ED 296 778

AUTHORT-TLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATENOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT RESUME

PS 017 245

Emlen, Arthur C.; Koren, Paul E.Hard To Find and Difficult To Manage: The Effects ofChild Care on the Workplace.Portland State Univ., Oreg. Regional Research Inst.for Human Services.Administration for Children, Youth, and Families(DHHS), Washington, D.C.; Child Care CoordinatingCouncil, Portland, OR.; Department of Education,Washington, D.C. Office of Planning, Budget, andEvaluation.; Portland State Univ., Oreg.8412p.; A Report to Employers distributed at a forum onChild Care and Employee Productivity: The WorkforcePartnership (Portland, OR, March 1, 1984).Regional Research Institute for Human Services,Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR97207 ($1.50; $1.00 for quantity orders).Reports - Research/Technical (143)

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.Community Surveys; *Day Care; Early ChildhoodEducation; *Employed Parents; *Employee Attitudes;*Employer Supported Day Care; Employment Patterns;Family Income; Family Problems; Parent Attitudes;Policy Formation; Selection; *Stress Variables*Absenteeism (Employee); *Oregon (Portland);Satisfaction

ABSTRACTThis study, which focused on effects of child care on

the workplace, addressed several questions: (1) What kinds of childcare arrangements do employed parents make, and why do they makethem? (2) Are these parents having difficulty finding child care? (3)Does their ability to manage child care affect their absenteeism andstress? (4) What roles do occupation and personnel policies play inthis issue? The study was based on a May 1983 survey of a workforceof 20,000 from 33 companies and agencies chosen to represent a broadcross. section of industries, occupations, and income levels in thePortland, Oregon, area. Participants included large and smallmanufacturing concerns, hospitals, service industries, and retailconcerns, as well as several public agencies. Of the 8,121 employeeswho responded to the survey, 54 percent were women, 44 percent hadchildren under the age of 18, and 30 percent had children under theage of 12. Findings, which mainly concerned families with childrenunder 12, indicated that child care is hard to find and difficult tomanage. Family structure and ability to arrange child care have animpact on the workplace in the form of absenteeism and stress.Company policies and work requirements also affect families, andemployee stress level and ability to be at work. Generalrecommendations are offered to employers. (RH)

Cr)

HARD TO FIND ANDDaTICULT TO MANAGE:THE EFFECTS OF CHILD CARE ON 'THE

WORKPLACEU.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

0 This document has been reproduced asreceived born the person or organizationoriginating it.

XMinor changes have been made to improveeProduction quality

peintsof view or ognionsstatedin trusdocument do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy

by Arthur C. Emien and Paul E. KorenRegional Research Institute for Human ServicesPortland State University

A Report to EmployersFor distribution at a forum on Child Care and EmployeeProductivity: The Workforce Partnership, to be held March 1,1984 at the Westin-Benson, Portland, Oregon

AcknowledgementsThe survey research for this pamphlet was supported by a

grantfro m the Administration for Children, Youth, andFamilies, Office of Human Development Services. The forumwas supported by a grant from the Office of Planning andEvaluation. Both offices are in the Department of Health andHuman Services. Our thanks to Project Officers, Patricia Divine-Hawkins andJeny Silverman. Additional support came fromPortland State University and from the Child Care CoordinatingCouncil.

Most of we with to thank the more than 8000employees who took the time and care to complete the slimyand contribute though comments. We are indebted to themany officer and sta who assisted us in the project, and toLeslie Faugut, Executive Director of the Child Care CoordinatingCouncil, who negotiated the survey arrangements.

The companies and agencies participating in the?survey were:

r...:2-Burger King`NikeProvidence HospitalStandard InsuranceStoel Rives Boley Fraser &WyseTektronix

r-- 'Tri-Met11 Port of Portlandc Adult and Family Services

Children Services Div.eterans Reg. Off;-e &ospitd

paialtnomah Co. (health &nf

viron)City of Portland:Police Dept.Fire Dept.Water Dept.Small Depts. combined

Portland Public SchoolsPortland State UniversityU.S. Postal Service

Small Business or OfficesContinental CreditHarrison TypesettingJ.C. PenneyPacific First FederalSafewayWestin BensonYaws

Small AgenciesChild Care CoordinatingCouncilMult. / Washington. Co.CETAN/ NE Mental HealthUnited WayY.M.C.A.

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Rrthvx Q..Em\e_sn

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Table of ContentsACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLIST OF TABLES

Page

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 2

METHODOLOGY 2

FINDINGS 2

Family Resources for Child Care 2

What kinds of child care did employed parents arrange? 3Is the choice of child care related to income?Dissatisfaction with care by child 34

Difficulty finding child care 4Consequences for the Workplace 5

Combining work and home 5

Absenteeism by type of child care 5

Comparison with employees having no parental responsibility 6Interpretation of scx differences in absenteeism 6stress 7Differences between full- time and part-time employees 8Effects of occupation 8Company pohcy

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9Flexible Policies That Accommodate Family Respv nsibilities . . . . 9Improving the Child Care Market Through Benet Information . 9

REFERENCES 10APPENDIXA CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE 10B KINDS OF CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED 10C OUTCOMES FOR EMPLOYEES WITH CHILDREN UNDER

TWELVE, BY OCCUPATION, FAMILY INCOME, AND SEXOF EMPLOYEE 11

List of TablesTable 1 Type of Child Care Used for Children Under 12, By Sex

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6Table 7Table 8Table 9

of EmployeeType of Child Care Used for Children Under 12, ByLevel of Family Income and Sex of EmployeeDissatisfaction with Arrangements for Children Under12

Difficulty Finding Arrangements, by Type of ChildCare for Children Under 12Difficulty Combining Home and Job, by FamilyResponsibilityAbsenteeism by Type of Child CareAbsenteeism by Employee's Parental Responsibility . .Stress Related to Child Care and Other Areas of Life . .Stress by Type of Child Care for Children Under 12 ..

3

3

4

4

5

6677

PURPOSE OF THE STUDYOn all sides of the issue, employers hear strong

opinions about the child care needs of employees..Some people advise employers to establish benefits,facilities, subsidies, and services,while others raise con-cerns about costs, equity, and who should bear respon-sibility for child care. The issue is rife with favoritesolutions and unexamined assumptions, and these arecountered by nagging doubts about the nature and ex-tent of the need.

The controversy is reflected in the opinions ofemployees themselves. The following comments madeby employees of local companies illustrate how diversethese opinions may be.

"I am happy with child care arrangements;however, half my wife's pay goes to childcare. . . Companies should help subsidizechild care!""I resent business getting into the child carebusiness. I think child care funded by acompany discriminates against thoseemployees that have no use for child care.""I feel child care at one's place of work isthe only reasonable and logical method thatshould be used. Peace of mind for themother would benefit employers and socie-

"I firmly feel that child care is a personalresponsibility-not that of an employer. Noone else should be responsible for ourchoices to bear children or the results!"

In the face of such conflicting advice, employersneed objective information about the relationship ofchild care needs to the work of their employees. Thepurpose of this study was to provide employers withsuch information so that they might more easily decidehow much responsibility to assume or which policies topursue. The study addressed several questions: Whatkinds of child care arrangements do employed parentsmake, and why do they make them? Are they havingdifficulty finding child care? Does their ability tomanage child care affect their absenteeism and stress?What roles do occupation and personnel policies playin this issue?

METHODOLOGYThe study was based on a May 1983 survey of a

workforce of 20,000 from 33 companies and agencieschosen to represent a broad cross section of industries,occupations, and income levels in the Portland area. Itincluded large and small manufacturing concerns, hos-pitals, service industries, and retail concerns, as well asseveral public agencies.

The survey used a four-page questionnaire whichfocused on various aspects of employees' child care ar-rangements as well as certain events, such as absen-teeism and stress, which might reflect difficulty incombining work and family responsibilities. The ques-tionnaire asked about current arrangements or eventsof the past four weeks, thereby obtaining a time sam-ple of employees' lives. Moreover, it asked about ac-tual circumstances rather than ideals or preferences, sothat the survey would provide a realistic picture of ef-

fective demand and the difficulties associated withmanaging child care. "Absenteeism" was defined asany loss of time from work for any reason. Questionswere asked about four kinds of absenteeism: daysmissed, times late, times left early, and times inter-rupted while at work. The questions concerningabsenteeism were asked of all employees withoutreference to reasons such as child care problems orwork stress, so that the absenteeism rates of parentsand non-parents could be validly compared.

The questionnaire was distributed to all em-ployees at the selected work sites. It was given to allemployees at a worksite, rather than a sample of them,so that sufficient data would be obtained for analyzingorganizational units, occupations, and geographicalareas. Employees completed the questionnairesanonymously and returned them in sealed envelopesto the Regional Research Institute either through com-pany collection points or through the mail. In severalcompanies, the return rate exceeded 60 percent, butdistribution problems at some sites, employee non-response, and our own removal of some incompletequestionnaires combined to reduce the overall rate to40 percent. In general, the responses of employees tothe survey were careful and complete, and were oftensupplemented by a rich outpouring of written com-ment.

Of the 8121 employees who responded to thesurvey, 54 percent were women, 44 percent hadchildren under the age of 18, and 30 percent hadchildren under the age of 12, an age that mostemployed parents believe requires some form of childcare. Eight percent of the employees were non-white,46 percent had family incomes of $30,000 or more,52percentconsidered themselves management or profes-sionals, 89 percent worked full time, and 78 percentworked a day shift. Of those employees who wereparents, 37 percent of the women and 14 percent ofthe men were single, while 57 percent of the womenand 52 percent of the men had employed spouses.Full sample characteristics are shown in Appendix A.This report focuses primarily on families with childrenunder the age of 12.

FINDINGSFamily Resources for Child Cam

What kinds of child care did employed parentsarrange? Families frequently used combinations of ar-rangements. For example, one employee with anemployed spouse and two children had a 3-year-old inpreschool twice a week and a 6-month-old in "familyday care" with a neighbor for two days, both withrelatives for two days, and both children at home onthe fifth day with their mother. The average numberof arrangements per family with children under 12 inthe study was 1.4; 66 percent of the families used onearrangement. For a detailed presentation of arrange-ments used, see Appendix B.

A simple, mutually exclusive classification of thefamily's ability to arrange child care was created for thestudy. Of three categories, first were those familieswho relied exclusively on care at home by an adult.They made no arrangements for care outside thehome, and they reported no reliance on the children

themselves. Second were those families who madearrangements for day care in neighborhood homes orcenters, and who may also have relied partially on anadult at home, but did not have children looking afterthemselves. Third were all families whose childrenwere cared for by an older brother or sister or werelooking after themselves.

These three categories are important to distin-guish for economic reasons because they reveal the ex-

tent to which family resources suffice to meet childcare needs. Table 1 shows the extent to which eachtype of care was used for children under 12 years ofage:

1) Exdusive use of child care at home by anadult.For 50 percent of employed men and 16 percentof employed women this was the exclusive modeof child care, consisting mostly of care by theother parent, and to a lesser extent by anotheradult who lived in the same household or some-one who came in to provide care. Among womenemployees having an adult at home for childcare, 32 percent paid to have someone come inand 4 percent exchanged, traded, or bartered forit. Sixty five percent of the arrangements ofwomen employees were for children under theage of six and 30 percent u ier the age of two.2) Use of out-of-home care. This included familyday care, centers, and relatives in a ratio of 4:2:1.All together, 35 percent of men and 56 percentof women employees used out-out-home care ofsome kind, to the exclusion of having childrenlook after themselves. Most of the paid care fellin this category. Five percent of center care and15 percent of care in someone else's home wereobtained by exchange, trade, or barter. Seventyfour percent of the arrangements were forchildren under the age of six and 28 percentunder the age of two. Seventy percent of familyday care and 57 percent of centers used werewithin two miles of home; 12 percent and 18percent within a mile of work.3) Care by child. Here, the children were watch-ed by older brothers or sisters or looked afterthemselves. This type of arrangement was usedby 15 percent of men employees and 28 percentof women employees. For approximately half ofthe families using this type of care, it sup-plemented some other arrangement. Care bychild was used an average of 14 hours perweek.The median number of hours per week was ten.Twenty-five percent of the arrangements ofwomen employees were for children under theage of six and six percent were for children underthe age of two.

