Whatever the need to improve and broaden research in the future, we think that qualitative comparisons are useful if we want to go beyond the categories of statistics and inspire changes to the policy-making process. First, understanding care arrangements as interactions permits us to specify the basic units on which empirical data are grounded. This gives an access not only to the most stabilised structures such as families, states, churches, interest groups, etc., but also to the infinity of less visible forms of relationships which shape the everyday life. Such an operation, analysing biographical trajectories, allows us to go beyond hypotheses based on status from statistical data. All these quantitative data which compare percentages of single, separated, divorced, widowed lone mothers, on the one hand, and income, on the other hand, say nothing or very little about the way child day care arrangements are actually organised. Reading statistics is useful for understanding some main national trends (see Part 1). However, our qualitative study shows that, in order to understand child care problems of a family, family status is less important than the individual trajectory. Where the trajectory involved living together within or outside marriage, the dynamics of the parental relationship during the period when the couple lived together is of particular importance. Where the father already took part in daily child care arrangements when living together, this involvement is likely to continue after the relationship is dissolved. Conversely, where the father was not involved, or only took a very occasional part in daily child care arrangements, that situation is also likely to prevail after the break-up of the relationship. This means that the father’s role in child care arrangements that existed when the couple lived together tends to be reproduced, at least in part, in the period after the break-up. However, this trend is verifiable only in those cases where the lives of the mother and the father of the child remain relatively similar to what they were earlier (no major problems or changes, such as drug addiction, unemployment or moving far away).
In cases where the couple was not living together before the mother became a lone parent, that is, in single mother situations, the mother’s age and motivationon becoming a lone parent is a significant variable affecting the way child care arrangements are organised from that moment on. If the mother was very young when she became a lone parent, child care arrangements are likely to be organised in a way which involves co- residence and a very strong role in child care on the part of the child’s mother and maternal grandmother (double mothering), provided that the latter accepts her daughter’s maternity and that she is willing to help her. This pattern of organisation of care arrangements is mainly the result of a situation where the young single mother is usually dependent on her own family in financial terms and in terms of a place to live. Where the single mother is already an adult when she becomes a lone parent, this will tend to favour a different pattern of organisation of daily child care arrangements, given that these mothers will generally be financially independent and own their home.
Furthermore, understanding the way carers perceive themselves also gives indications about common roles and values which emerge from interactions (see part 2). If we now try to reverse the perceptions of carers, we may have access not only to the way carers perceive themselves but also to the way they are perceived in the policy system. If we follow the reasoning proposed by Twigg and Atkin in their book about care for older people (Twigg & Atkin, 1996: 22), we understand that laws and policy systems
contribute to the definition of categories of carers, and that this considerably constrains the shaping of the care arrangements.
We can make a similar typology about child care and thus identify four main categories of child carers in European policy systems: carers as resources, users, clients and workers.
Table 43. Perception of the child carers in the policy systems
Carers as resources
Carers as users Carers as clients Carers as workers
Definition very loose limited to official custody (or special
dispensation)
loose tight
Status of the care
private and free (gift, reciprocation or obligation) delegated to collective services (charged or dispensed of fees) delegated to paid services remunerated service Resolution of conflicts ignored or arbitrated
arbitrated breach of contract breach of contract
Aim self-organisation of the custody
well-being of both the child and the parent
well-being of the parent
well-being of the child
Confronting both subjective and objective perceptions of carers allows us to understand some of the dissatisfactions people express. A major one is the absence of sufficient collective structures in many localities. As we see in the table above, the opportunity to be recognised as a user of public services allows the carers to delegate their care responsibilities at a low price, with less obligations and with adapted support to both the child and the parent. For many lone parents, the choice of day care is based on an educational option, which focuses on the socialisation of the child. Even if the lone parents are not, in making such a choice, behaving much differently from parents in a couple, we note that there is more stress on child socialisation in interviews with parents who are rather isolated in their daily lives.
Day care seems to compensate for their feeling of isolation, by proposing a model, which is experienced as complementary rather than competing. The day care centre is thus defined as a "second family", a place where parents can talk about their doubts and get detailed feedback on the child’s day. The trust in this type of service is based on the professional skills of the staff. When criticism was voiced during the interview or off the record, it was aimed less at the service than at a specific individual. Trust is therefore associated with the quality of exchange which they have had with that individual, very much in the same way as with a nanny. However, the abundance of services and people one communicates with opens up negotiating possibilities, from one person to the next, or from one group of children to the next. All of these make for daily
negotiations in which the director plays a central part, lending a sympathetic ear and offering decision-making skills. However, such a privileged relation to educational institutions seems to suddenly come to an end when school starts. Indeed, starting school breaks with the social codes of the family or the day care centre and is a bad experience for a part of lone parent families. This type of fragility appears to be directly linked to the parent’s school history. It seems then that the fear of failure in school is strengthened by the fear of judgment regarding marital failure. These lone parents feel that both the child’s needs and their own needs for feedback are taken less into account, that the staff are less available to listen to them. Also, beyond everyday relations within services, specific dimensions may cause this feeling. In Finland and France, for example, children under school age are monitored and helped at child health services since their birth. When the children start school, they join the school health care system, which is not as extensive as the child health care system.
