This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]On: 20 December 2014, At: 04:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Policy PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpp20

The Role of Mother's Citizenship Statuson the Use of Licensed Child Care AmongCalifornia's Asian ChildrenJanaki Santhiveeran aa Associate Professor, California State University, LongBeach , LongBeach, CaliforniaPublished online: 17 Mar 2009.

To cite this article: Janaki Santhiveeran (2009) The Role of Mother's Citizenship Status on the Use ofLicensed Child Care Among California's Asian Children, Journal of Policy Practice, 8:2, 165-178, DOI:10.1080/15588740902740264

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15588740902740264

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

165

Journal of Policy Practice, 8:165–178, 2009 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1558-8742 print/1558-8750 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15588740902740264

WJPP1558-87421558-8750Journal of Policy Practice, Vol. 8, No. 2, February 2009: pp. 1–21Journal of Policy Practice

The Role of Mother’s Citizenship Status on the Use of Licensed Child Care Among

California’s Asian Children

Role of Mother’s Citizenship StatusJ. Santhiveeran

JANAKI SANTHIVEERANAssociate Professor, California State University, LongBeach, Long Beach, California

The underutilization of licensed child care is a problem amongminority groups. This study examines the licensed child careaccess and utilization characteristics of Asian Americans by usingstatewide representative data from California. The study analyzedan aggregated child data file from CHIS (California HealthInterview Survey). In the multivariate logistic regression, Asianchildren who had noncitizen mothers were more than three timesmore likely to use licensed child care than were Asian childrenwho had mothers that were U. S. born and naturalized citizens.However, none of the Asian subgroups was the predictor of theutilization of licensed child care. The study has implications tochild care policy.

KEYWORDS Asian children, maternal citizenship status, licensedchild care

California has one of the largest foreign-born population, comprising9.6 million (27.2%) of the state’s population (American Community Survey,2005a) including 5.5 million noncitizens (American Community Survey,2005b). California is expected to acquire nearly 6 million additional peoplethrough international migration by the year 2025 (Campbell, 1996).Therefore, immigration has an immense impact on California’s populationgrowth.

Address correspondence to Janaki Santhiveeran, PhD, Associate Professor, Departmentof Social Work, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach,CA 90840. E-mail: jsanthiv@csulb.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

4:53

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

166 J. Santhiveeran

ABOUT CALIFORNIA ASIANS

People of Asian descent represented 4.3% of the U. S. population in 2004(U. S. Census Bureau, 2005). California’s Asians (4.4 million) are comprisedof 1.1 million Chinese, 1.08 million Filipinos, 0.5 million Asian Indians,0.3 million Japanese, 0.4 million Koreans, 0.54 million Vietnamese, and0.46 million other Asian groups (American Community Survey, 2005a). The12% of California’s 36 million people of Asian descent will increase to 17.4%by 2025 (Campbell, 1996); therefore, during the years of 1995 to 2025, it isprojected that the Asian and Pacific Islander population will grow by 153.4%(Campbell, 1996).

According to the 1999 statistics, nearly one-fourth (0.8 million) ofCalifornia’s Asians are children (The Regents of the University of California,2007), with one-fourth of them under the age of six. While half (2.4 million)of California’s Asians are foreign born, a million of them are not citizens.The average size of a California Asian family is 3.68 persons, which ishigher than the national average. Of the 854,000 California Asian families,half of the 685,000 are married-couple families of which half are two-parentworking families, and 113,000 families are families headed by single mothers.Child care needs for this segment of the population are expected to riseconsiderably due to the exponential growth of the new immigrant families.A change in the demographics of Asian population raises several importantquestions. What is the impact of relative, nonlicensed child care on Asianchildren’s growth and development? How do new immigrants choose theirchild care? Since several studies have emphasized the importance of center-based child care in promoting children’s school readiness and achievement(e.g., Brandon, 2004), there is a need to explore Asians’ use of the childcare system.