Is the choice of child care related to income? In- 26%

come is a major family resource. What difference didfamily income make in the choice of child care? Theanswer is, "Not much". As shown in Table 2, womenemployees who had family incomes of $30,000 orabove used care by a child slightly more frequentlythan those with family incomes under $30,000.Among men employees, higher family income was

Table 1

TYPE OF CHILD CARE USED FOR CHILDRENUNDER TWELVE, BY SEX OF EMPLOYEE

MEN EMPLOYEES WOMEN EMPLOYEESN = 1244 N = 1198

35% 16%

50%15%

28%

He le Care By Adult

III Care By Child

achieved by having an employed spouse; thus theirchild care shifted from an adult at home to either out-of- home care or care-by-child. Care-by-child doubled,approaching the pattern for women employees ofwhatever income. This finding did not conform to theperception of many employees who reported reliance

on their children because they could not affordanything else. In general, however, care by child wasfound at all income levels.

& 1

56%

Out of Home Care

Table 2

TYPE OF CHILD CARE USED FOR CHILDRENUNDER 12, BY LEVEL OF FAMILY INCOME ANDSEX OF EMPLOYEEMEN EMPLOYEES

LESS THAN $30,000

N =627 25% N =617 45%

$30,000 OR ABOVE

36%

19%

WOMEN EMPLOYEES

LESS THAN $30,000

N = 692

55%

Home Care By Adult

III Care By Child

30%

20%

$30,000 OR ABOVE

N=506 13%

57%

Out of Home Care

More detailed analysis by small increments offamily income and specific kinds of care showed littledeparture from the overall findings, althoughsomewhat greater use of child care centers wasassociated with incomes of under $10,000 and over$50,000. Also no significant variation in use of familyday care was found to be related to family income.

The sums.), did not ask employees about their in-dividual salaries or personal income. but it was possi-ble to analyze the data by occupation, which reflectspersonal income to some extent. However, womenemployees with higher paying occupations did notshow less use of care-by-child. Thus, we found littletendency for increments in personal income or familyincome to find their way into purchase of out-of-home child care.

Dissatisfaction with care by child. A puzzlingquestions is why the higher income families did notuse their additional financial resources to enter the daycare market and purchase child care, rather than relyon their children, all of whom were under the age of12. Some parents felt good about how responsiblytheir children ha-idled themselves in this situation, butmost of the parents of these children had mixed feel-ings, at best. They were much more likely to bedissatisfied with their child care arrangements thanother parents-57 percent of employees relying oncare by a child reported some degree of dissatisfactionwith that type of care, compared to 23 percent ofthose using out-of-home care such as family day careand centers. (See Table 3).

Table 3

DISSATISFACTION WITH ARRANGEMENTS FORCHILDREN UNDER TWELVE, BY TYPE OF CAREParent Arrangementmen care by adult at homemen care out of homemen care by childwomen care by adult at homewomen care out of homewomen care by child

0% 100% % Num.15% 55425% 40030% 16734% 17323% 61557% 306

joininismi

imsIn the words of parents:

"I feel it's very unsafe to leave my childrenalone during the day, but. . . I feel it's moreimportant to feed them. This is the finaldeciding factor.""I feel guilty about leaving my son homealone, but there's not much else I can do"."So much of my time and energy is oc-cupied by worrying about my children. ..leaving children alone is heartbreaking. Ihate it!!""My daughter is 10 and able to care forherself. ""The hours that I work leaves my daughtersleeping alone at home. She has to getherself up for school and off to schoolwithout any assistance. I work from 12 a.m.to 9 a.m. Also I have a large dog for protec-tion during those hours she is alone whichkeeps her feeling safe at home at night. Wealso have frequently discussed fire escaperoutes.""We have two sonsone's 10 years old andone's 8... they take care of themselves in

the morning before they go to school. Wewould like them to go to a babysitter'shouse but they would rather sleep in themorning. So far they are doing very verygood. .. they are never late to school andcoming home. But I worry, school's almostover. . . ""Finding child care was a constant source ofanxietyI finally concluded that they werebetter off by themselves."

True, the higher income parents were less dis-satisfied with care by child than parents with lessmoney; 69 percent of mothers with family incomes of$30,000 or above versus 48 percent of those with lessthan $30,000. The fact remains that the percentage offamilies relying on this kind of arrangement remainedthe same for high and low income families despitetheir dissatisfaction.

Use of this type of arrangement averaged approxi-mately ten hours per week, or two hours per day. Theduration of care by child was

5 hours or less per week for 31 percent10 hours or less per week for 62 percent15 hours or less per week for 76 percent20 hours or less per week for 83 percent

and 40 hours or more per week for 14 percent of thesearrangements.

We do not wish to suggest that "care bychild" care by selfor siblingis necessarily or in allinstances a cause for concern. For many children, itmay be responsive to their wishes and may be apositive experience of self reliance, independence, andresponsibility. For some children, it may indeed be thebest of available alternatives. Nevertheless, for the ma-jority of parents it appeared not to be an entirelysatisfactory situation, and for many it was a majorsource of worry. Many were uncomfortable about it,by their own sense of values; for them, it was a survivalsolution. The problem does not stop with age 11. Thisreport focused on children under 12, but the evidencesuggests that in families with children 12 to 17 years ofage, the kids were on their own far more often thanparents felt comfortable with.

So we are back to the puzzling question. De-spite misgivings, relying on the children was the pathof least resistance, lowest cost, most convenience, or,possibly, greatest preference. Since allowing childrento look after themselves was a worrisome alternative forso many, questions arise about whether more attractivealternatives were available to families. One alternativeis for a parent not to be employed. Other alternativesare sought in the community's child care market. It ispossible that many parents knew of no alternativechild care resources that they considered better or evenappropriate or that the children were willing to use.Table 4

DIFFICULTY FINDING ARRANGEMENTS, BYTYPE OF CARE FOR CHILDREN UNDER TWELVEParent Arrangement 0% 100% % Num.men care by adult at home 36% 471men care out of home 50% 433men care by child 40% 162women care by adult at home 61% 179women care out of home 57% 675women care by child 64% 316

Difficulty finding child care. There is some evi-

dence for the possibility that these parents especially

were frustrated by a lack of success in finding suitableresources. Employees were asked, "In your experience,how easy or difficult has it been to find child care ar-rangements?" The highest percentage difficulty wasreported by those who were not currently participatingin the day care market; 64 percent of those womenemployees using care by child reported difficulty find-ing child care (see Table 4). The questions remains as

to whether an adequate and appealing child caremarket would have lured those employees from theirlow cost pattern of care.

