Child Care, Family Benefits, and Working Parents

Kamerman, Sheila B.; Kahn, Alfred J.

doi:10.7312/kame90620

Cited by 69 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They understand that education begins before school and have invested greater resources in early childhood programs and parental leave. They expect and encourage all institutions and individuals to be responsible for helping create a healthy environment in which to raise children (Kamerman & Kahn, 1981).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Business and early childhood education reform

Friedman

1994

Theory Into Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Business and early childhood education reform

Friedman

1994

Theory Into Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Zimmerman (1976Zimmerman ( , 1978 contended that most national programs impede family functioning and suggested that governmental policies should recognize and encourage the primacy of the family. Kamerman (1979Kamerman ( , 1984 and Kamerman and Kahn (1981) studied the family policies of several European countries and argued that the United States should adopt similar policies or, at least, aspects of them, such as nationally subsidized day care and family allowances.…”

Section: Social Work Perspectives On a National Family Policymentioning

confidence: 98%

Reshaping the Goals of Family Policy: Sexual Equality, Not Protection

Spakes¹

1989

Affilia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social workers and feminists have been strong advocates for the development of a national family policy that, they argue, will contribute to equality between the sexes. This article demonstrates why this contention is not true and why current proposab for a family policy warrant concern, rather than support from feminists. It reviezus feminist critiques of the family as a source of women's oppression, the pronatalist nature of this society, the pronatalist intent of family policy, and the weaknesses of current proposals in accounting for the diverse needs of families and in supporting minority and low-income families. It concludes by suggesting the major components of a feminist family policy. Social work is a predominantly female profession that has always been concerned with the needs of women and children. This concern has often been manifested in the development of programs and policies to &dquo;protect&dquo; women and children, especially &dquo;disadvantaged&dquo; women. Social work's commitment has also led, however, to accusations that the profession acts in a patronizing and patriarchal fashion, to the advantage of men at the expense of women (Abramowitz, 1985), and that these policies have supported the white middle-class model of the family to the detriment of other types of families (Spakes, 1985). Feminists have pointed out that despite the rapid changes in the theoretical bases of the profession over the past 30 years,

show abstract

“…In France, mothers with children under two-and-a-half are given a choice: day care if they work or half their salaries if they choose to stay home (Zigler & Hunsinger, 1977), The French government instituted these supports for women in an effort to provide real options in their employment and family choices (Kamerman & Kahn, 1981). In Britain, the Employment Protection Act (1975,1978,1980) provides pregnant women with paid time off from work for prenatal care, six weeks paid maternity leave with 90% of earnings being replaced, and the right to leave six weeks before a child is born and return to work anytime before the child is twenty-nine weeks old (Hewlett, 1986).…”

Section: Maternity (Parental Benefits)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is because they must be employed for nine months prior to the birth of the child in order to be eligible for benefits. These benefits also include guaranteed job protection (Kamerman & Kahn, 1981).…”

Section: Maternity (Parental Benefits)mentioning

confidence: 99%