Transcript Slide 1

Ho Wing-Chung, PhD
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Applied Social
Studies, CityU
Wong Wai-Yin, Dorothy
Vice-Convenor
Institute for Integrated
Rural Development
Hong Kong
6th November, 2009
* Based on the UGC-PPR funded research “In Search of Family Friendly Policies in
Low-income Neighborhoods: A Life-course Perspective”
Family-friendly policies: “… are those policies that
facilitate the reconciliation of work and family life,
ensure the adequacy of family resources, enhance
child development, facilitate parental choice about
work and care, and promote gender equity in
employment opportunities.”
Policy objectives behind: Concerns about fertility
rates; enhancing equity between different income
groups, family types, and men and women;
promoting autonomy among parents on income
support; promoting child development, ensuring
future labour supply, etc.
Strengthening families in communities  Quality of
Life

OECD. (2007). Babies and Bosses - Reconciling Work and Family Life –A Synthesis of Findings for OECD Countries.
Paris: OECD
The research aims to:
1.) examine the structural constraints faced
by mothers and the life-course strategies
they used to reconcile work and care for
young children in low-income communities
of Hong Kong;
2.) develop a conceptual framework and a
research tool to understand the above; and
3.) explore potential FFPs and practices from
the narratives of life course strategies.

Participants: Mothers of children under 13
Quantitative and qualitative data drawn from :
 Survey (N=1,429) in FIVE communities:
THREE “low income” communities: Tin Shui Wai,
Sham Shui Po and Kwai Tsing
TWO “non-low income” communities: Yau Mong,
Tseung Kwan O
 A subset (N=889) in two low-income
community(TSW & SSP), and a sample of this subset
(N=285) for individual in-depth interview

Community
as a whole
(year 2006)*
Response rate
Household
median Income
per member*
(HK$)
New-immigrant*
TSW
(N=361)
SSP
(N=528)
KT
(N=230)
YM
(N=120)
TKO
(N=190)
83.9%
85.2%
69.7%
70.6%
76.0%
---
4,100
5,003
4,750
6,250
6,000
5,700
5.9%
5.7%
4.0%
4.6%
2.6%
3.2%
Table 1: Response rate, household median income per member and the proportion of newimmigrants in five communities
* The information are based on 2006 by-census data and is provided by Census and Statistics Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region
Household median
Income per member
(HK$)
New immigrant
TSW & SSP
(for in-depth
interview)
(N=285)
TSW & SSP
(for survey)
(N=889)
All respondents
(N=1,429)
2,350
2,500
3,000
48.4%
31.6%
22.3%
Table 2: Household median income per member and the proportion of new immigrants in
TSW, SSP and all respondents in the sample
Low-income
community
(TSW, SSP, &KT)
(N=1,119)
Employed now***
To what extent do you agree that (max. 5 points):
i) You have good communication with your husband***
53.6%
Non-lowincome
community
(YM & TKO)
(N=310)
69.4%
3.74
3.99
ii) Your personality does not match your husband’s#***
3.43
3.77
iii) You and your husband understand each other’s
needs**
iv) You and your husband lack communication#***
3.67
3.85
3.32
3.62
Having relatives or neighbors to take care of children*
Hiring adomestic helper or other kind of fulltime carer to
take care of children***
27.9%
6.6%
32.8%
40.0%
To what extent do you agree that the family-friendly
services provided in the community are adequate (max. 5
points)
2.79
2.79
*p=<0.05; **p=<0.01; ***p=<0.001
# The scores are reversed.
Table 3: The Analysis of the Respondents in Low-income and Non-low-income Communities
30-cohort Mothers
(30-39 yr)
N=290
40-cohort Mothers
(40-49 yr)
N=474
Age (mean)**
36.3
43.4
Marital status (divorced) (%)
14.3
12.4
Education (> Secondary school)
1.7%
2.6%
Household median income per member less than
HK$5,000 or CSSA recipient
77.9%
79.7%
Having at least one children aged less than 13**
69.5%
45.7%
New immigrant – having resided in for less than
7 years**
40.3%
28.3%
Employed now*
48.2%
55.8%
*p=<0.05; **p=<0.001
Table 4: The Analysis of Demographics of the Two Cohorts in the Survey
Regressor
Employed
β
“30”-“40”
cohort
OR
-.30* .74
Major factors considered in the job-seeking
process
Childcare
Salary
Job
Health
interest
β
OR
.44** 1.55
β
-.31*
OR
.74
β
OR
.50*
1.64
β
OR
-.61** .55
Perceived
work-family
tension
β
βS
-.26**
-.10
R-sq. =.011
Adj. R-sq.= .009
F=8.03**
*p=<0.05; **p=<0.01; ***p=<0.001
Table 5: Univariate Regressions for Major Work-Family Conflict Predictor Variables
Having at
least one
child aged
<13
β
OR
1.0*** 2.71


Perceived childcare role on mothers:
“Scaling back” work arrangement on
mothers as husbands pay less attention on
childcare(>94%).
40-cohort mothers tend to have a higher
readiness to have fulltime jobs but still
several limits on work.
Narratives
Strategies
Cutting back
on working
hours
[The option of] [w]orking at night not on. I need to take
care of my kid, like preparing dinner. But, when my
child was still small and in primary three [~=9 yr.], I
didn’t even consider working. (Dianna, 40-cohort, SSP)
Refusing to
work overtime
I had no option but to quit working once my boss
wanted me to work at night. … To take care of my kid
means that I cannot work. (Jessica, 40-cohort, TSW)
Choosing to
work the
morning shift
I’m afraid that no one will take care of the kids when
I’m working. That’s why I asked to work the morning
shift to make sure I can see them at night. I am afraid
that they will hang around on the street at night. (Kathy,
40-cohort, SSP)
Preferring jobs My job is a six-day job. However, I have the flexibility to
with flexible
plan my schedule. It offers me convenience to look after
work schedule my kids. (Heidi, 40-cohort, TSW)