PRIOR STUDIES

Studies on child care have primarily focused on differences in child carearrangements in the areas of sociodemographic characteristics, includingeconomic status, marital status, gender, and age (Johnson, 2005; Connelly &Kimmel, 2001). Age differences in child care arrangements were docu-mented by several studies (Brandon & Hofferth, 2003; Johnson, 2005). Forexample, preschoolers (40%) were more likely to be cared by grandparentsor by relative caregivers (Johnson, 2005) than nonrelative caregivers (11%)in the provider’s home or in the child’s home. Girls are more likely to spendmore time in licensed child care than are boys when they are three to sixyears of age (Hiedemann, Joesch, & Rose, 2004). Since center-based childcare is costly, costing 23% of family’s wages (Giannarelli & Barsimantov,2000), only one-fifth of infants received center-based care (U. S. Census

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

4:53

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Role of Mother’s Citizenship Status 167

Bureau, 2000). Low-income families were more likely to use nonlicensedchild care, relative or in-home care (Ehrle, Adams, & Tout, 2001; Galinkskyet al. 1994) while children of families with above 200% of Federal PovertyLevel (FPL) spent more time in center-based child care.

Conflicting results were found when studies reported the impact ofmaternal marital status on child care choices (Connelly & Kimmel, 2000;Connelly & Kimmel, 2001; Ehrle, Adams, & Tout, 2001; Hiedemann, Joesch, &Rose, 2004; Kuhlthau & Mason, 1996; Michalopulos & Robins, 2000;Johnson, 2005). In a study of preschool children, children of single- andtwo-parent families used center-based child care at a similar level (Ehrle,Adams, & Tout, 2001); however, single mothers and low income two-parentfamilies used nonlicensed child care such as relative care more than thetwo-parent families (Brandon & Hofferth, 2003). On the other hand, singlemothers are more likely to use center-based licensed care more than aremarried-mothers when the children are under three years of age(Hiedemann, Joesch, & Rose, 2004; Kuhlthau & Mason, 1996).

In regard to Asians, Johnson (2005) identified that 33.7% of Asian pre-school children were cared by grandparents, followed by multiple carearrangements (30.5%), day care centers (21.2%), and nursery or preschool(11.0%). Similarly, one-third (31%) of older Asian children with employedmothers were cared for by fathers, which is more than their white (21.6%),Hispanic (19.2%), and black (16.4%) counterparts. When compared to otherethnic groups, unemployed Asian mothers with preschool children haverelied more heavily on relative care than have other ethnic groups. In astudy of Asian and other immigrants, Brandon (2004) found that Asian andother immigrant children are less likely to use center-based child care, com-pared to children from nonimmigrant families. In a rare study on the impactof citizenship status in Southern California, Buriel and Hurtado-Ortiz (2000)ascertained that native-born Latina mothers relied heavily on relatives fortheir child care than did foreign-born Latina mothers.

Prior literature has documented various aspects of maternal status andmarital and citizenship status, in influencing a family’s child care choices(Connelly & Kimmel, 2000; Johnson, 2005). In addition, ethnic and racial dif-ferences were identified in child care arrangements due to differences inmaternal and family characteristics (Hunter, Pearson, Ialongo, & Kellam,1998). Despite an abundance of research on child care, many gaps exist.First, there is a lack of information on child care utilization amongCalifornia’s Asian-American children although estimates have indicated asteady increase in the Asian-American population in California (Campbell,1996). Second, prior literature did not examine extensively the impact ofmaternal citizenship status on utilization of licensed child care, although afew have examined child care arrangements of other immigrant families(Buriel & Hurtado-Ortiz, 2000). Third, it is unknown whether Asian sub-groups are homogeneous in their child care choices. Consequently, this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

4:53

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

168 J. Santhiveeran

study is a unique contribution to the social work profession as the professionseeks to get a better understanding of multicultural groups to offer culturallysensitive services. Among many challenges faced by Asians, child care accessand utilization are the most pressing as a large percentage of Asian familieshas one or more children (The Regents of the University of California, 2007).

