from their child-minding
facilities
5. Conclusion
Content
176
177
178
179
179
Conclusions and policy recommendations (standard group)
181
_______________________________________________________________________
Part 2 / Child-minding for specific groups
185
Conclusions and policy recommendations (specific target groups)
189
______________________________________________________________________
1. Gearing child-minding provision to the needs of the target groups
1.1 Sufficient child-minding options in the neighbourhood
1.2 Dealing with children (and parents) from certain target groups demands
experience, understanding and a certain empathy
2. Broadening the scope and objectives of child-minding
2.1 Child-minding is not only needed by working parents
2.2 Child-minding used to give the parent soms breathing space
2.3 Child-minding as a means of emancipating and (re)integrating the parents
2.4 Child-minding in the interests of the child
3. Child-minding as a reflection of the diversity in society
4. Integration or specialisation?
5. The importance of clear information about existing types of child-minding
6. Ubcreased opportunities to combine work with a caring role
190
190
190
191
191
192
192
192
193
193
194
194
1
INTRODUCTION
Kind en Gezin has been following developments in the use of child-minding in Flanders for
many years. The trend is clear: over the past few decades the number of young families
using some form of child-minding has continued to increase but the intensity of the childminding has decreased. There are obvious explanations for this. Demand is driven by the
increase in the number of working mothers (further reinforced last year by the
improvement in the general economic situation) and changes in public attitudes to the use
of child-minding. On the supply side, child-minding facilities have become more accessible
and attractive to increasing numbers of parents due to the provision of subsidised care
and the fact that the cost of child-minding has been made tax-deductible.
For Kind en Gezin, which is responsible for organising and monitoring formal pre-school
and out-of-school care on behalf of the Flemish authorities, it was important to obtain
more detailed, in-depth information on the use of child-minding to supplement its own
biennial surveys. How many parents use child-minding facilities? When and under what
circumstances? What type of child-minding do they use?
Secondly, the organisation wanted to gain greater insight into the process of parental
choice. Do parents have particular preferences and why? How do they go about finding a
child-minding place and what criteria do they use? Does everyone find something that
suits them?
Thirdly, it wanted to learn more about how parents evaluate different aspects of childminding. A number of reorganisations have been announced for the near future, which are
already casting their shadow over the world of child-minding and their impact needs to be
assessed. They include the implementation of the decree on quality, the introduction of
block-grant funding,…
A fourth question for the research concerned the day-to-day problems experienced by
families at difficult times, in specific circumstances and in specific care situations.
The research report is divided into two parts which have the same structure based on the
four research questions: (1) use of child-minding and types of child-minding used, (2)
choice of child-minding, (3) evaluation and (4) child-minding in specific situations. The first
2
Introduction
part contains the analysis of a representative group of about 2000 ‘standard’ Flemish
families. It deals with both pre-school and schoolchildren.
The second part uses the same structure to describe child-minding for a number of
specific groups: families with a disabled child, ethnic minority families, disadvantaged
families, one-parent families and families where the mother is unemployed. The analysis
in this part was confined to pre-school child-minding.
The first introductory chapter examines in more depth the formulation of the problem
and the method used.
3
CHAPTER 1
FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM AND METHOD
1. Formulation of the problem
1.1 Child-minding in Flanders
For parents who cannot be with their children full-time, a wide range of child-minding
options are currently available, both formal provision (e.g. day nurseries, out-of-school
care initiatives, child-minding families) and informal provision (e.g. grandparents or other
family members, friends, neighbours). There is child-minding for both pre-school and
school-age children.
Responsibility for monitoring care for children aged between 0 and 3 was entrusted to
Kind en Gezin by decree after the state reform in 1983, which abolished the 'National
Work for Child Welfare' (NWK). Kind en Gezin is a Flemish public organisation whose task
is to ‘promote the care and welfare of young children in Flanders’. Supervision of out-ofschool care was added to its portfolio in 1997.
Care provided by grandparents and other relatives including those in the fourth remove
need not be reported to Kind en Gezin. Apart from this, Kind en Gezin distinguishes three
categories of child-minding: (1) child-minding facilities accredited by Kind en Gezin; (2)
child-minding facilities registered with and supervised by Kind en Gezin but not accredited
and not subsidised; and (3) child-minding facilities that have only complied with their duty
to register, but which are not accredited and not subsidised by Kind en Gezin. The table
below gives an overview of the most important types of child-minding.
4
Chapter 1
Table 1.1 General child-minding facilities
Subsidised1
Non-subsidised2
Child-minding in a
nursery
Day nurseries
- crèche (0 months to
36 months, min. 23 children)
- kindergarten (18 months to
36 months, min. 20 children)
Out-of-school care initiatives
(IBOs)3
Private child-minding centres
- with certificate of supervision
from K&G (at least 6 children
under 6; possibility of shortterm or occasional care,
weekend or night-time care)
- without certificate of
supervision (registered with
K&G)
Care in a family
Child-minding families affiliated
to a service
- child minder (0 to 3 and 3 to
12 outside school hours and
in the holidays)
Private child-minding families
- with certificate of supervision
from K&G (max. 5 children
under 6 at the same time;
possibility of short-term or
occasional care, weekend or
night-time care)
- without certificate of
supervision (registered with
K&G)
1
Subsidised: fee depends on taxable income; parents can claim cost of child-minding
against tax.
2
Non-subsidised: parents agree charge with child-minding family or child-minding
centre; parents can claim cost against tax provided the child-minding facility has a
certificate of supervision.
3
Out-of-school care initiatives (IBOs) are not subsidised by Kind en Gezin. IBOs
receive subsidies from the Fund for Collective Equipment and Services (FCUD) and
the Flemish government's 'back-to-work' job creation scheme. Parents can claim the
cost against tax for children up to the age of 3.
1.1.1 Child-minding facilities accredited and subsidised by Kind en Gezin
This first category of child-minding provision covers day nurseries (crèches and
kindergartens) and child-minding families affiliated to a service.

Crèches and kindergartens offer an equivalent service. Crèches are for children aged
0 to 3 years and have a minimum capacity of 23 places, while kindergartens cater for
young children aged between 18 months and 3 years and have a minimum capacity of
Formulation of the problem and method
5
20 places. The children are divided up into age groups and the structure of the day,
accommodation, furniture and toys are geared to the age and needs of the children.
Care is provided by care workers who are qualified as nursery nurses, nursery
teachers or educators. Some day nurseries also offer out-of-school care for children
up to the age of 12 in separate suitably adapted rooms.

A child-minding family affiliated to a service provides day care for at least 10 hours
and can take up to a maximum of 4 children full-time, but never more than 8 children
at any one time. The service may operate independently or it may be organised by a
day nursery. The service selects the child-minding families and introduces them to
parents. They also provide out-of-school care for primary schoolchildren. Night-time
and weekend care is available in specific circumstances or emergencies.
These day nurseries and child-minding services are accredited and subsidised. For day
nurseries, this means that they receive subsidies for staff and running costs. Childminding services receive subsidies for running costs and additional subsidies to pay the
child- minding families. The quality of care is assessed by Kind en Gezin on the basis of
quality scales. The parental contribution depends on the family income and how many
hours per day their child is cared for.

Out-of-school care initiatives (IBOs) are subsidised by the Fund for Collective
Equipment and Services (FCUD) and the 'back-to-work' job creation scheme. IBOs
are geared exclusively to primary schoolchildren. They can offer care before and after
school hours, on Wednesday afternoons, on inset days and during the holidays. An
IBO may be organised by a local authority, the Public Centre for Social Welfare
(OCMW) or a non-profit-making organisation. Provided they meet certain quality
standards IBOs can be accredited by Kind en Gezin. These standards relate to the
educational work, supervision, parental involvement, infrastructure and specific health
and safety guarantees. The organising committee determines the parental
contribution, though this must fall within limits set by law.
1.1.2 Child-minding facilities registered with and supervised by Kind en Gezin, but not
accredited and not subsidised by Kind en Gezin
The second category of child-minding facilities covers private child-minding families and
child-minding centres with a certificate of supervision. Both types of facility can offer care
to pre-school and schoolchildren. They differ from the first category in that they are
organised on a ‘private’ or independent basis. Private child-minding families and private
child-minding centres have to meet a number of basic conditions, so that the minimum
quality of care is guaranteed. That is why it is compulsory for them to notify Kind en Gezin
of their child-minding activities. In addition to this duty to register, they can also obtain a
certificate of supervision, which guarantees that the family or nursery meets certain
6
Chapter 1
minimum conditions. Safety, sufficient living space and play space, standards of care,
hygiene and an appropriate educational approach are very important factors here. Staff of
Kind en Gezin inspect and monitor these basic conditions. Private child-minding families
and private child-minding centres may offer care at night and at the weekend as well as
day care, and they may also provide care out of school hours and during the holidays.
Opening times and prices are fixed by the child-minding family or child-minding centre.
The major difference between private child-minding families and private child-minding
centres is the number of children they are allowed to care for: private child-minding
families may take a maximum of 7 children under 12, of whom only 5 may be under 6,
whereas private child-minding centres may take more than 5 children under the age of 6.
1.1.3 Child-minding facilities that have only complied with their duty to register, but which
are not accredited and not subsidised by Kind en Gezin
The third category of child-minding covers private child-minding families and child-minding
centres registered with Kind en Gezin. These child-minding families and centres have only
registered with Kind en Gezin but have not asked for supervision. However, for the
children's safety Kind en Gezin does have access to inspect these facilities.
1.2 Choosing to use child-minding
Slowly but surely the use of child-minding has taken root in our society. Only a few
decades ago, people were convinced that the full-time presence of the mother was
essential to the young child's development. Today that negative and ‘defensive’ attitude is
increasingly being replaced by a more positive and ‘offensive’ attitude, which has its
foundations in what is known as the ‘broadening thesis’ (Maes & Van Meensel, 1994).
Child-minding, or ‘external upbringing’, is then considered to be a necessary, positively
educational source of development for the young child (Van Dongen & Pauwels, 1996).
Evidence of the fact that the use of child-minding (and the concomitant participation of
mothers in the labour market) is increasingly accepted can also be found in a European
study of values, in which 81% of Flemings aged between 20 and 29 said that a working
woman can have just as warm and close a relationship with her children as a mother who
does not work outside the home.
Research by Maes & Van Meensel et al. (1994) (and also Fox Folk & Beller, 1993;
Wilbrink-Griffioen et al., 1987; Humblet, 1993; Breda & Deleeck, 1996) showed that the
participation of women in the labour market is the most important determinant in the
demand for child-minding. In addition, demographic trends such as declining birth rates,
family size, the number of unmarried women giving birth, increasing numbers of oneparent families, and growth in the number of couples where both partners are earning, all
influence the demand for child-minding, as do changes in the roles and divisions of tasks
Formulation of the problem and method
7
between fathers and mothers and the current institutional framework (maternity leave,
parental leave, career breaks, tax-deductible child-minding costs, etc.).
However, it also seems plausible to argue that non-working parents (usually mothers)
may need child-minding, to take up training, for instance, or to have some free time
because the daily care of a disabled child is too onerous, etc. This study investigates the
factors that determine why parents - both in the standard group and in the specific target
groups - use child-minding and the extent to which the supply of child-minding facilities
meets or fails to meet the needs of the different target groups.
1.3 Choosing the type of child-minding and place
A variety of factors may underlie the choice of a particular type of child-minding and the
place where the child-minding is provided from amongst the formal or informal provision.
A study conducted by Ruelens and Hedebouw (1999) concluded that a mixture of reasons
to do with content and practical reasons is involved in parents' deliberations. Some
parents opt for informal care (mainly the grandparents), because they feel that the mutual
trust and familiarity between the child and grandparent is so important. Other parents,
however, see this as a threat to their autonomy. Some value the educational quality of the
care and translate this into the security of the family environment. Others feel that
grandparents would spoil their grandchildren and that extended family and other people
known to the children would then exercise too great an influence over them and apply
different principles to their upbringing from the parents themselves. The more practical
arguments include flexibility (which formal child-minding cannot always offer to the same
extent as informal care) and cost. This study investigates the process of choosing in more
depth, examining the factors that underlie the final decision to choose a particular type of
child-minding.
2. Method
2.1 Definition of the research
The study concentrated on a standard group of families with pre-school children and
schoolchildren, and a number of specific target groups, namely families with a disabled
child, ethnic minority families, disadvantaged families, one-parent families and families in
which the mother is unemployed. In terms of methodology, the research can be divided
into four parts. A written questionnaire was addressed to a standard group of parents with
children in three age groups: under 2½, between 2½ and 6 (nursery school age) and
between 6 and 12 (primary school age). Finally, the specific target groups were surveyed
using either a written or oral questionnaire.
8
Chapter 1
The main research questions addressed in the study were:

How is child-minding used? This includes frequency, intensity, time of use, reasons
for the use and the factors that determine the use.

What types of child-minding do people use and what are its characteristics in terms of
time, place, cost?

How do parents make choices about child-minding?

How do parents evaluate the forms of child-minding they have chosen? Under this
question we investigated a number of practical aspects, educational aspects, the care
and service provision.

How is child-minding arranged in a number of specific situations such as difficult times
(e.g. at the weekend, early in the morning), when the child is ill, when care has to be
found for more than one child?
2.2 Questionnaire
2.2.1 The standard group
The design of the questionnaire on the use of child-minding by the standard group of
parents was based on existing Kind en Gezin surveys. The questionnaire on the process
of choosing was developed using the HIVA study ‘De rol van de grootouders in de
kinderopvang’ [The role of grandparents in child-minding] (Ruelens & Hedebouw, 1999)
and also the study by Mens en Ruimte [People and Space] ‘Uitbouw van de kinderopvang
in Vlaanderen’ [Expansion of child-minding in Flanders] (Mens en Ruimte, 1984). The
model used in the HIVA study ‘Evaluatie van de vernieuwingen in de preventieve
kinderzorg’ [Evaluation of reforms in preventive child-minding] (Van De Putte, 1997)
served as a source of inspiration for the questions on parents' evaluation of their chosen
form of child-minding, as did Kind en Gezin's ‘De beoordelingsschaal voor het
pedagogisch functioneren in kinderdagverblijven’ [Scale for evaluating educational
functioning in day nurseries] (Verhegge, 1994) and the research study of Van Dijke,
Terpstra and Hermans (1994) ‘Ouders over kinderopvang: een onderzoek naar meningen,
ervaringen, wensen en keuzes van mannen en vrouwen’ [Parents on child-minding: an
investigation into the views, experiences, wishes and choices of men and women].
To obtain answers to our four research questions, the questionnaire was divided into three
main sections (the questionnaire is reproduced in the annex).
Formulation of the problem and method
9
2.2.1.1 Questions about the child concerned
The first section was the longest, given that it covers all four research questions.
Questions were asked about the following aspects:

Use of child-minding: whether or not child-minding is used and the reasons for this,
the intensity of the child-minding (number of hours per day that child-minding is used)
and the types of child-minding used.

The process of choosing: the parents' opinions of the various child-minding options
available, the information that parents use to make a choice, the reasons why the
parents eventually choose a particular type of child-minding and the problems they
experience while looking for suitable child-minding.

Evaluation of types of child-minding used: parental satisfaction with types of childminding used (with respect to practical, educational, caring and service aspects), the
place of informal care, cost and distance between child-minding facility and home or
school, plans for future use and the extent to which parents feel there has been an
improvement or deterioration in the quality of the types of child-minding over the last
three years.

The need for child-minding in specific situations and the types of child-minding used at
these difficult times.
2.2.1.2 Questions about other children in the family and their child-minding
Aspects dealt with here are the number of children in the family, the use of child-minding
for these other children in the family, the difficulties that parents experience when they use
child-minding facilities for more than one child and the total average cost of child-minding
per family.
2.2.1.3 Questions about the parents and the family
The last section contains questions about socio-economic characteristics of the family.
Both the father and mother were asked about their working hours, work regime,
occupation, educational qualifications and income from work. More general questions
about the family included where they live, the number of people in the family and the
family situation (whether or not the parents are divorced).
2.2.2 The specific target groups
The questions for the specific target groups were taken from the questionnaire for the
standard group of parents. In consultation with the steering group it was decided to limit
the questioning to the youngest age group (children aged between 0 and 2½ years).
Given that we suspect that these target groups usually make less use of child-minding
10
Chapter 1
than other families, additional questions were included examining why they make less use
of child-minding and what the most important obstacles are. We also added a number of
questions relating to the specific groups and problems they can experience in finding
suitable child-minding for their disadvantaged, ethnic minority or disabled child.
2.3 Sample
2.3.1 The standard group
For our inquiries into the standard group of parents we opted for a random sample of
2000 families with children aged between 3 months and 12 years: 1000 from 3 months to
2½ years, 750 from 2½ to 6 and 250 from 6 to 12. This group included families who use
child-minding and families who do not. A total of 3057 families were invited to take part.
The researchers did not specify beforehand which parent had to fill in the questionnaire
but they were asked afterwards who had completed it. A response of about 65.1% (1989
completed questionnaires) was achieved.
Geographical distribution was taken into account in selecting these standard families. We
used the distribution of the number of births by province in 1995 as an indicator for this.
This meant that we had to achieve the following distribution of responses by province:

Antwerp
28.0%

West Flanders
19.0%

East Flanders
23.0%

Limburg
13.0%

Flemish Brabant
17.0%
Given our assumption that use of child-minding depends on the age of the child, we split
the standard research population into three groups:
a) families with children aged between 3 months and 2½ years (pre-school): children
born between 1 May 1997 and 31 July 1999;
b) families with children aged between 2½ and 6 (nursery school): children born between
1 January 1994 and 30 April 1997;
c) families with children aged between 6 and 12 (primary school): children born between
1 January 1987 and 31 December 1993.
a) Families with children under the age of 2½
The sample of families with children aged between 3 months and 2½ years was obtained
using Kind en Gezin’s IKAROS computer database (Geïntegreerd Kind Activiteiten en
Regio Ondersteuningssysteem [Integrated Children's Activities and Regional Support
System]). This database is based on district nurses' notebooks and is compiled by
Formulation of the problem and method
11
province. The following details about the children were obtained from the IKAROS
database:

date of birth;

date of death (if applicable);

nationality;

second nationality;

nationality of mother;

origins of mother;

index of disadvantage (employment situation, health, housing, monthly income,
development and education);

abnormalities (yes/no);

disability (yes/no);

child's position in family;

place of residence (NIS code).
First of all local authorities and towns were selected in each province, taking into account
whether they are urban or rural (L’Hermitte, 1993). The deceased children, children of
other nationalities (taking account of the nationality of the child, the nationality of the
mother and the origins of the mother) and disadvantaged children (see below) were
removed from the database. The children from ethnic minorities and disadvantaged
children would be put into the specific target groups and questioned orally. The NIS data
on the population by gender, age group, and age group by place of residence was used to
determine how many families must be selected from each local authority or town.
b) Families with children aged between 2½ and 12 years
Except for the province of Limburg, the selection of families with children aged between
2½ and 12 was based on Kind en Gezin’s provincial registers of births, since this data is
not yet available in IKAROS for the other provinces.
2.3.2 Questioning of the specific target groups
The specific target groups will now be described, followed by an account of how the
respondents were selected and surveyed.
2.3.2.1 Description of the specific target groups
a) Disadvantaged families
The literature defines disadvantage and poverty in various ways (see for instance
Vranken, Geldof & Van Menxel, 1997). While poverty is concerned first and foremost with
the financial situation, disadvantage involves multiple aspects associated with poverty.
12
Chapter 1
Our definition of the concept of disadvantage is based on that used by Kind en Gezin.
Disadvantage is therefore defined here as:
“A situation in which people's opportunities to have a sufficient share of things that
are valued highly in society, such as education, work, housing, are curtailed. This
does not mean a single event, but a long-term situation that arises in a number of
different areas, both material and intangible.” (De Cock & Buysse, 1997)
To decide whether a family is disadvantaged or not, the district nurses from Kind en Gezin
test the families against six criteria when a child is born: monthly family income, parental
employment situation, parental education level, housing, children's development and the
family's health. If a family has problems in three or more of these areas, the family will be
considered disadvantaged. Based on this definition, 4.3% of the babies born in The
Flemish Region in 1998 were born to disadvantaged families. This number has risen
slightly each year for the past few years ('Het kind in Vlaanderen' [The Child in Flanders],
1998).
b) Ethnic minority families
Kind en Gezin defines children whose mother does not have Belgian nationality at the
time of the birth as ethnic minority children. Additional criteria were used in selecting
respondents for this study, namely the nationality of mother and child at the time of
registration by Kind en Gezin. The selection was again made using IKAROS, since they
are the largest group of non-European people in Flanders (Monograph 5B, CBGS, 2000).
We confined ourselves to surveying Turkish and Moroccan families.
c) Families with a disabled child
In 1998, 4.4% of children under 1 year old suffered from one or more long-term illnesses,
disorders or disabilities. Among children aged 1 to 3, the figure was 7.3% ('Het kind in
Vlaanderen', 1998). There are no figures available specific to children with a disability or
according to the type of disability.
Various types of disability can be distinguished: hearing impairments, visual
impairments, motor or physical disabilities, mental disabilities and multiple disabilities. The
IKAROS database did not allow the researchers to detect what type of disability was
involved and so the parents were asked to state what form of disability their child suffered
from where applicable. To assess the severity of the disability, the parents were asked
whether or not they were entitled to child benefit at a higher rate1 for the child in question.
1
Children (up to the age of 21) who are at least 66% physically or mentally disabled are entitled
to child benefit at a higher rate. Their child benefit is increased by a certain amount depending
on their ability to do things for themselves ('Gids in de thuiszorg 1999' [Home Care Guide 1999]).
Formulation of the problem and method
13
2.3.2.2 Selection and questionnaire
a) Disadvantaged families
Owing to the low response anticipated from a postal survey, disadvantaged families were
not included when the questionnaires were sent to the standard group. The researchers
went through the questionnaires with the families at home, both to increase response
levels and - if necessary - to help them by explaining and translating the questions. This
also gave them the opportunity to add some extra questions, specifically geared to the
child-minding problems facing disadvantaged families. The disadvantaged families were
selected using the same criteria as Kind en Gezin.
Previous research has shown that of the total number of children born to disadvantaged
families in 1997, 31.7% are from ethnic minorities (De Cock & Buysse, 1998). We used
the same ratio in our selection of disadvantaged families. Our selection of ethnic minority
families was confined to Turkish and Moroccan families.
The study endeavoured to include disadvantaged families living in both large cities and
rural areas. In the end the cities of Antwerp, Ghent, Genk and a number of rural
municipalities around Tienen and on the coast were selected. The selection of the rural
municipalities was based on a study conducted by the farmers’ union (L’Hermitte, 1993/3
in: Van De Putte, 1997). The municipalities around Tienen and on the coast classified as
‘very rural’ or ‘rural’ were selected.
The addresses were selected at random. For each address selected, the interviewers
were given 2 reserve addresses. In total, 50 disadvantaged families were surveyed, 35 of
whom were native Belgian families and 15 of whom were ethnic minority families. The
native Belgian families were questioned by interviewers from a fixed bank of interviewers
from HIVA who are experienced in interviewing disadvantaged families. Intercultural
mediators or people who speak the respondents' language were called in to conduct the
interviews with the ethnic minority families. The table below summarises the sample of
disadvantaged families by nationality and place of residence.
Table 1.2 Number of disadvantaged families in the sample by nationality and place of
residence
Place of
residence
Antwerp
Ghent
Genk
Tienen
Coast
Turkish
n=8
Moroccan
n=7
Belgian
n=35
6
2
-
7
-
13
9
3
5
5
14
Chapter 1
The overrepresentation of Antwerp and Ghent is linked to the fact that 23% of children
born to disadvantaged families in the Flemish Region live in the city of Antwerp and 11%
live in the city of Ghent (De Cock & Buysse, 1998).
b) Ethnic minority families
The cities selected for interviewing the ethnic minority families were Antwerp, Ghent,
Genk and Mechelen. Once again 50 families were interviewed at home, also by
intercultural mediators or people who speak the respondents' language. The addresses
were again selected using the IKAROS database. The interviews paralleled the interviews
with the disadvantaged families. The table below summarises the sample of ethnic
minority families by nationality and place of residence. Half of the respondents were
Turkish and half were Moroccan.
Table 1.3 Number of non-disadvantaged ethnic minority families in the sample by
nationality and place of residence
Place of residence
Antwerp
Ghent
Genk
Mechelen
Turkish
n=25
Moroccan
n=25
20
5
-
20
5
The interviewing of the ethnic minority families was not entirely straightforward. The
intercultural mediators in Antwerp let it be known that some Moroccan families feel they
have been questioned too much and are very mistrustful of researchers. Moreover, it is
still customary in this culture for the man to do the talking or at least to be at home before
his wife can let a 'stranger' into the house, even someone of the same nationality. The
language problem was also still an issue, since not all intercultural mediators speak both
Berber and Arabic. It was also reported that the disadvantaged native Flemish parents
were suspicious that the interviewers were coming to investigate whether they were
looking after their children properly.
c) Families with a disabled child
The original intention was to select the families with a disabled child from among the
survey of ‘standard parents’ and to conduct partial analyses on these families. However,
as this produced too few addresses, it was decided to send extra surveys geared
exclusively to the parents of disabled children. As stated earlier, this gave us the
Formulation of the problem and method
15
opportunity to include additional questions, specifically geared to the problems associated
with child-minding for disabled children. With an expected response rate of 65% (based
on earlier studies and the postal survey of the standard group), 77 surveys needed to be
sent to receive 50 completed forms back. A total of 80 extra questionnaires were sent out.
The families were selected on the basis of the code ‘disability’ in the IKAROS database.
Regional distribution was taken into account, based on the provincial distribution of births
in 1995, as used for the questionnaires sent to the standard parents. This produced the
following distribution:
Table 1.4 Number of families with a disabled child in the sample by province
Province
Antwerp
Flemish Brabant
West Flanders
East Flanders
Limburg
Percentage
28
17
19
23
13
Number of surveys
dispatched
n=80
22
14
15
19
10
To prevent the various child-minding problems from becoming too confused, ethnic
minority families and disadvantaged families who also have a disabled child were not
included in the selection. We therefore confined ourselves to standard Flemish families
with a disabled child aged between 3 months and 2½ years at the time of the survey.
It is important to mention that questioning the parents of disabled children was also
sometimes a rather delicate matter.
d) Other specific target groups
Child-minding problems experienced by other specific groups, namely one-parent families
and families where the mother is unemployed, were analysed by carrying out partial
analyses of the data from the standard group. The analyses of families where the mother
was taking a temporary break from work and the families where the mothers work
irregular hours were included in the description of the standard group.
2.4 Response and representativeness
The discussion in the following sections is confined to the response and
representativeness of the standard group. For the specific groups, please see the relevant
chapters in Part 2.
16
Chapter 1
2.4.1 Overall response
Questionnaires were sent to 3100 families with children aged between 3 months and
12 years. The breakdown into subsamples was: 1550 questionnaires sent to families with
children under 2½, 1155 to families with children aged between 2½ and 6, and 395 to
families with children aged between 6 and 12. Of the 3057 families who were contacted,
we received back a total of 1989 useable questionnaires.
239 questionnaires were returned marked address unknown: 46 from the first
subsample, 150 from the second subsample and 43 from the third subsample. The
incorrect addresses came from Antwerp (35.6%), Flemish Brabant (20.1%), West
Flanders (18.4%), East Flanders (16.3%) and Limburg (9.6%). A new family was selected
to replace each of these 239 families. In the end another 37 completed questionnaires
were received from these families.
The overall response, therefore, was 64.2% when the unknown addresses are not
included and 65.1% when they are included.
The following sections will examine the representativeness of the samples.
2.4.2 Representativeness of the questionnaires for pre-school children
Although the overall response was good, bias could have crept into some of the
subsamples which could have an impact on the research findings, more specifically on the
percentages of people using child-minding. Two factors are probably relevant here: the
educational level of the parents and the use of child-minding. It is reasonable to assume
that more of the better educated parents will respond to the questionnaire. Given that on
average they also make more use of child-minding, this would produce an overestimate of
use percentages. The same can be said of use or non-use of child-minding, as users may
show higher response levels than non-users.
2.4.2.1 Response and educational level of the mother
We compared the composition of our sample with some data on the general population.
We estimated the numbers to be expected in the event of a full response based on NIS
figures on the educational level of women aged between 25 and 39 (not only mothers).
This group more or less matches our group.
Formulation of the problem and method
17
Table 1.5 Estimate of the response based on the educational level of the mother
Educational level
higher
secondary
non-univ.
higher
education
university
Total
Sample
%
n
11.6
119
33.7
347
40.1
413
14.6
150
100
102
9
Population*
%
24.4
39.9
26.7
8.5
100
n
380
621
415
132
31.4
55.9
99.3
(100)
Estimated
response
*
primary,
lower
secondary
154
8
Estimates based on NIS data (NIS, 1998)
The table shows that for the highest educational levels (non-university higher education
and university education), the estimated response levels are 99 to 100%. The percentage
for mothers with a university education is in fact more than 100%, but that is because the
NIS population is not a perfect match for our group. The response for mothers with higher
secondary education was 55.9% and for those with primary or lower secondary education
31.4%.
2.4.2.2 Response and use of child-minding
It is reasonable to assume that response is also connected with use or non-use of childminding. However, it is difficult to estimate the effect of this in advance. On the one hand,
one might expect that users would be more inclined to answer a questionnaire on the use
of child-minding. On the other hand, users are usually parents who go out to work and are
therefore busier and for that reason may be less likely to respond. On top of that, there
may be an interaction between the two variables ‘educational level’ and ‘use/non-use’:
users with a lower level of education may be less likely to respond than users with a
higher level of education.
We do not have figures on the use of child-minding in the general population. An
additional small-scale telephone survey of the group which did not respond to the
questionnaire was conducted in an attempt to estimate this. The figures from the
telephone survey for the group with only primary or lower secondary education were
pooled with the figures from the interviews conducted with the disadvantaged families.
18
Chapter 1
This corrected for another possible source of bias, caused by the ownership/nonownership of a telephone. We only made the correction for the three educational levels for
which there were non-responders. The findings are summarised in the table below.
Table 1.6 Estimate of the use of child-minding taking non-response into account (in %)
Use of child-minding
primary
school, lower
secondary
school
N
Regular
Very occasional or never
114
58.1
41.9
higher
secondary
school
Sample
330
72.9
27.7
higher
education
393
87.2
12.6
Regular
Very occasional or never
Telephone survey of non-responders1
37
19
20
47.3
53.3
95.0
52.7
46.7
5.0
Regular
Very occasional or never
Estimated figures for general population2
50.6
63.8
87.7
49.4
36.5
12.2
N
1
Data from telephone survey of people who did not respond to questionnaire. The
figures from the telephone survey for the group with only primary or lower secondary
education were pooled with the figures from the interviews conducted with the
disadvantaged families.
2
Calculated on the basis of the sample and the telephone surveys.
The table shows that regular use of child-minding among the lower educated in the nonresponse group really is much lower than among the lower educated in the response
group (47.3% versus 58.1%). In contrast, the figure for those who ‘very occasionally or
never’ use child-minding is much higher (52.7% versus 41.9%). This more or less
confirms our assumption about the effect of use on response levels and the interaction
with level of education.
2.4.3 Weighting to correct for non-response for the pre-school children
A weighting was used to correct for the bias associated with educational level and
use/non-use. In addition, a second weighting was used to restore the proportion of ethnic
Formulation of the problem and method
19
minority families - who were interviewed orally and were not included in the standard
group - in the sample. The effect of the consecutive weightings (for educational level and
use/non-use of child-minding, and after the addition of the ethnic minority group) on the
use percentages is illustrated in the next table.
Table 1.7 Effect of consecutive weightings for educational level and use of child-minding
and after the addition of the ethnic minority group (in %)
Use of child-minding
Regular
Very occasional or
never
Unweighted
(standard group)
After weighting to
correct for
educational level
and use/non-use
After previous
weighting and
addition of ethnic
minority group
75.6
24.4
63.8
36.2
61.6
38.4
2.4.4 Representativeness of the questionnaires for schoolchildren
Just as we did for the youngest children, we also compared the composition of the sample
for the schoolchildren with some data on the general population. Again we estimated the
numbers to be expected in the event of a full response based on NIS figures on the
educational level of women aged between 25 and 44 (not only mothers). This group
approximately matches our group.
20
Chapter 1
Table 1.8 Estimate of response based on educational level of the mother (in %)
Educational level
primary,
lower
higher
secondar
non-univ.
higher
secondary
y
education
university
Total
Mothers with children aged from 2½ to 6
Sample
%
n
Population*
%
n
14.1
104
25.7
291
35.8
Estimated response
33.0
244
40.1
454
35.7
263
25.9
293
53.7
89.9
17.2
127
8.3
94
100
738
100
1132
(100)
Mothers with children aged from 6 to 12
Sample
%
n
17.9
40
27.5
61
40.3
89
14.3
32
100
222
Population*
%
35.5
36.6
22.2
5.7
100
n
134
Estimated response
*
29.7
138
44.2
84
21
(100)
(100)
377
Estimates based on NIS data (NIS, 1998)
The table shows that for both age groups, the estimated response was universal (over
100%) for the highest educational levels (non-university higher education and university
education). For higher secondary education the response rates were 53.7 and 44.2%
respectively, and for lower (secondary) education, 35.8% and 29.7% respectively. This
means that the response from mothers with a higher secondary diploma and a child aged
between 6 and 12 is significantly lower than from mothers with the same standard of
educational qualification and a child aged between 2½ and 6. This is probably associated
with the lower rates of use of child-minding for older children.
2.4.5 Weighting to correct for non-response for schoolchildren
The only weighting applied to the group of mothers with school-age children was to
correct for educational level. Weightings for use/non-use of child-minding and for the
ethnic minority group (which would have required an additional set of interviews) were not
used. The next table shows the effect of this weighting.
Formulation of the problem and method
21
Table 1.9 Effect of the successive weightings for educational level of the mother (in %)
Use of child-minding
Unweighted
(standard group)
After weighting to correct
for educational level
Mothers with children aged from 2½ to 6 years
Regular
53.7
Very occasional or never
46.3
48.6
51.4
Mothers with children aged from 2½ to 6 years
Regular
32.0
Very occasional or never
68.0
28.6
71.4
3. Conclusion
Child-minding in Flanders can be divided up in two ways: (1) by age group into childminding for pre-school children (0- to 2½- or 3-year-olds) and out-of-school child-minding
(2½- or 3- to 12-year-olds); and (2) by whether the child-minding provision is formal or
informal. The intention of this study was to investigate the current picture with regard to
use of child-minding, what types of child-minding parents use, how they choose childminding, how parents evaluate the type of child-minding that they have chosen and,
finally, how child-minding is arranged in a number of specific circumstances (when the
child is ill, at difficult times, etc.).
As far as methodology is concerned, it was decided to send a written questionnaire to a
‘standard’ group of parents with children under the age of 2½ years, between 2½ and
6 years (nursery school age) and between 6 and 12 (primary school age). The term
‘standard’ here is used for a representative group of Flemish-speaking parents from all
regions, representing the complete range of educational levels, and including both parents
who use child-minding and those who do not. In addition to this group, the study also
looked at a number of specific target groups: parents with a disabled child, ethnic minority
parents, disadvantaged parents, one-parent families and families where the mother is
unemployed. Some of these specific target groups had questionnaires sent to them and
some of them were interviewed in person.
22
Chapter 1
23
PART 1
CHILD-MINDING USED BY ‘STANDARD’
PARENTS
25
CHAPTER 2
USE OF CHILD-MINDING
1. Introduction
This chapter examines the use of child-minding for pre-school children (younger than 2½
years) and schoolchildren. Not all parents use child-minding in the same way and the
differences in use are associated with a number of different factors. Some parents only
need child-minding very occasionally, others use it regularly; some parents use childminding full time, others only part time, etc. In this chapter we attempt to map out the
different patterns of use. First, we examine how many people use child-minding.
Secondly, the intensity of child-minding is analysed, including people whose child-minding
arrangements vary from week to week. The third section looks at the times of day that
parents make more or less use of child-minding. The fourth section looks at the reasons
why parents do or do not use child-minding. The fifth and final section focuses on the
factors that determine the use of child-minding.
2. Use of child-minding for pre-school children
2.1 The number of users
In consultation with Kind en Gezin, parents who either use child-minding every week for
one period of at least 5 hours, or parents who use child-minding more than one day a
week regardless of the number of hours, were defined as 'regular users'. Parents who use
child-minding for less than one 5-hour session a week were put into the category of
'occasional users'. The table below summarises the trend in the use of child-minding in
the past few years.
26
Part I/Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Use of child-minding for the standard group of children, including ethnic
minority children, aged 3 months to 2½ years in the Flemish Region (in %),
calculated on the basis of the distribution of the responses by province
Use of child-minding
Regular
Very occasional or
never
Kind en Gezin
1993
Kind en Gezin
1995
Kind en Gezin
1997
n=5060
HIVA survey
1999
n=1091
53.3
46.7
53.7
46.3
57.2
42.8
61.6
38.4
We found that the use of child-minding in Flanders for children aged between 3 months
and 2½ years stabilised between 1993 and 1995. However, since then use has increased.
Between 1993 and 1999 the proportion of regular users of child-minding rose by over 8%.
In (the autumn of) 1999, six out of ten children were being cared for outside the home on
a regular basis.
2.2 The intensity of child-minding
2.2.1 Patterns of use
The intensity of child-minding can be expressed in terms of the pattern of use. Some
parents use child-minding for full days, some for half days, and a whole range of possible
combinations. A full day is defined as 6 hours or more. A half day is defined as between
half an hour and 5½ hours. Based on these definitions, a large number of different childminding patterns can be distinguished. Parents who do not use child-minding at all are not
included in this analysis.
Use of child-minding
27
Table 2.2 Patterns of use among users of child-minding (standard group) (in %)
Patterns of use
N=656
5 full days (6 hours or more per day)
33.7
4 full days and 1 half day
4 full days
10.9
13.7
3 full days and 2 half days
3 full days and 1 half day
3 full days
2.2
4.4
6.9
2 full days
2 full days and 1 half day
2 full days and 3 half days
2 full days and 2 half days
4.0
3.2
2.6
2.4
1 full day and 4 half days
1 full day and 3 half days
1 full day and 2 half days
1 full day and 1 half day
1 full day
0.7
1.8
1.0
1.0
0.4
5 half days
4 half days
3 half days
2 half days
1 half day
4.7
2.1
1.1
1.8
1.4
The most common pattern of child-minding is the ‘5 full days' child-minding’. This means
that slightly more than three in ten children aged between 3 months and 2½ years are
being cared for outside the home 5 full days a week. The least frequent pattern of childminding is ‘1 full day per week’.
To compare the pattern of use with earlier years, our figures had to be recalculated to put
them into the same form as Kind en Gezin’s statistics. Kind en Gezin distinguishes
between full-time child-minding and various categories of part-time child-minding. Fulltime child-minding is defined as child-minding for 6 hours or more per day, 5 days a week.
Part-time child-minding is for less than 6 hours per day.
28
Part I/Chapter 2
Table 2.3 Intensity of child-minding (users only, in %)
Full time
Part time
- Only full days
- Part days for 5 days a week
- Part days for less than 5
days a week
- Partly full days / partly half
days
Day and night/night/weekend
Kind en
Gezin 1993
n=2662
Kind en
Gezin 1995
n=2490
Kind en
Gezin 1997
n=2752
HIVA
survey 1999
n=656
37.3
61.3
29.2
13.0
9.9
34.1
64.8
29.2
14.7
12.3
29.3
69.1
33.6
12.9
12.9
33.7
66.3
25.1
4.7
6.2
9.1
8.6
9.7
30.3
1.5
1.2
1.6
-
In the period 1993 to 1997, a decrease in full-time child-minding and increase in part-time
child-minding can be seen. In 1999, however, full-time child-minding rose slightly again
and part-time child-minding fell slightly. In particular, the percentage of children whose
parents use child-minding for full days for part of the week and half days for part of the
week has increased sharply in the last couple of years, indicating an increasingly flexible
pattern of child-minding.
2.2.2 Intensity measured in number of hours
Children who go to child-minding facilities on a regular basis are looked after for relatively
long periods of time. 64.5% of these children, or about 6 out of 10, are looked after for
30 hours a week or more, which averages out at more than 6 hours per working day.
About 4 in 10 children are looked after for 40 hours or more per week and about 1 in
10 children even for 50 hours or more.
Use of child-minding
29
Table 2.4 Summary of the number of hours per week that children are cared for (users
only, in %)
Number of hours' child-minding per week
N=656
5-20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-60
15.6
22.3
25.9
27.8
10.8
2.2.3 Intensity on different days of the week
The graphs which follow show the number of hours' child-minding per day, allowing us to
investigate on which days child-minding is used more or less.
35
29.3
30
25
20
16.5
15
15
12.6
10
6.5
5
0
0
0.3
0.3
0.5
0-1
1-2
2-3
2.2
3-4
4
4-5
5-6
4.6
6-7
4.4
7-8
2.3
8-9
9-10
10-11 11-12
1.5
12
Graph 2.1 Number of hours’ child-minding for children under the age of 2½ years on
Mondays
35
30
30
25
20
15.7
13.8
15
12.1
10
7.6
5
0
0
0.3
0.7
0.7
0-1
1-2
2-3
2
3-4
4
4-5
5.7
3.4
5-6
6-7
3
7-8
8-9
9-10
10-11 11-12
1
12
Graph 2.2 Number of hours’ child-minding for children under the age of 2½ years on
Tuesdays
30
Part I/Chapter 2
25
20.7
19.9
20
14.5
15
11.1
9.7
9.3
10
5
3.1
0.5
0.7
0.7
0-1
1-2
2-3
2.3
2.9
6-7
7-8
3.1
1.5
0
0
3-4
4-5
5-6
8-9
9-10
10-11 11-12
12
Graph 2.3 Number of hours’ child-minding for children under the age of 2½ years on
Wednesdays
29.3
15.4
14.3
11.7
4.6
0.7
0.7
1.1
6
5.9
3.7
3.5
2
1
Graph 2.4 Number of hours’ child-minding for children under the age of 2½ years on
Thursdays
25.1
18.1
13.8
11.5
4.9
0
0.4
1.5
2.3
7.1
6.8
4.4
3
1.1
Graph 2.5 Number of hours’ child-minding for children under the age of 2½ years on
Fridays
The first thing that stands out is how similar the shapes of the graphs are for Mondays,
Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. Each day there are a number of children whose
parents do not use child-minding on that day. The graph dips before rising slightly at 5 to
6 hours' child-minding per day. After that the graph dips slightly again and then begins to
Use of child-minding
31
rise more steeply from 7 to 8 hours' child-minding per day, to reach a peak at 9 to
10 hours' child-minding per day before falling again.
Another conspicuous fact is the high percentage of children who do not go to day care
at all on Wednesdays (20.7%) and Fridays (18.1%).
Finally, the pattern of child-minding on Wednesdays is noticeably different from the
other days. The high percentage of children whose parents do not use child-minding at all
on Wednesdays compared with the other days has already been indicated. Then there is
a second peak on Wednesdays, at 4 to 6 hours' child-minding. These observations are not
unexpected, since on Wednesday afternoons many families have to make arrangements
for other school-age children to be cared for and in many cases one of the parents
(usually the mother) looks after the children, often for the whole day.
2.2.4 Arrangements that differ from week to week
Up to now intensity of use for a ‘standard week’ has been discussed. However, 21.5% of
users have different child-minding arrangements every week. There are various reasons
for this (Table 2.5): working hours or working days that differ from week to week,
shiftwork, very irregular roster.
Table 2.5 Reasons for having different child-minding arrangements from week to week
(users only, in %)
Reason
Arrangements are the same every week
Arrangements differ from week to week because:
- working hours of one of the partners differ from week to
week
- one of the partners works shifts
- working days of one of the partners differ from week to
week
- unexpected circumstances at work (meetings, irregular
hours, illness of a colleague, etc.)
N=656
78.5
21.5
12.2
6.3
2.1
0.9
2.3 Times that child-minding is used
The next graph shows the percentage of parents that use child-minding each day and at
what times.
32
Part I/Chapter 2
100
Monday
 Tuesday
Wednesday
80