Those women employees who had been suc-cessful in finding child care in the out-of-homemarket also perceived child care as difficult to find(Table 4). In fact, that was a general perception.Overall, 59 percent of women and 40 percent of menemployees reported difficulty finding child care. Themen found it easier, because for them it was. As weshall see below, the greater burden of finding childcare fell on the women in the family. Controlling forsex of employee, the perception that child care is dif-ficult to find prevailed among all employees regardless

of age of children, the number of children, family in-come, the shift the employee worked, or the type offamily (i.e., single parent or two working parents).The only exception was men employees with a spousewho waa not employed. Difficulty finding child carestood out as the most sharply experienced difficultyreported by employees in the survey.

Perceived difficulty in finding child care takes onadded significance because it had important correlates

(shown for women employees):Difficulty finding child care was moderatelycorrelated with making arrangements withwhich employees were dissatisfied.Difficulty finding child care was stronglycorrelated with making arrangements thatemployees reported as difficult to maintainor continue r,;.b.Difficulty fine g child care was associatedwith planning to change arrangements.Thirty eight percent said they were planningto change arrangements in the near future.Difficulty finding child care was moderatelycorrelated with reported stress related tochild care.

Consequences for the workplace.Given that employees manage their family re-

sponsibilities in very different ways, a major questionis: "What are the consequences for the workplace?"Conceivably, such consequences may take many forms.Family responsibilities may cause employees to missentire work days, arrive at work late, leave work early,

or take time during the workday. On a more sub-tle level, they may cause stress and worry which aresufficiently acute to affect productivity and morale.Such problems are not limited to employees who areparents; other employees have family responsibilities aswell. Because of the importance of assessing how far-reaching the effects of family responsibilities on the

work place may be, this survey examined these effects

more closely.Combining work and home. To establish some

perspective, let us first examine the amount of diffi-culty that employees reported in balancing thedemands of home and work. We asked all employeesthe followi.g question: "Circumstances differ andsome people find it easier than others to combineworking with family responsibilities. How easy or dif-ficult is it for you?" As seen in Table 5, mostemployees reported that they found it at leastsomewhat easy, including parents. However, most ofthe employees who did report difficulty combininghome and work were parentsparticularly women.Thirty eight percent of women employees withchildren under 12 reported at least some difficulty,compared to 9 percent of women with no childrenunder 18. The pattern was the same for menemployees, although the difference was not so great.Men and women with teenagers fell in-between.

Table 5

DIFFICULTY COMBINING HOME AND JOB,BY FAMILY RESPONSIBILITYEmployee Family Type 0% 100% % Num.

men with no children<18 yrs 8%1884

men with a child 12.18 yrs so ,4% 429men with a child<12 yrs Nems 23% 1259

women with no children<1O yrs 9%2477

women with a child 12-18 yrs owl 21% 453women with a child<12 yrs 38%1224

Was it harder for single parents than for familieswith two earners? Yes, but not very much, because theburden fell more heavily on the women in all types offamilies. It was most difficult for women employeeswhose spouse was not employed; 45 percent of themreported difficulty. In general, employees who wereraising children did report more difficulty combiningwork and family responsibilitiesa difficulty that alsowas correlated with absenteeismbut most employedparents were doing well.

Absenteeism by type of child care. It was whenwe examined the workplace consequences of child carethat some employed parents were found to experiencemore difficulty than others. The four types ofabsenteeism examined in this surveydays missed,times left early, times late, and time interrupted whileat workall represent time loss from work. Followingconcepts developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics(Hedges, 1977), we used four methods of aggregatingabsenteeism rates: incidence, percent loss, severity, andaverage number of days or times per year. Togetherthey provided participating employers with a usefulprofile of time loss in their workforce. For example, ofall employees surveyed, 33 percent missed one or moredays in the 4-week period (incidence). This 33 percentmissed an average of 28 days per year (severity). Theworkforce as a whole lost an average of 9 days per year(annualized total loss), representing 4 percent of thetotal number of days that could have been worked(percent loss). In this pamphlet, we have confinedourselves primarily to the rate which most simply pro-vides the most informationthe average number ofdays missed (or times late, etc.) per year. The statisticaverages all employees in the workforce, or anysubgroup within it, and simply annualizes the four-

week mean, multiplying by 12, in order to produce awhole number of days per year.

The kind of child care resources that families usedand the exercise of responsibility for child care ac-counted for significant and substantial differences inthese absenteeism rates. By "child care resources", werefer to one of the three general types of arrange-ments: care by an adult at home, out-of-home care,or care-by-child, as shown above in Table 1. By "childcare responsibility" we refer simply to the sex of theemployee and role played in making the daily effortrequired to manage child care arrangements. The twoare highly related, since women appeared to carry themajor responsibility for child care arrangements, evenin families in which both spouses were employed.

The specific findings were that men employeeswhose children remained at home with a spouse orother adult tended to experience absenteeism ratesroughly comparable to those of employees who had nochildren at all, while women employees whosechildren were in out-of-home care, and especiallythose relying on care by a child, had the highestabsenteeism rates. As shown in Table 6, this range was65 percent higher in days missed (an estimated 5.1days per year difference), 278 percent higher in timeslate (a difference of 13 6 times per year), 74 percenthigher in leaving work early (a difference of 5.8 timesper year), and 210 percent higher in interruptions (adifference of 53.1 times per year). Thus, for womenemployees the responsibility for managing out-of-home or care-by-child 4rrangements on a daily basiswas associated with higher absenteeism than the tradi-tional situation involving care at home by mothers. Anoteworthy/variation was that fathers missed as manydays per year as mothers when the arrangement wascare-by-child (13.4 days per year for fathers; 13.0 formothers). Comparable patterns were also found whenusing incidence measures of absenteeism.