Purpose

Among prior studies, very few have examined the use of formal child careamong Asian groups. The intent of this study is to understand the child carechoices of California Asians and the specific purpose is to examine the impactof maternal citizenship status on utilization of licensed child care when gen-der, age, household size, immigration status, and Asian subtypes wereadjusted. Given the special child care needs of young children, the mainfocus of the study is the young children of the household.

RESEARCH METHODS

Data

The data for this study are extracted from the California Health InterviewSurvey (CHIS) 2003 Child Survey (California Health Interview Survey,2005a). The CHIS is a joint project of the UCLA Center for Health PolicyResearch, the California Department of Health Services, and the PublicHealth Institute. The CHIS is a population-based, geographically stratifiedrandom-digit dial (RDD) sample, using the computer-assisted telephoneinterview (CATI) survey of California households (California Health Inter-view Survey, 2005b). The CHIS 2003 child survey provides reliable estimatesfor various ethnic groups in the State of California. From each household,one parent of a child, ages 0 to 11, is randomly selected to gather informa-tion for the CHIS 2003 Child Survey. A description of the methods is elabo-rated in the CHIS publications from the Center for Health Policy Research ofthe University of California of Los Angeles (California Health InterviewSurvey, 2005b). To obtain a representation of various Asian ethnic groups,zip codes with 6% or more of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Koreans were over-sampled, which resulted in the statewide estimates for California’s majorAsian ethnic groups. The survey is culturally adapted by translating thesurvey into Asian languages including Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, andKhmer. Consequently, the diversity of the California’s Asians is ensured.

The sample for the present study is restricted to children 11 years ofage and younger as the unit of analysis. The following additional criteriawere considered when selecting the sample population for the current study:(1) a child must be in licensed or nonlicensed child care arrangements forten or more hours per week; and (2) a child must be identified as belonging

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

4:53

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Role of Mother’s Citizenship Status 169

to one of the seven Asian subgroups of Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean,Vietnamese, Asian Indians, and other Asians included in the CHIS data.These vital factors have reduced the sample size to 320 California childrenof Asian origin, of which 243 children lived in a household with motherswho had U. S. or naturalized citizen status and 77 children lived in a house-hold with mothers who had a noncitizen status.

Variables

SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Parents have provided information about their family, children, citizenshipstatus, and households. The data for child and family characteristics wereincluded to answer study questions and to adjust sociodemographic charac-teristics. Included were the child variables of gender and age of the child incare, and the family variables of the mother’s marital status, whether thenonparental adult who was responsible for the child was present in thehousehold, and the primary language spoken at home.

CITIZENSHIP STATUS

The citizenship status variables include the length of stay in the UnitedStates, and the citizenship status for both the father and mother.

ASIAN SUBTYPES

Asian subtypes include Chinese, Japanese/Korean, Filipino, and other Asiangroups.

CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS

The variables related to child care include number of hours in child careduring a typical week, child care arrangement types including whether thechild was in licensed or unlicensed settings, and whether the family experi-enced difficulty in finding child care. Nonmaternal child care arrangementtypes included receiving child care from grandparent(s), Headstart or statepreschool, preschool or nursery school, a child care center, child care froma nonfamily member in the child’s own home, and child care from a nonfa-mily member in the provider’s home.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were presented for sociodemographic characteristicsincluding the child’s gender, household composition, citizenship status,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

4:53

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

170 J. Santhiveeran

Asian subtypes, and child care arrangements. Logistic regression analyseswere used to adjust for sociodemographic characteristics, while studying theimpact of maternal citizenship status on utilization of licensed child care.Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were com-puted by using regression coefficients (Beta). The study focused on thevariables, maternal citizenship status, and Asian subtypes, which had impli-cations for redesigning ethnically sensitive child care policies and programs.