Part-time or freelance may not mean that a
work-family-fit was really achieved for both
cohorts.
I have a part-time job now as a cleaning lady. … I only
work 4 to 5 hours every day. This schedule lets me take
care of my kid. … But, I can’t spend much time with him
during his summer vacation. (Sally, 30-cohort, TSW)
My daughter is not old enough to look after her younger
brother. So, I work [part-time] now. … Having worked
for several months, I begin to find him [her son] no
longer listening to me. … But, I have no choice. To work
means that I can improve the living standard of the
whole family. (Betty, 40-cohort, SSP)



fewer mothers of 30-cohort express a feeling
of “work-family-fit”
featured a low level of social support for
childcare
deemed their jobs as too low-earning to
afford a professional care services
“The salary earned from work might not be able to cover the
cost of getting someone [professionally] to help [in childcare]. I
will consider working when they [her kids] all, at least, are in
primary school. Now, I prefer to take care of them fulltime.
(Catherine, 30-cohort, TSW)”

In general, the 30-cohort mothers expressed they
would consider working only when their children were
“old enough”.
I put childcare as my top priority. To bring a new life to this world means
that I have the responsibility to take care of him. … Not until he grows up,
say, reach 15 years old, and is able to care of himself that I will consider
earning a living on my own. (Polly, 30-cohort, SSP)
I’m afraid that my kids will turn into bad kids [if I work]. They are still
very small. I am afraid that they will hang around with bad people in the
community. That’s why I insist that an adult must be there to look after
them. (Helena, 30-cohort, TSW)
It is the mother’s responsibility to make sure that the children are
safe. … It will too dangerous to leave them alone at home. … I would feel
guilty if my kids were injured while I am at work. (Annis, 30-cohort, TSW)

Majority of respondents expressed their negative
view of CSSA or even see as a strong stigma.
In society, people taking CSSA are laughed at. People are scared of being
identified as CSSA recipients. They will try not to be identified. … But, if there is a
real need, one should take it. A mother has to wait for her children to grow a bit
older, making sure that they do not turn into bad kids; then she can consider
working and earning a living on her own . (Cora, 40-cohort, SSP)
If one has a strong need, such as when the kids are small, still in primary school,
and cannot act independently, or one has no one to turn to for childcare, it would
be no problem to take CSSA. If all the kids are at secondary school, the mother
should quit CSSA and consider doing part-time work. She should try to work and
earn a living on her own. … Taking CSSA makes one become lazy. Many people
deceive the authorities in order to get the money every month without doing
anything. (Vincci, 30-cohort, SSP)
Getting CSSA has a very negative influence on the children. They will be
discriminated at school if their classmates know that if their family receives CSSA.
The psychology of the children will be aversely affected. (Pearl, 30-cohort, TSW)
Fulltime job
Daycare
(or school care for
older children)
Home help
service
Fulltime job:
regular
schedule only
Fulltime job:
morning shift
only
Part-time job
Scaling back …
FAMILY
Transiting from the 30 to 40 cohort…
Help from
relatives/neighbors
Help from husband/
elder child(ren)
Part-time job:
Flexible schedule
Part-time job:
only
At-home
mother
limited hours
Freelance
Work
“Hang-on”
CSSA
Summary of Findings
1.)In low-income communities, There is a
perceived role of childcare on mother;
there is lack of substantial social and family
support for households and;
the families lack resources to hire helpers from
the market;
2.)The higher degree of pressure experiences by
mothers in 30-cohort than those in 40-cohort;
3.) There are differences in strategies between
cohorts, therefore, the “work-family balance” is
even more difficult to be achieved by younger
mothers
Fulltime job
Daycare
(or school care for
older children)
Home help
service
Fulltime job:
regular
schedule only
Fulltime job:
morning shift
only
Part-time job
FAMILY
Transiting from the 30 to 40 cohort…
Help from
relatives/neighbors
Help from husband/
elder child(ren)
Part-time job:
Flexible schedule
Part-time job:
only
Scaling back …
Work
At-home
mother
limited hours
Freelance
“Hang-on”
CSSA

Short-term and service oriented: the establishment

Long-term and structurally oriented: the formulation
of a voucher system in utilizing daycare service (besides
existing poverty-alleviating employment based
measures, i.e. subsidizing cross –district transportation,
establishing job centers, promoting training courses,
etc)
of new planning standards in low-income communities
and districts so as to promote the family friendliness in
the neighborhood, i.e. the Pyramid of Family-friendly
Services
Women & children
residential treatment
service/ Child protective
service/ Foster service
Territorial/Clusters of
Districts:
Families in crisis
Employment (job center)
Public Assistance (CSSA-field unit)
Family treatment service (Integrated
Family Service Center)
Training (community center)
Home visiting service
Youth/Women’s service
Mutual help (self-help group, native-place organization)
Recreation (playground, garden)
Education (school)
Health care (clinic)
Daycare (with tuition service)
District:
Families needing
specialized assistance
Community:
Families needing
some extra support
Neighborhood:
All families




The childcare by mothers is not a fixed, structural
family burden, but part of the life-course of the
carer, who are mothers in our case.
Priority should be given to assist younger
mothers(say, for 10 years) in order to help them
transit smoothly from one life-stage to another
The importance of daycare services was highlighted
which , as “the least stigmatizing form of support
for those who need extra help”(Roditti, 1995)
Avoid exclusion of low income mothers from the
society and decrease the risk for unwise life
choices made to their children and themselves.