Table 6

ABSENTEEISM BY TYPE OF CHILD CAREDays Missed (per year)Parent Arrangement 0men care by adult at homemen care out of homemen care by childwomen care by adult at homewomen care out of homewomen care by child ommmiremmrTimes Late (per year)Parent Arrangement 0men care by adult at home Nommen care out of homemen care by childwomen care by adult at homewomen care out of homewomen care by child mommmaramm

20 Avg.Num.7.9 6149.0 437

13.4 1909.3 189

11.4 67013.0 330

20 Avg.Num.4.9 6116.9 4378.3 1889.6 186

15.8 66518,5 329

Times Left Early (per year)Parent Arrangement 0 20 Avg.Num.men care by adult at home 7.8 610men care out of home

10.4 437men care by child10.8 188women care by adult at home 8.9 189women care out of home 12.4 663women care by child13.6 327

Times Interrupted (per year)Parent Arrangement 0men care by adult at home mommen care out of homemen care by child MEMwomen care by adult at home memwomen care out of homewomen care by child

100 Avg.Num.25.3 60634.9 43434.3 18729.8 18333.8 66578.4 329

Comparison with employees having no parentalresponsibility. Because the study sought to investigatewhether or not child care was a significant issue, animportant comparison group were those employeeswith no children at all. The question here was whetheremployees who were parents experienced higherabsenteeism than those who were not. The answerwhich is shown in Table 7, was "yes, in most in-stances." Comparing Tables 6 and 7 reveals thesimilarity of absenteeism between men who had nochildren under 18 and men who had a spouse or otheradult at home for child care.Table 7

ABSENTEEISM BY EMPLOYEE'S FAMILYRESPONSIBILITYDays Missed (estimated per year)Employee Family Type 0 20 Avg.Num.men with no children<18 yrs imai 7.4 1901men with a child<12-18 yrs 6.7 430men with a child<12 yrs 9.4 1274women with no children<18 yrs 9.6 2541women with a child 12.18 yrs morammmi 12.2 459women with a child<12 yrs mom= 11.7 1222Times Late (estimated per year)Employee Family Typemen with no children<18 yrsmen with a child 12.18 yrsmen with a child<12 yrswomen with no children<18 yrswomen with a child 12.18 yrswomen with a child<12 yrs

0 20 Avg.Num.6.7 1899mom3.9 428ow5.9 1268ran

MM.= 9.2 2517mimmE 9.7 455

15.6 1214

Times Left Early (estimated per year)Employee Family Type 0 20 Avg.Num.men with no children<18 yrs 9.0 1888men with a child 12.18 yrs 7.6 426men with 3 child<12 yrs IMININIMI 9.1 1268women with qo children<18 yrs

10.0 2507women with a child 12-18 yrs miammm 10.0 450women with a child<12 yrs mins 12.4 1214Times Interrupted (estimated per year)Employee Family Type 0 100 Avg.Num.men with no children<18 yrs mu 16.5 1894men with a child 12.18 yrs Imo 21.1 428men with a child 12 yrs 29.6 1260imrwomen with no children<18 yrs 20.5 2512women with a child 12-18 yrs 47.6 455Imamwomen with a child<12 yrs 45.3 12090111111111111

Interpretation of sex differences in absenteeism.Absenteeism for men was low because the women'swas high. In the division of labor, absenteeism wasrevealed not to be a "women's problem" but a familysolution. It reflected who was carrying the child careresponsibilities which made it possible for theemployee to be at work and, more than half of thetime, for a spouse to be at work as well. This inter-pretation was supported independently by findings ofsex differences in dealing with a sick child, difficulty infinding or continuing with child care arrangements,and in dissatisfaction with arrangements. Women con-sistently scored higher on these variables than men.Moreover, when men and women of two-incomefamilies had a sick child, women were more likely thanmen to stay home, take a day off without pay, or takeemergency leave. Thus in families where both spousesearned incomes, women still appeared to carry a dis-porrional share of the child care responsibilities.Employees who were single parents and were morelikely to carry total responsibility for child care, notsurprisingly, experienced among the highest absen-teeism rates.

These findings are consistent with those of

7

previous studies. A body of research literature has con-firmed that sex of the employee is highly correlatedwith absence from work but has been unable to solvethe mystery of why that is. In looking for what it isabout women that accounts for their higher rates,investigators have turned their attention without suc-cess to all manner of explanations, overlooking the ob-vious. Among the variables researched are differencesin attendance norms, personality differences, health,and numerous job factors. One study, however, didconclude that "child care rather than personal illnessappears to be the major variable which mediates sexdifferences in absence from work" (Englander-Goldenand Barton, 1980). Sex differences in use of sick leavewere found for parents, as in our survey, but not fornon-parents, and the sick leave differences were at-tributed to child care.

Thus, the explanation was found in ordinary,everyday behavior. More than men, it is women's lotto arrange child care, to maintain the relationships in-volved, to expend the daily effort of "getting the showon the road," to deal with emergencies that arise, tobe on call, and in myriad ways to be the manager ofdaily life. Despite changing sex roles and some increas-ed sharing by two-career spouses, the Portland studyhas added confirmation in systematic detail to the im-portance of child care responsibilities as the mostplausible explanation of sex differences in absenteeism.

Unlike alcoholism, which has low incidence in aworkforce but a severe impact on the absenteeism of asmall percentage of employees, child care as a sourceof absenteeism affects a relatively broad segment of theworkforce and less often reaches the extreme individualfrequencies of chronic conditions. Child care clearly isa major source of absenteeism.

Stress. In the last questions on our survey, weasked whether or not child care was creating any moredifficulty, worry, or stress for people than other areasof life, such as personal health, health of other familymembers, family finances, job, and family relation-ships. Table 8 shows that child care took its placeamong life's major sources of stress even though itranked low compared to job stress and family finances.

Table 8

STRESS RELATED TO CHILD CARE AND OTHERAREASMen w/Kicis (n = 1165) Employees reporting stress:

Area: 0% 100% %Childcare: 28%Personal health: 27%Family Members' Health: 35%

Family Finances:50%

Job: 51%

Family Relationships:36%

Women wlKids (n = 1193) Employees .reporting stress:

Area: 0% 100%

Childcare: 47%

Personal Health: 42%

Family Members' Health: 37%tipFamily Finances: 62%mmommommoomJob: 61%

Family Relationships: 47%imommmomm

Focusing on three sources of stresschild care,personal health, and job Table 9 shows that, likeabsenteeism, stress was substantially related to howfamilies arranged and managed their child care. Exact-ly half of employed mothers who relied on theirchildren under 12 for their own care repored stressrelated to child care. Among employees with out- of-home child care arrangements, 36 percent of the menand 46 percent of the women reported child carestress. Differences between women and men were lesspronounced or job stress than for stress related tochild care and personal health.