RESULTS

Descriptive Results

Table 1 summarizes household, family, and child characteristics. Of the320 children, the majority were boys (n = 173) and identified as either Filipino(n = 81), Japanese or Korean (n = 79), or Chinese (n = 79). Only 67 house-holds had a non-parent adult who was responsible for the child and 133households had fathers with a non-citizenship status; one hundred andtwenty-six households primarily spoke English at home. Although 51 chil-dren had single-mothers, only 29 experienced difficulty in finding child carearrangements.

HOUSEHOLDS OF MOTHERS WITH U. S.-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN STATUS

More than two-fifths (43.54%) of the boys and more than half of the girls(53.18%) attended nonlicensed child care arrangements and one- third(30.61%) of the boys and one-fourth (24.28%) of the girls attended alicensed child care. Three-fifths (60.49%) of the Filipinos and two-thirds ofthe Chinese and Japanese/Korean children were in a nonlicensed childcare. A large percentage (64.18%) of the households with another responsi-ble adult was mainly dependent on a nonlicensed child care. Of the133 children with noncitizen fathers, the majority (58.65%) attended a nonli-censed child care. Of the 51 children of single mothers, equal numbersattended a licensed and a nonlicensed child care arrangement.

HOUSEHOLDS OF MOTHERS WITH NONCITIZENSHIP STATUS

Only 15.65% of the boys and 14.45% of the girls attended a licensed childcare. One in ten boys (10.20%) and one in eight girls (8.09%) attended anonlicensed child care. In the households with another responsible adult,very few attended a licensed child care (8.96%) or a nonlicensed care(13.43%). In the households with noncitizen fathers, only 6.02% attended alicensed child care and 3.00% attended a nonlicensed child care. One- third(27.94%) of the Japanese or Korean children attended a licensed child care.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

4:53

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

171

TA

BLE

1Fa

mily

, H

ouse

hold

, an

d C

hild

Char

acte

rist

ics

by

Moth

er’s C

itize

nsh

ip S

tatu

s

Char

acte

rist

ics

Nonci

tizen

sta

tus

U. S.

-born

or

nat

ura

lized

citi

zen s

tatu

s

Tota

lLi

cense

d

child

car

eN

onlic

ense

d

child

car

eLi

cense

d

child

car

eN

onlic

ense

d

child

car

e

n%

n%

n%

n%

n

Boys

4530

.61

6443

.54

2315

.65

1510

.20

147

Girls

4224

.28

9253

.18

2514

.45

148.

0917

3H

as a

noth

er a

dult

in the

house

hold

re

sponsi

ble

for

child

913

.43

4364

.18

68.

969

13.4

367

House

hold

s w

ith s

ingl

e m

oth

ers

2039

.22

2650

.98

35.

882

3.92

51Could

not find c

hild

car

e7

24.1

415

51.7

23

10.3

54

13.7

929

House

hold

s w

ith n

onci

tizen

fat

her

s43

32.3

378

58.6

58

6.02

43.

0013

3La

ngu

age

spoke

n a

t hom

e w

as

prim

arily

Engl

ish

5039

.68

6853

.97

53.

973

2.38

126

Chin

ese

2734

.18

3240

.50

1215

.19

810

.13

79Fi

lipin

o23

28.4

049

60.4

92

2.47

78.

6481

Japan

ese/

Kore

an14

20.5

928

41.1

819

27.9

47

10.2

968

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

4:53

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

172 J. Santhiveeran

One-tenth of the Chinese, Filipino, and Japanese or Korean children were ina nonlicensed child care.

Types of Child Care by Mother’s Citizenship Status

Table 2 presents child care arrangements of the California’s Asian childrensample. In regard to child care arrangements, 69 children received childcare from Headstart, preschool, nursery, or child care centers, followed bychild care from grandparents or other relatives (n = 63), and child carefrom a nonfamily member (n = 58) in the child’s own home or in the pro-vider’s home. One hundred and thirty children were in multiple child carearrangements.

