Understanding the Perceptions of Low-Income Working Mothers and Childcare Givers: Ethnographic Comparative Case Analyses of Racial-Ethnic Relative Care

Background:  Formal and informal childcare arrangements (relative care) significantly impact economic and social conditions of low-income families.  Since most research on childcare availability, effectiveness, and choice has been conducted in urban settings, little is known about the impact of childcare options on low-income families in rural areas. Consequently, state and federal policy-makers seeking to promote the employability and economic viability of low-income working families in rural areas have inadequate information on which to base funding decisions. More than half of American school-aged children are not engaged in after-school programs, but in other after-school care arrangements. Since 1996, relative care has been an essential element for low-income mothers’ transitioning from welfare to work. Given the high prevalence of relative care and the inadequacy of recent research on its use, this study seeks to understand its impact on racially diverse low-income working families in Midwest non-metropolitan areas.

Methodology: This study used the extended ethnographic comparative case method and grounded theory to analyze in-depth interviews of 18 females: 9 low-income, single, working mothers (5 Whites, 2 African Americans, and 2 Hispanic/Latina) living in a mid-Western rural area who rely on relative care for their school-aged children, ages 5 to 10, and another 9 low-income childcare givers (5 Whites, 2 African Americans, and 2 Hispanic/Latina). Semi-structured interview questions were conducted with a purposive and snowball sampling.  We utilized qualitative software NVivo and open, axial coding strategy for analyses.  To increase validity and credibility of research findings, member-checking, peer debriefing, and thick descriptions were used.  Interview data were transcribed verbatim.

Results:All respondents received no public assistance for relative care. Both Hispanic/Latina and African American mothers believed relative care was more beneficial than formal child centers because children learn family values from relatives, bonding more with their families. Regardless of racial-ethnicity, mothers with disabled children preferred relative care. White mothers responded they had no options for formal childcare settings or did not know whether their children’s public school offered after-school programs, differing from ethnic minority women. Hence, they relied on relative care, providing no compensation for the relative. A majority of mothers responded the benefit of relative care was flexibility allowing them to work longer or attend night classes whenever needed. In particular, White mothers responded using relative care secured more financial well-being. Regardless of racial-ethnicity, all childcare-givers responded they helped for both the children’s and mothers’ well-being, increasing the mothers’ self-sufficiency, economic independence, and school work. Taking care of the children caused childcare givers no emotional or physical hardships; they believed their care to be the most beneficial for their family member.

Discussions:  Social workers must understand the functions of extended family networks in rural areas which have limited resources to better serve them. Most of all, the government, who provides childcare subsidies to formal childcare settings and low-income working mothers employing them, should consider providing similar financial incentives to relatives who assist working mothers. Furthermore, policy-makers need to recognize the importance of economic factors and family values in families’ belief system decision making.