Table 9

STRESS BY TYPE OF CHILI) CAREChild Care StressParent Arrangementmen care by adult at homemen care out of homemen care by childwomen care by adult at homewomen care out of homewomen care by child

Job StressParent Arrangementmen care by adult at homemen care out of homemen care by childwomen care by adult at homewomen care out of homewomen care by child

Personal Health StressParent Arrangementmen care by adult at homemen care out of homemen care by childwomen care by adult at homewomen care out of homewomen care by child

0%No

100% % Num.22% 54836% 43630% 18142% 18746% 68450% 322

in=nomammo

00/0 100% % Num.48% 549mommom55% 43748% 18052% 18762% 68165% 323

0% 100% % Num.24% 548Nom28% 437MINI32% 181MINIM40% 18741% 68244% 323

Among all parents of children under 12, 47 per-cent of women employees and 28 percent of menemployees reported at least some stress related to childcare "during the past four weeks." These proportionsof the workforce reporting stress are all the moresignificant when it is recognized how brief a slice oflife is represented by a 4-week period in which in-cidence of stress could occur. Many employees feltcompelled to comment about child care stress they hadexperienced in the past when their children wereyounger. Possibly early crises were more acute,although reported incidence of stress related to childcare was only slightly higher for the younger families.

It is important to note that family income wasstrongly correlated with stress from family finances butwas not correlated with stress related to child care.Child care as a source of stress for employees was notsignificantly different at any category of familyincome.

Diffeiences between full-time and part-time em-ployees. It is instructive to examine the absenteeismrates and stress for men and women employees whoworked full time compared to those who worked parttime. For this analysis, the absenteeism rates were cor-rected for the amount of time on the job. Womenparents employed part time had absenteeism ratesapproximately half that of full-time women workerswith children under 12. For men employees who wereparents of children under 12, the picture was mixed,with men employed part time having missed as manydays and having been late about as frequently as full-time workers; but in leaving early or permitting inter-ruptions, the part-time fathers, like the mothers hadhalf the problems.

There was no difference in child care stress report-ed by fathers employed full time or part time, butmothers employed part time reported a slight increasein child cart stress over mothers employed full time.Possibly there was more stress related to providingchild care oneself than was related to being at workand to worrying about alternative arrangements. Jobstress, however, was markedly less for womenemployed part time (49 percent versus 63 percent offull timers) but not for men (54 percent vs 49percenta slight reversal). Reported difficulty com-bining work and family responsibility was less forwomen, but not for men, who worked part time.

Effects of occuption. To analyze differences inabsenteeism associated with occupation, we comparedtwo broad categories:

1) professional and technical plus managementand administrative2) clerical, service, machine or transportoperators, and other occupations.

We presumed that the management and professionaloccupations generally have more flexibility in theirwork schedules that permit them to deal with familyemergencies. In fact, comparing categories ofemployees: men and women employees with andwithout children under 18, the management and pro-fessional employees reported slightly fewer days miss-ed, slightly more times late among women withchildren, more times left early among men employees,and more times interrupted among men employees.Minor differences between occupational levels alsoemerged, controlling for family income among parentsof children under 12. This is shown in Appendix C.

Since variables such as full time status andoccupation could play an important role in the analysisand interpretation of findings, a re-analysis of theabsenteeism and stress outcomes was conducted on amatched sample of 1387 men and women employeesto equalize the effects of family income, occupation(management, administrative and professional,technical versus clerical, service, operatives, andothers), full and part-time job status, type of family(single, employed spouse, and spouse not employed),and age of youngest child. Thus reducing the possibleoverpowering influence of these key variables, theresulting relationship between types of child care formen and women employees and absenteeism andstress showed very little difference from the analysisshown for the complete sample.

Company policy. A final set of findings concernscompany policy. Wide variation was found among the33 companies and agencies in policies such as use ofsick leave and in all of the kinds of absenteeism.Across companies, a range of 10 percent to 74 percentof women employees reported that they were likely touse sick leave for a sick child. The percentage ofemployees in a company reporting that personnelpractices made it difficult to deal with child care pro-blems during working hours ranged from 11 percentto 67 percent. Low absenteeism rates frequently wereassociated with high levels of child care stress, but allother combinations also could be found.

In a fast food chain, days missed were high,though unpaid, and lateness occurred at alow rate. Child care stress was low, becauseof the high proportion of part-timeemployees who were more likely to havechild care at home compared to full-timeworkers.One public agency had low child care stress,high job stress, and high rates of absen-teeism which were consistent with approvedpersonnel practices, while another publicagency had low absenteeism but employeeswho reported high job stress, high child carestress, and great difficulty with personnelpractices.One corporation had low child care stressassociated with high use of sick leave for asick child.A company-wide policy of flexible hours,within a tightly run operation, wasassociated with low absenteeism and littleconcept of lateness.Many firms showed wide discrepancies inthe flexibility and absenteeism allowed itsmanagement and technical staff comparedto its other occupations.In some firms, patterns of policy andabsenteeism were sharply different betweenthe sexes, while in other organizations therewas little difference in how the sexes fared.Hospitals used many part-time employees,while other firms used almost none, withcorrespondent differences in absenteeismrates among women employees withchildren.

CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS

Two major sets of findings emerged from thestudy:Child care is hard to find. By examining how men andwomen employees differed in their child care ar-rangements, why they did what they did, and howmuch difficulty was associated with their choices, weconcluded that child care is indeed hard to find in thePortland Community.Child care is difficult to manage. By comparingabsenteeism rates and stress reported by employeeshaving differing child care resources, we concludedthat how families manage child care does affect theability of employees to be at work without carryingstress related to their child care arrangements.

In many ways, the families of employees are sup-posed to be invisible. In hiring, under affirmative ac-tion principles, questions about child care and familyare to be avoided as potentially discriminatory and un-fairly irrelevant to ability to do the job. Once on thejob, the norms of the workplace say that howemployees get to work is their business, as long as theydo so on time and leave their families behind.

In reality, families are not so invisible. This sur-vey is a study in the interdependence and reciprocal ef-fects of family, child care, and workplace. The surveyreveals rather dramatically that family structure andability to arrange child care have an impact on theworkplace in the form of absenteeism and stress. Atthe same time, company policies and work re-quirements have an impact on families and, in return,on the employee's stress or well being and ability to beat work.