60








Thursday
 Friday




40




20
0









before 7
7-8
8-9
9-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16
16-17
17-18
18-19




after 19
Graph 2.2 Percentage of parents that use child-minding each day and at what times
The similarity between the different days is again what stands out in this graph: the graph
lines for Monday, Tuesday and Thursday are almost identical. Child-minding is used less
on Fridays and Wednesdays, especially after 12.00 on Wednesdays. The graph also
shows that child-minding usually starts at 9 o'clock in the morning, that the largest
numbers of children are looked after every day between 10.00 and 12.00 and that the
number of children being cared for drops after 16.00.
2.4 Reasons for the use of child-minding
This section examines why parents use child-minding. What are the circumstances that
lead parents to decide to use child-minding? How do parents see the problem?
For working mothers (whether full time or part time), as soon as they learn that a child
is on the way the question arises as to whether they will continue to work as before,
reduce their hours, or stop work altogether, either temporarily by taking a career break or
permanently.
For women who are unemployed or housewives before the arrival of their baby, this
issue does not arise. However, these parents may have intended to look for work or go
back to work. In that case they have to decide whether to delay those plans or to use
child-minding.
The choice that parents have to make is not an all or nothing choice between looking
after the child themselves and using child-minding. The section on intensity of use has
already shown that many parents take a position in between, using all manner of forms of
part-time child-minding.
Use of child-minding
33
The sections which follow aim to give some insight into this choice process, meaning the
subjective reasons, from the perspective of both users and non-users. The background to
these subjective reasons (i.e. the socio-demographic determinants associated with the
decision) is examined in section 2.5.
2.4.1 Reasons for use of child-minding
As expected, the main reason given by mothers for deciding to use child-minding is so
that they can continue to work. Other reasons are to give themselves some free time
occasionally or to give them time to do the housework. There were 19 parents who gave
reasons other than the most common reasons: 7 parents use child-minding to do things
where they would find it difficult to take their children with them (doctor's or dentist's
appointments, a funeral, for instance); 12 parents occasionally use child-minding for the
child's own sake (to encourage independence, contact with other children, etc.). In these
last cases the parents are making a choice which is positively in favour of child-minding,
not a derived choice based on their work or need for free time.
Table 2.6 Reasons why mothers use child-minding (in %, multiple answers possible)
Reasons for use of child-minding
N=1029
Percentage using child-minding:
- to be able to continue to work
- to have occasional free time
- to have time for housework
- to continue with studies
- other reasons
63.8
61.3
8.6
8.1
1.1
3.1
Percentage not using child-minding
36.2
2.4.2 Reasons for not using child-minding
Some parents do not use child-minding on a regular basis. Why is this? Do they not need
child-minding, for instance, because one of the parents is at home anyway? Have they
made a deliberate choice to look after the children themselves, deciding not to work or to
stop working (temporarily) once they have children? The reasons given are summarised in
the table below.
34
Part I/Chapter 2
Table 2.7 Reasons for not using child-minding (in %)
Reasons for not using child-minding
N=1029
Percentage not using child-minding:
- deliberate choice
- one parent is at home anyway
- unable to find (suitable) child-minding
- other reasons
36.2
Percentage using child-minding
63.8
12.8
18.6
1.8
3.0
About a third of parents who do not use child-minding made a deliberate choice to stay at
home (either not to go to work or to take a career break), because they think this is what is
best for their child. Other reasons given were: they have several children and have
decided to look after them themselves, a bad experience with child-minding in the past, or
this is a unique opportunity to care for their child.
In about half of these families, one of the parents was at home anyway due to being out
of work or not in employment, disabled or infirm, etc.
Other reasons are connected with the working situation of one or both of the parents:
16 parents look after their child themselves because they are self-employed, 6 mothers
work as child minders themselves, 4 parents are able to arrange their work so as not to
need child-minding.
The next table shows how one or both parents have adapted their work situation to enable
them to care for their child themselves. About 10% (n=103) of parents reported making
such adjustments. This group more or less coincides with the group of parents who stated
that they had made a deliberate decision to take on the care of their children themselves.
Use of child-minding
35
Table 2.8 Changes parents make to their work situation in order to be able to look after
their child themselves (parents who made changes, in %)
Changes to the work situation
N=103 (10.0%)
Mother has stopped working
Mother has started working fewer hours
Mother and/or father has started to work at night, in shifts
or different hours
Mother and/or father has become self-employed
Mother never started to work
Father has stopped working
Mother and father have started working fewer hours
Father has started working fewer hours
64.1
13.6
6.8
4.9
4.9
2.9
1.9
1.0
It is mainly the mothers who have changed their work situation in order to care for their
child: over 60% of the mothers who do not use child-minding have stopped working to
look after their child, 13.6% are working fewer hours and 5% of the mothers say that they
made a deliberate choice not to start working.
2.5 Factors determining the use of child-minding
In the chapter formulating the problem, we referred to the HIVA study by Maes and
Van Meensel (1994) and other studies, from which women's participation in the labour
force emerged as the most important factor determining the use of child-minding. The next
table from the UIA panel study also shows that participation in the labour market has a
significant influence on use of child-minding.
Table 2.9 Use of child-minding outside the home (formal and informal) according to the
work status of the mother (in %, Flanders, 1996)
Work status of the
mother
Children aged
under 3 years
Children aged
between
3 and 6 years
Children aged
between
7 and 11 years
No paid work
Paid full-time work
Paid part-time work
28.8
91.5
83.4
14.1
65.1
65.7
3.3
36.8
46.1
Source: Speltincx & Jacobs, 1997
(n=45)
(n=45)
(n=27)
(n=85)
(n=96)
(n=54)
(n=97)
(n=75)
(n=56)
36
Part I/Chapter 2
The children of mothers who have paid work are clearly cared for outside the home more
than the children whose mothers have no paid work. The impact of the work status of the
mother on the use of child-minding differs depending on the age of the child: the use of
child-minding decreases as the child gets older.
The difference between full-time and part-time work is less unequivocal: mothers who
work part time also depend heavily on child-minding. This factor is probably relevant to the
intensity of use. A study conducted in the Netherlands, for instance, showed that the
number of hours' paid work is proportional to the number of hours' child-minding used.
Expressed the other way round, the participation in the labour market of mothers who use
child-minding is twice as high as that of mothers who do not use child-minding, and an
increase in the number of hours' child-minding used is associated with a proportional
increase in the number of hours' paid work (Maassen, Van den Brink & Groot, 1995).
Humblet et al. (1993) reached the same conclusion in Wallonia: the length of childminding is strictly associated with the mother's working hours.
Our enquiries into determinants used intensity of child-minding as an indicator, in
particular the number of hours’ use per week. We examined in turn the effect of the
mother's working hours, the work regime, occupation, educational level, net monthly
income, age of the child and the province in which the parents live. These variables were
then combined into a multivariate analysis.
We give the row percentages each time, so the sum of the rows is 100%. This creates
an ‘intensity profile’ for each category of the determinant variable (working hours,
education, etc.). Account does have to be taken of the limited numbers in some
categories. The first column gives the column percentages for the determinant variable
each time.
2.5.1 Working hours of the mother and use of child-minding
The previous table (Table 2.9) clearly showed that there is no great difference between
mothers who work part time and mothers who work full time as far as the use of childminding is concerned. However, if we look at the intensity of use, it immediately becomes
obvious that the children of full-time working mothers are cared for more hours per week
than the children of mothers who work part time, mothers who are temporarily not
working, and mothers who do not have any paid work. Mothers who are temporarily not
working include those on maternity leave, those taking career breaks, those on sick leave
or invalidity and mothers taking leave without pay. Non-working mothers include
unemployed mothers, students and housewives.
Use of child-minding
37
Table 2.10 The link between the mother's working hours and number of hours' childminding per week, weighted figures (in row %, n=1029)
Working hours
of mother
Working full time
Working part
time
Work
temporarily
discontinued
Not working
Distribution
of mothers
by working
hours
(column %)
Regular
use of
childminding
<20
hours
20–29
30-39
40-49
50-60
39.2
23.7
85.7
86.6
24.8
39.2
9.5
25.4
19.0
24.8
31.5
10.0
15.2
0.6
20.0
51.9
66.8
11.6
11.6
7.6
2.4
17.1
7.0
96.5
1.3
0.7
1.5
0.0
About half (46.7%) of the children whose mothers work full time are cared for for 40 hours
a week or more, as against only 10.6% of the children whose mothers work part time. The
equivalent figure for the children whose mothers are temporarily not working is still 10%,
but it is only 1.5% for the children of non-working mothers.
Mothers who work part time score higher for ‘part-time’ child-minding (<20 hours, 2029 hours and even 30-39 hours).
Mothers who are temporarily not working and non-working mothers are more highly
represented in the <20 hours group. Mothers who are temporarily not working still use
child-minding quite a lot, some of them even for more than 40 hours. The table shows that
more than 8 out of 10 part-time working mothers regularly use child-minding and over half
of the mothers who are temporarily not working regularly use child-minding.
2.5.2 Work regime of the mother and use of child-minding
The work regime of the mother appears to be another factor determining the number of
hours per week that children are cared for. Mothers who work regular hours use childminding for more hours per week than mothers who work irregular hours. Thus 36.2% of
the mothers working regular hours do not look after their children themselves for at least
40 hours per week. The equivalent figure for mothers with irregular work schedules is only
11.4%. Furthermore, mothers who work shifts, at night or at the weekend make use of
child-minding outside the home for fewer hours per week.
38
Part I/Chapter 2
Table 2.11 The link between the mother's work regime and the number of hours' childminding used per week, weighted figures (in row %, n=739, multiple answers
possible)
Work regime of
mother
Regular hours
Shiftwork
Night work
Weekend work
Completely irregular
working hours
Distribution
of mothers
by work
regime
(column %)
69.9
8.2
3.1
6.7
16.0
Regular
use of
childminding
<20
hours
20-29
30-39
87.4
83.4
63.1
79.7
74.1
27.2
49.2
62.2
54.4
54.4
14.8
25.5
8.8
13.6
14.9
21.8
14.9
17.5
18.0
19.3
40-49
50-60
25.4
9.3
9.0
9.4
9.9
10.8
1.1
2.5
4.6
1.5
These findings are not entirely unexpected, given that mothers who work irregular hours
are able to look after their child themselves the rest of the time. Often the father is at
home to care for the child when the mother is at work (e.g. at night or at the weekend).
Furthermore, as established earlier (Table 2.8), mothers and fathers sometimes
deliberately choose to work irregular hours so that they can care for their child
themselves. In other words, flexibility of labour (sometimes) operates to the benefit of the
family. When one looks at the regular use of child-minding, it is noticeable that mothers
who do night work use child-minding the least. This can be explained in our view by the
lack of opportunity in the night-time.
2.5.3 Educational level of the mother and use of child-minding
The educational qualifications of the mother appear to exert an influence on the extent to
which child-minding is used: the more highly qualified the mother, the more child-minding
is used.
Use of child-minding
39
Table 2.12 The link between the mother's educational qualifications and the number of
hours' child-minding used per week, weighted figures (in row %, n=1029)
Mother's
qualification
< Lower secondary
Higher secondary
Higher education
University education
Distribution
of mothers
by
educational
qualification
(column %)
24.8
40.4
26.4
8.4
Regular
use of
childminding
<20
hours
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-60
42.4
56.0
86.7
92.3
70.9
59.0
30.7
11.9
11.2
10.8
14.8
14.7
8.2
12.7
23.5
21.0
4.5
13.9
23.8
31.4
5.2
3.6
7.2
21.0
The variables 'educational level' and 'working hours' also correlate. The next table shows
that more highly educated mothers are more likely to work full time and, as we saw earlier,
mothers who work full time use more child-minding.
Table 2.13 The link between the mother's educational qualifications and her work
situation, weighted figures (in %, n=1029)
Distribution
of mothers by
educational
qualifications
(column %)
< Lower secondary
Higher secondary
Higher education
University education
24.8
40.4
26.4
8.4
Full-time
work
Part-time
work
27.6
37.3
45.8
60.0
16.6
22.7
30.4
27.9
Work
temporarily
discontinued
24.8
21.3
18.7
4.3
No work
31.0
18.7
5.1
7.8
2.5.4 Occupation of the mother and use of child-minding
The pattern of use by occupational category shows reasonable uniformity, with 2
exceptions.
40
Part I/Chapter 2
Table 2.14 The link between the mother's occupation and the number of hours' childminding used per week, weighted figures (in row %, n=1029)
Occupation of
mother
Distribution
of mothers
by
occupation
(column %)
Regular
use of
childminding
<20
hours
20-29
30-39
40-49
Manual worker
Junior posts in
service sector
Executive
Civil servant
Self-employed
Professional
Housewife
No occupation
23.3
52.4
61.0
77.0
55.3
40.3
16.8
13.4
9.8
19.9
12.9
20.3
1.8
4.1
10.3
1.6
5.6
0.9
96.7
63.4
42.6
80.6
3.0
18.3
9.2
44.1
67.6
27.9
97.0
100.0
3.3
13.5
6.1
11.6
1.9
0.0
7.1
19.2
13.5
18.4
0.0
0.0
40.1
13.1
7.3
15.8
1.1
0.0
50-60
5.2
6.1
40.3
10.1
5.5
26.3
0.0
0.0
The executives form the first exception: mothers in an executive post use child-minding for
significantly more hours a week than manual workers, people with junior posts in the
service sector, civil servants, the self-employed, housewives and mothers who have no
occupation. 80.4% of the children of executive mothers are cared for for at least 40 hours
per week.
The professions constitute the second exception: professional mothers use childminding for considerably more hours than manual workers, people with junior posts in the
service sector, civil servants, the self-employed, housewives and mothers who have no
occupation.
People with junior posts in the service sector use more child-minding than manual
workers, the self-employed and housewives. Finally, housewives use child-minding
outside the home for significantly fewer hours per week than civil servants, manual
workers and the self-employed.
A noteworthy fact is that more than half the self-employed women (57.4%) seldom or
never use child-minding outside the home. In contrast, only 3.3% of the executive women
never use child-minding. Finally, this variable also correlates with educational level and
working hours, so a definite answer can only be obtained using a multivariate analysis.
2.5.5
Net monthly income and use of child-minding
The higher the family income, the more hours the parents rely on child-minding. For
instance, 59% of parents with a family income above BEF 140 000 per month use child-
Use of child-minding
41
minding for at least 40 hours per week. The equivalent figure for families with a monthly
income of less than BEF 60 000 is only 9.1%. We assume that the 'family income' factor
also operates through working hours and occupation, except that the income of the father
is also taken into account here.
Table 2.15 The link between net monthly family income and the number of hours' childminding used per week, weighted figures (in row %, n=1029)
Income (in BEF)
< 60 000
60 000-80 000
80 001-100 000
100 001-120 000
120 001-140 000
140 001 or more
Distribution
of families
by family
income
(column %)
16.3
13.6
22.4
27.0
12.3
8.3
Regular
use of
childminding
<20
hours
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-60
33.3
42.2
72.1
87.2
77.0
91.8
77.2
70.7
50.6
27.0
32.7
13.3
6.1
9.6
16.0
16.9
11.6
10.3
7.6
5.3
19.8
23.5
16.3
17.4
5.3
11.2
8.9
24.7
31.0
34.3
3.8
3.2
4.7
7.9
8.4
24.7
2.5.6 Use of child-minding by age of the child
One could hypothesise that the age of the child might be a determining factor in the
intensity of child-minding as well, based on an expected greater reluctance to use childminding for the youngest children. However, no significant differences between the
different age groups were found with respect to the use of child-minding.
42
Part I/Chapter 2
Table 2.16 Intensity of child-minding by age group, weighted figures (in row %, n=1029)
Age of child
3 months - 1 year
1 year - 1½ years
1½ years - 2 years
2 years - 2½ years
Distribution
of families
by age of
child
(column %)
47.7
22.5
16.7
13.1
Regular
use of
childminding
<20
hours
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-60
64.5
67.4
62.1
58.0
50.9
45.4
52.3
54.9
13.5
11.6
15.9
4.9
15.5
16.8
11.4
15.6
13.6
17.3
17.0
19.0
6.5
8.9
3.4
5.6
2.5.7 Use of child-minding by province
In Flemish Brabant more standard parents seem to use child-minding and for more hours
than in the provinces of Antwerp, West Flanders and Limburg. Once again this correlation
may be linked to differences in working hours, educational level of the mothers and other
factors.
Table 2.17 Use of child-minding for children aged 3 months to 2½ years by province,
weighted figures (in row %, n=1029)
Province
Antwerp
West Flanders
East Flanders
Limburg
Flemish Brabant
Distribution
of families
by province
(column %)
24.6
20.4
25.3
14.7
15.0
Regular
use of
childminding
<20
hours
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-60
61.9
59.9
66.7
54.9
75.7
21.7
16.7
9.9
18.5
13.2
18.0
20.4
24.9
25.6
17.7
26.0
29.7
24.1
18.9
25.6
25.8
24.4
26.0
30.7
29.3
8.5
8.8
15.1
6.3
14.2
The next step was to include ethnic minority families in the analysis. We interviewed a
number of ethnic minority families in the provinces of Antwerp, East Flanders and
Limburg, where the greatest numbers of ethnic minority families live. We found that use of
child-minding fell slightly for Antwerp and East Flanders. Limburg remained more or less
stable.
Use of child-minding
43
Table 2.18 Use of child-minding for children aged 3 months to 2½ years by province, after
weighting and after the addition of the ethnic minority group (in %, n=1091)
Province
Antwerp
West Flanders
East Flanders
Limburg
Flemish Brabant
Regular
Seldom or never
58.7
59.9
63.9
55.0
75.7
41.3
40.1
36.1
45.0
24.3
2.5.8 Use of child-minding by degree of urbanisation
As well as comparing the use of child-minding between the provinces, a comparison can
also be made based on the degree of urbanisation. The local authorities and towns in our
study were divided into four categories: (1) very rural, (2) rural, (3) rural with some
urbanisation and (4) urban.
Table 2.19 Use of child-minding for children aged 3 months to 2½ years by degree of
urbanisation, weighted figures (in row %, n=1029)
Degree of
urbanisation
Very rural
Rural
Rural with some
urbanisation
Urban
Distribution
of families
by degree
of
urbanisation
(column %)
Regular
use of
childminding
<20
hours
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-60
12.9
25.3
22.2
60.4
60.4
68.5
57.6
52.7
48.2
11.1
11.0
11.9
12.5
15.2
14.2
13.5
15.8
16.9
5.3
5.3
8.8
39.6
64.1
48.6
13.4
16.5
15.3
6.2
There are no fundamental differences between the various degrees of urbanisation as far
as the use and intensity of child-minding is concerned. There is a very slight increase in
the number of hours' use of child-minding as the degree of urbanisation increases, except
for the urban areas.
44
Part I/Chapter 2
2.5.9 Multivariate analysis
A multivariate analysis was carried out to investigate the net effect of the different
determinants upon the intensity of child-minding, since they could be strongly correlated.
We examined the effect of the determinants in turn upon the use or non-use of childminding, and then in a further refinement upon the intensity of the child-minding.
When the effect of the determinants is investigated with respect to use/non-use of childminding, whether or not on a regular basis, it emerges that the occupation of the mother is
the only relevant factor. The differences found are mainly caused by the small group of
housewives and mothers with no occupation who do not use child-minding.
When the intensity of child-minding is also taken into account, working hours emerge
as the most significant variable (R²=0.3341) followed by educational level (causing the R²
to rise to 0.3955). This means that mothers who work full time and who are more highly
educated use child-minding outside the home for more hours.
It was to be expected that working hours would be directly related to intensity. The fact
that educational level is also a determining factor to a lesser degree indicates differences
in attitudes, for instance, attitudes to do with the importance people attach to being able to
pursue their own careers (more important for those with higher levels of education) or to
do with the intrinsic importance of child-minding.
The other determinants did not contribute anything extra to the variance. However,
occupation and family income are closely associated with educational level, which makes
the analysis more difficult. The association found in the bivariate analysis with place of
residence, in this case the province, also does not stand up, which means that the
differences found between the provinces are secondary - at least in our analysis -, being
caused by underlying differences in working hours, educational level, family income, etc.
3.
Use of child-minding for schoolchildren
The first half of this chapter examined child-minding for pre-school children (aged from
3 months to 2½ years). Now it is time to look at child-minding for children aged between
2½ and 12 years, the majority of whom are schoolchildren. Child-minding for this age
group tends to have a bridging role between school hours and the hours when the parents
are available themselves. There are also specific types of child-minding for school
children such as the out-of-school care initiatives (known as IBOs) and child-minding
provided in the schools, as well as the usual forms of child-minding by grandparents,
child-minding families and day nurseries.
In terms of child-minding needs, a distinction can be made between children at nursery
school and children at primary school.
Nursery schools admit children at different ages. Children can start nursery school after
each school holiday from the age of 2½, full time or part time. From the September of the
Use of child-minding
45
year in which they become 3, almost all children go to nursery school, although strictly
speaking they are not yet of compulsory school age. About 13% of children aged between
2½ and 3 still do not go to school and two-thirds of these children are already attending
full time (Table 2.20). The increasing numbers of mothers who work outside the home is
probably the most important explanation for this. Of the children who attend nursery
school part time, the majority only go in the mornings.
Table 2.20 School attendance of children aged 2½ to 3 (in %, n=152)
Child does not go to nursery school yet
Child goes to nursery school part time:
- 5 mornings
- 2 full days and 3 mornings
- 1 full day and 4 mornings
- 3 full days and 2 mornings
- 2 mornings
- 2 full days and Wednesday morning
- 1 full day and 2 mornings
Child goes to nursery school full time
13.2
21.1
56.2
12.5
12.5
6.3
6.3
3.1
3.1
65.8
This section only deals with the children who attend nursery school, on either a full-time or
part-time basis. We assume that child-minding arrangements for the small group of 2½- to
3-year-olds who do not attend nursery school will be more or less the same as the childminding arrangements for pre-school children described in the last section.
3.1 Number of users and intensity of child-minding
Parents make most use of child-minding for children aged 2½ to 3 who attend school part
time: no fewer than 96.9% of parents questioned reported that they use child-minding on a
regular basis. Child-minding is used least for children aged 6 to 12.
46
Part I/Chapter 2
Table 2.21 Use of child-minding for the standard group of children aged 2½ to 12 years in
the Flemish Region (in %), calculated from the distribution of responses by
province
Use of child-minding
Regular
Very occasional or
never
2½ to 6
years
(general)
48.6
51.4
2½ to 3 years
Attend
school part
time
n=32
96.9
3.1
Attend
school full
time
n=100
38.0
62.0
3 to 6
years
n=587
6 to 12
years
n=222
49.4
50.6
28.6
71.4
The next table shows the intensity of use of child-minding in terms of number of days for
the various groups. Only respondents who use child-minding on a regular basis were
included in the analysis.
Use of child-minding
47
Table 2.22 Intensity of child-minding for school children expressed as number of days per
week (users only, in %)
Number of days per
week
5 days' child-minding per
week
4 days' child-minding per
week
3 days' child-minding per
week
2 days' child-minding per
week
1 day's child-minding per
week
No child-minding
Children aged
2½ to 3 years
Children
aged
3 to 6 years
n=587
Children
aged
6 to 12 years
n=222
Attend
school part
time
n=32
Attend
school full
time
n=100
56.3
23.0
21.0
14.3
21.9
6.0
8.6
5.0
9.4
4.0
7.7
5.4
9.4
3.0
6.6
3.4
0.0
2.0
5.4
0.5
3.1
62.0
50.6
71.4
This shows that the majority of children who attend school part time also attend a childminding facility five days a week, which can be explained by the fact that most of these
children only go to school in the mornings. Parents of only 3.1% of these children do not
use any form of child-minding.
Logically, less child-minding is used for children who attend school full time.
Nevertheless, one in five parents with children aged 2½ to 6 who attend school full time
still use pre-school child-minding and/or after-school child-minding 5 days a week.
In terms of the number of hours per week that child-minding is used, logical differences
were found depending on whether the children go to school full time or part time. The
table below summarises the intensity of child-minding in full days, periods of 3½ to
5 hours and periods of ½ hour to 3 hours.
48
Part I/Chapter 2
Table 2.23 Summary of the number of hours per week that children attending school full
time and part time are cared for outside the home before and after school
(in %)
Number of hours per
week
½ hour to 5 hours' childminding
5½ to 10 hours' childminding
10½ to 15 hours' childminding
More than 15 hours'
child-minding
0 hours' child-minding
Children aged
2½ to 3 years
Children
aged 3 to 6
years
n=587
Children
aged 6 to 12
years
n=222
Attend
school part
time
n=32
Attend
school full
time
n=100
0.0
8.0
18.7
6.5
12.5
10.0
16.5
11.4
12.5
12.0
10.5
8.4
71.9
8.0
3.7
2.3
3.1
62.0
50.6
71.4
3.2 Reasons for use of child-minding
3.2.1 Reasons for use of child-minding
This section examines why parents use child-minding for schoolchildren up to the age of
12. For the overwhelming majority of parents this is because they are not at home
because they are working. In the case of the younger group of children, 13.4% of parents
gave ‘time to do housework’ as a reason. In the case of the older group, on the other
hand, use of child-minding to have some free time now and then was given as the second
most important reason. The next most frequent reason given was to do things where it is
difficult for parents to take their child(ren) with them (e.g. a doctor's appointment, to attend
meetings, etc.).
Use of child-minding
49
Table 2.24 Reasons why mothers use child-minding (in %, multiple answers possible)
Reasons for use of child-minding
Children aged
2½ to 6 years
n=719
Children aged
6 to 12 years
n=222
Mothers who use child-minding:
- to be able to continue work
- to have occasional free time
- to have time for housework
- to continue with studies
- for other reasons
48.6
46.8
1.4
6.5
4.7
1.7
28.6
27.3
3.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
Mothers who do not use child-minding
51.4
71.4
Quite a large group of parents no longer use child-minding and this group increases as
the children grow older (see also table below). This is because their working hours fit in
with school hours (e.g. because they are self-employed, work part time, do shiftwork or
only work in the evenings), or because one or both of the parents are at home full time.
Sometimes the oldest child is left in charge of the other children. The percentage of
parents who make a deliberate choice to stay at home to care for the children is about the
same for both age groups, around 20%. This is the same percentage that we found for the
pre-school children.
3.2.2 Reasons for not using child-minding
The fact that one of the parents is at home is given as the reason for not using childminding more frequently than with the pre-school children. This makes sense given that
one is dealing with after-school child-minding here and not day care, so there is a greater
chance of one of the parents being at home.
50
Part I/Chapter 2
Table 2.25 Reasons for not using child-minding (in %, multiple answers possible)
Reasons for not using child-minding
Children aged
2½ to 6 years
n=719
Children aged
6 to 12 years
n=222
Parents who do not use child-minding:
- because they stay at home specifically
to look after the child
- because one or both parents are at
home anyway
51.4
21.1
71.4
21.4
36.5
41.4
Parents who use child-minding
48.6
28.6
3.3 Factors determining the use of child-minding
Once again we examined the extent to which the working hours, work regime, educational
level and occupation of the mother, as well as the family income, have an influence upon
whether child-minding is used or not. Because of the smaller sample, we only show the
percentage for regular users. The non-users make up the complement. We also examined
the extent to which use varies between the provinces. First we present the distribution of
the mothers for the determinant variables.
Use of child-minding
51
3.3.1 Working hours of the mother and use of child-minding
Table 2.26 The link between the mother's working hours and whether she regularly uses
child-minding; weighted figures (in row %)
Mother's working hours
Working full time
Working part time
Work temporarily
discontinued
Not working
Children aged 2½ to 6
years
n=719
Distribution Regular use
of mothers
of childby working
minding
hours
Children aged 6 to 12
years
n=222
Distribution Regular use
of mothers
of childby working
minding
hours
35.8
42.1
8.9
65.2
51.6
31.4
31.0
40.3
7.0
45.5
39.7
14.8
13.2
11.3
21.7
0.0
The first fact that stands out is that the number of mothers working part time is higher than
the number working full time. The opposite was true of mothers with children aged 0 to
2½ years (see Table 2.10). It is a recognised phenomenon on the labour market (see also
Ruelens L., 1999) that part-time working increases after the arrival of the second or third
child. The proportion of non-working mothers is also higher among the mothers of the
older children (21.7% versus 13.2%).
For obvious reasons use of child-minding increases with increasing working hours. What
also stands out though is that, within the different categories of working hours, parents
with a child in the youngest age group systematically use more child-minding than parents
with children aged between 6 and 12. A possible explanation for this may lie in the greater
independence of these older children. Moreover 11.3% of the non-working mothers with a
schoolchild aged between 2½ and 6 use child-minding on a regular basis.
3.3.2 Work regime of the mother and use of child-minding
Mothers who have a completely irregular work regime use the most child-minding in both
age groups. As with the pre-school children, we found that mothers who work nights use
child-minding outside the home much less. This is partly explained by the lack of
opportunity at night, and partly by the fact that these mothers do not have much need for
52
Part I/Chapter 2
child-minding in the daytime and the fathers are usually at home to care for the children at
night.
Table 2.27 The link between the mother's work regime and regular use of child-minding,
weighted figures (in %, multiple answers possible)
Mother's work regime
Regular hours
Shiftwork
Night work
Weekend work
Completely irregular
working hours
Children aged 2½ to 6 years
n=560
Distribution
Regular use
of mothers by
of childwork regime
minding
73.0
9.3
3.7
7.1
12.1
56.7
58.9
39.2
65.0
76.0
Children aged 6 to 12 years
n=158
Distribution
Regular use
of mothers by
of childwork regime
minding
71.5
5.1
2.1
2.9
15.1
35.0
42.8
31.2
22.6
49.2
3.3.3 Educational level of the mother and use of child-minding
Our study found some difference between the educational levels of the two groups, in the
sense that mothers with a child aged between 6 and 12 (who are usually older) had lower
qualifications than mothers with a child aged 2½ to 6 (who are usually younger). This
difference conformed to expectations, but the difference in this sample does seem rather
large.
Use of child-minding
53
Table 2.28 The link between the mother's educational qualifications and whether she
regularly uses child-minding, weighted figures (in %)
Mother's educational
qualifications
< Lower secondary
Higher secondary
Higher education
University education
Children aged 2½ to 6 years
n=719
Distribution
Regular use
of mothers by
of childeducational
minding
qualifications
26.6
41.9
25.9
5.6
35.4
45.5
66.8
65.2
Children aged 6 to 12 years
n=222
Distribution
Regular use
of mothers by
of childeducational
minding
qualifications
36.7
42.5
17.6
3.2
17.1
32.4
43.7
27.8
The higher the mother's educational level, the greater the use of child-minding, with the
exception of mothers who have had a university education. The much lower use of childminding for children aged 6 to 12 among mothers with a university education compared
with the mothers with a qualification from a college of higher education is striking. This
could mean that the university-educated mothers are better able to arrange their work in
school hours, have more opportunities to work at home, or that they are willing to leave
the 'apples of their eyes’ alone at home sooner (either because they want to teach them to
be independent at an earlier age or because the children show that they want to be
independent at an earlier age).
54
Part I/Chapter 2
3.3.4 Occupation of the mother and use of child-minding
Table 2.29 The link between the mother's occupation and whether she regularly uses
child-minding, weighted figures (in %)
Occupation of mother
Manual worker
Junior posts in service
sector
Executive
Civil servant
Self-employed
Professional
Housewife
No occupation
Children aged 2½ to 6
n=719
Distribution
Regular use
of mothers by
of childoccupation
minding
Children aged 6 to 12
n=222
Distribution
Regular use
of mothers by
of childoccupation
minding
24.2
48.9
50.2
56.5
20.1
48.8
30.8
35.3
1.2
3.9
9.0
1.1
6.0
0.6
79.5
78.3
31.0
88.6
2.6
25.0
1.4
4.3
6.0
2.6
10.0
6.8
17.8
77.8
23.4
7.2
0.0
15.1
The occupation in the two groups of mothers is similar. With the exception of female civil
servants, regular use of child-minding is consistently higher for the children aged between
2½ and 6. The difference between the two groups as regards use by executives and
professionals is particularly noticeable. This is in keeping with the differences in
educational level.
Use of child-minding
55
3.3.5 Net monthly family income and use of child-minding
Table 2.30 The link between net monthly family income and regular use of child-minding,
weighted figures (in %)
Family income (in BEF)
< 60 000
60 000-80 000
80 001-100 000
100 001-120 000
120 001-140 000
 140 001
Children aged 2½ to 6
n=719
Distribution
Regular use
of families by
of childincome
minding
18.0
13.9
29.3
21.7
11.6
5.5
38.2
31.7
49.0
64.0
53.0
68.3
Children aged 6 to 12
n=222
Distribution
Regular use
of families by
of childincome
minding
24.3
14.3
23.7
21.7
10.3
5.7
15.3
8.4
21.4
56.4
31.3
55.4
The greater proportion of mothers with a low level of education among the families with
the children aged 6 to 12 is a possible explanation for the higher percentage of parents
with a family income below BEF 60 000 per month compared with the families with a child
aged between 2½ and 6, even though the difference is small.
Just as we found with the pre-school children (see above), the use of child-minding
increases systematically with increasing family income, even though the pattern fluctuates
somewhat.
56
Part I/Chapter 2
3.3.6 Use of child-minding by province
Table 2.31 Use of child-minding for children aged 2½ to 12 by province, weighted figures
(in %)
Province
Antwerp
West Flanders
East Flanders
Limburg
Flemish Brabant
Children aged 2½ to 6
n=719
Distribution
Regular use
of families by
of childprovince
minding
26.7
19.2
22.4
16.1
15.6
42.3
56.9
54.6
38.4
50.1
Children aged 6 to 12
n=222
Distribution
Regular use
of families by
of childprovince
minding
26.2
19.6
22.3
14.4
17.5
30.8
30.1
33.0
22.0
23.4
In looking at the use of child-minding by province, we were attempting to detect the effects
of any differences in the provision of formal child-minding. The distribution of the two
groups among the provinces is almost identical.
There are differences in the rates of regular use of child-minding, however. Use of
child-minding for the younger age group is highest in West and East Flanders, followed by
Flemish Brabant. For children aged between 6 and 12, the use of child-minding is greatest
in East Flanders, followed by West Flanders and Antwerp. The percentages are still
consistently higher for the younger age group here.
3.3.7 Use of child-minding by degree of urbanisation
Parents in urban areas use child-minding the most, both for children at nursery school and
for children at primary school. The difference is significant for the former but not for the
latter.
Use of child-minding
57
Table 2.32 Use of child-minding for children aged 2½ to 12 by degree of urbanisation,
weighted figures (in %)
Degree of urbanisation
Very rural
Rural
Rural with some
urbanisation
Urban
Children aged 2½ to 6 years
n=719
Distribution
Regular use
of families by
of childdegree of
minding
urbanisation
Children aged 6 to 12 years
n=222
Distribution
Regular use
of families by
of childdegree of
minding
urbanisation
14.3
21.9
25.2
45.7
48.9
44.2
16.5
23.9
20.5
30.1
24.5
17.1
38.6
53.4
39.1
34.9
3.3.8 Multivariate analysis
We also carried out a multivariate analysis of the net effects of the different determinants.
Unlike the pre-school group, we did not analyse the intensity of child-minding used (which
is less relevant here given that only a few hours a week are involved), but merely whether
the families used child-minding on a regular basis or not.
For children aged between 2½ and 6 we found that not only were the mother's working
hours and educational level significant determinants (as with the pre-school children), but
so too was place of residence (measured in terms of the province), even though the total
explained variance (R²=0.1748) is smaller than for the pre-school group.
Working hours and educational level operate to determine use in the same way as with
the pre-school group.
As far as the impact of the province is concerned, we found that parents in Limburg
and Antwerp generally use less child-minding than parents in Flemish Brabant, East
Flanders and West Flanders, which may be connected with variations in the provision of
out-of-school care for this age group.
The impact of family income that emerged from the bivariate analysis disappeared after
the other variables had been screened for.
For children aged between 6 and 12, the mother's working hours, her occupation and unlike the 2½- to 6-year-olds - the family income determine whether the family uses childminding or not (total R²=0.2782). The educational level of the mother and place of
residence (province) are not significant.
58
Part I/Chapter 2
The impact of working hours is above all associated with the (self-evident) lower use of
child-minding by non-working mothers and housewives.
The fact that family income crops up here as a determining factor associated with use
of child-minding (after screening for working hours and educational level) could mean that
child-minding for older children is more of a 'luxury option' than it is for the pre-school
children. It may be that it is possible to find easier alternatives for older children than for
the youngest children and children at nursery school.
4. Conclusion
Six out of ten of the pre-school children (<2½ years) are regularly cared for outside the
home, where 'regularly' is defined as a minimum of 5 hours per week. This represents an
increase of almost 5% compared with 1997. The study also found that the pattern of childminding has changed somewhat to become more flexible. In particular, the percentage of
children who are cared for some full days and some half days has increased sharply in the
past few years.
It was also found that children who are regularly cared for outside the home are cared
for for relatively long periods of time. About 4 in 10 of children are cared for on average for
more than 8 hours per (working) day.
Child-minding is used less on Wednesdays and Fridays than on the other days of the
week. Generally speaking, most of the children are taken to their child-minding facility at
around 09.00 and the percentage being cared for drops after 16.00.
The main reason for using child-minding for the majority of mothers is to allow them to
continue to work.
Of the parents who do not use child-minding at all, the most common reason is
because one or both of the parents are at home anyway (housewife/househusband,
unemployed, etc.), and the second most common reason is that they have deliberately
chosen to look after their child themselves. It is usually the mothers who have changed
their work situation, either by stopping working altogether or by reducing their hours, in
order to be able to make that choice.
When the determinants that could influence the use of child-minding and how much
child-minding is used are investigated, the first finding is that use and intensity of use
increase as the mother's working hours increase.
It was also found that mothers with regular working hours use child-minding for more
hours each week than mothers with irregular working hours (shiftwork, night work,
weekend work and those with a completely irregular work regime).
After that, use and intensity increase as the educational level of the mothers increases:
92.3% of mothers with a university degree use child-minding on a regular basis.
Use of child-minding
59
When the occupation of the mother, which is closely linked to the educational level, is
examined, it was found that far more mothers holding an executive post use child-minding
than mothers in a junior service post and for far more hours.
Finally, the use and intensity of use of child-minding increase consistently as family
income increases.
The multivariate analysis reveals that the mother's working hours are the most
significant variable, followed by her educational level. The fact that working hours are
directly related to the intensity of use of child-minding was to be expected. The fact that
educational level is also a determining factor (irrespective of family income) indicates
changes in attitudes, for instance to do with the importance women attach to their own
work and careers (more important for those with higher qualifications) or to the intrinsic
importance of child-minding.
When the study turned to children at nursery school (3 to 6), it found that fewer than half
of them are cared for outside the home on a regular basis. About 1 in 4 of these children
is cared for for between 5½ and 15 hours per week.
Just as with the pre-school children, most mothers use child-minding because of their
work. It was found that there were more cases of families who did not need child-minding
because their working hours allowed the parents to look after the children themselves.
Use of child-minding for children at nursery school increases as the mothers' working
hours increase.
It also emerged that mothers with a completely irregular work regime use the most
child-minding for their nursery-school-age children.
Once again use of child-minding is connected with the educational level of the mother.
However, mothers with a qualification from a college of higher education appear to use
more child-minding than university graduates. (The same finding emerged for the mothers
of children at primary school).
Professional mothers used the most child-minding, followed by executives in second
place.
Use of child-minding also increased consistently with family income.
The multivariate analysis showed that, in addition to the expected variables working hours
and educational level, only place of residence (in this case the province where they live) is
a significant determinant. This indicates differences in provision.
Only three in ten children at primary school are cared for outside the home on a regular
basis. Most of these children are cared for for 5 days a week and about 1 in 5 are cared
for for between 5½ and 15 hours a week. The most important reason for these mothers
using child-minding is the same as for the mothers of pre-school children and children at
nursery school, namely because of their work.
60
Part I/Chapter 2
The determinants that influence the use of child-minding are almost all the same as for
children at nursery school, with a few exceptions. The longer the mother’s working hours,
the greater the use of child-minding. Use of child-minding also increases the higher the
mother's educational level, with the exception of university graduates. In contrast with
children at nursery school, professional mothers of school-age children use much less
child-minding and the group which uses the most child-minding is the civil servants, even
more than the executives. Use of child-minding also increases with family income.
The multivariate analysis revealed that, in addition to working hours and occupation,
family income also plays a role. The fact that family income only crops up as a
determinant in child-minding for children at primary school indicates that for older children
it is easier to find alternatives to (paid) child-minding than it is for the youngest children
and children at nursery school.
The fact that working hours are the main factor determining the use of child-minding in all
three groups corresponds to the subjective reasons given for use of child-minding.
Parents state that they use child-minding principally in order to be able to work.
Use of child-minding
61
62
CHAPTER 3
TYPES OF CHILD-MINDING USED
1. Introduction
Chapter 3 examines the types of child-minding used by parents. First we discuss the most
important types of child-minding and investigate what types parents combine. We also
look at the times at which parents use child-minding, the cost and the travelling distance
to the child-minding facility. Once again pre-school children and schoolchildren are
discussed separately. We wish to point out to the reader in advance that in some sections
and tables in this chapter subsidised day nurseries and private day nurseries are
combined under one heading and child-minding families affiliated to a service and private
child-minding families are combined under another heading, so that we only distinguish
between a ‘day nursery’ and a ‘child-minding family’.
2. Types of child-minding use for pre-school children
2.1 The most important types of child-minding
Some parents use different types of child-minding (see below), but in the first instance
only the most important types, that is to say the types used for the most hours during the
week between 07.00 and 19.00, will be discussed. Our investigation was also confined to
‘regular users’, that is parents who use child-minding for at least 5 hours per week.
Types of child-minding used
63
Table 3.1 Summary of the most important types of child-minding used on weekdays
between 07.00 and 19.00 (in %, weighted figures)
Type of child-minding
Informal child-minding
- Grandparents
- Other family members, friends, neighbours, etc.
Formal child-minding
- Child-minding family affiliated to a service
(subsidised by Kind en Gezin)
- Day nursery (subsidised by Kind en Gezin)
- Private child-minding family registered with or
supervised by Kind en Gezin
- Private day nursery registered with or supervised
by Kind en Gezin
Other
- Domestic staff
- Other (Childcare and Family Support Centre, local
employment agency (PWA), au pair, etc.)
Kind en Gezin
1997
HIVA survey
1999
37.0
3.9
27.3
4.8
22.7
30.0
16.6
12.3
22.5
8.2
5.4
6.5
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.0
In comparison with the figures for 1997, we see that grandparents are no longer the most
important providers of child-minding. A child-minding family affiliated to a service is the
most important type of child-minding for 30% of the children under the age of 2½ years,
with grandparents in second place at 27.3%.
The next table shows the average number of hours' child-minding per week by type.
Children in private day nurseries and subsidised day nurseries are looked after for
significantly more hours per week than those looked after by grandparents, other family
members, friends, neighbours, etc. Children who are looked after by other family
members, friends, neighbours, etc., spend significantly fewer hours in the care of these
people than children cared for by a child-minding family affiliated to a service or a private
child-minding family, R²=9.296. None of these findings is unexpected. Table 3.3 shows
that grandparents, other family members, friends, neighbours, etc., are called in to help by
very many parents but, as Table 3.1 shows, they are less often used as the most
important type of child-minding.
64
Part I/Chapter 3
Table 3.2 The link between the most important type of child-minding and the number of
hours' child-minding used per week, weighted figures (in row %, n=656)
Type of child-minding
Average
number
of hours
Private day nursery
Subsidised day nursery
Private child-minding family
Child-minding family affiliated to
a service
Grandparents
Other family members, friends,
neighbours, etc.
<20
hours
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-60
38.5
37.6
35.3
34.1
4.4
7.5
6.1
12.6
20.7
16.6
25.9
23.2
21.4
28.7
31.6
25.3
34.8
31.4
21.4
30.2
18.7
15.8
15.0
8.7
30.4
23.7
23.3
48.9
23.3
14.9
24.0
15.2
22.2
12.1
7.2
8.9
2.2 All types of child-minding used
When all types of child-minding are examined (including those which are used for fewer
hours), then grandparents do come out on top. Grandparents are called upon occasionally
to help look after children under the age of 2½ years by no fewer than 84.3% of parents.
Child-minding families affiliated to a service and subsidised day nurseries come in second
and third place respectively.
Types of child-minding used
65
Table 3.3 Summary of all types of child-minding used, weighted figures (in %)
Type of child-minding
N=656
Informal child-minding
- Grandparents on the mother's side
- Grandparents on the father's side
- Other family members, friends, neighbours, etc.
51.2
33.1
13.9
Formal child-minding
- Child-minding family affiliated to a service
- Private child-minding family
- Subsidised day nursery ( crèche, kindergarten)
- Private day nursery
34.0
9.8
24.0
7.6
Other
- PWA
- Au pair
- Domestic staff
- Other
0.3
0.0
1.0
0.1
Since parents were given the opportunity to report more than one type of child-minding,
we were interested to find out which of the various types they actually use and which they
combine.
66
Part I/Chapter 3
Table 3.4 Most common combinations of child-minding types (in %)
Parents use:
N=656
Only one type of child-minding
- Grandparents
- Child-minding family
- Day nursery
67.4
25.3
24.4
17.6
Two types of child-minding
- Child-minding family and grandparents
- Day nursery and grandparents
- Grandparents and other (domestic staff and
PWA)
- Child-minding family and other
- Day nursery and other
- Day nursery and child-minding family
32.4
18.3
13.0
0.5
Three types of child-minding
- Day nursery, grandparents and other
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
The table above shows that that majority of parents who use child-minding only use one
type of child-minding. Of these, 25.3% use grandparents, 24.4% use a child-minding
family and 17.6% use a day nursery. Slightly more than three in ten parents use two types
of child-minding. The most common combinations are child-minding family and
grandparents (18.3%) and day nursery and grandparents (13.0%). Only 0.2% of parents
use three types of child-minding for their child.
Now that we know the various combinations of child-minding that parents use, it would be
interesting to know when they use grandparents and when they use the other types of
child-minding. The next section will answer this question.
2.3 Type of child-minding used according to time
The series of graphs which follow show the use of the different types of child-minding at
different times of the day. Use of child-minding is set at 100%, so that the share
accounted for by the different types can be distinguished. The graphs clearly show that
parents call upon grandparents (and other family members, friends, neighbours, etc.)
early in the morning and late in the evening, when they cannot generally use formal types
of child-minding. Child-minding families and day nurseries are used on a large scale in the
period in which child-minding is used the most (from 08.30 to 16.00). The graphs also
confirm the finding stated earlier that child-minding families are used more than day
Types of child-minding used
67
nurseries. Other types of child-minding (PWA, domestic staff, etc.) are only used on a
small scale for the child-minding of pre-school children.
grandparents, other family, friends, neighbours, etc.
child-minding family
day nursery
other
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
before
07.30–08.00
morning
07.00 07.00-07.30
08.00-08.30
afternoon
noon
17.30 – 18.00
18.30 – 19.00
17.00 - 17.30
18.00 - 18.30
after
19.00
Graph 3.1Type of child-minding used by time of day (Monday)
grandparents, other family, friends, neighbours, etc.
child-minding family
minding
family
day nursery
minding fasmilyer
other
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
before
0700
07.30-08.00
07.00-07.30
morning
08.00-08.30
afternoon
noon
17.30-18u
17.00-17.30
Graph 3.2Type of child-minding used by time of day (Tuesday)
18.30-19.00
18.00-18.30
after
19.00
68
Part I/Chapter 3
grandparents, other family, friends, neighbours, etc.
child-minding family
day nursery
other
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
before
07.30-08.00
morning
07.00 07.00-07.30
08.00u-08.30
afternoon
noon
17.30-18.00
17.00-17.30
18.30-19.00
18.00-18.30
after
19.00
Graph 3.3 Type of child-minding used by time of day (Wensday)
grandparents, other family, friends, neighbours, etc.
child-minding family
day nursery
other
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
before
07.30-08.00
morning
07.00 07.00-07.30
08.00-08.30
afternoon
noon
17.30-18.00
17.00-17.30
18.30-19.00
18.00-18.30
Graph 3.4 Type of child-minding used by time of day (Thursday)
after
19.00
Types of child-minding used
69
grandparents, other family, friends, neighbours, etc.
child-minding family
day nursery
other
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
before
07.30-08.00
morning
07.00 07.00-07.30
00.80-08.30
afternoon
noon
17.30-18.00
17.00-17.30
18.30-19.00
18.00-18.30
after
19.00
Graph 3.5 Type of child-minding used by time of day (Friday)
2.4 The cost of child-minding
This section examines rates charged for services, distinguishing between informal and
formal types of child-minding.
2.4.1 The cost of informal child-minding
The analysis shows that only 6.2% of parents who use informal child-minding
(grandparents, other family members, etc.) pay for it. 81.8% do not pay anything and the
other 11.9% engage in other forms of material reciprocity such as favours in kind (good
turns, presents, etc.) and attention in the form of telephone calls. The parents usually also
provide the child's food, nappies, etc.
The next table shows the amount that parents pay per hour for informal child-minding. The
majority of parents who pay anything at all pay no more than BEF 200 per hour.
Table 3.5 Amount that paying parents pay per hour for informal child-minding (in %, n=15)
<BEF 100
33.3
BEF 100200
26.7
BEF 201300
13.3
BEF 301400
0.0
BEF 401500
13.3
>BEF 500
13.3
The survey that Kind en Gezin conducts every two years into the use of child-minding for
the under-threes also revealed that in 1997 only 5.4% of grandparents were paid for
70
Part I/Chapter 3
looking after their grandchildren. When the parents did pay, they paid an average of BEF
306 per day (Kind en Gezin, 1997a). A study by Vanderleyden and Dooghe (1984) also
showed that financial remuneration is very rare. Another study found that the
grandparents themselves felt it was important to be able to save their children the
expense of child-minding costs (De Naeyer, 1998; Jendrek, 1993; LISO, 1991).
2.4.2 The cost of formal child-minding
Current pricing schemes will be examined first and then the average cost will be given. As
far as general pricing schemes are concerned, there is a clear difference between the
subsidised facilities and the private facilities. While subsidised services take income into
account, private services seldom do so. Private day nurseries usually operate with fixed
prices, private child-minding families usually operate with variable prices.
Table 3.6 General pricing scheme for formal child-minding (in %)
Day nursery
Subs.
Priv.
n=168
n=64
Fixed amount based on income
Variable amount corresponding to
service provided
Same fixed amount for everyone
Child- minding family
Subs.
Priv.
n=240
n=70
98.2
1.8
7.8
32.8
98.8
1.2
10.9
62.5
-
59.4
-
26.6
The next table gives the pricing scheme for day nurseries and child-minding families as a
function of the length of care provided. Most parents pay a daily rate whether their child is
cared for in a day nursery or by a child-minding family. The subsidised child-minding
facilities evidently operate the most ‘sophisticated’ pricing schemes, for instance based on
a half day's child-minding.
Types of child-minding used
71
Table 3.7 Pricing scheme as a function of length of child-minding by child-minding
families and in day nurseries (in %)
Day nursery
Subs.
Priv.
n=168
n=64
Fixed amount per day
Fixed amount per half day
Fixed amount per day and per half
day
Fixed amount per month
Fixed amount per week
Fixed amount per hour
Child-minding family
Subs.
Priv.
n=240
n=70
44.0
41.1
9.5
50.0
12.5
18.8
42.5
35.4
15.4
51.4
15.7
18.6
3.6
0.6
1.2
0.0
7.8
10.9
2.5
0.0
4.2
0.0
1.4
12.9
The table below shows that far more parents using a subsidised form of child-minding whether a day nursery or child-minding family - pay less than BEF 500 per day than do
parents using private child-minding facilities. Indeed 12.1% of parents using private day
nurseries pay as much as BEF 700 to 800 per day.
Table 3.8 The daily amount that parents pay for formal child-minding
Amount (in BEF)
Day nursery
Subs.
Priv.
n=168
n=64
Child-minding family
Subs.
Priv.
n=240
n=70
<500
500-600
601-700
701-800
>800
42.7
31.1
23.2
1.8
1.2
50.2
33.2
16.2
0.0
0.4
24.1
34.5
27.6
12.1
1.7
31.8
53.0
12.1
1.5
1.5
Looking at the average daily amount that parents pay, we see that private day nurseries
are the most expensive and child-minding families affiliated to a service are the least
expensive.
72
Part I/Chapter 3
Table 3.9 Average daily amount that parents pay for formal child-minding (in BEF)
Day nursery
Subs.
n=168
Priv.
n=64
Child-minding family
Subs.
Priv.
n=240
n=70
517.9
578.8
505.5
513.2
2.4.3 Cost of domestic staff
Most parents who use domestic staff or someone from the local employment agency
(PWA) to care for their child pay an hourly rate. 7.1% of these parents pay less than BEF
100 per hour; 42.9% pay between BEF 100 and 200 per hour; 35.7% pay between BEF
200 and 300; and 14.3% pay BEF 300 or more per hour. One family had a different
payment arrangement, namely BEF 500 for a complete afternoon. The average cost is
BEF 186 per hour.
2.5 Distance to the child-minding facility
2.5.1 From home to the child-minding facility
The vast majority of parents live less than 5 km from their child's child-minding facility. It is
noticeable that parents who rely on grandparents (or other family members, friends, etc.)
often have to travel much greater distances than those who use a day nursery or childminding family. This means that those who choose to rely on grandparents are willing to
spend more time for going backwards and forwards. Child-minding families are situated
closest to the users.
Types of child-minding used
73
Table 3.10 Distance from home to the child-minding facility (n=656, in %)
Distance
Grandparents,
other family,
friends,
neighbours, etc.
Day nursery
Child-minding
family
17.8
46.1
19.3
9.9
3.6
3.3
12.2
63.1
17.8
4.3
1.7
0.9
17.6
64.9
13.4
2.5
1.6
0.0
0 km
Less than 5 km
5 km to 10 km
10 km to 20 km
20 km to 30 km
More than 30 km
2.5.2 Place where child-minding is provided by grandparents or other family members
Table 3.11 Place where child-minding is provided by grandparents, other family members,
friends, neighbours, etc. (in %, multiple answers possible)
Place where child-minding provided
In the home of the grandparents, other
family members, friends, neighbours,
etc.
In the parents’ own home
N=441
89.3
18.7
Most informal child-minding is provided in the home of the grandparents, other family
members, friends, neighbours, etc. When the child is cared for in his or her own home,
this is usually for practical reasons: the child can stay in bed in the morning, the child
knows the house. Educational reasons come next (e.g. the child's toys are there).
3. Types of child-minding used for schoolchildren
This section examines the type(s) of child-minding that parents use for their school-age
children, the number of hours for which the various child-minding facilities are used and
what the most common combinations are. Cost and distance travelled to the child-minding
facility are also discussed.
74
Part I/Chapter 3
3.1 The most important types of child-minding
The most important types of child-minding (meaning the type that is used for the most
hours per week) are child-minding provided by grandparents and - with the exception of
care for children who only attend school part time - child-minding provided by and in the
school. Child-minding families and day nurseries are still used to a limited extent for the
youngest age group (2½ to 3 years), but they are rarely or never used for the older age
groups.
Table 3.12 Summary of the most important types of child-minding before and after school
hours for children aged 2½ to 12 years (in %)
Type of child-minding
Grandparents
Other family, friends
IBO
Child-minding by and in
school
Child-minding family affiliated
to a service
Private child-minding family
Subsidised day nursery
Private day nursery
Other
Children aged
2½ to 3 years
Children
aged 3 to 6
years
n=587
Children
aged 6 to
12 years
n=222
Attending
school part
time
n=27
Attending
school full
time
n=37
29.6
14.8
3.7
7.4
27.0
8.1
2.7
35.1
45.2
7.2
10.7
26.3
34.3
14.9
4.5
35.8
11.1
16.2
3.6
0.0
11.1
7.4
7.4
7.4
5.4
0.0
2.7
2.7
4.8
0.0
0.2
2.0
1.5
1.5
0.0
7.5
Moving on to look at the number of hours that children spend per week in the various
child-minding facilities (Table 3.13), we see that subsidised day nurseries are the most
important type of child-minding for schoolchildren aged between 2½ and 6 years who are
looked after for many hours each week.
IBOs and child-minding provided by the school have an important share of the market
for short-term child-minding of less than 5 hours or 5 to 10 hours per week. This trend is
stronger for the younger age group than the older one. On average, primary
schoolchildren spend more hours in out-of-school care initiatives (IBOs) than in school-
Types of child-minding used
75
based child-minding facilities. On average, nursery schoolchildren spend slightly more
hours in the school-based facilities than in IBOs.
Other family members, friends and neighbours are also usually used for shorter periods
(maximum of 10 hours per week).
None of these parents uses a child-minding family affiliated to a service for more than
15 hours per week.
Type of child-minding
Children aged 2½ to 6
n=719
Average
<5 hours
5½-10
10½-15
Children aged 6 to 12
n=222
>15
no. hours
Average
<5 hours
5½-10
10½-15
>15
no. hours
Grandparents
9.3
24.4
32.3
31.3
11.9
9.3
16.4
46.7
36.9
0.0
Other family, friends, etc.
IBO
7.1
5.8
21.9
51.1
56.3
17.8
15.6
22.2
6.3
8.9
9.3
11.2
21.8
18.5
38.6
18.4
34.0
18.5
5.6
44.6
Child-minding by and in school
6.2
46.2
27.4
22.6
3.8
8.9
29.2
35.8
19.7
15.3
10.1
28.9
28.9
42.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Private child-minding family
Subsidised day nursery
7.1
0.0
40.0
0.0
32.0
50.0
24.0
0.0
4.0
50.0
9.5
7.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Private day nursery
Other
3.0
6.0
33.3
25.0
0.0
37.5
66.7
25.0
0.0
12.5
0.0
14.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
Child-minding family affiliated to a
service
Types of child care used
Table 3.13 The link between the most important types of child-minding and the number of hours' child-minding used per week, weighted
figures (in row %)
6
78
Part I/Chapter 3
3.2 All types of child-minding used
When all the types of child-minding used are taken into account, grandparents on the
mother's side come out on top for all the age groups. For the children who are attending
school part time, child-minding families affiliated to a service come in second place. Other
family members, friends and neighbours also step in from time to time. Child-minding
provided by and in the school is often used for the other children and it accounts for
almost half the child-minding (48.8%) used by the parents of children aged between 6 and
12.
Types of child-minding used
79
Table 3.14 Summary of all types of child-minding used, weighted figures (in %)
Type of child-minding
Informal child-minding
- Grandparents on the
mother's side
- Grandparents on the
father's side
- Other family, friends, etc.
Formal child-minding
- IBO
- Child-minding by and in
school
- Child-minding family
affiliated to a service
- Private child-minding
family
- Subsidised day nursery
- Private day nursery
Children aged
2½ to 3 years
Children
aged 3 to 6
years
n=587
Children
aged 6 to
12 years
n=222
Attending
school part
time
n=34
Attending
school full
time
n=42
35.9
50.5
52.7
48.8
18.3
23.6
34.3
46.5
19.7
7.6
11.8
14.0
4.2
15.5
4.7
33.5
14.1
38.3
9.3
48.8
21.8
25.1
8.4
4.7
16.2
3.5
6.4
0.0
4.2
9.9
5.8
1.7
0.9
1.2
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
1.2
2.9
0.0
0.2
2.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
4.7
4.7
Other
-
PWA
Au pair
Domestic staff
Other
The vast majority of parents only use one type of child-minding for children aged between
2½ and 6 years, with grandparents coming in first place (Table 3.15). Where they do use
another type of child-minding provision, the facilities at school are used in most cases.
Children aged between 6 and 12 years have to switch between different types of childminding more often. Almost half the parents use two types of child-minding, usually the
grandparents and the school.
80
Part I/Chapter 3
Table 3.15 Most common combinations of child-minding type (in %)
Parents use :
Children aged 2½ to 6
years
n=719
Only one type of child-minding
- Grandparents
- IBO
- School
- Other (child-minding family, day
nursery)
71.9
Two types of child-minding
- Grandparents and IBO
- Grandparents and school
- Grandparents and other
- IBO and school
- IBO and other
- School and other
26.2
Three types of child-minding
- Grandparents, school and other
- IBO, school and other
Children aged 6 to 12
years
n=222
54.6
34.9
7.2
17.1
12.7
30.4
3.8
20.4
0.0
43.4
4.3
11.9
6.0
1.1
0.2
2.7
2.0
5.7
23.8
1.5
0.8
2.1
9.4
2.1
1.8
0.2
2.1
0.0
3.3 The cost of child-minding
The cost of the different types of child-minding will now be examined.
3.3.1 The cost of informal child-minding
As with the pre-school children, only a very small proportion (7.2%) of the parents of
children aged 2½ to 6 years who use informal child-minding (n=290) pay for that childminding. The vast majority (80.7%) do not pay anything and 12.1% come to some other
arrangement. Of the 16 parents who reported an amount, three pay less than BEF 40 per
day; eight pay between BEF 50 and 100 per day; three pay BEF 100 per hour; and two
parents pay BEF 150 per hour.
Only 5.8% of the parents with a child aged between 6 and 12 years (n=52) pay for the
informal child-minding they receive for their children. 86.5% of the parents do not pay
anything and 7.7% come to another arrangement.
Types of child-minding used
3.3.2
81
The cost of formal child-minding
The pricing scheme, pricing criteria and average amount paid for the formal types of childminding will be dealt with in turn.
The number of parents of children aged 6 to 12 using day nurseries, child-minding
families or domestic staff was too small to enable us to comment on the cost of these
types of child-minding. Consequently the following tables only give figures for 6- to 12year-olds being cared for in out-of-school care initiatives and school-based child-minding
facilities.
The parents were not completely in agreement about the pricing schemes. For one in
three parents with children aged 2½ to 6 years using an out-of-school care initiative, the
rates they were charged were set by the local authority. 20% of the parents reported that
they had agreed the amount with the child-minding facility. A quarter of the facilities
charge everyone the same rate, one in five facilities takes income into account. 4 in 10
parents with children aged between 6 and 12 years think that the charge is fixed and
depends on their income. An equal number of parents reported that the charge is fixed
and is the same for everyone.
In the case of child-minding provided by and in the school, the school itself sets the
charge in 46.2% of the cases in the younger age group and 33.3% of the cases in the
older age group. The charge is the same for everyone in about one in three schools. Only
14% of the parents of 2½- to 6-year-olds and 18.5% of the parents of 6- to 12-year-olds
said that the charge is based on their income.
Far more day nurseries and child-minding families gear their charges to family income.
Nevertheless, one in three users reported that the charge is the same for everyone, which
may explain the higher hourly rate.
82
Part I/Chapter 3
Table 3.16General pricing scheme for formal child-minding (in %, multiple answers
possible)
Criteria for charges
Fixed charge based on income
Charge agreed with facility
Charge set by local authority
Charge set by school
Fixed charge, the same for
everyone
IBO
School
Day
nursery
2½-6
n=38
6-12
n=12
2½-6
n=136
6-12
n=30
2½-6
n=23
Childminding
family
2½-6
n=75
20.8
20.8
33.3
25.0
41.7
0.0
16.7
41.7
14.0
7.5
46.2
32.3
18.5
11.1
33.3
37.0
59.1
9.1
31.8
62.2
29.7
4.1
The majority of parents who have their children cared for in an out-of-school care initiative
or at school pay a fixed hourly rate. Day nurseries and child-minding families usually
charge a fixed amount per session, which is different from the pricing arrangements for
pre-school child-minding.
Table 3.17Pricing scheme as a function of length of child-minding in an IBO, school, day
nursery or with a child-minding family (in %)
Pricing scheme
Fixed charge per session
Fixed charge per half hour or
part of half hour
Fixed charge per hour
Fixed charge per half day
Fixed charge per day
Fixed charge per week
Fixed charge per month
Fixed charge per term
IBO
School
Day
nursery
2½-6
n=38
6-12
n=12
2½-6
n=136
6-12
n=30
2½-6
n=23
Childminding
family
2½-6
n=75
22.6
0.0
8.3
25.0
29.0
8.4
35.7
3.6
54.5
0.0
50.9
0.0
74.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
50.0
8.3
0.0
0.0
8.3
0.0
53.5
0.0
2.8
0.0
4.7
1.9
50.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
7.1
0.0
27.3
0.0
18.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
9.1
10.9
3.6
5.5
0.0
Types of child-minding used
83
The average hourly charge for child-minding in an IBO or a school is about the same at
BEF 45 to 46. However, the average amount paid per session is about 3 times higher in
an IBO. On average parents also pay more over a month to out-of-school care initiatives
than to school-based child-minding facilities.
The average hourly charge paid by the parents in the study to child-minding families is
much lower than the hourly rate charged by day nurseries, as is the amount paid per
session. The high average monthly amount paid to child-minding families compared with
IBOs or school-based child-minding facilities can probably be explained by the fact that a
large number of the schoolchildren who are cared for by child-minding families only go to
school part time and stay with the child-minding family the rest of the week (usually in the
afternoons).
Table 3.18Average amount paid by the parents of children aged 2½ to 6 years for formal
child-minding* (in BEF)
Amount
Per session
Per hour
Per week
Per month
*
IBO
School
Day nursery
2½-6
n=38
2½-6
n=136
2½-6
n=23
243
46
1 600
76
45
498
540
195
-
Child-minding
family
2½-6
n=75
398
56
650
7 750
No equivalent figures are available for 6-12-year-olds.
3.3.3 Cost of domestic staff
About six out of ten of the parents with children aged between 2½ and 6 years who rely on
domestic staff or people from the PWA for their child-minding pay them an hourly rate.
41.7% of these parents pay BEF 100 per hour; 16.5% pay between BEF 100 and 200;
25.0% pay between BEF 200 and 250; and 16.8% pay BEF 250 per hour. Four families
had different methods of payment, namely:

BEF 1000 for one evening and one night;

BEF 700 for two mornings;

BEF 120 per hour until 19.00, BEF 80 per hour until 24.00, and an overnight stay from
21.00 to 08.00 costs BEF 500;

payment for general domestic help: dusting, ironing, cooking and child-minding.
84
Part I/Chapter 3
Table 3.19Pricing scheme for child-minding provided by domestic staff and PWA
personnel to parents of children aged 2½ to 6 years (in %)
Pricing scheme
Parents of children aged 2½ to 6
n=23
Per hour
No payment
Per month
Different payment method
59.1
13.6
13.6
18.2
Two of the three families with children aged 6 to 12 years who use domestic staff for childminding pay a fixed amount per month: BEF 23 000 in one case and BEF 27 000 in the
other case. The third family pays BEF 250 per session.
3.4 Distance to the child-minding facility
3.4.1 From home to the child-minding facility
The vast majority of families live within a 5 km radius of the child-minding facility that they
use. On average the longest distances are travelled to day nurseries. It may be that the
child-minding facilities are located on the route between home and the workplace of one
or both of the parents, but we have no data on this.
Table 3.20Distance from home to the child-minding facility (in %)
Distance
IBO
2½-6
n=38
0 km
Less than 5 km
5 km to 10 km
10 km to 20 km
20 km to 30 km
More than 30 km
15.4
71.8
10.3
2.6
0.0
0.0
School
6-12
n=12
7.7
84.6
0.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
2½-6
n=136
20.6
69.5
6.9
2.3
0.8
0.0
6-12
n=30
15.6
62.5
12.5
9.4
0.0
0.0
Day nursery
2½-6
n=23
Child-minding
family
2½-6
n=75
13.0
60.9
17.4
0.0
8.7
0.0
14.9
70.3
9.5
2.7
0.0
2.7
Types of child-minding used
85
3.4.2 From school to the child-minding facility
The distance between the child-minding facility and the child's school is also usually
5 kilometres or less. Remarkably, 30% of parents estimated the distance from school to
school-based child-minding as less than 5 km. This is surprising, as one would assume
that the distance from school to school would be 0 km. There could be a number of
reasons for this apparent anomaly. Parents could be confusing the school with the IBO,
some schools may accommodate their child-minding facilities elsewhere. Several schools
may combine to provide a joint out-of-school care facility, or one school may have several
sites and the child-minding facility may be on a different site from where the child attends
school in the daytime.
Table 3.21Distance from school to child-minding facility (in %)
Distance
IBO
2½-6
n=38
0 km
Less than 5 km
5 km to 10 km
10 km to 20 km
20 km to 30 km
More than 30 km
3.4.3
43.6
51.3
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
School
6-12
n=12
30.8
61.5
0.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
Day nursery
2½-6
n=136
6-12
n=30
2½-6
n=23
Child-minding
family
2½-6
n=75
71.9
28.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
71.0
25.8
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
68.2
22.7
4.5
0.0
4.5
0.0
19.2
75.3
4.1
1.4
0.0
0.0
Place where child-minding is provided by grandparents or other family members
Most informal child-minding is provided in the home of the grandparents, other family
members, friends, neighbours, etc.
When the child is cared for in his or her own home, this is usually for practical reasons.
Other reasons given are: the child takes part in activities (gymnastics, music lessons, etc.)
which are located close to his or her home, the child can go to bed on time, the child does
not need to get up early in the morning.
86
Part I/Chapter 3
Table 3.22Place where child-minding is provided by grandparents, other family members,
friends, neighbours, etc. (in %, multiple answers possible)
Place where child-minding provided
In the home of the grandparents, other
family members, friends, neighbours,
etc.
In the parents’ own home
Children aged
2½ to 6 years
n=298
Children aged
6 to 12 years
n=52
87.8
79.2
30.5
37.7
4. Conclusion
For the average group of parents with pre-school children (<2½ years), the most important
type of child-minding (where children spend the most time) is the child-minding family,
which may or may not be affiliated to a service, followed by the grandparents.
Grandparents are the most important when it comes to caring for children early in the
morning and late in the evening, times when fewer parents are able to use formal childminding facilities.
The study also found that the majority of parents usually only use one type of childminding. Where two or more types of child-minding are combined, this is usually a childminding family and grandparents or a day nursery and grandparents.
As far as the cost of child-minding is concerned, the study found that 80% of the
parents who use informal child-minding (child-minding by grandparents, other members of
the family, friends, neighbours, etc.) did not pay anything. The cost of formal childminding, on the other hand, may or may not be based on income depending on whether it
is subsidised or not. Some facilities work with fixed prices and some with variable prices.
The average daily charge is between BEF 505 (child-minding family affiliated to a service)
and BEF 579 (private day nursery). Parents who rely on domestic staff for child-minding
usually pay an hourly rate: on average BEF 186 per hour.
Most of the parents questioned live less than 5 km from their child's child-minding
facility.
Grandparents are the most important type of child-minding for the average group of
parents with nursery schoolchildren (aged 2½ to 6 years). Child-minding provided by and
in school comes in second place.
As with the pre-school children, most nursery schoolchildren are only cared for in one
type of child-minding facility. The most common combination is grandparents and schoolbased child-minding.
Types of child-minding used
87
The cost of using an out-of-school care initiative may be set by the local authority and it
may be dependent on income or the same for everyone. The cost of using school-based
child-minding may be set by the school or it may be a fixed price for everyone. The
average charge for child-minding provided by an out-of-school care initiative or a school is
about BEF 45 per hour. On average, parents pay BEF 167 per hour for child-minding
provided by domestic staff. Just as with the pre-school children, the distance from the
child-minding facility to the home is usually less than 5 km.
The school and grandparents come top as regards child-minding for primary
schoolchildren (aged 6 to 12 years). Slightly more than four in ten families combine two
types of child-minding. The fact that the parents of primary schoolchildren combine
different types of child-minding more than the other parents may be connected with the
fact that these older children adapt to different 'strange' environments more easily. The
most common combination for schoolchildren is the grandparents and school-based childminding. Grandparents are used most in combination with another (informal) type of childminding for all age groups.
The distance from the child-minding facility to the school is also usually 5 km or less for
these children.
88
Part I/Chapter 3
89
CHAPTER 4
CHOICE OF CHILD-MINDING
1. Introduction
This chapter discusses how parents choose child-minding, assuming that this is a twostage process. Parents usually have a preference for a particular type of child-minding
and based on that preference - and various other considerations - they then go on to look
for a particular child-minding place.
First parents weigh up the types of child-minding against each other, comparing them as
commodities, and decide on a ‘first choice’. It is assumed that parents have particular
views on the various types of child-minding. Examples of such views might be: ‘with
grandparents you know where you are’, or ‘day nursery staff are well trained’, or ‘with a
child-minding family it is always the same person who looks after the child’. These views
take into account the images they have built up based on previous experience, hearsay,
preconceptions, convictions about bringing up children, etc. Broadly speaking, three types
of pre-school child-minding can be distinguished: grandparents, day nurseries and childminding families. Then there are two types of out-of-school care: out-of-school care
initiatives (IBOs) and child-minding provided in and by the school. There are further
distinctions to be made within the three types of pre-school child-minding, for instance
between subsidised and private child-minding, but it is assumed that these distinctions do
not filter through to affect the parents' general image.
First we discuss the process in which parents weigh up the different types of child-minding
and the reasons they give for their choices, distinguishing between the responses to the
survey and spontaneous comments by parents on these matters.
Next we go on to look at the search for a child-minding place, focusing on when the
choice is made, how long it takes to find a place, the information on which the choice is
based, problems experienced in finding suitable child-minding and the reasons that
decided the final choice. The final section analyses the factors that determine the choice
of child-minding type and place.
The pre-school group is examined first, followed by the schoolchildren.
90
Part I/Chapter 4
2. Choice of child-minding for pre-school children
2.1 Weighing up the three types of child-minding
The first question on the choice of child-minding aimed to find out what type of childminding parents would choose irrespective of all kinds of practical and chance
circumstances (such as whether the grandparents are able or willing to do it), that is to
say purely based on the more intrinsic characteristics of the child-minding itself. To
investigate this the survey included a question on the parents' general view on childminding by grandparents, in a day nursery or by a child-minding family. Each time they
were able to give one of two answers: 'it is a good type of child-minding' or 'it is not a good
type of child-minding'. Then they could give reasons for their view (see next section). The
responses are summarised in the following table. For the purposes of calculating the
percentages in the table, parents were assumed to have a preference for a particular type
of child-minding if they only mentioned advantages for that type (and no disadvantages)
and if they also did not mention any advantages for the other types.
Table 4.1
Preference for the three types of child-minding, weighted figures (in %)
Preference
N=1029
A clear preference for one type of child-minding
- child-minding family
- day nursery
- grandparents
22.0
8.1
6.8
A preference for two types of child-minding
- ‘formal provision' (day nursery or child-minding family)
- ‘family environment' (grandparents or child-minding family)
14.5
16.9
No clear preference
- whichever (only advantages mentioned for all three)
- whichever (advantages and disadvantages mentioned for all
three)
Other
16.8
10.0
5.0
The table shows that preferences are by no means clear cut and only about a third of the
parents express a firm preference. Of these the largest group prefer child-minding
families, a much smaller group prefer day nurseries, and an even smaller group prefer
grandparents.
Many parents state that they see advantages in different types of child-minding. When the
responses of these parents are analysed in more detail, a link can be seen between day
nurseries and child-minding families versus grandparents on the one hand (i.e. formal
versus informal provision) and between grandparents and child-minding families versus
day nurseries on the other hand (i.e. family-based care versus institutional care). When
these preferences are taken into account and added to those of the parents who
Choice of child-minding type
91
expressed a specific preference, the preference for child-minding families becomes
clearer.
At the same time the point should be made that for a significant group (about 1/4) it
does not make much difference, as they either only see advantages in all three types of
child-minding or they see advantages and disadvantages in all three types of childminding.
The preference for child-minding families conflicts with the - sometimes unclear - findings
of other studies. A study carried out in the early 1980s (Mens & Ruimte [People and
Space], 1984) found that 47.9% of parents questioned felt that grandparents were the
best people to care for their child. Many parents in this study looked no further once they
found that one or both grandparents were available. The rest chose formal child-minding.
However, the methodological comparability of the two studies is open to question.
Moreover, attitudes have probably changed a great deal since then and many
grandmothers are still working themselves or do not want (or no longer want) to take on
the responsibility of caring for their grandchildren full time.
In a later study organised by LISO (1991), no fewer than 59.5% of parents questioned
expressed a preference for grandparents. However, account should probably be taken of
the fact that this survey was conducted in Limburg, where the average share of childminding accounted for by grandparents is higher than in the rest of Flanders (see
Ruelens, 1999). There is also evidence for this from our study (see Table 4.15).
2.2 Reasons for preferences for one type of child-minding or another
Parents take many subjective considerations into account when weighing up different
types of child-minding (see Baele, 1992): educational quality, the presence of other
children, whether it is easy to get to, flexibility, cost, etc. A study conducted in the
Netherlands covered the following choice criteria: practical reasons, financial reasons,
availability, atmosphere including the extent to which the child-minding provided an
enjoyable experience for the children. The options of the parents in this study were also
usually limited by all kinds of practical circumstances (Van Dijke, 1994).
Generally speaking, these reasons can be put into two main groups: educational
approach (or educational quality) and service quality. Outside these two main groups,
other specific considerations play a role, such as: parents think that grandparents should
not be burdened with the responsibility, or parents are worried about interactions between
the child-minding family and their own family (see also below). These various
considerations make up a third category.
Educational quality
The educational quality of child-minding is a complex concept that incorporates both childrearing goals (e.g. personal development, cognitive and motor development, etc.) and
92
Part I/Chapter 4
means (the child-rearing climate, quality of the educational interactions, educational
framework conditions, etc.). Kind en Gezin has recently developed a ‘scale to assess the
educational functioning of day nurseries’ (Kind & Gezin, 1994), which lists a number of
educational principles that are also valid for the other types of child-minding. As will
become apparent, this scale could also be effectively - albeit implicitly - used by many
parents in making their own judgements.
Service quality
Service quality is another complex concept, incorporating aspects such as clientorientedness, flexibility of opening hours and universality (i.e. the availability of the service
to everyone who needs it for a reasonable price), etc. It is a concept that has already been
used for many years in the private sector. Companies see in it an opportunity to
distinguish themselves from their competitors when their products (or services) are of
more or less the same quality (as far as practical usefulness, workmanship, safety,
customer convenience, etc., are concerned). Research (Parasuraman, 1988) has found
that the main criteria applied by users to service quality are always associated with 5
aspects:
 reliability - i.e. strict fulfilment of agreements;
 responsiveness - willingness to meet the client's wishes;
 assurance - the competence and integrity emanating from the personnel;
 empathy - taking the trouble to be concerned about the client and his personal
situation;
 tangible elements – appearance of personnel, equipment, etc.
These studies usually establish a clear connection between this form of quality and user
satisfaction.
Other aspects specific to child-minding services that parents consider important can be
added: flexible hours, continuity (e.g. in the event of illness, holidays, etc.) and cost.
Then there are aspects that apply particularly to services where the user him- or herself
has expertise and experience, aspects to do with how much say the user has: is there
information about rights and obligations, is there a complaints procedure, and so on? The
choices offered by a particular type of child-minding, i.e. the range of provision within a
particular type, is another qualitative element.
Questions in the survey
The findings here are based on the same survey question that was used for weighing up
the types of child-minding, that is to say parents' general views on child-minding by
grandparents, in a day nursery and by a child-minding family. The main purpose of this
question was exploratory. A number of views were offered in the form of statements with
the (secondary) objective of eliciting as many comments as possible. The statements
Choice of child-minding type
93
presented to the parents were mainly centred on the two themes of educational quality
and service quality, plus a few statements outside these two main categories. We also
found that the parents' comments could largely be classed under these two headings.
The responses to the prepared statements in the questionnaires are discussed first,
followed by the parents' own comments.
2.2.1 Statements presented to the parents about the possible advantages and
disadvantages of the different types of child-minding
Table 4.2
Advantages and disadvantages of child-minding by grandparents, weighted figures (in
%, multiple answers possible)
Child-minding by grandparents
N=1029
Advantages
- Grandparents love their grandchildren
- The grandparents like to do it
- The child knows the grandparents well
- Grandparents do not have to be paid or they are paid less
- With grandparents at least you know where you are
- Other
74.9
Disadvantages
- Parents do not want grandparents to be burdened with childminding
- Grandparents spoil their grandchildren too much
- Grandparents would be able to interfere with the family too
much
- Grandparents are sometimes a bit old-fashioned
- Other
51.8
52.3
44.5
43.5
26.2
23.7
13.7
31.7
23.3
13.0
3.9
12.1
The family bond (grandparents love their grandchildren, the child knows the grandparents
well) seems to weigh more strongly for the grandparents than the financial aspect. The
fact that grandparents want to look after the child is an 'outside category' argument that
does not come into the picture with the other two types of child-minding. In the list of
statements ‘assurance’ is formulated as: ‘with grandparents at least you know where you
are’. About 24% of the parents endorse this statement.
Under the disadvantages the desire not to put too great a burden on grandparents is
the most important consideration. Only a smaller group of parents are concerned about
spoiling. In contrast with findings that emerge from articles on the sociology of the family
(see discussion in Ruelens L., 1999), few parents are worried about negative interactions
such as interference in their own family. Hardly anyone endorsed the idea that
grandparents would be old-fashioned.
The ‘other’ advantages and disadvantages will be discussed later with the parents’
comments.
94
Table 4.3
Part I/Chapter 4
Advantages and disadvantages of child-minding in day nurseries, weighted figures (in
%, multiple answers possible)
Day nurseries
N=1029
Advantages
- The fact that there are other children there is good for the
child's development
- The conditions are generally good
- The staff are well trained
- They do not try to impose any particular educational values
- Other
71.4
Disadvantages
- Day nurseries are quite expensive
- Day nurseries are only open during normal working hours
- The children and parents are too often treated as numbers
- Other
53.6
59.1
33.9
30.9
5.8
8.1
26.5
25.5
15.0
15.2
About 71% of the parents endorse one or more advantages of day nurseries. The
presence of other children emerges as the most important advantage followed by the
equipment and professionalism almost equal in second place. The neutrality of the
educational values is seen as less of an advantage. Indeed, from the parents' comments it
seems that some of them even regard this as a disadvantage: ‘there is an absence of
educational values’, ‘the child-rearing values and customs are not always the same as at
home’.
The most significant disadvantage of child-minding in a day nursery proves to be cost.
About 3 in 10 parents consider this type of child-minding to be too expensive. The
inflexible opening hours are also seen as a disadvantage by almost the same number of
parents. In addition, only about 15% of the parents subscribe to the view that the children
and parents are too often treated as numbers.
Table 4.4
Advantages and disadvantages of child-minding by child-minding families, weighted
figures (in %, multiple answers possible)
Child-minding families
N=1029
Advantages
- It is always the same person who looks after your child
- There is a more personal bond with the child-minding family
- A family atmosphere is essential for the care of children
- The other children can also go to the child-minding family
- Other
73.2
Disadvantages
- Child-minding families' houses are not always suitable
- Not all child-minding families are suited for this type of work
- Other
25.9
46.4
44.7
35.4
23.3
9.0
13.1
11.2
13.1
Choice of child-minding type
95
As far as child-minding families are concerned, about 45% of the parents endorse the
statements ‘it is always the same person who looks after your child’ and ‘there is a
personal bond’. 35% of parents subscribe to the view that a family atmosphere is essential
for the care of young children. The practical advantage that other children in the family
can also go there is important for slightly more than 1/5 of the group.
Only a small group of parents saw the (lack of) training of the child-minding family and
the fact that the house is not always suitably equipped as a disadvantage.
2.2.2 The parents' comments
The parents took up the opportunity to express their opinions on a large scale. An attempt
has been made to classify the responses under the heading of 'educational qualities' of
the facilities and under the various aspects of 'service quality' (assurance, quality of care,
flexibility and so on). Other aspects which were relevant to their deliberations but which
are not features of the type of child-minding itself are put into a third category.
Grandparents, day nurseries and child-minding families are discussed in turn.
2.2.2.1 Educational considerations
The questionnaires contained many references to the educational quality of the childminding facilities. What seems to be central to this is ‘the attention given to the child’, but
this is a broad notion that is often broken down further by parents into many different
aspects of attention and educational values.
1. Grandparents
The following are mentioned as advantages of grandparents:
 The family atmosphere: ‘the child is cared for in a family atmosphere’.
 The vast amount of free time that grandparents have so that the child gets far more
attention: ‘grandma is always doing things with him/her and our child is learning songs
and reading books’.
 More variety in the attention the child gets: ‘they do activities that would not be
possible in the crèche, like going on outings’.
 The absence of other children: ‘they don’t have to share their grandparents with other
children’.
 The peace and quiet at the grandparents' home: ‘no rushing about like there is with
mummy at home’.
 The child will be brought up in accordance with family tradition: ‘the same values and
so on’; ‘I was happy with my own upbringing’; ‘they pass on more or less the same
values as we do as parents’.
 The importance of the older generation in bringing up children: ‘grandparents put
some child-rearing problems into perspective’; ‘there is a wealth of input for the little
ones because of the previous generation’.
96
Part I/Chapter 4
What one parent sees as an advantage may be felt to be a disadvantage by another
parent.
 The absence of other children: ‘I think it is important that our child can play with
children of his/her own age’; ‘children learn a lot from each other’; ‘the child is not the
centre of attention’; ‘it is nice if there are other small children there’; ‘children learn to
make social contacts’, etc.
 The older generation has different values.
 By taking on the responsibility for child-minding the grandparents lose their own role:
‘grandma and grandpa should be able to spoil their grandchildren and not have to lay
down rules’; ‘using them for child-minding would deny them the opportunity to play the
role of grandma and grandpa’.
 One comment along the same lines argues that grandparents confuse the two roles of
grandparent and carer responsible for upbringing: ‘they let the children do more than
they are allowed to do at home, which creates problems and confusion’.
 Other comments along the same lines indicate that grandparents are unable to
distance themselves from the child precisely because they are grandparents: ‘they
worry too much’; ‘they would rush to the casualty department of the hospital at the
slightest cough’; ‘I'm afraid they would spoil him/her’.
2. Day nurseries
The comments on day nurseries put rather a lot of emphasis on personal development
and the development of skills.
 Parents argue that day nurseries are good for the child's personal development: ‘there
is discipline and obedience’; ‘children who go to a child-minder or crèche are far more
independent and sociable’; ‘I think it is important that my child learns to share
attention with others’; ‘they learn to get on with other children’; ‘the child learns to
accept and trust people other than his/her own family’; ‘the care is not too personal
and it is good preparation for the situation at school’; ‘they are allowed to do just as
much or as little as they are at home and so don't get confused about what is and is
not allowed’; ‘the children get out of nappies and become more independent faster’.
 Another argument is the learning of skills: ‘day nursery is like a small school and the
children learn more’; ‘children learn to be open to other cultures and customs at an
early age’; ‘the children quickly learn all kinds of things and the move to the nursery
class is easier’; ‘they learn to paint, do craftwork and so on’; ‘there are specific
activities for the children’; ‘they learn a lot there’; ‘they offer the children things you
cannot offer them at home’; ‘they learn a great deal from the activities that they do
with the children’.
 One point that also came up with the grandparents is that more time is spent doing
things with the children: ‘there are enough staff to follow each child and treat them in a
way that is appropriate for their age’; ‘there is nothing for them to do apart from
engaging with the children’.
Choice of child-minding type
97
Once again some parents take a different view and see these supposed advantages as
disadvantages.
 The absence of a personal approach: ‘there is no personal approach because of the
changeover of staff’; ‘the staff are only doing their job’; ‘the people change so quickly
that it is difficult for the child to form attachments’; ‘the children are too tied to a
schedule’; ‘there is too much routine and too little time for each child as an individual';
‘they cannot do anything with the child on an individual basis’; ‘it is all too much like
school’; ‘there are too many children for each care worker’; ‘the routine of the crèche
takes the place of the child's own routine’; ‘as soon as the children can walk, the
family approach stops and it gets more like school in my opinion’.
 The strict division into age groups also does not find favour with some parents
because it is too artificial.
 Another point along the same lines: ‘the group is too big with all the consequences
this brings for attention, care and so on’; ‘if there are too many children in the group
then my child does not get enough attention’; ‘there is a lack of security because of
the large number of children’; ‘the child does not get personal care and attention
because there are other children demanding attention’; ‘the children do not get the
attention that they certainly need in the early years’; ‘there are several care workers,
so they do not know the children very well and they are not always aware of
everything that is going on’; ‘it is not a natural environment (family affection)’; ‘there
isn't really a family atmosphere’.
3. Child-minding families
Child-minding families can be seen as an intermediate form between the purely informal
approach of grandparents and the purely formal approach of the day nursery. They
combine the advantages (or disadvantages) of the small scale, family ambience and
personal bond with the advantages (or disadvantages) of professionalism (distance,
assurance, quality guarantee, etc.). Some people mainly make comparisons with day
nurseries, others with grandparents, and many parents also made comments in this
context.
 On attention: ‘there is more attention than in a day nursery’; ‘there are fewer children
than in a crèche so each child gets more attention’; ‘there are fewer children per
carer’; ‘the interaction with the child is more intensive’.
 This is connected with the expectation that a personal bond with the child is possible
and that a secure family atmosphere is being offered: ‘they can take the child's
personal routine into account’; ‘a lot of attention devoted to child-rearing: toilet
training, learning to walk, tinkering’; ‘a child-minder is definitely good for small
children’; ‘our child-minder is a ‘real’ mother’; ‘the child-minder knows our child really
well’; ‘the child-minder is a second mother to him/her’.
 One point made specifically in relation to child-minders is that parents have more
choice, they can choose a child-minding family whose ‘educational values match
those at home’.
98