HOUSEHOLDS OF MOTHERS WITH U. S.-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN STATUS

Of the 63 children who received child care from a grandparent or a relative,a non-licensed care, 90.5% spent an average of 24.4 hours per week. Of the69 children who received child care from Headstart, preschool, nursery,or child care centers, primarily a licensed care, 56.5% spent an average of20.3 hours per week, but only 5.8% attended a nonlicensed child care withan average of 12.3 hours per week. Out of 58 children who received childcare from a nonfamily member in the child’s own home or in the provider’shome, primarily a nonlicensed care, 43.1% spent an average of 24.1 hoursper week, while 36.2% had a licensed child care provider with an averageof 27.8 hours per week. Of the 130 children who were in multiple child carearrangements, 53.8% attended a nonlicensed child care with an average of26.7 hours per week, while 20.8% attended a licensed child care for an aver-age of 33.6 hours per week.

HOUSEHOLDS OF MOTHERS WITH NONCITIZENSHIP STATUS

Of the 63 children who received child care from grandparents or other rela-tives, a non-licensed care, 9.5% spent an average of 33.2 hours per week.Out of 69 children who received child care from Headstart, preschool, nurs-ery, or child care centers, primarily a licensed care, 34.8% spent an averageof 22.0 hours per week, while only 2.9% attended a nonlicensed child carefor an average of 32.0 hours per week. Of the 58 children who receivedchild care from a nonfamily member in the child’s own home or in theirhome, primarily a nonlicensed care, 13.8% spent an average of 23.9 hoursper week, whereas 6.9% had a licensed child care provider with an averageof 40.0 hours per week. Of the 130 children who received child care frommore than one of the above sources, 10.0% attended a nonlicensed child

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

4:53

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

173

TA

BLE

2Child

Car

e Arr

ange

men

ts b

y M

oth

er’s C

itize

nsh

ip S

tatu

s

Child

car

e ar

range

men

tsRow

tota

l

Nonci

tizen

sta

tus

U. S.

-born

or

nat

ura

lized

citi

zen s

tatu

s

Lice

nse

d c

hild

car

eN

onlic

ense

d c

hild

car

eLi

cense

d c

hild

car

eN

onlic

ense

d c

hild

car

e

N%

Mea

nN

%M

ean

N%

Mea

nN

%M

ean

Gra

ndpar

ent/

Oth

er R

elat

ive

63n/a

n/a

n/a

5790

.524

.4 (

14.2

)n/a

n/a

n/a

69.

533

.2 (

11.0

)H

eadst

art/

Pre

school or

Nurs

ery/

Child

Car

e Cen

ter

6939

56.5

20.3

(11

.2)

45.

812

.3 (

2.0)

2434

.822

.0 (

12.1

)2

2.9

32.0

(11

.3)

Nonfa

mily

in C

hild

’s O

wn

Hom

e or

in P

rovi

der

s’s

Hom

e

5821

36.2

27.8

(12

.7)

2543

.124

.1 (

13.6

)4

6.9

40.0

(7.

1)8

13.8

23.9

(14

.1)

Multi

ple

Child

Car

e13

027

20.8

33.6

(11

.9)

7053

.826

.7 (

13.8

)20

15.4

30.1

(10

.1)

1310

.025

.3 (

13.0

)Tota

l32

087

27.2

26.2

(13

.0)

156

48.7

25.1

(13

.9)

4815

.026

.9 (

12.1

)29

9.1

27.0

(12

.8)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

4:53

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

174 J. Santhiveeran

care with an average of 25.3 hours per week, while 15.4% attended alicensed child care with an average of 30.1 hours per week.

Logistic Regression

Table 3 illustrates the logistic regression results, including odds ratios (ORs)and their corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) and the model’s chi-square. Use of licensed child care was predicted by children in families withnoncitizen mothers (Wald chi-square(1) = 7.96, p < .005), household size(Wald chi-square(1) = 10.24, p < .001), and the presence of another adultresponsible for the child in the household (Wald chi-square(1) = 4.98, p < .026).After adjusting, the study established that maternal noncitizen status wassignificantly more likely to report using a licensed child care by more thanthreefold (odds ratio = 3.733), as compared to children in families withU. S.-born and naturalized citizen mothers. Also, presence of another adultresponsible for the child in the household (odds ratio = .422) and house-hold size (odds ratio = .615) decreased the likelihood of using a licensedchild care. For predictors of using a licensed child care, the four variables ofhaving naturalized citizenship status, having the Unitd States as a country ofbirth, of living in the United States for more than 30 years, and being otherAsians did not enter the equation.