Another line of dissatisfaction is linked to the tight definition of carers as workers. Unemployed relatives are sometimes used as occasional childminders. They are usually paid "under the table" as the expenses would otherwise become too high for lone parents. In two lone parent families (Fr 2, Fin 13), a female student was offered free food and lodging in exchange for child care. As well, though such arrangements are actually very frequent, many people complain about not having the opportunity to pay their relatives, or even their own parents or siblings, as registered childminders. This particularly emerged out of the British sample:
“We should be allowed to pay friends and relatives for child care and help.”
(UK 8)
“Why can't we pay registered friends and relatives so that we aren't exploited?”
(UK 9)
“It would help if I could help my family, not just a registered childminder. The government fails to recognise that childminders are not always as flexible as work
responsibilities demand.” (UK 22)
Being able to formalise this kind of care would enhance the autonomy and choice of lone parents by freeing them from the feelings of obligation or illegality that informal care can lead to. It could also give an answer to the difficulty of finding adequate service offers, which requires time and money but also confidence that is difficult to obtain in the case of strangers to one’s personal network. On the other hand, we have to keep in mind that the payment for informal care may also be a private prison in the sense that it is quite impossible to behave like an employee when you are a member of the family network. This reveals a challenge to work legislation, as well as to the status and protection of these activities.
To end with these conclusive remarks, one could underline two other main challenges for the future: the pressure which is intensified because of the evolution of the labour market in terms of atypical hours and status. The absence or quasi-absence of employers when negotiating the consequences of the productivity constraints is a major issue for the future development of these services. Up to now, employers do not seem to have been sufficiently concerned with these domestic problems, which have been transferred on to the local authorities. The other big challenge concerns gender inequalities in terms of caring pressure, because caring is still in most of the European countries the responsibility of women. A better sharing of the caring tasks, combined with strong collective incentives, as well for lone parent as biparental families, is certainly one of the main challenges for the coming years.
References
1. Finland
Haataja, Anita (1991) Yksinhuoltajat Suomessa: yksinhuoltajien työssäkäynti, toimeentulo ja perhepoliittiset tuet [Lone Parents in Finland: Working, Incomes and
Family Benefits of Lone Parents]. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö, Kehittämisosaston
julkaisuja 1991: 1, Helsinki.
Haataja, Anita & Kaarina Nurmi (2000) Työnjako 1990-luvulla: Naiset työelämässä ja sen ulkopuolella [Division of Labour in the 1990s: Women in and out of Work Life]. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö, Tasa-arvon työraportteja 2000:3, Helsinki.
Kröger, Teppo & Anneli Anttonen & Jorma Sipilä (forthcoming) “Social Care in Finland: Weak and Strong Universalism”. In John Baldock & Anneli Anttonen & Jorma Sipilä (eds.) The Young, the Old and the State: Social Care Systems in Five
Industrial Nations. Edward Elgar, London & Northampton, MA.
May, Vanessa (1999) Work and Financial Survival in the Life Stories of Finnish Lone
Mothers. Åbo Akademi, Sociologiska institutionen, Ser A: 504, Åbo.
Statistics Finland (1994) Suomalainen perhe [The Finnish Family]. Population 1994: 5. Statistics Finland, Helsinki.
Statistics Finland (1998) Työ, aika ja elämänvaiheet [Work, Time and Episodes of Life]. Labour Market 1998: 9. Statistics Finland, Helsinki.
Statistics Finland (2000a) Families 1999. Population 2000: 12. Statistics Finland, Helsinki.
Statistics Finland (2000b) Suomalainen lapsi [The Finnish Child]. Population 2000: 7. Statistics Finland, Helsinki.
2. France
Avenel M., Algava E. (2001), 'Les bénéficiaires de l’API ', Etudes et résultats, Paris, Ministère del’Emploi et de la Solidarité, Direction de la Recherche, des Etudes, de l’Evaluation et des statistiques.DREES.