Flexible policies that accommodate family respon-sibilities. The two major determinants of absenteeismrates were family difficulty in managing child care, onthe one hand, and company flexibility and accom-modation of it, on the other hand. This suggests thatcompanies may profit by examining their personnelpolicies with an eye to the balance between job re-quirements and how employees must deal with thevicissitudes of family life. It probably is important torecognize that absenteeism is not necessarily a badthing. Loss of time from the job cannot automaticallybe equated with loss of productivityfor two reasons.First, employees may compensate for time lost, andsecondly, a modest amount of employer flexibility inaccommodating time from the job, legitimizing theinevitable, may be associated with high morale andproductivity. For these reasons, it possibly is not wiseto push the importance of reducing absenteeism toohard at the expense of flexibility.

Companies need employees, and employees havefamilies. Without families, society would be without afull and productive workforce. Yet in order to work,families must arrange child care. This they do as bestthey can with the resources they have. Most managethe feat well, but the task is difficult for a largeminority of employees of both sexes. Few familyresponsibilities have greater daily consequences eitherfor stress or well-being than do child care respon-sibilitiesconsequences which also reach the work-

place in the form of loss of time and morale, both im-portant elements of productivity.

Improving the child care market through betterinformation. There is no common consensus abouthow child care needs should be addressed. Yet, thereis one option that, while modest in cost, cansignificantly benefit all parties. That option is to createa system that supports employees and their families intheir efforts to find and arrange the kind of child carethey want their children to have.

The principal ingredient of such a system is infor-mation. Lack of information is a major barrier to thedevelopment of widely available, readily accessible, af-fordable child care. Employers need information abouttheir employees; employees need information aboutresources; current and potential providers need infor-mation about child care demand; planning agenciesneed information about where to develop resources;and United Ways, community foundations, publicfunding agencies, and employers all need informationin order to establish funding priorities. One importantway to meet day care needs is simply to assist all in-terested parties with the information they need for thedecisions they have to make. Resources unknown areresources unavailable. For employees who are childcare consumers, difficulty finding child care is a a realproblemone which our survey found widespreadand often stressful.

In most communities, child care information ser-vices are thinly provided, because they are poorly anduncertainly funded. United Way and local govern-ments have felt compelled to pass over such servicesand planning functions in favor of help for individualsin greater distress. Because the well-being of employeesis at stake, it is the business community and employerswho have the most compelling interest in seeing thatchild care information services and resource develop-ment are provided.

Other options may also be feasible. Flexiblebenefit plans, for example, are worth consideringbecause they help to preserve equity among employeesin benefits received, yet allow freedom of consumerchoice of child care. A top priority, however, is to im-prove the way the child care market responds tofamilies as they try to meet their child cart responsibilities.

Companies and all organizations are faced withsharp divergence of opinion within the workforce.Many employees described acute child care needs, andthey expressed very definite ideas about the kind ofchild care they wanted, wished they could find, wishedthey could afford, wished their employers would pro-vide or wished the community would develop. Theyperceived child care as expensive and as somethingemployers should help provide or pay for. At the sametime, there were employees who perceived any de-mand for child care subsidies as unfair. They relatedthe inequity of such subsidies to their own financialsacrifices which they made in purchasing child care orin foregoing a second income in order to care for theirchildren at home. They even saw the circumstance ofsingle parents as a choice and personal responsibility.Few issues facing society involve such diverging viewsof fairness and equity concerning career opportunityand work, incentives and hardship, child rearing andfamily responsibility.

1Q

We have not made recommendations about all ofthe specific options employers might consider. Eachorganization should think through its options basedon the employee needs of its own workforce.

We have particularly avoided recommending ex-pensive benefits or paticular facilities, such as on-siteday care centers for several reasons:

1. One is a belief, as described above, that ahigher priority is to improve a system of chilicare resources and provide access to them byexpanding information services for employees.

2. It is not clear how feasible, sensible, or cost ef-fective it is to concentrate resources on develop-ment of facilities such as on-site centers despitethe popular belief in that solution. No singlekind of child care resource can be expected toserve a large proportion of a workforce. Sub-sidizing one type of care creates inequity andcontrols consumer choices. In the long run, afreely operating child care market probably willbe more responsive to family needs.

3. Companies should not anticipate that facilitiescan markedly reduce child care-relatedabsenteeism. The evidence of this study sug-gests that all kinds of out-of-home child carearrangements extract a price in absenteeism forwhomever in the family has the daily respon-sibility for managing the arrangements.

Probably the most cost effective initiatives forPortland employers at this time are:

1. To assess the family circumstances and needs oftheir own workforce;

2. To weigh the effects of personnel policies onemployees such as extending the use of sickleave to family members or other policies thatallow some accommodation of child care con-tingencies;

3. To convey an understanding of the feats ofmanagement required of employees inmeeting weir child care and other familyresponsibilities, and tolerate some flexibility tothe extent compatible with job requirementsand productivity;

4. To assist employees with the very difficult pro-cess of finding child care by participating in acommunity effort to develop the informationand resources needed by families for childrenof all ages.

n

REFERENCESEnglander- Golden, Paula and Barton, Glenn. Sex Differences inAbsence from Work: A Reinterpretation. Oklahoma University,1980 (ERIC 1ED193 438, CE 026 .506).Emlen, Arthur C. When Parents Are At Work: A Three-Company Survey of How Employed Parents Arrange Child Care.Washington, D.C.: Greater Washington Research Center, 1982.Hedges, Janice Neipert, "Absence m Work-Measuring TheHours Lost", Monthly Labor Review, October, 1977, pp 16.23.