TABLE 3 Logistic Regression Analysis: Probability of Using Licensed Child Care

Variables 95% CI Odds ratio

Boya 0.434−1.198 0.721Maternal Length of stay: Less than 9 yearsa 0.234−4.008 0.967Maternal Length of stay: 10 to 19 yearsa 0.302−3.495 1.028Maternal Length of stay: 20 to 29 yearsa 0.236−2.856 0.821Presence of another adult responsible for child

in the householda0.215−0.905 0.441*

Mother: Single Mothera 0.668−3.105 1.440Difficulty in finding child carea 0.227−1.418 0.568Father: Noncitizena 0.403−2.016 0.901Federal Poverty Level 0.953−1.078 1.014Father: U. S. borna 0.359−1.341 0.694Mother: U. S. borna 0.449−3.074 1.175Number of hours child in child care 0.985−1.031 1.008Household size 0.461−0.830 0.619**Speaking English at homea 0.857−3.455 1.721Mother: noncitizenship statusa 1.497−9.391 3.750**Chinesea 0.652−2.512 1.280Filipinoa 0.356−1.512 0.733Japanese/Koreana 0.452−1.969 0.943Child’s age 0.964−1.182 1.068Model chi-square (df) 58.828(18)***

acategorical variables: 1 = yes; 0 = no.*p < 0.05; **p < 0.005.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

4:53

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Role of Mother’s Citizenship Status 175

DISCUSSION

This study examined household, family, and child data for 320 of California’sAsian children to understand the role of maternal citizenship status on theuse of licensed child care. According to this study, noncitizen Asian mothersare three times more likely to use licensed child care than are their counter-parts with U. S.-born and naturalized citizen Asian mothers. This findingchallenges the assumption that noncitizens use licensed child care mini-mally. In addition, the study established that the presence of another adultresponsible for the child in the household and large household sizedecreased the likelihood of using licensed child care. None of Asian sub-types was a predictor of using licensed child care. Multiple child carearrangements were most popular among California’s Asian children, and theleast popular ones were child care from a nonfamily member in the child’sown home or in the provider’s home. Whereas half of those who were innonlicensed child care arrangements had Asian mothers with U. S.-born ornaturalized citizen status, only 15% of them who were in licensed child carearrangements had Asian mothers with noncitizen status. Many findingsshow how children of households with U. S.-born or naturalized citizenshipstatus underutilize licensed child care. For example, among children whowere cared for by grandparents or other relatives, the majority of them werehouseholds of Asian mothers with U. S.-born or naturalized citizens. Thesefindings confirm the importance of maternal citizenship and extended fami-lies in determining child care choices among California’s Asian children.This trend might be due to Asians’ emphasis on the collectivist environmentand the importance of extended families in child rearing (Ow, 1999; Ow,2003).

Although some of the findings are similar to prior studies, differenceswere noted in several. Unlike previous studies (Brandon & Hofferth, 2003;Hiedemann, Joesch, & Rose, 2004; Johnson, 2005), the present study did notfind the age and the child’s gender as predictors of licensed child care.Households with single Asian mothers did not predict the use of licensedchild care, in contrary to the previous studies (Brandon & Hofferth, 2003;Hiedemann, Joesch, & Rose, 2004; Kuhlthau & Mason, 1996). Interestingly,California Asian children utilized multiple care arrangements more than thenational sample of Asian children (Johnson, 2005). Similar to Brandon(2004), California Asian children are less likely to use center-based licensedcare. Like Buriel and Hurtado-Ortiz’s (2000) Latino sample, native-bornAsians relied on relative care more than did the foreign-born Asians in thisstudy.