Part I/Chapter 4
Other comments frequently relate to the presence of other children and are no
different from the comments on day nurseries on this point: ‘contact with other
children is important’; ‘they learn from other children through play’; ‘the children
become more independent’; ‘there are children of different ages’; ‘they learn to
consider other children’; ‘there is more discipline than with the grandparents’.
The fact that brothers and sisters can stay together (unlike day nurseries) is also seen
as an advantage.
Some parents have less confidence in the educational quality of child-minding families
and see their child as being exposed to many potential disasters:
 Where supporters of child-minding families see the personal bond as the trump card,
this represents a potential risk to opponents: ‘the child gets too attached to that one
person’; ‘sometimes the bond with the child-minding family is too personal’; ‘the
children sometimes get too attached to the child-minding family’; ‘we feel that a childminder is often a sort of pseudo-mother’; ‘the child is put in the care of one person and
if it doesn't click it is just hard luck (in a crèche there are several people)’; ‘children
have less opportunity to learn to adjust to different people’; ‘they see the same childminder all the time’; ‘a child-minding family is too much like the situation at home’; ‘I
think it is necessary and important for the child to experience differences’; ‘we are not
in favour of just one person being engaged in bringing up our child’.
 The fact that there are several children there is sometimes also seen as a
disadvantage: ‘the child-minder has 6 children at the moment and that is far too
many’; ‘they take more children than is good in order to still have some money left’;
‘there are sometimes too many children so that it is too hectic’; ‘too many children are
left in the care of one person’; ‘I don't believe that one person can cope with so many
children’; ‘there is more risk of them picking up illnesses from the other children’; ‘the
child gets less stimulation’; ‘there are too many different ages all together’.
 The child-minding family cannot always give its undivided attention to the children:
‘the child-minder does her housework while the children are there’; ‘as well as looking
after the children, the child-minder usually also has to do her housework’; ‘she is often
doing household tasks at the same time with the result that there is less supervision’;
‘their own housework sometimes comes first’; ‘they treat the children differently from
their own children or grandchildren’.
 Problems to do with educational values can also arise: ‘if you use a child-minding
family the child is brought up according to the child-minder's values’; ‘the educational
values are sometimes different from those of the parents’.
 According to the parents, child-minders are also less well equipped: ‘there is less
variety of toys and fewer suitable toys’.
2.2.2.2 Service quality
Parents also have different perceptions and expectations of the three types of childminding as far as service quality is concerned. Important elements that come to the fore
Choice of child-minding type
99
are: assurance of quality (reliability and integrity of the carer, professionalism); the amount
of parental involvement; the quality of the care; and flexibility and continuity (e.g. when
staff are ill, during the holidays, etc.). It is not always easy to distinguish between service
quality and educational quality, so some of the comments could be put under either
heading.
a) Grandparents
Having one's children looked after by their grandparents also has its obvious advantages
and disadvantages as far as service quality is concerned.
Advantages
 An important trump card held by grandparents is the trust that parents have in them,
they know them very well and know where they are with them. For many parents this
is an important criterion when they are choosing child-minding: ‘we'd rather our child
was with family than with strangers’; ‘we can be certain about how our child will be
looked after’; ‘you know the principles by which the grandparents will bring up your
child’; ‘you are confident that your child will be well cared for and is in good hands’.
 Other comments reveal the importance of parental involvement: ‘you can come to an
agreement with grandparents about how your child is brought up’.
 The quality of care is equally important. Advantages mentioned for grandparents are:
‘flexible response to ever changing care needs’; ‘if the child is ill the family doctor can
be contacted straight away’; ‘the child can keep his own routine’; ‘the baby does not
have to be got out of bed in the morning because the grandparents come to our
house’; ‘the child gets their full attention and can sleep when he/she needs to’. One
parent mentioned less risk of infection by other children as another advantage.
 The importance of flexibility also emerged from a large number of comments returned
with the questionnaires: ‘grandparents are always on standby, including if I have to
work at the weekend’. Many parents referred to the complementary function of care by
grandparents: ‘they are available to care for the children outside the hours of formal
child-minding facilities in an emergency, in unforeseen circumstances (e.g. when the
children are ill) or during the school holidays’; ‘irregular hours, early or late, or possibly
staying overnight, it's not a problem’; ‘grandparents can care for children when you
work irregular hours or at the weekend’; ‘it is difficult to find a child-minder who starts
at 6 a.m.’; ‘grandparents provide essential extra care outside the crèche’;
‘grandparents are available 24 hours a day’.
Some parents also see disadvantages here however:
 In connection with assurance: ‘grandparents sometimes go their own way too much’;
‘they do not respect our eating habits’.
 In connection with parental involvement: ‘when something goes wrong with
arrangements you have made, intervening is a more delicate matter’.
100
Part I/Chapter 4
b) Day nurseries
Advantages according to some parents:
 Assurance: ‘they are professional’; ‘there is social control among the care workers’;
‘staff monitor each other so that abuse and neglect cannot happen’.
 Parental involvement: ‘you can say what you think about the way they handle the
children’.
 The care: ‘there is a nurse there all the time and the doctor visits twice a month’;
‘there are several different members of staff so it is not too onerous for one care
worker’; ‘they have time for the children because they don't have any housework to
do’; ‘the staff are “at work” and their job is to look after the children’; ‘they are doing
things with the children all the time’; ‘the child comes into contact with illnesses at a
very young age’.
 One parent chose a day nursery over a child-minder for the sake of continuity: ‘I prefer
the crèche because a child-minder can get ill or go on holiday’; ‘day nurseries offer
continuity of care, at least most of them do’.
Other parents have an entirely opposite opinion:
 In connection with assurance: ‘I don't trust strangers with my child because you hear
so much’; ‘I would rather see the children grow up within the family’; ‘there are a lot of
bad reports about our local crèche’.
 The care: ‘the crèche we visited was rather noisy’; ‘poor sleeping facilities’; ‘too many
different ages’; ‘cold clean room, not homely’; ‘rather hectic’; ‘not as peaceful as at
home or with a child-minder’; ‘too large-scale and so the children don't have their own
bedrooms for instance’; ‘there are usually too many children (pick up more illnesses,
etc.)’; ‘children sometimes bring illnesses home’.
 Day nurseries also have a number of disadvantages in relation to the flexibility of
child-minding hours: ‘they often insist on a minimum number of days or a fixed time
schedule’; ‘they could make some improvements as far as the hours and holidays are
concerned’; ‘the child cannot be cared for when he/she is ill’; ‘they are not open during
the holidays’; ‘they are not flexible for people who work irregular hours’; ‘they do not
open early enough’; ‘they are only open until 18.00 at the latest and not at the
weekend’.
 On continuity: 'they could make some improvements as far as the hours and holidays
are concerned’; ‘the child cannot be cared for when he/she is ill’; ‘they are not open
during the holidays’.
c) Child-minding families
Advantages:
 Assurance: ‘child-minders are usually well trained’; ‘the child-minder is a person I can
trust’; ‘child-minders keep up to date all the time through follow-up courses’; ‘children
are closely monitored’. The greater choice here is also seen as an advantage of this
type of child-minding: ‘you can choose a child-minding family that suits you and your
Choice of child-minding type



101
child’; ‘provided you ask around and visit a few you can choose someone you click
with’.
Parental involvement: ‘the child-minder is more ready to respect the parents' wishes
than the grandparents’; ‘you have a say in the upbringing’; ‘you can make individual
arrangements’; ‘in the end you know what the child-minder is doing’; ‘you can clearly
say what you want (upbringing, food, different hours, extra day, etc.)’; ‘clear
arrangements can be made easier’.
Care: ‘the child-minding family can keep a close eye on the child (e.g. in the event of
illness)’; ‘the doctor can call at the child-minder's home’; ‘it is not so busy for the child
as it is in the crèche’.
Flexibility: ‘more flexible hours than in the crèche’; ‘I can also call on the child-minding
family at night’; ‘the hours are better’; ‘you can take your baby there outside normal
office hours’; ‘flexible as to whether I take him/her or not’; ‘after-school care is
possible’.
On the other hand many parents do not value child-minding families so highly on service
quality. Mainly, the lack of assurance plays a role here. The large number of comments
received is a bit contrary to the previous heading, but this is probably connected with the
fact that the more highly educated parents made the most comments and so their
opinions dominate here.
 Assurance: ‘quality is not guaranteed’; ‘there are only a limited number of childminders and the good ones are quickly filled up so the choice is limited’; ‘there is no
direct supervision (e.g. by Kind en Gezin) of child-minding families’; ‘you never know
for sure who you are dealing with’; ‘there is no supervision as far as meals or hygiene
are concerned’; ‘there is no social control’; ‘you don't know what goes on when you
are not there’; ‘there is less control on what is going on than in a crèche’; ‘you don't
know enough about the child-minder's family circumstances’; ‘what it comes down to
is leaving your child with a stranger’; ‘there are no unannounced checks’; ‘bad
situations come to light too late’.
 Other parents say that this type of care is more open to abuse of trust than other
types: ‘a child-minder is completely on her own, she cannot take a breath and this
may affect the children’; ‘suppose the child-minder smokes, I would not want that’; ‘the
child is exposed to the private problems in the child-minding family's home’; ‘negative
factors in the child-minding family can affect the child: smoking, arguments, etc.’; ‘they
tend to interfere in your child’s upbringing’; ‘not all child-minding families give the
children 100%’; ‘the idea that they are only doing it for money’; ‘for a lot of them it is
only a way to earn extra money’; ‘they sometimes do it for the convenience of working
at home’.
 Parental involvement: ‘parents are not sufficiently involved in their child’s upbringing’.
 Care: ‘cleanliness left something to be desired’; ‘the children were always kept in the
back kitchen’.
102

