Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:38:47.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Mixed Economy of Day Care: Consumer Versus Professional Assessments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Angela C. Browne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the crucial issues in the evolution of the welfare state is the preferred means of funding and providing social services. In the absence of a federally-funded and centrally-administered child day care programme in the United States, a variety of services and programmes have evolved. Public policy which seeks to encourage service diversity must consider the ability of social service consumers to afford, select or utilize services of quality, or to demand quality from service providers. This study compares child day care services provided under different auspices — public (state and municipal), quasi-public (military), quasi-private (employer-sponsored), non-profit and private proprietary. Consumer ratings of the day care programmes provided under six different auspices are compared to a research assessment of the same six programmes. The data indicate a tendency among consumers to be inattentive regarding the basic elements of care and to overestimate the quality of care. If we accept the view that consumer choice is desirable on procedural grounds (a desirable freedom), then the findings of this study suggest that public policy should strive to enhance the effectiveness of consumer choice.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , July 1984 , pp. 321 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Browne, A.C. (1983), ‘The mixed economy of day care: Who benefits from diversity?’ PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Browne, A.C. (1984a), ‘The market sphere: Private responses’, Child Welfare (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Browne, A.C. (1984b), ‘Mixed economy of child day care policy in the United States’, International Child Welfare Review (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Browne, A.C. and Wildavsky, A. (1984), ‘What should evaluation mean to implementation?’ in Implementation, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bush, M. and Gordon, A. (1978), ‘The advantages of client involvement’, in Cook, T., Rosario, M. Del, Hennigan, K., Mark, M. & Trochim, W. (eds), Evaluation Studies Review Annual, 3(1), 787–8.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. (1977), ‘Reforms as experiments’, in Cars, F.G. (ed.). Readings in Evaluation Research, Russell Sage, New York.Google Scholar
Children's Defense Fund (1981), Employed Parents and their Children: A Data Book, Children's Defense Fund, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Ferrar, H.M. (1978), ‘The relationship between a working mother's job satisfaction and her child care arrangements’, Unpublished PhD dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Fosburg, S. (1981), Family Day Care in the United States: Summary of Findings, vol. 1, National Day Care Home Study, DHHS Pub. No. (OHDS) 890–30282, Abt Associates, Washington DC. ACYF, HHD.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. (1983), Capitalism and the Welfare State: Dilemmas of Social Benevolence, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. and Eaton, J. (1979), ‘Who speaks for the poor?’ Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 36, 411–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamerman, S.B. (1983), Child Care Services: A National Picture, Interim Report, Columbia University School of Social Work, New York.Google Scholar
Scheirer, M.A. (1979), ‘Program participants' positive perceptions: Psychological conflict of interest in social program evaluation’, in Sechrest, L., West, S., Phillips, M., Redner, R. & Yeaton, W. (eds), Evaluation Review Annual, Sage, Beverly Hills, 4 (1), 407–24.Google Scholar
Stipek, B. (1979), ‘Citizens' satisfaction with urban services: Potential misuse as a performance indicator’, Public Administration Review, 39(1), 46–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar