1983
DOI: 10.1177/144078338301900104
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Now You See It, Now You Don't: The Restructuring of Commonwealth Government Child Care Policy, 1972-1982

Abstract: An examination of the development and decline of Commonwealth government involvement in the provision of child care services over the past decade, focuses on services for young children whose parents are workforce participants. The growth of groups requiring child care, the level and types of service provision, and the consequences of inadequate

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1986
1986
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One of the more recent developments in Australian child care arrangements is the establishment of home-based child care or family day care. The growth of family day care took precedence over the development of centre-based services for much of the 1980s and 1990s because it was less costly for government to fund than long day care, it could be developed more rapidly due to its very limited building and capital requirements, and it was believed to be more suitable for very young children (children under two years of age) for whom many centres did not provide places owing to the extra costs of lower child-to-staff ratios (Davis, 1983: 83). Some policy makers see no difference in the nature and type of service provided by family day care and long day care (Karvelas, 2010).…”
Section: Family Day Care and Skillsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the more recent developments in Australian child care arrangements is the establishment of home-based child care or family day care. The growth of family day care took precedence over the development of centre-based services for much of the 1980s and 1990s because it was less costly for government to fund than long day care, it could be developed more rapidly due to its very limited building and capital requirements, and it was believed to be more suitable for very young children (children under two years of age) for whom many centres did not provide places owing to the extra costs of lower child-to-staff ratios (Davis, 1983: 83). Some policy makers see no difference in the nature and type of service provided by family day care and long day care (Karvelas, 2010).…”
Section: Family Day Care and Skillsmentioning
confidence: 99%