Part I/Chapter 4
Flexibility (‘until 18.00 at the latest and not at the weekend’) and continuity: ‘I prefer
the crèche because a child-minder can get ill or go on holiday’; ‘you cannot always
rely on them’; ‘if the child-minder is ill you have to find an alternative’.
2.2.2.3 Other considerations
Finally, there are other considerations that parents take into account that have nothing to
do with educational quality or service quality. Most of these considerations relate to
grandparents and fewer to day nurseries and child-minding families.
a) Grandparents
Various additional considerations evidently play a role here both for and against childminding by grandparents:
 Grandparents often want to care for their grandchildren: ‘we would not want to
disappoint them’, and - provided it goes well - ‘grandparents' will is law’.
 Grandparents providing child-minding is sometimes seen as a way of strengthening
the family bond: ‘it encourages contact between grandparents and grandchild’; ‘he/she
stays within the family’; ‘the grandparent-grandchild relationship is important to the
child’.
 This is exactly what some parents want to avoid: ‘I would be horrified if our daughter
became more attached to them than to us’.
 Other considerations that militate against using grandparents for child-minding are
connected with the burden being put on the grandparents: ‘it is a good form of care if
the grandparents are still young, otherwise it is too much for them’; ‘good for a few
hours a week’; ‘good care provided good arrangements are made and not too often’;
‘grandparents are entitled to enjoy their free time’; ‘if both grandparents no longer
work’; ‘they are happy to do it occasionally’; ‘it is enough to call on them when the
children are ill or on days off’; ‘full-time child-minding is not their role’; ‘grandparents
have their own lives to lead’; ‘there is nothing against grandparents baby-sitting
occasionally at the weekend or in the holidays’; ‘it has to be entirely their choice’;
‘grandparents have spent 25 years bringing up children and now it is time for them to
be grandparents’; ‘they have to be able to get something out of their lives’; ‘it must not
be something they feel they have to do’; ‘I don't want to be dependent on the
grandparents because we rely on them enough when the children are ill for instance’;
‘it must not be a daily grind for grandma and grandpa’; ‘we did not want to misuse this
method of child-minding because it is easy and cheap’; ‘looking after children all day
is too tiring for older people’.
b) Day nurseries
Here there are parents who regard the contact with other parents as an advantage: ‘you
meet other parents’; ‘it is often helpful and enjoyable to exchange experiences’. Of course,
Choice of child-minding type
103
this is also possible among parents who use child-minding families but it is evidently more
specific to day nurseries, probably because of the set closing time.
c) Child-minding families
A number of considerations come into play here that the literature of child-minding,
remarkably enough, has mainly linked to care by grandparents, and which concern
potential negative interactions between the child-minding family and one's own family,
such as unwanted interference in upbringing and family life and infringements of
autonomy. A few parents said: ‘I don't thing the interaction with the child-minder's own
family is very beneficial’; ‘the child-minder could be too ready to see herself as a substitute
mother’; ‘there is a risk that the child would concentrate on the child-minding family more
than on his/her own family’.
2.3 The choice of the child-minding place
The second stage in the choice process is making the final choice of a particular childminding place from what is available, that is to say a particular child-minding family or day
nursery or a grandparent.
However, the fact that parents do not always have a clear preference has to be taken
into account, so some of them probably check out all three types.
Moreover, the choice of child-minding place will often be a compromise between what
they would have chosen beforehand and the feasibility of that choice in practice: the
chosen grandparent does not want to do it, the day nursery is too far away or too
expensive, they cannot find a suitable child-minding family. Then they will have to take a
form of child-minding other than their (theoretical) first choice.
Parents who do have a preference can start to look for a place right away. Here too a
number of considerations come into play, for instance why choose this child-minding
family rather than another one? The key issue is no longer a comparison of types of childminding but a comparison of child-minding places.
The following sections examine a number of formal aspects of the search process and the
problems people experience, and then go on to investigate the decisive arguments.
2.3.1 Timing of the choice
We investigated when parents make enquiries about child-minding options. Most parents
evidently do this quite soon, between the first and third month of the pregnancy. 12.1%
even obtain information prior to pregnancy. A minority are relaxed about it and postpone
making enquiries. This may be because they already have a place, the grandparents, for
instance, or the child-minding facility their other children attend.
104
Part I/Chapter 4
Table 4.5 Time when parents make enquiries about child-minding options (in %)
Time of enquiries
Prior to pregnancy
During the first trimester (1st to 3rd month) of the pregnancy
During the second trimester (3rd to 6th month) of the
pregnancy
During the third trimester (6th to 9th month) of the
pregnancy
Immediately after the birth
At a different time
N=656
12.1
34.7
29.2
9.8
6.6
13.0
2.3.2 Length of the search
The high percentage of parents who need less than a week to find suitable child-minding
for their baby is striking. Parents who plan to use a private day nursery usually need
rather longer.
Length of search for a suitable child-minding place (in %)
Length of search
Less than one week
A few weeks
A few months
Longer
Grandparents
68.9
22.5
7.3
1.3
Other family,
friends,
neighbours
Childminding
family
affiliated to a
service
Private childminding
family
Subsidised
day nursery
Private day
nursery
79.3
13.8
6.9
0.0
50.7
37.0
10.5
1.8
50.8
37.7
8.2
3.3
59.5
25.3
11.4
3.8
42.6
42.6
13.0
1.9
Domestic
staff
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.6
6
106
Part I/Chapter 4
2.3.3 Information on which parents base their choice
Parents base their choice on experience more than anything - both their own experience
and the experiences of friends, acquaintances or members of their family - and less on
formal channels.
Table 4.7
Information on which parents base their choice of child-minding (in %, multiple
answers possible)
Information
N=656
Experiences of friends, acquaintances, family members, etc.
Own experiences
Brochure from Kind en Gezin on the various child-minding
options
Information from child-minding facilities themselves
Information from social workers and other professionals (doctor,
K&G nurse, etc.)
Information from the town council or local authority
Information from the media
59.5
35.3
22.2
19.6
12.9
9.9
1.6
2.3.4 Problems in finding a suitable child-minding place
About 45% of the parents came up against problems when looking for a suitable childminding place. The main obstacles were the long waiting lists (22.2%), not being able to
find child-minding that fits in with their working hours (14.9%), or not being able to find
child-minding near their home (12.7%). Finding affordable child-minding was evidently
only a problem for a small number of parents. We have to take into account here that
parents anticipate this and may have decided in advance to call upon the grandparents to
provide child-minding for financial reasons.
Table 4.8
Problems experienced by parents in finding a suitable child-minding place (in %,
multiple answers possible)
Problems experienced
N=656
Finding a place with a vacancy/long waiting lists
Finding a place that fits in with working hours
Finding a place in a convenient location/near home
Finding affordable child-minding
Too little information or too few addresses
Finding a place that matches parents' educational and moral
values
Other problems
22.2
14.9
12.7
6.2
5.4
3.7
No problems
55.8
4.1
Choice of child-minding type
107
A few parents (n=14) mentioned other difficulties that they came up against in
searching for a suitable child-minding place for their baby. 10 of these 14 parents
had problems assessing the quality of the child-minding facility. 3 parents had problems
finding child-minding for atypical times (only a few hours required, very early, or on
different days from week to week). Finally, there was one parent who had difficulty finding
child-minding for a disabled child. We will return to these last two problem situations later.
2.3.4 Decisive arguments
The table below gives a list of the reasons parents gave as being decisive in their choice
of a child-minding place. The reasons for each of the types of child-minding will be
discussed in turn. There are clear differences of emphasis.
Table 4.9
Reasons that were decisive in the actual choice of a child-minding place for each of
the most important types of child-minding, weighted figures (in %, n=656, multiple
answers possible)
Grandparents,
other family
members, PWA,
domestic staff,
etc.
n=215
Day nursery
n=251
Child-minding
family
n=190
42.4
14.0
23.5
41.7
37.7
31.7
16.4
63.8
28.0
8.2
15.3
71.9
39.5
9.2
19.1
Educational considerations
- Educational reasons
- Presence of other children
29.0
18.6
48.2
48.6
29.5
64.5
Quality of service
- Good care
- Flexibility offered
- Child's own preference
- Parents have a say
- Well equipped
61.0
55.7
49.6
26.1
18.2
51.2
19.1
29.4
12.4
57.8
59.0
28.8
41.8
22.7
28.4
Other reasons
10.1
15.1
16.3
Practical reasons
- Child can stay when he/she gets
older
- Easy to get to
- Brothers or sisters can go there too
- Financial reasons
- It was the only option
Good care and the flexibility offered are the most important criteria in the choice of
grandparents over the other two forms. The most important criteria for day nurseries are
that they should be easy to get to and well equipped. For child-minding families ‘easy to
get to’ again comes first (even more clearly than for day nurseries), with the presence of
other children in second place. Overall the least important consideration turned out to be
108
Part I/Chapter 4
the parents' opportunity to have a say. Some parents also evidently had little or no choice
or only had one option.
A few parents gave other reasons: ‘to please the grandparents’; ‘we are friendly with
the child-minding family’; or ‘the child-minder is a neighbour and the baby knows her
already’.
We were also able to investigate which are the ‘comparative advantages’ or trump cards
of each type of child-minding over the other two. This can be deduced from the different
weights given to the reasons for the three types of care.
 With grandparents flexibility with regard to hours, the good relationship with the child,
the financial aspect and the fact that the child can stay when he/she gets older carry
more weight than they do for the other types of child-minding.
 Educational aspects and good equipment constitute comparative advantages in the
choice of day nurseries over the other types. A comparative disadvantage is the fact
that the children cannot stay when they get older.
 With child-minding families parents take the facts that they are easy to get to and that
there are other children there into account more than with the other types.
An earlier HIVA study (Baele & Hedebouw, 1992) also found that considerations relating
to educational quality and service quality (the confidence that parents have in the person
providing the care, the flexibility to match child-minding hours with working hours, cost,
etc.) are important for the child-minding place. In fact the same standards apply to the
choice of a specific child-minding place as to the choice of a type of child-minding, which
should not come as a surprise. In addition, a number of practical considerations come into
play, such as accessibility, the child's own preference or the fact that they could not find
anything else.
2.4 Factors determining choice
We will now run through the various independent variables, examining how the preference
profiles differ in each case.
Mother's working
hours
Distribution of
mothers by
working hours
(column %)
Working full time
Working part time
Work temporarily
discontinued
Not working
52.2
31.5
14.9
1.4
Grandparents
Other
family,
friends,
neighbours
Childminding
family
affiliated to a
service
Private childminding
family
Subsidised
day nursery
Private day
nursery
Domestic
staff
21.2
28.9
31.1
6.0
5.3
3.1
31.0
34.5
27.8
8.8
10.0
7.2
24.7
16.7
22.1
8.1
4.6
8.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
20.7
13.3
20.7
8.6
23.4
13.3
0.0
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.10 The link between the mother's working hours and the choice of child-minding type, weighted figures (in row %, n=656)
6
110
2.4.1
Part I/Chapter 4
Mother's working hours and the choice of child-minding type
Several trends can be observed in connection with the mother's working hours and the
type of child-minding that she uses for the most hours per week.
 Child-minding families affiliated to a service emerge as the most important type of
child-minding for both full-time and part-time working mothers. Subsidised day
nurseries come in second place among mothers who work full time, while for mothers
who work part time it is the grandparents. This difference is not insignificant. The last
section explained how the lack of flexibility with regard to opening hours is a
disadvantage of day nurseries for some parents. Day nurseries often require the
children to be left for set times and they are not flexible when it comes to irregular
working hours. It seems that this lack of flexibility is a relevant factor for women who
work part time when it comes to choosing this type of child-minding. Day nurseries
(subsidised and private combined) are the most important type of child-minding for
only 21.3% of mothers who work part time.
 For mothers who have temporarily discontinued work, grandparents are the most
important type of child-minding, probably because it is mainly occasional childminding that is involved here.
2.4.2 Work regime of the mother and the choice of child-minding type
The mother's work regime turns out not to be decisive for the choice of child-minding type.
Indeed, child-minding families affiliated to a service are the most important type of childminding for both mothers with regular hours and mothers with irregular hours. This
confirms once again the flexibility of child-minding families.
However, looking at day nurseries (subsidised and private combined), it emerges that
mothers with regular hours choose day nurseries in far greater numbers (30.2%) than the
other mothers. Day nurseries come in second place for mothers with regular hours, while
for all other mothers the grandparents are in second place.
Mother's work
regime
Regular hours
Shiftwork
Night work
Weekend work
Completely
irregular working
hours
Distribution of
mothers by work
regime
(column %)
74.5
6.4
2.5
5.8
14.7
Grandparents
25.3
34.5
31.5
28.8
26.2
Other
family,
friends,
neighbours
Childminding
family
affiliated to a
service
Private childminding
family
Subsidised
day nursery
Private day
nursery
Domestic
staff
3.8
7.1
0.0
7.9
9.0
31.9
34.6
41.3
43.1
31.5
8.6
10.0
4.9
0.0
8.7
23.8
13.8
9.8
12.8
15.1
6.4
0.0
12.5
7.4
9.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.11 The link between the mother's work regime and the choice of child-minding type, weighted figures (in row %, n=656, multiple answers
possible)
6
112
Part I/Chapter 4
2.4.3 Educational level of the mother and the choice of child-minding type
The mother's educational qualifications appear to play a role in the choice of child-minding
type: mothers with a university degree make significantly more use of day nurseries than
the other mothers and less use of grandparents. The day nursery is the most important
type for this group, while the child-minding family is the most important type for the other
mothers. However, this is not a straightforward trend, given that large numbers of mothers
with only a low level of education also use day nurseries quite a lot. This may be because
of the variable charges based on income (see below in the section on family income) and
this is probably the reason for the finding that mothers with a low level of education also
make the most use of child-minding families. It is worthy of note that the lowest educated
and the highest educated mothers use less informal care by grandparents than the other
groups.
The literature also mentions this link with the mother's educational qualifications
(Brubaker, 1990 in Jacobs & Derycke, 1993; Wilson, 1987). The higher the mother's level
of education, the less she relies on family and the more she places the child in the care
mainly of child-minders and of other third parties. Generally speaking it is mainly very
young mothers with a low level of education who rely on their families. This socially
unequal participation in collective child-minding facilities is (sometimes) called the
Matthew effect in child-minding. Another explanation is that there is a correlation between
the mother's participation in the labour market and that of the grandmother, in other words
if the mother is working there is a good chance that the grandmother will also be working,
so that supply does not always link up with demand. According to this hypothesis, it is the
availability of the grandparents that is the main issue rather than the financial factor.
Mother's
educational
qualifications
< Lower
secondary
Higher secondary
Higher education
University
education
Distribution of
mothers by
educational
qualifications
(column %)
Grandparent
s
Other
family,
friends,
neighbours
Childminding
family
affiliated to
a service
Private
childminding
family
Subsidised
day nursery
Private day
nursery
Domestic
staff
15.6
16.7
8.3
35.4
10.4
25.0
4.2
0.0
34.3
36.7
13.4
34.0
24.9
14.6
6.1
4.5
1.5
29.9
31.6
31.5
8.6
8.4
8.5
14.4
22.9
35.4
7.0
7.4
8.5
0.0
0.3
0.0
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.12 The link between the mother's educational qualifications and the choice of child-minding type, weighted figures (in %, n=656)
6
114
Part I/Chapter 4
2.4.4 Occupation of the mother and choice of child-minding type
Executive mothers and professional mothers constitute an exception in the choice of childminding type just as they did with respect to the use of child-minding. Day nurseries are
the most important type of child-minding for mothers in executive positions and mothers
practising a profession. Child-minding families are the most important type of childminding for all other mothers. In second place come grandparents for all mothers except
mothers in junior service posts and the self-employed, for whom it is day nurseries, and
professional mothers, for whom it is child-minding families.
Occupation of
mother
Distribution of
mothers by
occupation
(column %)
Manual worker
Junior posts in
service sector
Executive
Civil servant
Self-employed
Professional
Housewife
No occupation
19.5
64.0
2.7
4.0
7.1
2.3
0.3
0.1
Grandparents
Other
family,
friends,
neighbours
Childminding
family
affiliated to a
service
Private childminding
family
Subsidised
day nursery
Private day
nursery
Domestic
staff
26.1
25.6
6.9
4.0
37.9
30.3
9.0
9.6
17.9
22.8
2.2
7.7
0.0
0.0
28.2
30.4
19.3
14.4
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
17.5
5.2
0.0
0.0
15.7
32.0
29.9
32.7
100.0
0.0
11.4
9.0
1.7
5.2
0.0
0.0
33.3
26.0
17.0
32.7
0.0
0.0
11.4
2.6
13.0
9.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.13 The link between the mother's occupation and the choice of child-minding type, weighted figures (in row %, n=656)
6
116
Part I/Chapter 4
2.4.5 Net monthly family income and choice of child-minding type
The investigation into the link between family income and choice of child-minding type
also produced some interesting findings.
 First, we found that the most important type of child-minding for families with an
income below BEF 60 000 per month is the grandparents. This is not an insignificant
finding, as parents with a low income often do not have the option of having their child
cared for in a formal facility. Child-minding families are the most important type of
child-minding for all other income groups.
 Looking at second place, again interesting differences are found. Grandparents come
in second place for families with a family income of less than BEF 100 000 per month,
and day nurseries come in second place for families with a family income of more
than BEF 100 000 per month.
Although some other studies have indicated that the financial factor is of minimal
importance for the final choice in the parents' subjective perceptions (Baele & Hedebouw,
1992), nevertheless statistical analyses show that socio-economic factors really do play a
role in the choice between grandparents and formal child-minding provision. The higher
the family income, the more use is made of people outside the family, including childminders, and the less the child is entrusted to nurseries, grandparents and other members
of the family (Storms, 1995).
Income (in BEF)
Distribution of
parents by
family income
(column %)
<60 000
60 000-80 000
80 001-100 000
100 001-120 000
120 001-140 000
>140 000
9.7
11.6
25.1
31.8
13.3
8.5
Grandparents
33.8
30.6
25.0
25.0
20.4
18.5
Other
family,
friends,
neighbours
9.6
13.6
5.4
3.3
1.7
1.4
Childminding
family
affiliated to a
service
Private childminding
family
Subsidised
day nursery
Private day
nursery
Domestic
staff
19.6
31.0
37.7
30.8
33.2
28.7
4.6
8.6
8.4
9.1
9.3
12.8
22.9
12.0
20.0
23.8
28.2
24.0
9.5
4.2
3.5
8.0
7.2
13.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.14 The link between family income and choice of child-minding type, weighted figures (in row %, n=656)
6
118
Part I/Chapter 4
2.4.6 Choice of child-minding type by province
Child-minding families prove to be the type of child-minding used most in all the provinces.
Again it is interesting to look at which type of child-minding is the second most important.
In Limburg, only 18.6% of parents use day nurseries as the most important type of childminding, whereas the equivalent figure for Flemish Brabant is 31.6%. In Limburg far more
parents rely on grandparents.
Distribution of
families by
province
(column %)
Antwerp
West Flanders
East Flanders
Limburg
Flemish Brabant
23.9
19.3
26.4
12.4
17.9
Grandparents
26.3
14.0
23.0
39.2
30.2
Other
family,
friends,
neighbours
Childminding
family
affiliated to a
service
Private childminding
family
Subsidised
day nursery
Private day
nursery
Domestic
staff
7.3
7.3
4.9
1.5
3.6
31.3
38.3
27.5
34.9
28.8
5.2
14.3
11.8
4.9
5.8
26.4
16.3
22.4
15.3
26.4
3.5
9.8
10.4
3.3
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.15 Use of the different types of child-minding by province, weighted figures (in row %, n=656)
6
120
Part I/Chapter 4
2.4.7 Choice of child-minding type by degree of urbanisation
The study compared the urban areas with the rural and semi-rural local authorities (very
rural, rural and rural with some urban development) and distinguished a number of
patterns. First, grandparents in urban areas are called upon to care for pre-school children
less than in other areas. Fewer child-minding families affiliated to a service are used in
these areas too. On the other hand, subsidised day nurseries prove to be the most
important type of child-minding in urban areas and more use is made of private day
nurseries in urban areas than in rural and semi-rural areas. Finally, it is noticeable that
private child-minding families are used in greater numbers in the very rural areas than in
the other areas for the care of pre-school children.
Distribution of
families by
degree of
urbanisation
(column %)
Very rural
Rural
Rural with some
urbanisation
Urban
Grandparents
Other
family,
friends,
neighbours
Childminding
family
affiliated to a
service
Private childminding
family
Subsidised
day nursery
Private day
nursery
Domestic
staff
10.6
24.0
23.7
24.3
29.7
30.3
5.8
5.2
4.2
33.2
31.4
41.9
16.5
7.9
5.0
15.6
18.1
14.1
3.4
7.7
4.5
1.2
0.0
0.0
41.7
17.0
6.1
25.6
9.5
32.1
9.7
0.0
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.16 Use of different types of child-minding by degree of urbanisation, weighted figures (in row %, n=656)
6
122
Part I/Chapter 4
2.4.8 Multivariate analysis of the determinants
The multivariate analysis brings more clarity into the net effect of these determinants.
However, the correlations are low and only explain a small fraction of the variance. The
results also differ for the three types of child-minding.
Educational level, family income and province all play a role in the choice of
grandparents (total R² = 0.0725). This indicates that both socio-cultural factors (reflected
in educational level), and financial and regional factors (e.g. insufficient development of
formal facilities) exercise an influence independently from each other.
The mother's working hours and educational level are the most influential factors in the
decision to use a day nursery (total R² = 0.0375), and family income and place of
residence are no longer relevant. As reported earlier, mothers who work part time use day
nurseries substantially less than mothers who work full time. It could be that the pricing
systems used, which are mostly not geared to short periods of care, play a part here. The
socio-cultural factor and the highly educated mothers' preference for more ‘professional’
types of child-minding seem to operate as an independent factor. The fact that family
income does not play a role here means that the graded pricing structure has created
income neutrality.
Only province turns out to play a role in the decision to use a child-minding family,
although its contribution to the variation, while significant, is small and could easily be
ignored (R² = 0.0161). This is an indication of the fact that the provision of this type of
child-minding is evidently sufficiently diverse for each target group (in terms of working
hours, educational level, income, etc.) to be able to find a place to suit them. Evidently the
only regional differences are that parents in West Flanders use child-minding families
more often than do parents in Flemish Brabant and Antwerp.
3. Choice of child-minding for schoolchildren
The same enquiries were conducted as for the pre-school children. We examined the
parent's preconceptions about the different types of child-minding, the search for a childminding place and the factors determining their choice.
Choice of child-minding type
123
3.1 Weighing up the five types of child-minding
Table 4.17 Preference for the five types of child-minding, weighted figures (in %)
Preference
A clear preference for one type of child-minding
- Child-minding family
- IBO
- School-based child-minding
- Grandparents
- Day nursery
A preference for two types of child-minding
- School + child-minding family
- IBO + child-minding family
- Grandparents + school
- School + day nursery
- Preference for child-minding in a ‘family environment’
(grandparents or child-minding family)
- IBO + day nursery
- Child-minding family + day nursery
- Grandparents + IBO
- IBO + school
- Grandparents + day nursery
A preference for three types of child-minding
- Grandparents, school and child-minding family
- IBO, school and child-minding family
- IBO, school and day nursery
- Grandparents, IBO and child-minding family
- Grandparents, school and day nursery
- School, child-minding family and day nursery
- Grandparents, IBO and school
- IBO, child-minding family and day nursery
- Grandparents, child-minding family and day nursery
- Grandparents, IBO and day nursery
A preference for four types of child-minding
- Grandparents, IBO, school and child-minding family
- Preference for formal child-minding (IBO, school, childminding family and day nursery)
- Grandparents, school, child-minding family and day
nursery
- Grandparents, IBO, child-minding family and day
nursery
- Grandparents, IBO, school and day nursery
No clear preference
- whichever (only advantages mentioned for all types of
child-minding)
- whichever (advantages and disadvantages mentioned
for all types of child-minding)
Parents of
children aged
2½ to 6 years
n=719
Parents of
children aged
6 to 12 years
n=222
3.7
1.8
1.0
0.7
0.6
1.6
4.1
0.7
-
5.7
2.9
2.0
1.9
1.8
2.3
1.3
7.6
3.7
1.1
1.8
1.6
0.9
0.6
0.5
1.7
0.8
-
8.2
7.0
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.2
1.8
1.8
0.5
0.3
4.6
6.6
0.8
4.5
1.1
4.0
2.5
1.2
0.3
8.7
4.7
12.1
11.3
4.1
0.8
4.0
2.2
2.3
2.5
15.5
17.8
4.1
3.0
124
Part I/Chapter 4
In contrast with the youngest children (under 2½ years) there is absolutely no pronounced
preference for one particular type of child-minding and most parents are equally happy
with two, three or even four types.
In so far as they do express a preference, parents with children aged 2½ to 6 years
slightly prefer child-minding families and parents with children over the age of 6 prefer the
school. When we look at combinations, it emerges that the school and the child-minding
family appear in the most combinations.
For about 1/5 of parents it does not make much difference, either because they only
see advantages in all types or because they see both advantages and disadvantages in
all types.
3.2 Reasons for preferences for one type of child-minding or another
3.2.1 Statements presented on the possible advantages and disadvantages of the
different types of child-minding
Table 4.18 Advantages and disadvantages of care by grandparents, weighted figures (in %,
multiple answers possible)
Care by grandparents
Parents of children
aged
2½ to 6 years
n=719
Advantages
- The child knows the grandparents well
- The grandparents like to do it
- There is a lot of flexibility as far as hours
are concerned
- Grandparents do not have to be paid or
they are paid less
- With grandparents at least you know where
you are
- Other
79.6
Disadvantages
- Parents do not want grandparents to be
burdened with child-minding
- Grandparents spoil their grandchildren too
much
- Grandparents could interfere too much with
the family
- Grandparents are sometimes rather oldfashioned
- Other
40.4
Parents of children
aged
6 to 12 years
n=222
75.8
57.3
53.8
42.2
48.8
49.8
39.8
24.5
23.7
22.3
13.7
11.7
7.1
39.8
27.2
30.8
9.2
6.6
6.3
6.6
3.0
3.3
11.1
6.2
The main positive aspects associated with care by grandparents are the fact that the child
knows the grandparents well and that the grandparents like to do it. The fact that they do
not have to pay grandparents anything or less than they would have to pay for other types
Choice of child-minding type
125
of child-minding is an issue for far fewer parents. The most important ‘disadvantage’ is
that parents do not want to impose the burden of child-minding upon grandparents. This
issue weighs heaviest for children in the oldest age group, perhaps because the
grandparents of these children are on average older than the grandparents of children
aged between 2½ and 6 years. Only a very small proportion of parents think that
grandparents are sometimes rather old-fashioned. The majority of parents also do not
agree with the statements that grandparents would spoil the children too much or that they
might interfere too much in the family.
Table 4.19 Advantages and disadvantages of child-minding in an IBO, weighted figures (in %,
multiple answers possible)
Out-of-school care outside the school (IBO)
Parents of children
aged
2½ to 6 years
n=719
Advantages
- The facilities are specially adapted for outof-school care
- The staff are specially trained
- It is a different environment from the
school
- Other
62.4
Disadvantages
- The children have to move again
- There are too many children they do not
know
- Other
35.9
Parents of children
aged
6 to 12 years
n=222
68.2
35.1
49.8
28.1
20.3
25.1
18.0
10.5
6.2
31.3
24.8
8.1
22.7
7.1
10.7
6.6
Mainly the specially adapted facilities for out-of-school care are seen as a positive aspect
of IBOs (out-of-school care initiatives). About 1/3 of parents also think that the staff are
specially trained for this type of child-minding. The fact that it is a different environment
from the school is seen as a positive aspect by slightly less than a third of the parents.
One in four parents, on the other hand, see it as a disadvantage that the children have to
move from the school to another site. The fact that there are too many children they do
not know is seen as less of a problem.
126
Part I/Chapter 4
Table 4.20 Advantages and disadvantages of care by and in the school, weighted figures (in %,
multiple answers possible)
Care by and in the school
Parents of children
aged
2½ to 6 years
n=719
Advantages
- The children can simply stay in the same
place before or after school
- The children already know each other
- The conditions are generally good
- The children are well supervised
- Other
76.1
Disadvantages
- Atmosphere is too ‘schoolish’
- Too few suitable play facilities
- Age range of the children is too great
- Other
24.7
Parents of children
aged
6 to 12 years
n=222
83.4
61.9
71.1
44.3
38.6
25.9
5.3
50.2
52.6
34.6
2.4
16.6
11.8
8.1
4.9
9.4
6.6
8.1
2.4
4.3
The fact that the children do not have to move for care by and in the school, is seen as
something positive by the great majority of parents. Other aspects that are seen by many
parents as advantages are the fact that the children already know each other and that the
conditions are generally good. The parents of primary schoolchildren, in particular, regard
these as positive aspects. The most important disadvantages are the school-like
ambience that often prevails and there being too few suitable play facilities. The age
range is not really considered to be a problem. The disadvantages certainly do not
outweigh the advantages.
Choice of child-minding type
127
Table 4.21 Advantages and disadvantages of care by child-minding families, weighted figures
(in %, multiple answers possible)
Child-minding family
Parents of children
aged
2½ to 6 years
n=719
Advantages
- There is a more personal bond with the
child-minding family
- It is always the same person who looks
after your child
- A family atmosphere is essential to the
care of children
- Our other children can also go to the childminding family
- Other
71.0
Disadvantages
- Child-minding families' houses are not
always suitable
- Not all child-minding families are suited to
this work
- Other
20.7
Parents of children
aged
6 to 12 years
n=222
67.8
36.4
36.0
34.0
38.9
32.7
31.3
22.2
16.6
8.4
1.9
23.2
10.4
9.0
9.9
8.5
8.8
7.6
As far as care by child-minding families is concerned, the personal bond and the fact that
it is always the same person who looks after the child are seen as the main positive
aspects. The unsuitability of the child-minding family's house or the unsuitability of the
child-minding family itself are seen as disadvantages by slightly more parents of the
younger children than parents of children aged 6 to 12 years.
128
Part I/Chapter 4
Table 4.22 Advantages and disadvantages of care in a day nursery, weighted figures (in %,
multiple answers possible)
Day nursery
Parents of children
aged
2½ to 6 years
n=719
Advantages
- The staff are well trained
- The conditions are generally good
- The presence of other children is good for
their development
- The care is value-free
- Other
51.4
Disadvantages
- Day nurseries are only open during normal
working hours
- Day nurseries are rather expensive
- The children and parents are too often
treated as numbers
- Other
44.5
Parents of children
aged
6 to 12 years
n=222
53.1
33.0
31.3
31.0
32.7
30.8
29.4
11.6
3.6
10.4
4.3
47.4
21.5
21.8
20.5
16.5
26.1
15.6
7.9
7.6
About 1 in 3 of the parents think that day nursery staff are well trained, that conditions are
generally good and that the presence of other children is good for the development of their
child. The most important disadvantage for the parents of nursery schoolchildren (1 in 5)
proves to be the opening times, for parents with primary schoolchildren (1 in 4) it is the
cost.
3.2.2 The parents’ comments
Like the parents of the youngest children, the parents of the schoolchildren came up with
a lot of comments on the child-minding provided by the various facilities. The remarks
concerning care by grandparents, child-minding families and day nurseries broadly agree
with the comments made by the parents of the youngest children, so they will not be
repeated. The discussion which follows concerns the care provided by out-of-school care
initiatives (IBOs) and schools. Once again a distinction is made between educational
considerations and considerations concerning service aspects.
3.2.2.1 Educational considerations
a) Out-of-school care initiatives (IBOs)
The advantages of IBOs prove to be broadly similar to the advantages of day nurseries.
- IBOs are good for a child's personal development: ‘the children become more
independent by not being with grandma and grandpa for once; ‘it encourages the
children to be able to do things for themselves’; ‘the children become independent
more quickly’; ‘the child learns to consider other children from an early age’.
Choice of child-minding type
-
-
-
129
The presence of other children, both children of the same age and older/younger
children, is seen as important: ‘the children come into contact with other children’; ‘the
children enjoy playing with other children’; ‘they have friends to play with’; ‘it
encourages social contact’; ‘children learn to be with younger and older children’.
Parents also mention the learning of skills: ‘the children generally become more
socially adept’; ‘they develop social skills’; ‘they meet a lot of other children, including
children from other schools’.
Finally, the supervision and guidance given to the children plays a role: ‘the staff work
with them more as individuals; ‘they organise special activities’, etc.
Other parents emphasise a number of disadvantages.
- The lack of individual attention: ‘there are too many children or too few staff to do
things with the children’; ‘far too many children for each member of staff’; ‘too few
monitors’; ‘the danger of groups that are too large, with too little individual attention for
the children’; ‘there are different staff every day so they do not get to know the
children’; ‘each child is unique and needs a unique approach’.
- The lack of family atmosphere was also mentioned: ‘there is no bond with the staff’;
‘the children are brought up without intimacy’; ‘the staff do not know the children very
well and so do not know their needs and habits’; ‘it is not a homely family atmosphere’;
‘the homely atmosphere is lacking’.
- Another point made concerns the adjustment of the child himself: ‘the child has to
adjust to yet another environment after school’; ‘children have to adjust to new
surroundings again’; ‘the child does not feel at home anywhere’; ‘children need a place
where they can be themselves, a bit of privacy’.
- Finally, parents raise arguments about educational and moral values: ‘yet another
source of authority: home, school, after-school care, grandparents, in the end they
lose track’; ‘you do not know whether the supervisors operate with the same
educational and moral values as yourself’.
b) Child-minding by and in the school
The major difference between out-of-school care initiatives and school-based childminding is the place where the care is provided, namely in the school itself. This has clear
advantages according to some parents.
 The children do not have to go somewhere else, which creates a sense of security:
‘they find themselves in a familiar environment’; ‘they get to know the school from a
different angle’.
 Child-minding by and in the school is also seen as being good for personal
development: ‘the children learn to function in large groups with the supervisors’.
 The learning of social skills was also mentioned, and also the learning of new skills:
‘they do a lot of tinkering; ‘the children do creative things there’; ‘opportunity to play
games’; ‘they learn handicrafts’.
130
Part I/Chapter 4
However, there are also serious disadvantages to the school as a child-minding place:
- It is still the school: ‘it makes the school day very long for the children’; ‘children
already spend enough time at school’; ‘the difference between free time and school is
not always clear enough’.
- It appears that sometimes there is also too little individual attention: ‘it is too
impersonal’; ‘there is no personal attention for the child’.
- The following remarks are more or less on similar lines: ‘it is not much more than
baby-sitting, the children have to occupy themselves by and large’; ‘the children are
not supervised enough, they do not get enough guidance with their homework’; ‘too
little supervision of homework’.
3.2.2.2 Service quality
The most important aspects of service quality are the flexibility of the service, the amount
of involvement parents have and the quality of the care.
a) Out-of-school care initiatives (IBOs)
The advantages of IBOs are as follows:
 Quality of the care: ‘it offers a more restful environment after school for younger
children’; ‘it is pleasant and sociable, totally different from school’; ‘it is very childfriendly’.
 The importance of parental involvement also emerged: ‘you can set your own “terms”
for how your child is to be cared for or at least talk about it’.
 Flexibility also turned out to be important: ‘it is a good solution during the school
holidays’; ‘the hours fit in well with school hours’.
 Finally, cost is given as an advantage: ‘it is quite cheap, they count half hours’.
The disadvantages of IBOs are found in a variety of areas:
 Flexibility: ‘there is no flexibility’; ‘they are less flexible’; ‘the hours are rather restricted
(only until 18.00)’.
 The care provided is not good enough for some parents: ‘the children are left to fend
for themselves more and the consequence of that is dirty noses, hands and mouths’;
‘very busy and tiring for the children’; ‘sometimes rather boisterous’.
 It also seems that the composition of the group is not what some parents would wish:
‘the age range is too big: the youngest is not yet 3 and the oldest is 12’; ‘children from
the nursery school and the primary school are looked after together’.
 Not all children can get a place in an IBO: ‘children over the age of 12 can no longer
go there’.
 Finally not all small local authorities have an IBO.
Choice of child-minding type
131
b) Child-minding by and in the school
As with the IBO, parental involvement and cost are not insignificant advantages:
 Involvement of the parents: ‘as a parent you can ask questions about how they are
being looked after’.
 Lower cost: ‘a good price’.
 The group composition, which was a negative aspect of IBOs, is mentioned in positive
terms here: ‘nursery schoolchildren are cared for in a separate room, not with the
primary schoolchildren’.
However, some parents have different experiences:
 High cost: ‘child-minding at school is quite expensive, it should be free’.
 The group composition also turns out not to be the same in all schools: ‘nursery
schoolchildren are not cared for in a separate room’.
 Care: ‘there are not enough staff’; ‘there is only one supervisor for the whole group’;
‘not very clean, hygiene sometimes not up to scratch’; ‘too many children, too hectic’;
‘for little ones there are too few opportunities to sleep for instance’; ‘no real place to
rest provided’; ‘lack of specialist staff’; ‘personnel are not specially trained, e.g. in
looking after children’; ‘staff are not well motivated’.
 Finally, the rooms used are not always suitable for their purpose, i.e. the provision of
child-minding.
3.3 The choice of a child-minding place
3.3.1 Length of the search
The majority of parents do not have to spend more than a week looking for a place in one
of the different types of child-minding. Finding a place with a child-minding family or in a
day nursery takes up the most time. Obviously parents who use grandparents do not
usually have to spend long looking.
Although we do not have any evidence for this from the study, we suspect that the
10.2% of parents who reported that it had taken them a few months or longer looking for
child-minding and whose children are cared for by grandparents were probably looking for
a different type of child-minding in the first instance and finally fell back on the
grandparents after their search proved unsuccessful. Most parents who use other family
members, friends and neighbours, out-of-school care initiatives and school-based childminding also do not have to spend long on their search.
Length of search
Less than one week
A few weeks
A few months
Longer
Grandparents
6
Table 4.23 Length of the search for a suitable child-minding place (in %)
Other family,
friends, neighbours
IBO
2½-6
n=163
6-12
n=18
2½-6
n=36
6-12
n=7
2½n=45
75.9
13.9
6.6
3.6
90.5
4.8
4.8
0.0
63.3
20.0
10.0
6.7
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
71.4
21.4
7.1
0.0
School
6-12
n=3
80.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
2½-6
n=94
6-12
n=18
63.7
29.7
3.3
33.0
76.2
19.0
0.0
4.8
Childminding
family
2½-6
n=62
Day
nursery
Domestic
staff
2½-6
n=8
2½-6
n=8
40.8
36.7
20.4
2.0
40.0
30.0
30.0
0.0
46.2
23.1
23.1
7.7
Part I/Chapter 4
Choice of child-minding
133
3.3.2 Information on which parents base their choice
Table 4.24 Information on which parents base their choice of child-minding (in %, multiple
answers possible)
Information
Experiences of friends, acquaintances, family
members, etc.
Own experiences
Information from schools
Information from child-minding facilities
themselves
Brochure from Kind en Gezin on the various
child-minding options
Information from the town council or local
authority
Information from social workers and other
professionals
Information from clubs
Information from the media
Parents of children
aged 2½ to 6 years
n=413
Parents of children
aged 6 to 12 years
n=63
48.8
42.6
29.0
25.8
18.0
34.4
41.0
9.8
16.7
9.8
12.0
18.0
7.6
9.8
0.8
0.3
1.6
0.0
Both groups of parents of schoolchildren, like the parents of the pre-school children, base
their choice of child-minding in the first instance on the experiences of friends,
acquaintances and members of their family. For parents with children in the younger age
group, their own experiences come in second place. For parents of the other group,
information provided by the schools comes second. Parents of the younger children also
make more use of information from the child-minding facilities themselves and the Kind en
Gezin brochure, in contrast with the parents of children aged 6 to 12 years, who are more
likely to consult the town council or local authority.
3.3.3 Problems in finding a suitable child-minding place
About two out of three parents appear to have no problems in finding suitable childminding for before and after school. This percentage is similar to that for the pre-school
children. The main difficulty is finding child-minding to fit in with the parents’ working
hours. Parents no longer come up against long waiting lists as they did with pre-school
children. Difficulties mentioned by parents under the category of ‘other problems’ include:
getting the child from school to the child-minding facility and finding child-minding during
the holidays, at the weekend and on Wednesday afternoons. Furthermore, the children do
not always feel positive about the child-minding facilities; it is often difficult to find a place
where the children feel at home.
134
Part I/Chapter 4
Table 4.25 Problems experienced by parents in finding a suitable child-minding place for their
children aged between 2½ and 12 years (in %, multiple answers possible)
Problems
Children aged
2½ to 6 years
n=413
Children aged
6 to 12 years
n=63
Finding a place that fits in with working hours
Finding a place in a convenient location/near
home
Finding a place with a vacancy/ long waiting
lists
Too little information or too few addresses
Finding affordable child-minding
Finding a place that matches parents'
educational and moral values
Other problems
15.3
12.7
12.7
7.6
10.6
3.6
7.0
6.0
3.9
4.4
5.2
2.8
9.7
8.5
No problems
60.8
69.0
3.3.4 Decisive arguments
The table below gives a list of the reasons parents gave as being decisive in their final
choice of a child-minding place.
Reasons
Practical reasons
- Easy to get to
- Brothers or sisters can go there too
- Child can stay when he/she gets
older
- It was the only option
- Financial reasons
*
Grandparents, other family
members, PWA, domestic
staff, etc.
2½-6
6-12
n=199
n=25
IBO*
School-based child-minding
Day nursery
2½-6
n=45
2½-6
n=94
6-12
n=18
2½-6
n=8
Childminding
family
2½-6
n=62
33.2
31.7
28.9
24.3
19.0
27.9
41.3
56.5
38.6
39.3
33.5
18.2
47.8
36.4
24.5
60.6
33.3
42.4
57.6
53.3
41.8
24.3
23.9
36.1
15.2
26.1
3.3
27.1
8.5
34.8
3.0
60.6
0.0
17.8
9.5
Educational reasons
- Educational reasons
- Presence of other children
22.4
17.1
20.7
9.6
13.6
24.4
13.2
26.2
7.2
16.1
45.5
12.1
16.8
39.5
Quality of service
- Flexibility offered
- Good care
- Child's own preference
- Well equipped
- Parents have a say
49.1
47.8
43.2
16.4
12.8
37.2
14.9
41.9
10.6
1.6
40.2
33.7
58.7
7.6
11.4
18.5
30.5
39.4
21.6
1.8
0
7.2
50.8
17.3
7.2
27.3
48.4
33.3
33.3
9.1
21.7
43.9
50.8
28.9
22.7
Other reasons
11.6
5.2
4.9
24.9
3.0
9.1
23.4
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.26 Reasons that were decisive in the actual choice of a child-minding place for each of the most important types of child-minding used, weighted
figures (in %, multiple answers possible)
There were only 3 families in the 6-12 age group, which is why there is no breakdown of this group into the different decisive reasons.
6
136
Part I/Chapter 4
Parents choose to have their children cared for by grandparents mainly for their own
convenience (flexibility, etc.) and because the child likes it. A good standard of care is also
an important factor in the case of the younger children. In the case of the older children it
was the only option in more than one in three cases.
Various practical considerations prove to be the decisive reasons for choosing an outof-school care initiative (IBO), (flexibility, convenient to get to, the fact that brothers and
sisters can go to the same place and the fact that the child can continue to go there when
he or she gets older). The most important reason, however, is that the child likes the
place.
This is also the main reason for choosing school-based child-minding, although this
aspect has greater weight with the parents of children in the younger age group. A
convenient location that is easy to get to is also important, which had already emerged in
the data on the parents' preconceptions of the types of child-minding (the child does not
have to move again).
The importance of a convenient location that is easy to get to is also the most decisive
factor in the choice of a day nursery or child-minding family. For no less than 60% of the
parents a day nursery was the only option.
3.4 Factors determining choice
The following determinants will be discussed in turn: mother's working hours, work regime,
occupation, educational level, net monthly family income and the province where the
parents live. Then the extent to which these factors influence the choice of the most
important child-minding type will be examined. For the children in the 6 to 12 age group,
the absolute numbers were too small to use this analytical technique. Where relevant, the
most significant trends will be indicated.
3.4.1 Mother's working hours and the choice of child-minding type
The main differences associated with working hours are that mothers who work part time
use more school-based child-minding and mothers who work full time make more use of
IBOs. Evidently the latter are less open to flexible use. For the other groups of mothers
(non-working mothers and those who have temporarily discontinued work) the numbers
are too small to interpret.
Mother's working
hours
Distribution of
mothers by
working hours
(column %)
Working full time
Working part time
Work temporarily
discontinued
Not working
47.6
43.5
5.8
3.1
Grandparents
Other family,
friends,
neighbours
IBO
48.9
44.1
19.2
8.8
3.5
18.1
13.7
6.9
28.2
89.5
0.0
0.0
School
Childminding
family
Day nursery
Domestic
staff
20.7
33.7
14.1
6.7
9.1
20.4
0.0
0.9
0.0
1.2
1.8
0.0
10.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.27 The link between the mother's working hours and the choice of child-minding type for children aged 2½ to 6 years, weighted figures (in row
%, n=413)
6
138
Part I/Chapter 4
3.4.2 Work regime of the mother and the choice of child-minding type
Apart from mothers who work at night - for whom out-of-school care initiatives (IBOs) are
the most important type of child-minding -, the mothers who have another work regime
rely mostly on grandparents to look after their children aged between 2½ and 6 years.
Mothers who work shifts, in particular, use grandparents in large numbers (64.1%). Childminding families are used most by mothers who work completely irregular hours, a further
confirmation of the greater flexibility that this type of child-minding offers compared with
the other formal types of provision.
Mothers with children aged between 6 and 12 years (not in the table) who work regular
hours use school-based child-minding and grandparents in about the same proportions.
The mothers in our study who work shifts all relied on grandparents as their most
important providers of child-minding, as did the mothers who work at night and in the
weekend. Grandparents also emerge as the most important type of child-minding for
mothers who work completely irregular hours.
Mother's work
regime
Regular hours
Shiftwork
Night work
Weekend work
Completely
irregular working
hours
Distribution of
mothers by work
regime
(column %)
71.8
9.2
2.6
8.0
16.2
Grandparents
42.7
64.1
23.7
31.3
46.8
Other family,
friends,
neighbours
7.3
3.7
5.2
1.7
5.4
IBO
12.8
14.8
39.5
29.7
2.5
School
27.1
11.5
23.7
30.5
27.4
Childminding
family
Day nursery
Domestic
staff
9.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
14.5
0.0
2.2
0.0
5.1
1.3
1.1
1.5
7.9
1.7
2.1
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.28 The link between the mother's work regime and the choice of child-minding type for children aged 2½ to 6 years, weighted figures (in row %,
n=413, multiple answers possible)
6
140
Part I/Chapter 4
3.4.3 Educational level of the mother and the choice of child-minding type
Once again the interpretation is limited to the largest groups.
There is a slight association between the mother's educational level and use of
grandparents: the group with a higher secondary school diploma use grandparents the
most.
IBOs also seem to appeal to the higher secondary school group more than the other
groups and they are not used by the mothers with a lower secondary school diploma at
all.
Mothers with higher education qualifications are the main users of school-based childminding. However, these trends are not really very clear.
Mother's
educational
qualification
< Lower secondary
Higher secondary
Higher education
University
education
Distribution of
mothers by
educational
qualification
(column %)
19.0
38.6
34.9
7.5
Grandparents
46.2
52.1
38.9
46.5
Other family,
friends,
neighbours
12.8
3.3
8.3
6.9
IBO
0.0
18.5
10.0
5.2
School
25.6
22.7
27.2
29.3
Childminding
family
Day nursery
Domestic
staff
15.4
3.4
11.7
6.9
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
5.2
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.29 The link between the mother's educational qualifications and the choice of child-minding type for children aged 2½ to 6 years, weighted
figures (in row %, n=413)
6
142
Part I/Chapter 4
3.4.4 Mother's occupation and the choice of child-minding type
There are also few clear trends with respect to the mother's occupation. Confining the
analysis to the two largest groups (manual workers and women in junior service posts), it
becomes evident that more manual workers use grandparents and more mothers working
in junior positions in the service sector use school-based child-minding.
Mother's
occupation
Manual worker
Junior posts in
service sector
Executive
Civil servant
Self-employed
Professional
Housewife
No occupation
Distribution of
mothers by
occupation
(column %)
Grandparents
Other family,
friends,
neighbours
IBO
School
Childminding
family
Day nursery
Domestic
staff
24.8
54.7
54.7
43.3
3.3
7.1
10.5
12.1
17.7
29.1
13.8
6.5
0.0
0.7
0.0
1.2
2.0
5.6
5.7
2.0
0.3
4.9
64.5
38.2
43.8
58.1
0.0
31.6
0.0
31.8
5.7
0.0
0.0
5.3
6.4
0.0
12.5
0.0
0.0
21.0
9.7
21.9
17.0
25.8
100.0
36.8
9.7
8.1
17.6
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.7
0.0
3.4
16.1
0.0
0.0
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.30 The link between the mother's occupation and the choice of child-minding type for children aged 2½ to 6 years, weighted figures (in row %,
n=413)
6
144
Part I/Chapter 4
3.4.5 Net monthly family income and the choice of child-minding type
No clear link was found between family income and the type of child-minding used by
parents of children aged 2½ to 6 years. With the exception of families with an income of
between BEF 60 000 and 80 000 per month, for whom school-based child-minding is the
most important type, grandparents come in first place for all the other income groups.
The group giving child-minding provided by other members of the family, friends and
neighbours as the most important type of child-minding most frequently is the lowest
income group, which is likely to be connected with the fact they do not have to pay much,
if anything, for this child-minding.
Another notable finding is that domestic staff are the most important type of childminding for more than one in ten parents with a joint income in excess of BEF 140 000 per
month. The other income groups seldom use this type of child-minding, if at all.
Monthly family
income (in BEF)
Distribution of
families by
income
(column %)
<60 000
60 000-80 000
80 001-100 000
100 001-120 000
120 001-140 000
>140 000
13.6
9.2
29.4
28.3
12.1
7.4
Grandparents
40.1
34.4
53.9
43.3
50.1
42.6
Other family,
friends,
neighbours
13.4
4.2
8.9
3.4
7.0
7.0
IBO
0.0
17.7
8.6
14.4
15.5
12.2
School
33.2
43.7
15.7
28.0
22.0
21.7
Childminding
family
Day nursery
Domestic
staff
13.3
0.0
12.2
8.4
5.4
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.1
0.0
11.3
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.31 The link between family income and the choice of child-minding type for children aged 2½ to 6 years, weighted figures (in row %, n=413)
6
146
Part I/Chapter 4
3.4.6 Choice of child-minding type by province
The province was the penultimate determinant investigated in this study. We found that for
the families in Flemish Brabant with children aged 2½ to 6 years, grandparents are most
often given as the most important type of child-minding (60.3%). In Antwerp grandparents
are the most important type of child-minding for half the families, in contrast with East
Flanders where grandparents are the most important type for only one in three families.
One notable finding is that for a relatively high percentage of families in West Flanders
(20.7%), child-minding families are the most important type of child-minding.
In East Flanders 36.3% gave child-minding provided by and in the school as the most
important type.
In Limburg, on the other hand, out-of-school care initiatives are the most important type
for one in five families. Evidently this is the province where these services are most
extensively developed.
Province
Antwerp
West Flanders
East Flanders
Limburg
Flemish Brabant
Distribution of
families by
province
(column %)
26.7
19.2
22.4
16.1
15.6
Grandparents
50.6
40.2
36.3
44.4
60.3
Other family,
friends,
neighbours
14.1
5.7
6.6
2.2
4.4
IBO
9.4
12.6
9.9
20.0
5.9
School
20.0
20.7
36.3
24.4
23.5
Childminding
family
Day nursery
Domestic
staff
3.5
20.7
6.6
6.7
4.4
1.2
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
3.3
2.2
1.5
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.32 The link between the province and the choice of child-minding type for children aged 2½ to 6 years, weighted figures (in row %, n=413)
6
148
Part I/Chapter 4
3.4.7 Choice of child-minding type by degree of urbanisation
Our analysis of degree of urbanisation is confined to the largest groups. When the urban
areas are compared with the rural and semi-rural local authorities (very rural, rural and
rural with some urban development), a number of trends can be seen. Families in urban
areas use IBOs far less than families in rural and semi-rural areas. In addition, families in
urban areas use conspicuously more school-based child-minding. It is reasonable to
assume here that in the urban areas where child-minding provided in schools is well
developed, there is less incentive to start out-of-school care initiatives. Finally, it is
noticeable that in the villages in the very rural areas grandparents are used less and childminding families and day nurseries are used more than in the other areas.
Degree of
urbanisation
Very rural
Rural
Rural with some
urbanisation
Urban
Distribution of
families by
degree of
urbanisation
(column %)
Grandparents
Other family,
friends,
neighbours
IBO
School
Childminding
family
Day nursery
Domestic
staff
13.6
22.0
23.0
35.1
51.9
50.4
5.4
7.9
7.7
13.3
20.0
13.6
22.9
16.4
18.8
9.2
1.6
1.5
13.1
1.3
5.6
1.0
0.9
2.4
41.4
47.2
7.8
3.0
32.8
3.3
3.5
2.4
Choice of child-minding type
Table 4.33 The link between the degree of urbanisation and the choice of child-minding type for children aged 2½ to 6 years, weighted figures (in row %,
n=413)
6
150
Part I/Chapter 4
3.4.8 Multivariate analysis
Only the data on the group of parents with children aged 2½ to 6 years was analysed and
then only for the 4 most important types of child-minding: grandparents, school-based,
IBOs and child-minding families.
The choice of grandparents as providers of child-minding is mainly determined by the
mother's working hours and the place of residence (total R² = 0.0722). As far as working
hours are concerned, the main difference found is between the non-working mothers
(unemployed, those taking a career break, housewives) and working mothers. More nonworking mothers choose grandparents, probably because they only need child-minding
occasionally. As far as place of residence is concerned, parents in East and West
Flanders and Limburg were found to use this type of child-minding less than parents in the
other provinces, the other side of the coin being that they are high users of school-based
child-minding and IBOs.
The mother's working hours are also the main factor influencing the choice of out-ofschool care initiatives (IBOs) or school-based child-minding, but the educational level of
the mother and family income also have an effect (total R² = 0.1204). The relationship with
educational level is especially worthy of note: mothers with a lower level of education
mainly choose IBOs while mothers with a higher level of education are more inclined to
choose the school. This effect is also independent from the possible impact of family
income, where the connection is less clear.
Finally, educational level and place of residence also play a role in the choice of childminding families (R² = 0.0902). However, the association with educational level is less
clear and is not linear. As far as place of residence is concerned, evidently child-minding
families are especially popular in West Flanders.
4. Conclusion
The subject matter of this chapter is the choice of child-minding type and the choice of a
child-minding place. We have tried to make a distinction between the images parents
have of the different types of child-minding which determine their theoretical preferences
(the preferences they express before they start looking for a place) and the choice of an
actual child-minding place, where all kinds of practical considerations can come into play.
No clearly pronounced preference ‘on paper’ for one type of child-minding or another was
found. Many parents state that each type of child-minding has both advantages and
disadvantages. If a most popular choice must be indicated, for parents with children under
the age of 2½ years it would be the child-minding family. Parents evidently appreciate the
combination of security and professionalism offered by child-minding families.
Grandparents are chosen least often. This is not so much because they would not do a
good job, but because parents do not want to impose the burden on them. Day nurseries
occupy an intermediate position and are mainly preferred by the more highly educated
mothers because of their perceived professionalism.
Choice of child-minding
151
The preferences of parents with children at school are even less clear. School-based
child-minding and child-minding families seem to be viewed most favourably.
How then do parents find a particular child-minding place for their child?
Practical considerations such as ability to get there turn out to be decisive in the final
choice, without overlooking the quality of education and care. Financial reasons also keep
turning up as a not insignificant factor throughout our enquiries, given that this factor plays
an important role in the decision to rely on grandparents. Practical reasons also turn out to
be decisive in the decision to use child-minding facilities provided by and in school, since
the children can stay in the same place.
The length of the search seems to be associated with the type of child-minding chosen.
Parents who choose grandparents or other family members, friends and neighbours never
need much more than a week before they know for sure that they can call on these
people. The search for a child-minding family or a day nursery takes the most time.
Parents are very often confronted with a waiting list or are told immediately that there are
no vacancies. Places in out-of-school care initiatives and in schools turn out to be easier
to find.
All parents seem to base their choice of child-minding type mainly on their own
experiences and the experiences of friends, acquaintances, members of their family, etc.
Taking the determinants for choice of child-minding type overall (after the multivariate
analysis) of the factors investigated, those which prove to have the most effect are sociocultural factors (reflected in the educational level of the mother), financial and regional factors, and to a lesser extent working hours.
When choosing pre-school child-minding, the more highly educated prefer day
nurseries to grandparents. With regard to the use of child-minding families, there were no
differences associated with level of education. The choice of grandparents was also partly
inspired by financial motives, although graded charges based on income provide a
correction here that mainly benefits the lowest income group.
As far as out-of-school care for school-age children is concerned, the most
conspicuous finding was that parents with a lower level of education show a clear
preference for IBOs, while more of the parents with a higher level of education choose
school-based child-minding.
152
Part I/Chapter 4
153
CHAPTER 5
EVALUATION OF CHILD-MINDING
1. Introduction
This chapter presents an evaluation of the different types of child-minding. The first
section discusses the various types of informal child-minding (by grandparents, other
members of the family, friends, neighbours, etc.). It examines how satisfied parents are
with the child-minding and whether they plan to continue to use this type of child-minding
in the future, when the child is older.
The next section looks at parental satisfaction with the care provided by day nurseries,
child-minding families, out-of-school care initiatives and schools. It examines satisfaction
with a number of different aspects of the child-minding: practical aspects, child-rearing
aspects, the care and service aspects. Again parents were asked whether they plan to
continue to use this type of child-minding in the future. This section concludes by
presenting the parents' views on the way quality has evolved over the last few years with
respect to day nurseries, child-minding families, IBOs and school-based child-minding
facilities. This includes a first attempt to investigate the effects of a number of measures
restructuring child-minding in Flanders, some of which are still in the pipeline, but which
are already projecting their shadow over the sector: changes to the funding system, the
planned quality decree, the expansion of child-minding with resources from the social
profit agreement and so on.
The chapter then goes on to analyse the provision of child-minding by domestic staff,
personnel from the PWA and au pairs. Once again parents are asked whether they are
satisfied with this type of child-minding and whether they will continue to rely on these
people to care for their child in the future.
It must be remembered that an evaluation that is confined to users, like this one, will
tend to overestimate satisfaction. After all, it involves a more or less self-selected group of
parents who have a preference for a particular type of child-minding and who could switch
to a different type if they were not satisfied.
154
Part I/Chapter 5
2. Evaluation of child-minding for pre-school children
2.1 Care provided by grandparents (or other members of the family, friends
and neighbours)
94% of the parents surveyed are satisfied or very satisfied with the care provided by
grandparents, other members of the family, friends and neighbours. Only 1.2% are
dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. The group which has the largest proportion of
unequivocally positive parents is the group whose children are cared for by other
members of the family, friends and neighbours, followed by grandparents on the mother's
side and finally grandparents on the father's side.
Table 5.1
Satisfaction with child-minding provided by grandparents, other members of the family,
friends, neighbours, etc. (in %)
Degree of
satisfaction
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
General
n=441
Grandparents
on the mother's
side
n=299
Grandparents
on the father's
side
n=200
Other family,
friends,
neighbours
n=69
65.5
28.5
4.9
1.0
0.2
66.6
28.4
4.0
0.7
0.3
59.0
34.5
6.0
0.5
0.0
76.8
18.8
2.9
1.4
0.0
The majority of the parents (82.2%) plan to continue to use grandparents for their childminding in the future.
2.2 Child-minding provided by a day nursery or child-minding family
As with grandparents, parental satisfaction with the child-minding provided by day
nurseries and child-minding families is very high: 95% of the parents are satisfied or very
satisfied with their day nursery and 93.2% are satisfied or very satisfied with their childminding family. It also turns out that there is only a very small difference in the degree of
satisfaction between subsidised and private day nurseries and child-minding families.
Evaluation of child-minding
Table 5.2
155
Satisfaction with child-minding provided by day nurseries and child-minding families
(in %)
Degree of
satisfaction
Day nursery
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Child-minding family
Gen.
n=240
Subs.
n=168
Priv.
n=64
Gen.
n=320
Subs.
n=240
Priv.
n=70
57.0
38.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
56.5
38.4
5.1
0.0
0.0
63.5
29.4
6.7
0.4
0.0
61.8
31.4
6.5
0.3
0.0
58.2
37.3
4.5
0.0
0.0
54.9
39.4
5.6
0.0
0.0
The subsections below describe in turn parental satisfaction with a number of practical
aspects of the child-minding, child-rearing aspects, the care and aspects to do with the
standard of service.
2.2.1 Satisfaction with a number of practical aspects
The general level of satisfaction with practical aspects is moderate to high, although childminding families score higher than day nurseries. On some aspects the private facilities
(both day nurseries and child-minding families) score higher than the subsidised facilities.
This is the case with respect to the opportunity to use the child-minding facility during the
holidays and the opportunity to have other children cared for.
The general level of satisfaction on price is rather low, especially among parents who
use day nurseries (both subsidised and private) and subsidised child-minding families. In
contrast, 75% of the parents who use private child-minding families are happy with the
price. Evidently the prices are lower or more open to negotiation.
Table 5.3
Satisfaction (very satisfied or satisfied) with the practical aspects of the child-minding
(in %)
Practical aspects
Proximity (distance to home, distance to
work, etc.)
Easy to get to (car, public transport)
Opening hours
Opportunity for care in the holidays
Opportunity to have other children cared for
Price
Day nursery
Subs.
Priv.
n=168
n=64
Child-minding family
Subs.
Priv.
n=240
n=70
90.4
90.8
94.2
92.7
88.3
78.4
68.2
75.7
33.5
83.1
82.9
80.0
88.2
46.9
95.8
88.8
73.6
87.4
44.2
92.8
89.7
84.6
92.7
75.0
156
Part I/Chapter 5
2.2.2 Satisfaction with child-rearing aspects
The majority of parents judge the various child-rearing aspects positively. Thus they are
extremely positive about the fact that day nursery staff and child-minding families handle
their child in a way that is appropriate for his or her age. The parents are generally also
very positive about the provision of a regular routine (with respect to sleeping, eating,
etc.). Parents whose young children are cared for in day nurseries seem to be rather more
satisfied about the convenience of the arrangement of the premises and equipment than
those who use child-minding families. On the other hand, the parents who use childminding families are more satisfied on the aspect of taking account of the child's
individuality.
Table 5.4
Satisfaction (very satisfied or satisfied) with the child-rearing aspects of the childminding (in %)
Child-rearing aspects
Taking account of the child's age
Providing a regular routine (sleeping, eating,
etc.)
Allowing the child freedom of movement
Stimulating the child (physical, imagination,
etc.)
Well-organised premises and equipment
Treating the child as an individual
Rewards and punishments used
Day nursery
Subs.
Priv.
n=168
n=64
Child-minding family
Subs.
Priv.
n=240
n=70
94.5
91.5
93.8
97.0
94.1
94.1
95.5
94.2
90.2
89.0
89.2
81.6
81.2
84.8
84.1
76.5
89.0
86.1
69.8
83.1
87.5
70.3
77.0
91.1
81.7
78.0
92.7
87.9
It should be noted that parents did not always feel able to assess the item ‘rewards and
punishments’. Indeed, for each of the four types of child-minding a large group (10 to
20%) did not answer this question.
2.2.3 Satisfaction with the standard of care
Levels of satisfaction were also generally high with regard to various aspects relating to
the standard of care provided by day nurseries and child-minding families. Those using
private day nurseries seem to be slightly less satisfied with the hygiene.
Evaluation of child-minding
Table 5.5
157
Satisfaction (very satisfied or satisfied) with the standard of care (in %)
Care
Safety
Hygiene
Meals
Day nursery
Subs.
Priv.
n=168
n=64
94.0
92.1
90.3
93.9
84.6
93.8
Child-minding family
Subs.
Priv.
n=240
n=70
92.5
91.7
92.4
88.4
90.0
97.1
2.2.4 Satisfaction with service aspects
As far as satisfaction with the service is concerned, only one or two figures in the table
stand out.
More than half of the parents whose child is cared for in a subsidised day nursery are
not really satisfied with the opportunities they get to have contact with other parents.
Fewer parents who use day nurseries are satisfied with the traffic situation at the childminding facility than those whose children are cared for by a child-minding family.
However, the parents are extremely satisfied with the prevailing atmosphere and general
welcome.
‘Involvement of parent(s)’ and ‘Opportunity for contact with other parents’ were items
that parents were not always able to assess, as can be deduced from the large number of
‘I don't know’ responses to these items (15 to 20%).
158
Table 5.6
Part I/Chapter 5
Satisfaction (very satisfied or satisfied) with service aspects (in %)
Service aspects
The welcome
- The welcome in general
- Reception when child is brought
- Goodbye when child picked up
Day nursery
Subs.
Priv.
n=168
n=64
Child-minding family
Subs.
Priv.
n=240
n=70
96.3
94.6
92.1
90.7
87.5
87.5
95.0
93.8
94.2
97.0
98.5
95.6
82.4
82.8
85.0
84.1
82.3
70.4
83.5
82.1
75.1
66.1
79.0
83.6
Client-friendliness
- General atmosphere (child-friendly, etc.)
- Willingness to listen
- Helpfulness
- The premises (child-friendly, clean, etc.)
- Involvement of parent(s)
- Opportunities for outdoor play
- Traffic situation at the care facility
- Opportunity for contact with other parents
92.8
90.9
81.3
81.3
73.3
76.5
59.0
48.4
96.9
90.6
92.2
76.2
81.2
65.1
62.5
53.2
92.4
89.9
89.0
86.5
88.1
81.5
82.6
55.7
88.4
88.4
86.9
84.0
86.7
78.2
87.8
54.5
Educational aspects
- Interaction with child
- Interaction with parents
- Support given to parents
94.0
86.8
71.5
93.8
85.9
72.5
94.5
92.8
82.1
92.7
92.7
74.6
Information that parents receive
- Information given to parents about their child's
behaviour
- Information given to parents about how the day
care facility operates
- Practical advice and tips
2.2.5 Use of formal child-minding provision in the future
The majority of the parents will not continue to use a day nursery or child-minding family
for the care of their child in the future. The most important reason given for this is that they
plan to use a different type of child-minding when the child is older. Once the child goes to
school, he or she will go to an after-school child-minding facility, as they are cheaper.
Other parents plan to rely on grandparents for after-school care. A third group will not be
using their present day nursery or child-minding family because they do not provide care
for schoolchildren. Finally, there are a group of parents who will no longer need childminding once the child is at school, because their working hours fit in with school hours.
Evaluation of child-minding
Table 5.7
159
Percentage of parents who will continue to use day nurseries and child-minding
families in the future (in %)
Use in the future
Parents will continue to use them
Parents will no longer use them
Day nursery
Subs.
Priv.
n=168
n=64
19.1
80.9
42.9
57.1
Child-minding family
Subs.
Priv.
n=240
n=70
44.7
55.3
44.1
55.9
2.2.6 Recent trends in the quality of formal child-minding provision
The majority of parents who felt able to pass judgement on the matter have not observed
any real changes in the quality of formal child-minding provision. About twice as many
parents report improvements as those who feel that the quality of child-minding has
deteriorated. Evidently, there has been some improvement in recent years in the quality of
day nurseries and rather less improvement in the quality of child-minding families.
Particular progress seems to have been made in the child-rearing approach in the
subsidised facilities and in service aspects in the private facilities.
Table 5.8
Improvement or deterioration in the quality of child-minding facilities over the last three
years (in %, multiple answers possible)
Quality
Day nursery
Subs.
Priv.
n=168
n=64
Child-minding family
Subs.
Priv.
n=240
n=70
No experience
20.5
18.2
19.2
18.4
No change observed
54.8
59.1
68.3
68.4
It has got better
- Practical aspects
- Child-rearing approach
- Care
- Service
21.9
18.8
62.5
25.0
50.0
18.2
25.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
11.5
66.7
50.0
33.3
75.0
10.5
50.0
25.0
0.0
50.0
It has got worse
- Practical aspects
- Child-rearing approach
- Care
- Service
11.0
42.9
28.6
42.9
14.3
3.8
50.0
25.0
0.0
25.0
7.9
33.3
66.7
33.3
0.0
9.1
0.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
2.2 Care provided by domestic staff, personnel from the PWA, au pairs, etc.
All parents are either satisfied to very satisfied (87%) or fairly satisfied (13%) with the
child-minding provided by domestic staff, personnel from the local employment agency or
au pairs.
160
Part I/Chapter 5
Parents usually choose this type of child-minding for practical reasons (the child does
not have to be taken anywhere). Some parents also mention that it is a very flexible form
of child-minding, which is certainly a plus point. Others report that their children prefer to
stay at home and this is a way to make that possible. Another positive aspect proves to be
the fact that the person looking after the child can also find time to do some housework.
Finally, some parents use this type of child-minding because they do not want to impose
on the grandparents.
Table 5.9
Reasons why parents choose child-minding provided by domestic staff, PWA or au
pairs (in %)
Reasons
Practical reasons
Child-rearing reasons (presence of toys, room to play, etc.)
Because it is better for the child
Other reasons
N=20
60.0
15.0
15.0
50.0
The majority of these parents (81.8%) will continue to use this form of child-minding when
their child starts school. For all the parents from this group who do not plan to continue to
use this type of child-minding, this is because they will no longer need child-minding.
3. Evaluation of child-minding for schoolchildren
The second half of this chapter examines parents' evaluations of the different types of
child-minding available for schoolchildren.
3.1 Care provided by grandparents (or other members of the family, friends,
neighbours, etc.)
The parents of schoolchildren are also nearly all satisfied or very satisfied with the
informal child-minding they are using: 91.7% of parents of children aged 2½ to 6 and
96.3% of parents of children aged 6 to 12 are either satisfied or very satisfied. Overall
satisfaction with child-minding provided by grandparents on the father's side is less than
for child-minding provided by grandparents on the mother's side, other members of the
family, friends and neighbours.
Evaluation of child-minding
161
Table 5.10 Satisfaction with child-minding provided by grandparents, other members of the family,
friends, neighbours, etc. (in %)
Degree of
satisfaction
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
General
2½-6
years
n=298
6-12
years
n=54
59.1
32.6
6.7
1.3
0.3
57.4
38.9
3.7
0.0
0.0
Grandparents
on the mother's
side
2½-6
6-12
years
years
n=219
n=37
62.1
30.6
5.9
0.9
0.5
Grandparents
on the father's
side
2½-6
6-12
years
years
n=122
n=26
62.2
35.1
2.7
0.0
0.0
50.0
39.3
7.4
3.3
0.0
50.0
46.2
3.8
0.0
0.0
Other family,
friends,
neighbours
2½-6
6-12
years
years
n=61
n=16
60.7
27.9
11.5
0.0
0.0
68.8
31.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
The overwhelming majority of the parents will also continue to use informal child-minding
in the future. Only one parent with a child aged between 6 and 12 years stated that
domestic staff would be taking over the care of the child full time in the future.
Table 5.11 Percentage of parents who will continue to use informal child-minding in the future (in
%)
Use in the future
Parents will continue to use informal childminding in the future
Parents will no longer use informal childminding in the future
Children aged
2½ to 6 years
n=298
Children aged
6 to 12 years
n=54
90.6
98.1
9.4
1.9
3.2 Child-minding provided by IBOs, schools, day nurseries and childminding families
Most of the parents questioned are satisfied to very satisfied with the child-minding
provided by out-of-school care initiatives, schools, day nurseries and child-minding
families. Child-minding families and day nurseries score highest. With respect to the childminding service provided by and in schools, 18% of the parents of both age groups are
only ‘fairly satisfied’.
162
Part I/Chapter 5
Table 5.12 Satisfaction with the child-minding provided by IBOs, schools, day nurseries and childminding families (in %)
Degree of
satisfaction
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
IBO
School
Day
nursery
2½-6
n=38
6-12
n=13
2½-6
n=136
6-12
n=34
2½-6
n=23
28.9
57.9
10.5
2.6
0.0
30.8
46.2
15.4
7.7
0.0
32.4
47.8
18.4
1.5
0.0
30.3
48.5
18.2
3.0
0.0
52.2
43.5
4.3
0.0
0.0
Childminding
family
2½-6
n =75
58.7
32.0
9.3
0.0
0.0
The analysis that follows evaluates these types of child-minding with respect to a number
of specific points: practical aspects, child-rearing aspects, aspects of care and aspects of
service. The tables show the percentage of parents who are satisfied or very satisfied with
a particular aspect. Since the number of parents with children aged 6 to 12 years who use
these types of child-minding is too small to analyse, no further data from the evaluations
of these parents will be included in the tables, though the most important findings will be
mentioned.
3.2.1 Satisfaction with a number of practical aspects
Table 5.13 Satisfaction (very satisfied or satisfied) of parents with a child aged 2½ to 6 with the
practical aspects of the child-minding (in %)
Practical aspects
IBO
n=38
School
n=136
Day
nursery
n=23
Childminding
family
n=75
Easy to get to (car, public transport)
Opening hours
Proximity (distance to home, distance to
work, etc.)
Opportunity to have other children cared
for
Opportunity for care in the holidays
Price
97.4
97.3
94.7
91.7
83.3
96.0
95.6
86.9
82.6
90.1
89.2
92.0
94.0
94.4
94.1
92.1
80.5
65.8
69.3
80.5
81.8
56.5
87.9
60.8
With regard to child-minding provided by out-of-school care initiatives (IBOs), the parents
of children aged 2½ to 6 value the ease of getting to the child-minding facility, the opening
hours, proximity and the opportunity to have other children in the family cared for very
highly. Aspects which score less well are the opportunity to use the child-minding facility in
the holidays (although as many as 80.5% of the parents are still satisfied on that score)
and, above all, price. The parents of children aged 6 to 12 who use IBOs were most
Evaluation of child-minding
163
satisfied with the opening hours. On the other hand, they appear to be less satisfied with
the opportunity to use the child-minding facility for their other children (if any) and with the
price.
A not unexpected finding on child-minding provided by and in school is that parents are
least satisfied on the aspect of child-minding during the school holidays. This is true of
both the parents of the younger age group and the parents of the children aged between 6
and 12. The aspect of child-minding provided by day nurseries and child-minding families
judged least positively is the cost.
3.2.2 Satisfaction with child-rearing aspects
Table 5.14Satisfaction (very satisfied or satisfied) of parents with a child aged 2½ to 6 with the
child-rearing aspects of the child-minding (in %)
Child-rearing aspects
IBO
n=38
School
n=136
Day
nursery
n=23
Childminding
family
n=75
Allowing the child freedom of movement
Providing a regular routine
Taking account of the child's age
Treating the child as an individual
Rewards and punishments used
Supervision of homework
Help with homework
74.4
66.7
63.2
56.4
44.5
(n/a)
(n/a)
79.4
69.9
71.8
60.8
64.6
(n/a)
(n/a)
77.3
91.3
82.6
82.6
78.2
(n/a)
(n/a)
83.7
90.4
87.8
85.1
90.4
(n/a)
(n/a)
As far as child-rearing aspects are concerned, both in out-of-school care initiatives and
school-based child-minding, the parents of children aged 2½ to 6 are least satisfied with
the way children are punished and rewarded. The freedom of movement allowed was
judged the most positive aspect. Parents with children aged 6 to 12 (not shown in table),
on the other hand, are usually satisfied with the way their child is punished and rewarded
in an IBO, as well as with the freedom of movement allowed. The provision of a regular
routine is an aspect of school-based child-minding with which parents are very satisfied.
These parents are least satisfied with the help their children are given with their
homework. They also think that schools often do not treat the children as individuals as
much as the parents would like.
Parents who use day nurseries or child-minding families are most positive about the
prevailing order and routine. The aspects of freedom of movement allowed and reward
and punishment are judged less favourably in day nurseries than with child-minding
families.
164
Part I/Chapter 5
3.2.3 Satisfaction with the care
Table 5.15 Satisfaction (very satisfied or satisfied) of parents with a child aged 2½ to 6 with the
standard of care (in %)
Care
Safety
Hygiene
Meals
IBO
n=38
School
n=136
Day
nursery
n=23
Childminding
family
n=75
76.9
69.3
47.4
71.4
71.4
59.2
82.6
95.7
80.0
90.6
82.4
91.5
As far as care is concerned, meals get the lowest score in both IBOs and school-based
child-minding. Most parents are satisfied with the safety. Parents who use day nurseries
or child-minding families are usually more positive about the various aspects of care than
parents using IBOs and school-based child-minding. Child-minding families score higher
on safety and meals, while hygiene scores higher in day nurseries.
Evaluation of child-minding
165
3.2.4 Satisfaction with service aspects
Table 5.16 Satisfaction (very satisfied or satisfied) of parents with a child aged 2½ to 6 with
service aspects (in %)
Service aspects
The welcome
- The welcome in general
- Reception when child is brought
- Goodbye when child picked up
Information that parents receive
- Information given to parents about their
child's behaviour
- Information given to parents about how
the day care facility operates
- Practical advice and tips
Client-friendliness
- General atmosphere (child-friendly, etc.)
- Willingness to listen
- Helpfulness
- The premises (child-friendly, clean, etc.)
- Involvement of parent(s)
- Opportunities for outdoor play
- Traffic situation at the care facility
- Opportunity for contact with other
parents
Educational aspects
- Interaction with child
- Interaction with parents
- Support given to parents
IBO
n=38
School
n=136
Day
nursery
n=23
Childminding
family
n=75
79.5
71.8
81.1
78.8
69.2
77.1
91.3
82.6
86.9
93.3
90.6
90.6
51.3
53.4
78.3
83.7
61.5
51.5
69.5
73.6
40.5
39.0
69.5
73.6
83.3
61.6
60.5
60.5
42.1
69.3
67.5
27.8
75.6
65.4
59.1
61.9
47.6
67.2
58.5
40.8
86.9
82.6
73.9
69.5
65.2
78.2
65.2
38.1
73.3
86.7
84.0
85.4
82.2
74.3
80.0
44.9
82.0
71.8
35.1
76.2
65.6
39.7
87.0
82.6
72.8
90.6
88.0
68.9
Aspects of the service provided by IBOs which are rated least highly by the parents of
children aged 2½ to 6 are: the opportunity for contact with other parents, the (educational)
support, practical tips and advice given to parents, involvement of the parents and the
information given to parents about their child's behaviour. With the exception of the
opportunity for contact with other parents and the support given to parents - which are
judged more positively - the parents of children aged 6 to 12 rated the various aspects
similarly.
The aspects which score best among parents of children in the younger age group are
the prevailing (child-friendly) atmosphere, the way staff interact with the child and the way
staff say goodbye to the child when he or she is picked up. The parents of the older
children are also most satisfied with the welcome in general and the goodbye. Parents
also reported being satisfied with the information on how the IBO operates and the
interaction with parents.
166
Part I/Chapter 5
As far as school-based child-minding is concerned, parents of children aged 2½ to 6 years
are least satisfied with the practical tips and advice, the support they are given as parents,
the opportunity for contact with other parents and the amount of involvement they have as
parents. The parents of children aged 6 to 12 are least satisfied with the opportunity for
contact with other parents. The most positive aspect for both groups is the welcome in
general.
The welcome provided by day nurseries and child-minding families is valued even more
highly. The various service aspects are consistently rated higher for child-minding families
than for day nurseries, except for the general (child-friendly) atmosphere, the
opportunities for outdoor play and the support given to parents. The lowest score goes to
opportunity for contact with other parents for both types of child-minding facility.
3.2.5 Use of formal child-minding provision in the future
Table 5.17 Percentage of parents who will continue to use IBOs, school-based child-minding, day
nurseries or child-minding families in the future (in %)
Use in the future
Parents will continue
to use them
Parents will no longer
use them
IBO
School
Day
nursery
2½-6
n=23
Childminding
family
2½-6
n=75
2½-6
n=38
6-12
n=13
2½-6
n=136
6-12
n=34
97.4
92.3
97.0
90.6
78.3
78.1
2.6
7.7
3.0
9.4
21.7
21.9
The vast majority of parents state that they plan to continue to use out-of-school care
initiatives or school-based child-minding in the (near) future. The percentages are slightly
lower for the older children, which is understandable given that these initiatives are
exclusively targeted at primary schoolchildren. One in four parents who currently use a
day nursery or child-minding family state that they will no longer be using this childminding facility in the future, probably because the child will have reached the upper age
limit.
Evaluation of child-minding
167
3.2.6 Recent trends in the quality of formal child-minding provision
Table 5.18 Improvement or deterioration in the quality of child-minding facilities over the last three
years (in %, multiple answers possible)
Trend in quality
IBO
2½-6
years
n=38
No experience
14.3
No change observed
28.6
It has got better
- Practical aspects
- Child-rearing
approach
- Care
- Service
It has got worse
- Practical aspects
- Child-rearing
approach
- Care
- Service
School
6-12
years
n=13
2½-6
years
n=136
Day
nursery
6-12
years
n=34
2½-6
years
n=23
Childminding
family
2½-6
years
n=75
15.7
9.7
15.8
7.4
41.7
54.5
64.5
57.9
69.1
46.4
58.3
41.7
58.3
100.0
28.6
23.1
42.9
28.6
22.6
57.1
42.9
26.3
60.0
40.0
17.6
58.3
50.0
25.0
75.0
28.6
14.3
14.3
46.4
0.0
0.0
40.0
80.0
33.3
50.0
14.3
75.0
8.3
100.0
8.3
33.3
3.2
100.0
10.5
100.0
7.4
80.0
25.0
0.0
33.3
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
22.2
55.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
60.0
More than half the parents have observed no change in the child-minding provided by
schools, day nurseries and child-minding families. In contrast, 58.3% of the parents think
that the child-minding provided by IBOs has improved.
The practical aspects, in particular, appear to have improved and this is also the case
for the other types of child-minding. Day nurseries and child-minding families are reported
to have made particular progress on service aspects and the parents of children in the
younger age group also report progress on service aspects in IBOs.
Only 10% of users think that the quality of child-minding facilities has deteriorated. 14.3%
of the parents of children aged 2½ to 6 say that the care provided by IBOs has
deteriorated, mainly with respect to practical aspects. Only 3.2% of the parents of the
older children think that the quality of the care provided by and in schools has got worse,
also because of practical aspects.
3.3 Care provided by domestic staff, personnel from the PWA, au pairs, etc.
Most of the parents with children aged between 2½ and 6 who use domestic staff,
personnel from the local employment agency (PWA), au pairs, etc. for their child-minding
168
Part I/Chapter 5
report that they are satisfied to very satisfied, 13% are fairly satisfied. Only three families
with children aged between 6 and 12 years use these types of child-minding. Two of these
three families are very satisfied with their child-minding arrangements, one family is only
fairly satisfied.
Table 5.19 Satisfaction of parents of children aged 2½ to 6 with child-minding provided by
domestic staff, PWA, au pairs, etc. (in %)
Degree of satisfaction
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Parents of children aged 2½ to 6
n=23
30.4
52.2
13.0
4.3
0.0
Practical reasons, including flexibility, are decisive in the choice of this type of childminding. This also crops up again in the 'other reasons' category. Examples of the
aspects mentioned are: ‘there is no other option after 18.00’; ‘it is emergency childminding’; ‘I work very late’; ‘my working hours make it difficult to find child-minding outside
the home’.
The vast majority of the parents with children aged between 2½ and 6 say that they will
continue to use this type of child-minding in the future. The three families with children
aged between 6 and 12 also said that they plan to continue to use this type of childminding.
4. Conclusion
This chapter has investigated how parents evaluate their child-minding facility on a
number of practical, child-rearing, care and service aspects. Generally speaking it is
possible to say that parents are satisfied to very satisfied with the type of child-minding
they use. However, the fact that ‘users’ are a more or less self-selecting group of satisfied
customers has to be taken into consideration, as parents always have the option of
changing their child-minding place. The overall levels of satisfaction do, however, indicate
that everyone is able to find something that suits them.
The various types of child-minding are clearly well matched in terms of quality, but this
does not prevent each type from having its own strengths and weaknesses.
Child-minding families (subsidised and private) emerge first of all as a ‘more flexible’ form
of child-minding than day nurseries. This is expressed in the more positive judgements on
Evaluation of child-minding
169
opening hours, the possibility of having other children cared for and how easy they are to
get to. Child-minding families also clearly come first on ‘personal approach’. A great deal
of allowance is made for the child as an individual and rewards and punishments are
handled well on the whole. Communication with parents is also better than in day
nurseries. There are more opportunities for contact with other parents, the support given
to parents is better, parents are given more information about their child's behaviour, more
information about how things operate, and more practical advice and tips. There is greater
parental involvement in general with this type of child-minding. Finally, the environment
provided by child-minding families is also judged to be better: opportunities for outdoor
play and the traffic situation.
While the personal approach emerges as the main strength of the child-minding family,
‘professionalism’ is the main strength of the day nursery. Other clear strengths are the
regular routine it offers (sleeping, eating, etc.) and the stimulation offered to the child
(physical, imagination, etc.). Some aspects of client-friendliness (the prevailing
atmosphere and willingness to listen), which can also be considered to be aspects of
professionalism, are judged to be better in day nurseries. The physical space offered
(freedom of movement for the child) is bigger in a day nursery. Finally, parents judge day
nurseries (the facilities themselves) to be slightly safer than child-minding families.
When subsidised child-minding facilities (subsidised day nurseries and child-minding
families affiliated to a service) are compared with private facilities (day nurseries and
child-minding families), a number of small differences can be found between the two types
of provision. Private facilities appear to be rather more flexible than the subsidised
facilities (child-minding during the holidays and the possibility of having other children
cared for). The private facilities also come out better than the subsidised facilities on