Several reasons might explain why children of Asian descent with non-citizen Asian mothers are more likely to use licensed care. They mightinclude (1) a preference for licensed care because the majority of Asianimmigrant households have two-parent working families (Johnson, 2005);

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

4:53

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

176 J. Santhiveeran

(2) affordability: a large percentage of Asian immigrants have the ability toafford licensed child care; (3) geographic location: Asian immigrants areknown to live in urban areas that have an abundance of child care choices;(4) a lack of informal social support for new immigrants.

This study has several limitations. Although considerable variationsexist between licensed and nonlicensed child care, the CHIS data is basedon self-reported information given by one of the parents. The study did notaddress maternal status in the quality of care received by Asian children dueto the nature of the CHIS data file.

A need exists to provide attention to the cultural needs of a growing seg-ment of the population, a multicultural Asian society. There is a need for recruit-ing and training Asian family day care providers to increase the number of childcare spaces and to deliver quality care to meet the needs of Asian families. TheCalifornia Child Care Initiative (CCCI), launched in 1985, has been successful inrecruiting and training Spanish-speaking child care providers to meet thegrowth of the Hispanic population (Brown & Lee, 1995) and in increasing childcare spaces in Spanish-speaking communities in California (Brown & Lee,1995). The initiative helped address challenges related to recruiting and trainingchild care providers in multicultural and antibias issues (Brown & Lee, 1995). AsCalifornia communities suffer from an inadequate supply of affordable andquality child care (Brown & Lee, 1995), there is a need to make adaptations tothe California Child Care Initiative in meeting California’s changing child careneeds of Asian families. The California Child Care Initiative must reflect on offer-ing similar solutions to increase the number of ethnically sensitive child care ser-vices to meet the growing demands of California Asians by considering theirunique needs. Their services must take into consideration the values and needsof new Asian immigrants, as well as U. S.-born citizens. Such efforts willimprove the wider use of child care centers among California’s Asians.

Since the present study used a large sample of California Asians, theoutcome of the study suggests several advocacy roles for social work pro-fessionals in California in general and the California Child Care Initiative inparticular toward shaping its policies. First, child care centers must considerredesigning their standards to include the cultural needs of the growing seg-ment of Asian children in California. The initiative needs to recruit and trainAsian families who have the potential to become licensed family day careproviders, as the initiative may affect the supply of ethnically sensitive childcare providers with knowledge of Asian family values and child rearing.Social service agencies must consider devising strategies to train informalcaregivers to effectively meet the developmental needs of growing Asianchildren who tend to seek relative care more often.

Future research must consider examining the reasons for Asians’ prefer-ences toward various child care arrangements. There is a need to replicatethis study with a large national sample of Asians. Instituting longitudinalstudies will promote an understanding of trends in child care usage over

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

4:53

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Role of Mother’s Citizenship Status 177

time. The study had a small sample of children with non-citizen Asian mothers;therefore, a need exists to explore further the impact of maternal noncitizenstatus on child care choices. It is important to study child care decisions inrelation to child-rearing practices within Asian family and household context.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights how Asian families with noncitizen Asian mothers aremore likely to use licensed child care than are their U. S.-born or natural-ized citizen counterparts. The study recognizes Asian noncitizens’ contribu-tion toward the child care industry. Differences between these groupssuggest that the needs of the growing number of new Asian immigrantsmust be taken into consideration while devising culturally sensitive childcare policies. Child care stakeholders such as the National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development (NICHD) and the California Child CareInitiative (CCCI) must consider having a dialogue toward devising strategiesto recruit Asian child care providers and toward training existing providersby highlighting the multicultural characteristics of California’s new Asianimmigrant families.

REFERENCES

American Community Survey (2005a). Data profile highlights. Retrieved September30, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/acs/www/index.html.

American Community Survey (2005b). California general demographic characteristics:2005. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8560EDB1-24B6-409D-8FE7-F332588FA62F/0/2005AmericanCommunitySurvey.pdf.