Avenel M. (2001), 'Les enfants de moins de 6 ans et leurs familles en France métropolitaine ', Etudes et résultats, n°97, Paris, Ministère del’Emploi et de la Solidarité, Direction de la Recherche, des Etudes, de l’Evaluation et des statistiques. Belorgey J-M. (éd.) (2000), Minima sociaux, revenus d’activité, précarité. Paris. La
Documentation Française.
Bradshaw J., Kennedy S., Kilkey M., Hutton S., Corden A., Eardley T., Holmes H., Neale J. (1996), Policy and the Employment of Lone Parents in 20 Countries. European Observatory on National Family Policies. European Commission. DG5. Chambaz C. (2000), 'Les familles monoparentales en Europe: des réalités multiples ',
Etudes et résultats, n°66, Paris, Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité, Direction
Chambaz C., Martin C. (2001) « Lone parents, employment and social policy in France: Lessons from a family-friendly policy », in Jane Millar and Karen Rowlingson (eds),
Lone Parents, Employment and Social Policy. Bristol, The Policy Press, p. 127-148.
Chaupin S., Guillot O. (1998), 'Au sortir de l’Allocation de parent isolé ', Recherches et
Prévisions, n°50-51, p. 17-26.
DREES (2000), Les modes de garde et d’accueil des jeunes enfants. Paris, Document de travail, n°1. Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité, Direction de la Recherche, des Etudes, de l’Evaluation et des statistiques..
Fagnani J., Letablier M-T. (2001), « Famille et travail: contraintes et arbitrages »,
Problèmes politiques et sociaux, n°858, juin.
Fragonard B. (éd.) (1993), Cohésion sociale et prévention de l’exclusion. Rapport de la Commission présidée par B. Fragonard, dans le cadre de la préparation du 11ème Plan. Paris. La Documentation Française.
Herpin N. OLIER L. (1998), « Les familles monoparentales: aidées mais fragilisées »,
France portrait social, Insee, 1997-1998.
INSEE (1994), Les familles monoparentales. Contours et caractères. Paris, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques.
Join-Lambert M-T. (éd.) (1998), Chômage: Mesures d’urgence et minima sociaux.
Paris. La Documentation Française.
Lagarenne C. and N. Legendre (2000), 'Les travailleurs pauvres en France: facteurs individuels et familiaux ', Economie et Statistique, n°335, 2000-5, Paris, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques
Lefaucheur N. and C. Martin (1993), 'Lone parent families in France: Situation and research ', in J. Hudson and B. Galaway (Eds), Single parent Families. Perspectives
on Research and Policy. Toronto, New York, Thompson Educational Publishing, p.
31-50.
Lefaucheur N. and C. Martin (1997), 'Single mothers in France: Supported mothers and workers ', in S. Duncan and R. Edwards (Eds), Single Mothers in an International
Context: Mothers or Workers?. UCL Press, p. 217-240.
Martin C. (1994) « Diversité des trajectoires post-désunion: Entre le risque de solitude, la défense de son autonomie et la recomposition familiale », Population, n°6, INED, p. 1557-1584.
Martin C. (1996), L’après-divorce. Lien familial et vulnérabilité. Rennes, Pressses universitaires de Rennes.
Martin C. (1997), « L’action publique en direction des ménages monoparentaux – une comparaison France / Royaume-Uni », Recherches et prévisions, n°47, CNAF. Martin C., Math A. and Renaudat E. (1998), 'Caring for very young children and
dependent elderly people in France: Towards a commodification of social care? ', in J. Lewis (Ed), Gender, Social Care and Welfare State Restructuring in Europe. Aldershot, Ashgate, p. 139-174.
Middlemans J. Paserman R. (1996), « Vivre sous le même toit – modèles familiaux dans l’union européenne », Insee Première, n°493, octobre.
Observatoire national de la pauvreté et de l’exclusion sociale (2000), Les travaux de
l’Observatoire de la pauvreté et de l’exclusion sociale. Paris, La Documentation
Française.
Portonnier (1998). Glossaire bilingue de la protection sociale – social protection: a
bilingual glossary, Volume 1 Les termes français/French terms, Paris, Ministère de
l’Emploi et de la Solidarité, Mire et Igas.
Thélot C. and Villac M. (1998), Politique familiale. Bilan et perspectives. Paris, La Documentation Française.
Whitten P. (1998), « Les familles monoparentales dans l’Union européenne: un phénomène qui prend de l’ampleur », Insee Première, n°620, décembre.
3. Italy
Barbagli M., Saraceno C. 1998), Separarsi in Italia. Bologna, Il Mulino.
Bimbi, F. (ed.), (2000), Le madri sole, metafore della famiglia ed esclusione sociale, Roma, Carocci.