‘price’. Parents using subsidised facilities are more satisfied with the stimulation of their
child, safety and hygiene.
For nursery schoolchildren, the study also investigated the strengths and weaknesses of
out-of-school care initiatives and child-minding provided by and in the school.
Out-of-school care initiatives (IBOs) emerge as a ‘more flexible’ form of child-minding than
school-based facilities. The opening hours are better and there are more opportunities for
child-minding in the school holidays. They also score better than schools on some ‘service
aspects’: the information given to parents about how they operate, prevailing atmosphere,
interaction with the child and interaction with parents.
The child-minding facilities provided by and in schools show greater ‘educational
professionalism’ according to the parents: greater account is taken of the child's age, his
or her individual characteristics and the way rewards and punishments are used. The
proximity of these facilities to home or the parent's work is another significant factor.
Finally, schools score slightly better on communication with parents. In particular, the
opportunity for contact with other parents scores much higher in schools than in IBOs.
170
Part I/Chapter 5
The majority of the parents of pre-school children who currently use a day nursery or
child-minding family do not plan to continue to use these facilities after the child starts
school. A variety of reasons were given for this: after-school care is cheaper; some
parents plan to call on the grandparents more than they have been doing and some
parents will no longer need child-minding. The majority of the parents of nursery
schoolchildren will continue to use their current type of child-minding in the future. These
percentages are slightly lower for the primary schoolchildren, especially among the users
of day nurseries and child-minding families. After all, the upper age limit for child-minding
in these facilities is 12.
We also sounded out parents' views on trends in the quality of formal child-minding
provision over the last 3 years. Taking all types of child-minding together, about 15% of
parents think they have improved and slightly less than 10% think they have deteriorated.
Day nurseries seem to have improved in quality rather more than child-minding families.
The quality of out-of-school care initiatives (IBOs) also appears to have improved greatly,
especially as regards practical aspects. However, it is worth noting that quite a large
number of parents think that the quality of IBOs has deteriorated, again mainly with
respect to practical aspects. Evidently one cannot please everyone.
Finally, this chapter evaluated the child-minding provided by domestic staff, PWA
personnel and au pairs. All users are very satisfied with this type of child-minding. It
appears that parents mainly use these people for practical reasons (the children do not
have to be taken anywhere) and the large degree of flexibility it offers. These parents will
continue to use this type of child-minding in the future.
171
CHAPTER 6
CHILD-MINDING IN SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Introduction
This chapter analyses the use of child-minding in the event of the - short-term - illness of
the child and at difficult times, both for pre-school and schoolchildren. It then goes on to
examine the problems parents can experience due to having more than one child in a
child-minding facility.
2. Child-minding for pre-school children in specific
circumstances
2.1 Child-minding in the event of short-term illness of the child
It is usually the grandparents who jump in to help with child-minding when a child is ill.
Indeed, 53.3% of grandparents who do not care for the child on a regular daily basis are
called in when the child is ill. When the percentage of grandparents who do care for the
child on a daily basis and still care for him/her in the event of illness is added, the total
comes to 76.5%. Slightly fewer than half of the parents indicated that their child could still
go to his/her usual child-minding facility when he/she is ill. A third of the parents take a
day's annual leave in this situation or a day off in lieu. Slightly more respondents take a
day's leave for social or family reasons when their child is ill. Only 6.7% of parents stated
that they occasionally call upon the services of an organisation that provides child-minding
for sick children.
172
Table 6.1
Part I/Chapter 6
Child-minding used in the event of short-term illness of the child (in %, multiple
answers possible)
Child-minding in the event of illness
N=656
The grandparents look after the child1
The usual child-minding facility:2
- grandparents
- other family members, friends, neighbours, etc.
- child-minding family affiliated to a service
- private child-minding family
- subsidised day nursery
- private day nursery
One of the parents takes one or more days' annual leave or
days off in lieu
One of the parents takes leave for social or family reasons
Other people (family members, friends, neighbours, etc.) look
after the child3
One of the parents works at home then
Parents call on the services of an organisation that provides
child-minding for sick children
One partner does not work
Other solution
53.3
45.6
23.2
2.8
10.5
4.3
3.1
1.6
37.6
35.8
9.8
8.3
6.7
1.3
5.0
1 Grandparents who care for the child on a regular day-to-day basis are not included here, they
are to be found under ‘the usual child-minding facility: grandparents’.
2 The sum of the percentages for the different child-minding facilities is equal to the percentage
for ‘the usual child-minding facility’.
3 Family members, friends, neighbours, etc. who care for the child on a regular day-to-day basis
are not included here, they are to be found under ‘the usual child-minding facility: other family
members, friends, neighbours, etc.’.
2.2 Use of child-minding at difficult times
Slightly fewer than seven in ten parents have at some time needed child-minding after 6
o'clock in the evening. 22.9% of these parents experienced problems finding child-minding
at this time of day. Slightly more than half of the children have needed child-minding at the
weekend. Fewer than half of the parents have had to find child-minding at short notice.
Table 6.2
Need for child-minding at difficult times and problems experienced in finding it (in %)
Difficult times
Already needed childminding
Experienced problems
After 6 o'clock in the evening
At the weekend
Short notice (e.g. within a week)
Days continually changing
More than 11 hours per day
67.0
51.9
47.1
31.1
21.0
22.9
19.5
21.0
11.1
18.1
Before 7 o'clock in the morning
18.1
22.0
Child-minding in specific circumstances
173
Table 6.3 summarises the types of child-minding used at difficult times during the week.
Clearly grandparents are called on very frequently to look after their grandchildren at
these difficult times. This emerged earlier in the discussion on the choice of child-minding
type. Slightly more than 4 in 10 children are able to go to their usual child-minding facility
at these difficult times. This is certainly the case where the grandparents care for the child,
which does not come as a surprise. Two in 10 children who are cared for regularly by a
child-minding family affiliated to a service are also able to go to the same child-minding
family at these difficult times. One in three parents relies on other family members, friends
and neighbours.
Table 6.3
Child-minding arrangements at difficult times (in %, multiple answers possible)
Child-minding at difficult times
The grandparents look after the child1
The child can go to his/her usual child-minding facility:2
- grandparents
- other family members, friends, neighbours, etc.
- child-minding family affiliated to a service
- private child-minding family
- subsidised day nursery
- private day nursery
Other people (family members, friends, neighbours, etc.) look
after the child3
Parents try to arrange things so child-minding is not needed
Not needed it yet
Other solution
N=656
53.1
40.9
20.2
3.9
9.1
3.1
3.1
1.5
30.6
17.3
16.6
10.9
1 Grandparents who care for the child on a regular day-to-day basis are not included here, they
are to be found under ‘the usual child-minding facility: grandparents’.
2 The sum of the percentages for the different child-minding facilities is equal to the percentage
for ‘the usual child-minding facility’.
3 Family members, friends, neighbours, etc. who care for the child on a regular day-to-day basis
are not included here, they are to be found under ‘the usual child-minding facility: other family
members, friends, neighbours, etc.’.
Grandparents, other family members, friends, neighbours, etc. are still the most important
providers of child-minding at the weekend as opposed to weekdays. These informal
circles are used for nine out of ten children who are cared for outside the family at the
weekend. This is not surprising since few child-minding families and day nurseries operate
at the weekend.
174
Table 6.4
Part I/Chapter 6
Overview of the most important types of child-minding used at the weekend, weighted
(07.00 - 19.00) (in %)
Type of child-minding
Grandparents, other family members, friends, neighbours, etc.
Others (domestic staff, PWA, etc.)
Child-minding family
Day nursery
N=177
93.9
3.9
1.1
1.1
3. Child-minding for schoolchildren in specific circumstances
This section examines more closely the group of schoolchildren aged 2½ to 12 years and
discusses the use of child-minding in the event of the child's illness, during the school
holidays and at difficult times.
3.1 Child-minding in the event of short-term illness of the child
When it come to arrangements to cope with short-term illness, a clear distinction was
found between nursery schoolchildren and primary schoolchildren. Grandparents are
called in to help less for nursery schoolchildren than for primary schoolchildren. It was
found that when the grandparents are the usual carers, parents still rely heavily on them
to provide child-minding when the child is ill. Other family members, friends and
neighbours help out more with nursery schoolchildren than with primary schoolchildren in
the event of illness. Only very exceptionally a child is left at home alone.
Only a very small number of parents use one of the organisations that provide childminding for sick children. Of the parents with a child aged 2½ to 6 years, 36 families had
used the following organisations:
 health insurance fund: 80.6%;
 home child-minding service for sick children: 8.3%;
 work-based child-minding for sick children: 5.6%;
 Kind en Gezin: 2.8%;
 local authority child-minding service for sick children: 2.8%.
Of the parents with a child aged 6 to 12 years, three indicated that they had occasionally
used the health insurance fund and one had used a home child-minding service for sick
children.
Child-minding in specific circumstances
Table 6.5
175
Child-minding used in the event of short-term illness of the child (in %, multiple
answers possible)
Type of child-minding
The usual child-minding facility1
- grandparents
- other family members, friends, neighbours,
etc.
- out-of-school care initiative (IBO)
- school
- child-minding family
- day nursery
- domestic staff and PWA
One or both parents takes one or more days'
annual leave or days off in lieu
The grandparents look after the child2
One or both parents take leave for social or
family reasons
One partner does not work
Other people (family members, friends,
neighbours) look after the child3
One of the parents works at home then
Parents use an organisation that provides
child-minding for sick children
The child stays at home alone
Other solution
Children aged
2½ to 6 years
n=413
49.1
Children aged
6 to 12 years
n=63
41.5
42.1
1.3
33.8
4.6
0.5
1.0
1.8
1.8
0.8
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.3
32.3
37.6
36.8
50.8
36.9
20.1
10.5
9.2
3.1
10.5
8.8
7.7
4.6
0.5
4.5
3.1
4.6
1 The sum of the percentages for the different child-minding facilities is equal to the percentage
for ‘the usual child-minding facility’.
2 Grandparents who care for the child on a regular day-to-day basis are not included here, they
are to be found under ‘the usual child-minding facility: grandparents’.
3 Family members, friends, neighbours, etc. who care for the child on a regular day-to-day basis
are not included here, they are to be found under ‘the usual child-minding facility: other family,
friends, neighbours, etc.’.
3.2 Use of child-minding on days off school and during the school holidays
Grandparents who do not usually care for the child are used rather less on days off school
and during the short and long school holidays than they are in the event of the child's
illness (Table 6.5). In over half of the families (one or) both of the parents look after the
child. We also found that almost 7 in 10 nursery school- and primary schoolchildren who
are normally cared for by their grandparents can still go there on days off school and
during short school holidays. This figure drops to 6 out of 10 in the long summer holiday.
No fewer than 4 in 10 parents with a child between the age of 6 and 12 years indicated
that they use youth movements, sport camps, etc. during the long school holiday to tide
over the holiday period.
176
Table 6.6
Part I/Chapter 6
Child-minding used on days off school and during holiday periods (in %, multiple
answers possible)
Type of child-minding
One or both parents look
after the child
The usual child-minding
facility1
- grandparents
- other family members,
friends, neighbours, etc.
- out-of-school care
initiative (IBO)
- school
- child-minding family
- day nursery
- domestic staff and PWA
The grandparents look
after the child2
Family members, friends,
neighbours look after the
child3
The partner does not work
A different child-minding
facility
Parents use a youth
movement, sports camp,
etc.
The child stays at home
alone
Other solution
Days off school
2½-6
years
n=413
6-12
years
n=63
Short school
holidays (autumn,
Christmas, spring
and Easter)
2½-6
6-12
years
years
n=413
n=63
59.3
64.6
62.1
59.8
55.4
58.8
Long school holiday
(July-August)
2½-6
years
n=413
6-12
years
n=63
64.6
64.4
66.2
56.9
60.3
53.8
39.7
2.8
36.4
8.7
39.2
3.1
37.4
8.1
37.7
3.1
34.2
9.8
3.1
3.5
2.8
4.9
4.8
4.9
8.7
2.0
2.5
1.0
3.5
0.0
1.7
1.7
3.1
2.5
1.8
1.3
3.3
0.0
1.6
1.6
8.7
2.8
1.8
1.5
3.3
0.0
1.6
0.0
21.6
35.4
24.7
30.8
27.7
32.3
12.5
4.6
16.5
6.2
16.8
9.2
10.4
2.0
1.5
3.1
12.0
6.6
3.1
4.6
10.4
9.9
1.5
3.1
1.5
9.2
7.9
18.5
15.0
44.6
0.3
6.2
0.3
4.6
0.0
6.2
4.3
6.2
7.9
4.6
9.7
6.2
1 The sum of the percentages for the different child-minding facilities is equal to the percentage
for ‘the usual child-minding facility’.
2 Grandparents who care for the child on a regular day-to-day basis are not included here, they
are to be found under ‘the usual child-minding facility: grandparents’.
3 Family members, friends, neighbours, etc. who care for the child on a regular day-to-day basis
are not included here, they are to be found under ‘the usual child-minding facility: other family
members, friends, neighbours, etc.’.
3.3 Use of child-minding at difficult times
There is a particularly great need for child-minding after 6 o'clock in the evening and at the
weekend, and there is also a great need for child-minding places that can be called on at
short notice. With the exception of child-minding before 7 o'clock in the morning, parents
Child-minding in specific circumstances
177
with children aged 2½ to 6 years seem to experience more problems finding suitable
child-minding at difficult times than do parents of children aged 6 to 12 years.
Table 6.7
The need for child-minding at difficult times and problems experienced in finding it
(in %)
Child-minding at difficult
times
Children aged 2½ to 6 years
Already
needed childminding
After 6 o'clock in the
evening
Finding child-minding at
short notice (e.g. within
a week)
At the weekend
Days continually changing
More than 11 hours per
day
Before 7 o'clock in the
morning
Experienced
problems
Children aged 6 to 12 years
Already
needed childminding
Experienced
problems
64.8
34.2
58.3
25.0
56.3
30.5
47.1
30.0
49.3
32.2
23.1
24.1
22.6
28.4
42.9
31.9
10.1
8.0
20.0
0.0
22.4
23.3
15.5
33.3
Grandparents usually step in to help at these difficult times. Indeed, 7 out of 10 of the
children who are usually cared for by their grandparents can also go to them at these
difficult times. In families where the grandparents are not the child's usual carers, they still
step in to provide child-minding at difficult times in slightly more than 3 in 10 families.
Other family members, friends and neighbours are also regularly called upon. In other
words, informal child-minding seems to be very important at difficult times. Many parents
also try to arrange things so that they do not need child-minding at these times. The
category ‘other solution’ means in most cases that the parents call in a baby-sitter.
178
Table 6.8
Part I/Chapter 6
Child-minding arrangements at difficult times (in %, multiple answers possible)
Arrangement
Children aged
2½ to 6 years
n=413
The child can go to his/her usual child-minding
facility1
- grandparents
- other family members, friends, neighbours, etc.
- out-of-school care initiative (IBO)
- school
- child-minding family
- day nursery
- domestic staff and PWA
The grandparents look after the child2
Other people (family members, friends, neighbours,
etc.) look after the child3
Parents try to arrange things so child-minding is not
needed
Not needed it yet
The child stays at home alone
Other solution
54.7
Children aged
6 to 12 years
n=63
45.2
39.9
5.2
2.7
3.3
0.8
1.6
1.1
31.8
8.4
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.0
32.1
37.1
22.6
28.0
25.8
14.6
0.8
12.1
16.1
8.1
11.3
1 The sum of the percentages for the different child-minding facilities is equal to the percentage
for ‘the usual child-minding facility’.
2 Grandparents who care for the child on a regular day-to-day basis are not included here, they
are to be found under ‘the usual child-minding facility: grandparents’.
3 Family members, friends, neighbours, etc. who care for the child on a regular day-to-day basis
are not included here, they are to be found under ‘the usual child-minding facility: other family
members, friends, neighbours, etc.’.
4. More than one child in child-minding
This section examines the difficulties parents experience because they have more than
one child in child-minding. Of the parents included in the sample because they have a
child aged between 0 and 2½ years in a child-minding facility, 60.6% have other children
in addition to the child in the sample and 34.8% have one or more other children in childminding (28.1% have 2 children, 5.8% have 3 children and 0.9% have 4 children for whom
they use child-minding).
4.1 Combination of child-minding types
All possible combinations occur but a number of trends can be observed. Most parents
use the same type of child-minding for the different children. Where a combination of
types is used, this usually includes the school (for the older children).
Another frequent combination is that of grandparents with child-minding family, for
either two or three children.
Child-minding in specific circumstances
179
The combination of grandparents with day nursery is far less common, and the use of a
child-minding family and a day nursery is a very rare occurrence.
Table 6.9
Most common combinations of child-minding types, weighted figures (in %, n=360)
Combination of child-minding types
2 children in child-minding
Grandparents – grandparents
Child-minding family – child-minding family
Grandparents – child-minding family
Grandparents – school
Day nursery – day nursery
Child-minding family – school
Day nursery – school
Grandparents – day nursery
Grandparents – IBO
Child-minding family – IBO
Day nursery – IBO
Child-minding family – day nursery
N=290
64.2
32.3
18.5
16.2
12.8
11.1
9.3
6.8
2.7
2.2
1.6
0.4
3 children in child-minding
Grandparents – grandparents
Grandparents – school
Child-minding family – school
Child-minding family – child-minding family
Day nursery – school
Grandparents – child-minding family
Day nursery – day nursery
Grandparents – day nursery
Child-minding family – IBO
Grandparents – IBO
Day nursery – IBO
Child-minding family – day nursery
N=60
50.8
29.8
27.6
22.6
20.7
17.5
15.9
9.5
6.4
4.6
1.6
0.0
4 children in child-minding
Day nursery – school
Grandparents – grandparents
Child-minding family – school
Day nursery – day nursery
Grandparents – day nursery
N=9
41.8
29.1
29.1
27.2
14.6
4.2 Problems experienced by parents who use child-minding for more than
one child
The table below summarises the most important problems experienced.
180
Part I/Chapter 6
Table 6.10 Problems experienced by parents because they have more than one child in childminding (in %)
Problems
N=210
Child-minding for more than one child is expensive
It is difficult to find child-minding for both pre-school and
schoolchildren
Taking and collecting the children is a problem
The opening times of the different child-minding facilities do not
always correspond
It is difficult to find a place for two or more children together
The distance between the children's child-minding facilities is too
great
Other problems
58.1
23.8
10.3
9.3
5.2
4.3
13.5
The most important sticking point is that it is rather expensive to have more than one child
in child-minding (see also below). One in five parents has evidently also had problems
finding a child-minding facility that can take both pre-school and schoolchildren. Other
issues are experienced as problems by fewer parents: taking and collecting, opening
times of different child-minding facilities, the distance between the child-minding facilities,
finding a place for two or more children together. Other problems included: finding a place
for the children together during the school holidays, finding a place where children over
the age of 12 can also go, coordination of times of hot meals between different childminding facilities, having the child collected from school by the child-minding facility and
child-minding for short periods.
4.3 Total cost of child-minding
Table 6.11 Total weekly expenditure on child-minding where more than one child in the family
goes to a child-minding facility (in %, n=360, formal child-minding provision only)
Cost (in BEF)
No charge
Less than BEF 500
BEF 500 to 1 000
BEF 1 000 to 2 000
BEF 2 000 to 3 000
BEF 3 000 to 4 000
BEF 4 000 to 5 000
BEF 5 000 to 6 000
BEF 6 000 to 7 000
BEF 7 000 to 8 000
BEF 8 000 to 9 000
BEF 9 000 to 10 000
More than BEF 10 000
Two children in
child-minding
n=290
Three children in
child-minding
n=60
Four children in
child-minding
n=9
19.0
3.4
6.8
16.9
19.4
13.5
9.7
5.1
1.7
0.4
0.8
1.3
2.1
6.1
2.0
16.3
22.5
28.6
2.0
2.0
4.1
4.1
4.1
0.0
4.1
4.1
0.0
0.0
14.3
28.6
14.3
14.3
0.0
0.0
28.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Child-minding in specific circumstances
181
The table above shows the total weekly expenditure on child-minding where more than
one child is involved. Child-minding provided by grandparents and other family members
is omitted, because only about 6% of the parents pay for this informal child-minding (see
earlier in the report). The average weekly expenditure on child-minding is BEF 2300 and
most parents pay between BEF 1000 and 3000.
Total weekly expenditure on child-minding is higher for 2 children than for 3 children
(the group with 4 children is not taken into account because of the small number of
families involved). This could mean that parents who need child-minding for several
children choose cheaper types of child-minding as the number of children being cared for
increases. The effect of graded pricing schemes, which attempt to level out the total cost
for families of different sizes by taking the number of children and family income into
account, also plays a part here.
4.4 Time spent taking children to and collecting them from their childminding facilities
Table 6.12Total time per day spent by parents taking their children to and collecting them from
their child-minding facilities (in %)
Time spent
Less than 15 minutes
15–30 minutes
30–45 minutes
45–60 minutes
More than 60 minutes
N=374
26.2
39.8
21.4
8.6
4.0
Most parents spend less than half an hour on the journey taking their children to their
child-minding place(s) and picking them up again. One in five parents spends half an hour
to three-quarters of an hour on this journey.
5. Conclusion
This final chapter of Part 1 has examined in more detail child-minding arrangements in a
number of specific problem situations, such as short-term illness of the child, during the
school holidays, outside office hours and at other difficult times, and when child-minding is
needed for more than one child.
In the event of the short-term illness of the child, most parents rely on the grandparents
(whether or not they are the usual providers of child-minding). When this is not possible,
the parents take a day's annual leave, a day in lieu or a day's leave for family or social
reasons. Only a small number of parents call on the organisations that provide childminding services for sick children.
182
Part I/Chapter 6
Schoolchildren are usually cared for by their parents or their usual child-minding facility
(mainly grandparents) on days off school and during the school holidays. Grandparents
who do not look after the children on a day-to-day basis are called on less in the school
holidays than when the child is ill. In the long summer holiday, youth movements and
sports camps are often used for primary schoolchildren.
A large group of parents (varying in size depending on the nature of the problem) had
already needed to find child-minding at one or more difficult times. The main situations
where this arises are after 6 o'clock in the evening, when child-minding is needed at short
notice and at the weekend. Grandparents are relied on very heavily for child-minding in
these circumstances (about 70%). Children aged between 6 and 12 are sometimes left at
home on their own in these circumstances (1 in 12). In any case grandparents are the
most important providers of child-minding at the weekend.
When parents use child-minding for more than one child, they usually use the same type
of child-minding for all the children. Families with three children use many different
combinations of child-minding that include child-minding provided by and in schools.
Grandparents are also frequently involved in the combinations used by both families with
two children and families with three children.
Cost emerges as the most important sticking point for parents with several children in
child-minding: 58.1% of the parents think that child-minding for more than one child is
expensive. Nor is it easy to find a child-minding facility that can take both pre-school
children and children who are at school. The average weekly amount paid by parents with
more than one child in child-minding is BEF 2300.
183
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS (STANDARD GROUP)
The use of child-minding for 'standard' children in Flanders has never been as high as it is
today. Of the Flemish parents of the standard group of children in this study, 61.8% of
those with children aged 3 months to 2½ years use child-minding on a regular basis. For
nursery schoolchildren (aged 2½ to 6 years ) and schoolchildren (aged 6 to 12 years ) the
corresponding figures are 48.6% and 28.6% respectively.
The most important reason why families use child-minding is to enable the mother to
continue to work. In families which do not use child-minding, it is mainly the mothers who
change their work situation (by stopping working or working fewer hours) in order to look
after their children themselves.
The mother's working hours (broken down in this study into working full time, working part
time, work temporarily discontinued, and not working) emerge as the most important
variable determining the use of child-minding for all three age groups. The more hours the
mother works, the more child-minding is used. This means that the study confirms the
assumption that the main reason for using child-minding is connected with the mother's
work. The educational level of the mother (an indicator of socio-cultural factors) also
proves to play a role in the use of child-minding.
The most important type of child-minding for pre-school children (defined as where they
spend the most hours) is the child-minding family affiliated to a service). Child-minding
provided by grandparents comes in second place.
Grandparents are used the most for nursery schoolchildren, and for schoolchildren
school-based child-minding comes out on top.
Parents with children under the age of 6 usually only use one type of child-minding.
Combining more than one type of child-minding is far more common with children who go
to school.
An important fact that emerged from the study is that where different types of childminding are combined, grandparents appear in the most combinations for all age groups
and they are usually combined with one of the (formal) child-minding facilities.
Parents of nursery schoolchildren and primary schoolchildren have the greatest need
for a well-developed system of (out-of-school) child-minding. Opportunities in the area of
184
Conclusions and policy recommendations
out-of-school child-minding are limited, few child-minders are willing to provide care before
and after school, the child-minding facilities provided by and in schools need to be better
developed, and out-of-school care initiatives are not always professional enough. Parents
have also come up against the lack of out-of-school facilities for children over the age of
12. There are sufficient facilities for this age group during the long summer holiday, but
there is a great need for child-minding provision after school and on Wednesday
afternoons.
The reasons why parents choose a particular type of child-minding are not always equally
clear. After all, many parents consider that every type of child-minding has both
advantages and disadvantages. When parents have to express a preference, this proves
to be child-minding families for the parents of pre-school children, which is also the type
that is used the most. What appeals to parents most about child-minding families is the
combination of security and professionalism. Grandparents are least often chosen as the
theoretical 'first choice' by this group, despite the fact that in the real world they are the
second most important type of child-minding provision. The conclusion that can be drawn
from this is that parents mainly use grandparents for practical reasons.
Parents whose children are at school appear to have less clear preferences. Schoolbased child-minding and child-minding families are viewed in the most positive light.
For all parents who decide to use a day nursery or child-minding family, how easy it is to
get there is the most important criterion in their choice. For older children, the child's own
preference and whether brothers or sisters can go to the same place are also decisive
reasons. Easy accessibility is the decisive factor in the use of school-based child-minding
facilities.
The parents of the pre-school children investigated in the study generally prove to be
satisfied or very satisfied with the type of child-minding they are using. This is hardly
surprising since this is the child-minding they have specifically chosen. The (high) fees
charged by day nurseries and child-minding families affiliated to a service are a cause of
dissatisfaction for many parents. We also found that cost is a decisive reason behind the
decision to use grandparents. The availability of child-minding during the holidays was
also mentioned as a problem for pre-school children. Arrangements with other day
nurseries or child-minders may offer a solution here.
Parents are happy with the cost of private child-minding families, out-of-school care
initiatives and school-based child-minding facilities. The way child-minding workers
interact with their children is the aspect of child-minding parents are most happy with.
Opportunities for contact with other parents are felt to be too limited in almost all childminding facilities.
Some parents think that independent checks upon some child-minding families should
take place more frequently. In this connection and as a partial solution to this problem, it
was also suggested that training should be organised for child-minding families. This
should not be taken to mean that child-minding families are not doing their job properly. It
does mean that they would be given the chance to do their work in as professional a way
Conclusions and policy recommendations
185
as possible. Indeed, this question was raised several times by mothers who would like to
become child-minders themselves and who need some form of training. The quality of
child-minding across the board has improved over the last three years according to 10 to
20% of the parents, while about 5 to 10% think it has deteriorated. Day nurseries appear
to have made more progress on quality than child-minding families. For schoolchildren,
noticeable improvements have been made in the quality of IBOs.
In the event of the short-term illness of the child, parents mainly rely on grandparents
(whether or not they usually care for the child). If this is not possible, one of the parents
takes a day's annual leave, a day off in lieu or a day's leave for social or family reasons.
Only a small number of parents turn to one of the organisations that supply people to stay
with sick children. Solutions to this problem could be sought in two directions. First, the
possibility of extending family leave could be explored, for instance during the first two
years of a child's life when childhood illnesses and other illnesses occur most frequently.
Another possible solution lies with the child-minding facilities themselves. For instance,
they could try to provide a separate room for children who are unwell. In addition, work
could be done on extending affordable home child-minding services for sick children.
Schoolchildren are cared for by their parents or their usual carers (mainly
grandparents) when they have days off school and during the holiday periods.
Grandparents who do not look after the children on a day-to-day basis are called upon in
this situation less often than they are called upon to look after sick children. Youth
movements and sports camps are often used in the long summer holiday for primary
schoolchildren.
A large group of parents (varying in size depending on the nature of the problem) had
already needed to find child-minding at one or more difficult times. The main situations
where this arises are after 6 o'clock in the evening, when child-minding is needed at short
notice and at the weekend. Grandparents are relied on very heavily for child-minding in
these circumstances. However, not all parents have the option of calling on informal childminding in these situations. Once again, solutions could be sought in a number of
directions. Firstly, formal child-minding facilities could become more flexible and operate
longer opening hours (possibly in consultation with other child-minding facilities).
Secondly, companies and other employers could investigate whether and how they could
address this issue, either by providing their own (flexible) child-minding facility or by
(getting together with other companies and) providing a (joint) facility.
Parents who use child-minding for more than one child usually use the same type of
child-minding for all their children. Families who need child-minding for three children
often use a combination of school-based child-minding and another type of child-minding.
Grandparents are also frequently involved in these combinations, where either two or
three children are involved. Cost emerges as the most significant problem for parents who
have more than one child in child-minding: 58.1% of these parents say that child-minding
for more than one child is expensive. Nor is it easy to find a child-minding facility that will
take both schoolchildren and pre-school children.
186
Conclusions and policy recommendations
187
PART 2
CHILD –MINDING FOR SPECIFIC GROUPS
189
CHAPTER 7–12
NOT AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH
191
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
(SPECIFIC TARGET GROUPS)
The study found a large degree of diversity among the target groups studied in the use of
child-minding for children aged 3 months to 2½ years. The table below summarises the
figures for use of child-minding by the different target groups set against the standard
group.
Table 1
Use of child-minding for children aged 3 months to 2½ years by the specific target
groups compared with the standard group (after weighting for ethnic minorities) (in %)
Use of childminding
Regular
Very occasional
or never
Standard
group
n=1091
Parents with
a disabled
child
n=50
Ethnic
minority
families
n=62
Disadvantaged
families
n=35
Oneparent
families
n=22
Unemployed
mothers
n=41
61.6
38.4
64.0
36.0
12.9
87.1
31.4
68.6
54.5
45.5
14.6
85.4
The table shows that the proportion of mothers with disabled children who regularly use
child-minding is comparable to the standard group. Regular use of child-minding by oneparent families (mainly lone mothers) is also quite high. However, the study found that the
intensity of the child-minding (measured as the number of hours of child-minding per
week) is lower among these target groups than among the standard group, either because
the mothers work part time, or because their main need is for occasional child-minding.
Ethnic minority families and families where the mother is unemployed (groups which
partly overlap) use child-minding the least. However, it would be hasty and wrong to draw
the conclusion from this that these target groups have no need of child-minding and that
no specific policy initiatives need to be taken on their behalf. Indeed, the picture presented
by the findings of this study is more subtle than that, offering a variety of routes that future
government policy might take.
The rest of this chapter draws a number of general conclusions for policy relating to the
target groups studied. For policy suggestions connected with more specific aspects of the
192
Conclusions and policy recommendations
individual target groups, the reader should refer to the conclusions to the separate
chapters.
1. Gearing child-minding provision to the needs of the target
groups
1.1 Sufficient child-minding options in the neighbourhood
Parents from the specific target groups need sufficient child-minding options in the
neighbourhood. Several parents with a disabled child who had been referred for specialist
care mentioned the lack of a suitable child-minding facility in the vicinity of their home. For
disadvantaged parents, the problem is often one of lack of mobility, as they do not usually
own a car. A child-minding family in the neighbourhood could be the solution for
disadvantaged parents, but lack of trust and/or cost are often obstacles in the way.
Another problem is that child-minders are not usually accustomed to associating with this
target group (see below). We would like to make the case for affordable initiatives at
neighbourhood or district level, close to where the target groups live and geared to their
special needs.
Some towns and cities have already tried to meet these needs by setting up projects
specifically targeting these groups in disadvantaged and/or ethnic minority
neighbourhoods. However, initiatives of this kind are only possible if the target groups in
question are concentrated in sufficient numbers in particular neighbourhoods or districts,
which is not usually the case in smaller towns. The same goes for children with a
disability. In these circumstances, general child-minding facilities have to be open to
children from the target groups. This demands experience, understanding and a certain
empathy.
1.2 Dealing with children (and parents) from certain target groups demands
experience, understanding and a certain empathy
An additional advantage of such initiatives targeting particular neighbourhoods and target
groups is that the staff build up experience in dealing with a particular target group and
gain a better understanding of the customs within disadvantaged and/or ethnic minority
communities. As a result, they are able to develop a bond of trust with the parents more
quickly, which is especially important in the context of child-minding provision for
disadvantaged and/or ethnic minority families. Indeed, we found that these parents often
have preconceptions and misconceptions about formal child-minding that increase the
barrier in the way of their using these facilities. Parents of disabled children need to have
even more confidence in their child-minding facility than standard parents, in view of their
child's need for special care.
To create a bond of trust, lower barriers and develop understanding of different
cultures, personal interaction between the staff of the child-minding facility and the target
Conclusions and policy recommendations
193
group parents is essential, as is encouraging contact between the parents themselves.
This is not usually very easy in general child-minding facilities.
Thus child-minding facilities that either specifically target groups with special needs or
are open to the children from these groups need to employ people with a particular
approach, experience and empathy to deal with the target group(s) in question. This also
applies to the district nurses employed by Kind en Gezin who make home visits to the
children from specific target groups in order to gain the confidence of the parents.
We wish to point out in this connection that the training for nursery nurses should give
sufficient attention to the problems and characteristics of the target groups with which they
are likely to be dealing in their work. A special training pack could be developed for the
district nurses who have contact with specific groups. It is worthwhile being accompanied
on home visits to specific target groups by an intercultural mediator or experienced
professional, as is already current practice in some cities and local authorities.
It is important that sufficient time is allowed for these home visits by district nurses, so
that a relationship of trust can be built up with the parents. This is in the interests of both
the child and the parents. After all, for disadvantaged families in particular, the district
nurse is often the only outside professional from the health and social services who is able
to obtain a picture of the child's home circumstances and who can refer the parents to
other care professionals if necessary.
2. Broadening the scope and objectives of child-minding
2.1 Child-minding is not only needed by working parents
This study has shown that the reasons parents use child-minding can be very different.
For the standard parents, the parents of disabled children and some of the single
parents, the main reason is so that they can continue to go to work. The majority of childminding facilities are geared to the needs of these parents, usually agreeing child-minding
arrangements for set hours and days.
Ethnic minority parents, disadvantaged parents, some of the single parents and the
unemployed mothers, on the other hand, mainly use child-minding to get some free time
occasionally. This may be time for the housework, to do the shopping, because the dayto-day care (temporarily) becomes too much for them, to do a course in Dutch or a
training course with the Flemish Employment and Training Service (VDAB), to go for an
interview, etc. Their work situations are also often unstable, involving temporary jobs with
irregular hours. Consequently, what these target groups (mainly) need is occasional childminding, flexibly organised, which is also available at difficult times such as early in the
morning, late in the evening or at the weekend.
Some child-minding facilities try to cater for these needs, either by reserving a small
number of places in a ‘traditional’ facility for occasional child-minding, or by catering
exclusively for occasional use by specific target groups (e.g. disadvantaged groups and/or
194
Conclusions and policy recommendations
ethnic minorities). We feel that this provision still needs to be greatly expanded in order to
meet current needs.
2.2 Child-minding used to give the parent some breathing space
Child-minding (usually on an occasional basis) can be used as a means to give the parent
some breathing space. Disadvantaged, ethnic minority and single parents, as well as the
parents of disabled children, may need temporary relief from the burden of daily care
tasks. This releases time to give some structure to their lives, to get the housework done,
to be able to give more time to their partners or the other children in the family or to be
able to organise their affairs.
2.3 Child-minding as a means of emancipating and (re)integrating the
parents
At a later stage, an extensive supply of affordable, flexibly organised, occasional childminding might encourage disadvantaged, ethnic minority, unemployed and lone mothers
who are at home, as well as mothers with a disabled child who have given up work to look
after their child, to re-enter the labour market on a full- or part-time basis, to do a course
with the Flemish Employment and Training Service (VDAB), a course in the Dutch
language, register with a temporary employment agency, etc., thereby reducing the gulf
between their life and the world of work.
Whereas in the past child-minding developed mainly in response to the increasing
participation of women in the labour market, it could also become a means of
emancipating mothers from specific target groups and (re)integrating them into the labour
market. Of course, this implies first greatly reducing the numbers of people currently
unemployed and claiming benefit.
2.4 Child-minding in the interests of the child
Child-minding need not only be in the interests of the parents, it can also be seen as being
in the interests of the child, especially for children from certain target groups.
Child-minding can have significant educational added value, including detecting and
remedying any developmental delay in disadvantaged children, helping children from
ethnic minority families to learn Dutch more quickly, etc. Disabled children who go to a
day nursery or child-minding family can, for their part, learn a lot from children who are not
disabled.
Another benefit is that ‘standard’ children and children from certain target groups can
learn to mix with people who are different from a very young age. Vandenbroeck (1999)
pointed out in this connection that child-minding forms a ‘sas de transition’, the first place
where children come up against the diversity of the society in which they live and where
they can gain experience in handling that diversity.
Conclusions and policy recommendations
195
In this context, it is important that the child-minding facility should genuinely reflect the
community as far as possible, which brings us to the next point.
3. Child-minding as a reflection of the diversity in society
We currently live in a society characterised by increasing diversity in terms of family
composition (growing numbers of one-parent families, the emergence of new second
families, multigenerational families within certain cultures, and so on), income,
employment situation, etc. At the same time certain target groups such as ethnic minority
and disadvantaged families are adopting more and more of the characteristics of the
‘standard’ parents (fewer children, more mothers going out to work, etc.).
Child-minding facilities are already coming up against these developments (and will do
so more and more in the future), which bring with them new needs in the field of childminding (see above). It is essential, therefore, that child-minding facilities should take this
reality into account and should not simply (continue to) target the standard middle-class
Flemish family with two incomes (see also Vandenbroeck, 1999).
The logical consequence of this is that children from the different target groups should
be given places in general child-minding facilities. This presupposes that the various
initiatives are open to all children, and that measures are taken to combat any forms of
exclusion or discrimination.
Existing barriers also need to be removed. Barriers such as cost, distance and the need
for special care have already been mentioned, but there are other barriers such as lack of
trust, preconceptions and lack of information about (formal) child-minding provision. One
way to make access easier for parents from ethnic minority and disadvantaged
communities would be to bring in care workers from those communities to work in the
child-minding facilities, a measure which has so far only been used sporadically in a small
number of projects. It was also suggested earlier that (remedial) teachers be employed to
work with children from ethnic minority and/or disadvantaged families to rectify their
language delay, and to give individual stimulation to children with a disability. Peripatetic
workers could provide the same services for children cared for by child-minders.
Such initiatives should give the parents in the target groups greater confidence in
formal child-minding, so that they will be less inclined - and will no longer need - to stay at
home full or part time to look after the children themselves.
4. Integration or specialisation?
Alongside the efforts being made to integrate target groups within the general childminding provision, other voices can be heard championing specialised child-minding
geared to the needs of specific groups. Both forms have their advantages and
disadvantages.
196