APPENDIX AEMPLOYEE CHARACTERISTICS

Monwlu Klds

Womanw/o Klds

Monw Klds

Womansr Klds

AllEmployees

n11137 nu2509 n.1794 n.1501 n .8121mean age 40.28 37.01 37.55 34.01 37.25% nonwhite 8% 6% 8% 12% 8%% income $15000 10% 21% 4% 17% 14%% income $15.30000 40% 42% 41% 40% 41%

income $30000 50% 38% 55% 43% 46%% single 44% 54% 14% 37% 39%

spouse employed 40% 39% 52% 57% 46%% spouse not employed 17% 7% 34% 6% 15%% mgt/pro 58% 48% 58% 46% 52%% fulltime 93% 88% 96% 80% 89%% flexible hours 37% 37% 36% 39% 37%% day shift 75% 82% 73% 81% 78%mean travel time 21.81 22.09 24.25 24.02 22.93

Regional Research Institute tot Human Services. Poniard Sute University

APPENDIX BChild Care Arrangements for Children Under 12Used by Men and Women EmployeesType ofArrangement

Care at HomoSpouse or other livein adult

Number and Percent ofFamilies Using EachType of Arrangement

Men Womenn % n %

who is member of household 846 68% 362 30%Child: older brother or sisteror and looks after self 191 15% 333 28%Relative who comes In 37 3% 44 4%Nonrelative who comes in 72 6% 72 6%

OutolHome CareRelative's home 74 6% 135 11%Home of nonrelative (Family Day Care) 301 24% 494 41%Child care center (day care, nurseryschool, before and afterschool center) 171 14% 255 21%# Arrangements: 1692 1695# Families: 1248 1209Ratio Arrangementsper Family: 1.4 1.4

1

APPENDIX COUTCOMES FOR EMPLOYELS WITH KIDSUNDER 12By Occupation, Family Income, and Sex of Employee

Days Missed (estimated per year)Employee Family Income 0 25nomgt/pro men <30,000 immoimgt/pro men <30,000nomgt/pro men 30,000+mgt/pro men 30,000+ nom

Emmanoningt/pro women <30,000mgt/pro women <30,000nomgt/pro women 30,000+mgt/pro women 30,000 +

Times Late (estimated per year)Employee Family Incomenomgt/pro men <30,000mgt/pro men <30,000nonmgtlpro men 30,000+mgt/pro men 30,000 +nonmgt/pro women <30,000mgt/pro women <30,000nomgt/pro women 30,000+mgt/pro women 30,000+

0N MI

aaai

w ealw we

25

Times Left Early (estimated per year)Employee Family Income 0 25nomgt/pro men <30,000 wmgt/pro men <30,000 Imonomgt/pro men 30,000+ MEMmgt/pro men 30,000 + momnomgt/pro women <30,000 Nommgt!pro women <30,000 stommemnomgt/pro women 30,000+ wwmgt/pro women 30,000 + wawTime Interrupted (estimated per year)Employee Famil Income 0 100

rim11111111110

nomgt/pro men <30,000mgtlpro men <30,000nomgt/pro men 30,000+mgt/pro men 30,000+nonmgt/pro women <30,000mgt/pro women <30,000nonmgt/pro women 30,000+mgt/pro women 30,000 +

Child Care Stress

Avg.Num.10.5 3449.3 3039.5 1878.4 459

13.0 44911.5 26612.6 2069.7 316

Avg. Num.4.0 3437.2 3022.8 1887.5 454

13.1 44324.0 26410.6 20714.6 312

Avg. Num.5.9 3418.3 3017.3 188

12.8 45712.3 44414.9 26511.0 20811.7 311

Avg.Num.13.3 34139.4 29714.6 18739.7 45435.4 44248.0 26352.9 20646.5 314

Employee Family Incomenomgt/pro men <30,000mgt/pro men <30,003nomgt/pro men 30,000+mgt/pro men 30,000+nonmgt/pro women <30,000mgt/pro women <30,000nomgt/pro women 30,000+mgtlpro women 30,000+

Personal Health StressEmplryee Family Incomenomgt/pro men <30,000mgt/pro men <30,000nomgt/pro men 30,000+mgt/pro men 30,000+nompt/pro women <30,000mgt/pru women <30,000nomgt/pro women 30,000+mgtlpro women 30,000+

0%MImi--

100%

1000/0

% Num.25% 30628% 26830% 16530% 43148% 41752% 26144% 19444% 315

IY., Num.28% 30626% 27030% 16525% 43146% 41645% 26040% 19436% 316

loilwwww

0%um=laEmsNawonaaaNorors

Family Health StressEmployee Family Incomenomgt/pro men <30,000mgt/pro :nen <30,000nomgt/pro mon 30,000 +mgt/pro men 30,000 +nomgt/pro women <30,000mgt/pro women <30,000nonmgt/pro women 30,000 +mgt/pro women 30,000 +

Financial StressEmployee Family Incomenomgt/pro men <30,000mgt/pro men <30,000nonmgt/pro men 30,001 +mgt/pro men 30,0W +nonmgt/pro women <30,000mgt/pro women <30,000nomgt/pro women 30,000 +mgt/pro women 30,000 +

0% 100% % Num.aw 34% 306mat 34% 270=IN 36% 165

34% 430are 37% 411mow 43% 261

30% 194Nom 38% 314

Job StressEmployee Family Income 0%nomgt/pro men <30,000 MUMmgt/pro men <30,000nomgt/pro men 30,000 +mgt/pro men 30,000 +nomgt/pro women <30,000mgt/pro women <30,000nomgt/pro women 30,000 +mgtlpro women 30,000 + reelsom

Family Relationship StressEmployee Family Income 0%nonmgt/pro men <30,000 MINmgt/pro men <30,000 wenomgt/pro men 30,000 + MINmgt/pro men 30,000 + asnomgt/pro women <30,000mgt/pro women <30,000nonmgt/pro women 30,000 + nonmgt/pro women 30,000 + NMDifficulty Combining Home and JobEmployee Family Income o%nomgt/pro men <30,000 Nomgt/pio men <30,000 onnomgt/pro mer 30,000 + onimgt/pro men 30,000 + mi

100% % Num.54% 30761% 27151% 16539% 43073% 41769% 26048% 19550% 315

100% % Num.47% 30652% 271mom 52% 16551% 42956% 41462% 26062% 19567% 316

100% % Num.36% 30636% 26936% 16535% 42950% 41553% 26141% 19540% 315

100% % Num.24% 34019% 29925% 18822% 455

nomgt/pro women <30,000 as 36% 447mgt/pro women <30,000 41% 265nonmgt/pro women 30,000 + mot 37% 211mgt/pro women 30,000+ as 35% 316

Cop? nght 371904 .ry. C. Emkn. Atigaul Reseuth Ingurute fix Hunun ServizesiPonhind Stow University' P 0. Bac 791 /Pcxthnd. Oregon 97207

11