Cioni, E. (1997), « Le reti di parentela », in M. Barbagli e C. Saraceno, Lo stato delle famiglie in Italia, Bologna, Il mulino.
Fadiga Zanatta, A. L. (1996), « Famiglie con un solo genitore e rischio di povertà »,
Polis, 10,1, pp. 63-79.
Fadiga Zanatta, A. L. (1997), Le nuove famiglie, Bologna, Il Mulino.
Ford, R. e Millar, J. (eds) (1995), Private Lives and Public Responses, Lone Parenthood
and Future Policy in the U. K., London, Policy Studies Institute.
Istat (1999a), Rapporto sull’Italia, Roma
Istat (1999b), “Il panel europeo sulle famiglie: primi risultati”, Statistiche in breve, 20/09/1999
Kyllönen, R. (1999) “Interpreting the needs of lone mothers: a study of welfare services in Venice”, European Journal of Social Work, 2, 3, pp. 271-287.
Lewis, J. (1998), “Welfare regimes: further Thoughts”, Politics and Society, 1.
Menniti, A., Palomba R. e Rossi, R. (1991), La famiglie italiane degli anni ’80, Roma, Irp.
Menniti, A., Palomba R. e Rossi, R. (1999), “Tendenze demografiche, variazioni territoriali e disagio alla luce dei risultati del Censimento 1991”, in E. Mingione (a cura di), Le sfide dell’esclusione,: metodi, luoghi, soggetti, Bologna, Il Mulino
Menniti, A., Palomba, R. (1986), “Some Aspects of the Italian One-parent Families”, in F. Deven A. Cliquet (eds.), One-parent Families in Europe, Brussels-The Hague, NIDI.
Sabbadini, L. L. (1999), “Modelli di formazione e organizzazione della famiglia”, paper to the meeting “Le famiglie interrogano le politiche sociali”, Bologna 29-31 marzo 1999
Trifiletti, R. (1999), “Mediterranean Welfare Regimes and the Worsening position of Women”, Journal of European Social Policy, 4, pp. 63-78.
4. Portugal
Almeida, Ana Nunes de (1985), “Trabalho feminino e estratégias familiares”, Análise Social, nº85, pp. 7-44.
Almeida, Ana Nunes de (1986), “A fábrica e a família: tópicos para uma reflexão”,
Análise Social, nº91, pp. 279-312.
Almeida, Ana Nunes de (1993), “Mulheres e famílias operárias: a “esposa doméstica”,
Análise Social, nº120, pp.105-135.
Almeida, Ana Nunes de, M. D. Guerreiro, C. Lobo, Anália Torres e K. Wall (1998), “Relações familiares: mudança e diversidade” in J. M. Viegas e António Firmino da Costa, Portugal- Que Modernidade?, Oeiras, Celta, pp.45-78.
Bairrão, Joaquim, (1990), Perfil nacional dos cuidados prestados à criança com idade
inferior a 6 anos, Lisboa, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
Bertram, Anthony et al (2000), A Educação Pré-Escolar e os Cuidados para a Infância
em Portugal, Estudo Temático da OCDE, Ministério da Educação, Departamento da
Educação Básica.
Brannen, Julia; Smithsson, Janet (1998), “Conciliação entre o trabalho e os filhos: perspectivas do futuro para os jovens de cinco países”, Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, nº27, pp. 11-26.
Capucha, Luís (coord.) (s.d), ONG’s de Solidariedade Social: Práticas e Disposições, Cadernos REAPN, nº2, Rede Europeia Anti- Pobreza, Portugal.
Carreira, H. Medina (1996), “As Políticas Sociais em Portugal” in Barreto, António et
al, A Situação Social em Portugal, 1960-1995, Instituto de Ciências
Sociais/Universidade de Lisboa.
Castro, José Luís (1995), Entre a tutela e a sobrevivência: contextos de socialização e
trajectórias dos meninos de rua, Dissertação de Mestrado em Sociologia da Família,
Lisboa, ISCTE.
Fernandes, Ana et. al.(1993), “O Surgimento do Serviço Social nas Misericórdias Portuguesas”, Intervenção Social, Revista do Instituto Superior de Serviço Social, nº8, pp. 35-53.
Fernandes, Ana Alexandre (1994), “Relações familiares, transformações demográficas e solidariedades intergeracionais”, Forum Sociológico, nº4, pp. 45-58.
Ferreira, Cora et,al (1993), “ Participação das IPSS nas Políticas Sociais”, Intervenção
Social, Revista do Instituto Superior de Serviço Social, nº8, pp.53-75.
Formosinho, J. (1994), A Educação Pré-Escolar em Portugal- Projecto de parecer, Conselho Nacional de Educação, Lisboa.