Conclusions and policy recommendations
On the one hand, as pointed out earlier, the advantages of integrating ethnic minority
children in general facilities is that they learn Dutch more quickly, that they grow up in
a Western culture and that native Flemish children learn to mix with ethnic minority
children of the same age. The study also found that some parents of disabled children
think that their child can learn a great deal from ‘normal’ children and, in turn, that
when other children come into contact with a disabled child from a young age, this
furthers their integration into society.
On the other hand, initiatives that are exclusively geared to specific target groups
have their own benefits. They are usually small-scale projects and so can devote
more time to each individual child, which enables them to detect any developmental
delay. Staff also have more time for parents, which can help to lower barriers and
promote emancipation. In addition, some (severely) disabled children obtain
specialised care that general facilities are not able to offer.
Rather than choosing between integration and specialisation, we would argue for both
forms to be developed, so that parents can choose for themselves in the interests of their
child.
5. The importance of clear information about existing types of
child-minding
Naturally parents need to be well informed about existing types of child-minding in their
local areas if they are to be able to make an objective choice, with respect to both the
general facilities available and any initiatives geared to specific target groups.
The study found that many disadvantaged and ethnic minority parents in particular do
not know about formal child-minding facilities, resulting in preconceptions and lack of trust.
Parents of disabled children also reported a lack of clear information about the childminding options for their children.
Clear and targeted information that these groups, especially the ethnic minorities, can
understand can help here, as can the organisation of open days, the development of
cooperative arrangements with community centres, community projects, etc.
Social workers and organisations that come into contact with these target groups also
have an important role in providing information and referring people to appropriate
facilities. They include the Public Centre for Social Welfare (OCMW), local and municipal
authorities, Kind en Gezin district nurses, the Centre for Life and Family Matters, general
practitioners, the Flemish Fund for the Social Integration of People with a Disability,
associations that assist immigrants, organisations that work with the poor, etc.
6. Increased opportunities to combine work with a caring role
Finally, despite the initiatives that have already been taken in this area, the limited
opportunities to combine work with caring for a child, especially a disabled child, remain a
Conclusions and policy recommendations
197
problem. Experiments currently being conducted with the personal assistance budget can
be seen as a step in the right direction. Parents of disabled children are also arguing for a
more flexible application of the regulations governing career breaks, by removing the
upper age limit for the child. The high cost of bringing up a child with a disability means,
however, that many mothers have to continue to work either part time or full time.
Potential alternative solutions would be to make the leave allowed for family reasons into
paid leave and the recently announced initiative involving paid leave for carers.