Brandon, P. D. (2004). The child care arrangements of preschool-age children inimmigrant families in the U. S. International Migration, 42(1), 65–87.

Brandon, P. D. & Hofferth, S. L. (2003). Determinants of out-of-school childcarearrangements among children in single-mother and two-parent families. SocialScience Research, 32(1), 129–147.

Brown, J. & Lee, T. (1995). The California child care initiative: Ten years later andstill going strong. Children Today, 23(4), 14–18.

Buriel, R. & Hurtado-Ortiz, M. T. (2000). Child care practices and preferences ofnative- and foreign-born Latina mothers and Euro-American mothers. HispanicJournal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(2), 314–331.

California Health Interview Survey (2005a). CHIS 2003 Child Public Use File,Release 1 [computer file]. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Health PolicyResearch. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://www.chis.ucla.edu/.

California Health Interview Survey (2005b). California Health Interview Survey.Survey Methodology. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://www.chis.ucla.edu/methods.html.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

4:53

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

178 J. Santhiveeran

Campbell, P. R. (1996). Population projections for states by age, sex, race, Hispanicorigin: 1995 to 2025. (PPL - 47). Washington, DC: Population Division.Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/ppl47.html.

Connelly, R. & Kimmel, J. (2000). Marital status and full-time/part-time work status inchild care choices. Upjohn Institute Staff Working Paper No. 99–58. RetrievedSeptember 30, 2007, from http://upjohninst.org/publications/wp/99-58.pdf.

Connelly, R. & Kimmel, J. (2001). The effects of child care costs on the labor forceparticipation and welfare recipiency of single mothers: Implications for welfarereform. Upjohn Institute Staff Working Paper No.01-69. Retrieved September30, 2007, from http://upjohninst.org/publications/wp/01-69.pdf.

Ehrle, J., Adams, G., & Tout, K. (2001). Who is caring for our youngest children?Child care patterns of infants and toddlers. Occasional Paper Number 42. TheUrban Institute, Washington, DC.

Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shinn, M. B. (1994). The study of children infamily child care and relative care—Key findings and policy recommendations.Young Children, 50(1), 58–61.

Giannarelli, L. & Barsimantov, J. (2000). Child care expenses of America’s Families.Assessing the New Federalism. Occasional Paper no. 40. Urban Institute,Washington, DC.

Johnson, J. O. (2005). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Winter2002. (P70–101). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. RetrievedSeptember 30, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-101.pdf.

Hiedemann, B., Joesch, J. M., & Rose, E. (2004). More daughters in child care? Childgender and use of nonrelative child care arrangements. Social Science Quar-terly, 85(1), 154–168.

Hunter, A. G., Pearson, J. L., Ialongo, N. S., & Kellam, S. G. (1998). Parenting aloneto multiple caregivers: Child care and parenting arrangements in black andwhite urban families. Family Relations, 47(3), 343–353.

Kuhlthau, K. & Mason, K. O. (1996). Market child care versus care by relatives.Journal of Family Issues, 17(4), 561–578.

Michalopulos, C. & Robins, P. K. (2000). Employment and child care choices inCanada and the United States. Canada Journal of Economics, 33(2), 435–470.

Ow, R. (1999). Social work in a multicultural context. International Social Work,42(1), 7–14.

Ow, R. (2003). Burden of care and childhood cancer: Experiences of parents in anAsian context. Health and Social Work, 28(3), 232–240.

The Regents of the University of California. (2007). Counting California. RetrievedSeptember 30, 2007, from http://countingcalifornia.cdlib.org/cgi-bin/matrix?subid=17&study=(sf42000)&geo=state.

U. S. Census Bureau. (2000). Who’s Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements, Fall1995. Current Population Reports, Household Economic Studies no. P70-70. U. S.Census Bureau, Washington, D C. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/p70-70.pdf.

U. S. Census Bureau. (2005). State and County Quick Facts (California). RetrievedSeptember 30, 2007, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

4:53

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14