Author: Raymond R. Swisher , Bowling Green State University- Department of Sociology

Date: April 2008

Concepts and Definitions
There are several approaches to defining the family-friendly community. One defines it as a positive subjective appraisal that the community is supportive of family-related tasks and demands (Swisher, Sweet, & Moen, 2004). As such, it is a sub-component of the broader concept of community satisfaction (Voydanoff, 2001). Alternatively, Bookman (2004) developed a “family-friendly community index” that combined 10 social indicators of the presence of local amenities (e.g., housing affordability, childcare programs, etc.). Most recently, Mannon and Brooks conceptualized family-friendliness in terms of its relationship to outcomes - “community attributes that lead to positive family outcomes” (2006, p. 408). Given its development within work and family research, most definitions also imply that family-friendly communities facilitate the management of work and family role conflicts (e.g., need for childcare).

Importance of Topic to Work-Family Studies
The concept of a family-friendly community derives from a confluence of research in the areas of work and family, neighborhood and community effects, and the life course. A great deal of attention has been paid to the role of workplaces in facilitating a family’s ability to juggle the often competing demands of work and family (for a review, see Glass & Estes, 1997). Yet the lives of families, particularly those with children, are often embedded within neighborhoods, communities, and institutions such as schools, churches, and civic associations. It is only recently that researchers have begun to examine the interconnections between families, work, and communities (Bookman, 2004; Bowen, Richman, & Bowen, 2000; Mannon & Brooks, 2006; Michelson, 1985; Swisher, Sweet, & Moen, 2004; Voydanoff, 2007).

Communities are potentially important resources, or social buffers, for families that are attempting to navigate the demands of work and family. At the same time, they may present challenges or additional demands with which families must deal. The sections to follow describe these resources and challenges, but also raise an important theoretical and methodological challenge; that the role of communities will vary considerably by stage of life course, gender, socioeconomic status, and other factors.

State of the Body of Knowledge
What about a community makes it family-friendly? As the concept has developed, researchers have drawn upon the broader literatures on neighborhoods and communities to identify which characteristics of communities should matter most to family-friendliness. In doing so, researchers typically distinguish between the demographic and socioeconomic structures of neighborhoods, and the more proximal social processes or linking mechanisms through which contextual influences operate.

Community Socioeconomic Structure. Wilson’s theory of the new urban poverty (Wilson, 1997) and the empirical research it generated focus on the negative consequences of concentrated poverty and unemployment (Gephart, 1997; Levanthal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002). Others have focused on the importance of “concentrated affluence” -- a critical mass of human capital and middle-class families within communities (Sampson, Morenoff, & Earls, 1999). As early research on the family-friendly community has been based primarily on middle-class families, employment issues have been defined as more of an individual’s or couple’s concern -- i.e., typically a community is near the husband’s job -- rather than as a structural issue affecting large numbers of workers. Bookman’s (2004) index, however, rightly includes indicators of community socioeconomic status and housing affordability as components of family-friendliness.

Community Life Course Structure. The types of families in a community, and their stages in the life course, have also been found to be important for family-friendliness. Swisher, Sweet, and Moen (2004) found that the presence of families at a similar stage in the life course -- termed “life stage -- neighborhood fit” -- promotes positive perceptions of family-friendliness (see also Sweet, Swisher, & Moen, 2005). For example, parents of young children were more likely to rate their communities as being family friendly if they resided in neighborhoods with greater concentrations of other families with young children. Other research has found a neighborhood’s “child care burden” (e.g., ratio of children-to-adults) associated with elevated rates of child maltreatment, drug trafficking, violent crime, juvenile delinquency, teen childbearing, and low-weight births (Coulton et al., 1995).

Community Social Processes. As one of the first to conceptualize the work-family-community interface, Voydanoff (2001) used an ecological perspective to identify important community social processes, including community social organization, social capital, social networks, volunteering and informal helping, and sense of community. Bowen, Richman and Bowen (2000) similarly point to the social capacity of communities to extend care and control. These conceptualizations draw upon the broader social capital literature (Coleman, 1988), and particularly its application at the community level. Well-known is the work of Sampson and colleagues, who highlight the concepts of informal social control and collective efficacy -- community members’ perceptions that they can collectively accomplish shared goals (Sampson, Morenoff, & Earls, 1999; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earles, 1997). Consistent with this emphasis on social process, Sweet, Swisher, and Moen (2005) found “neighborliness” an often mentioned component of community family-friendliness.
Community Safety. Within poor communities, lack of informal control and efficacy are often associated with community violence, which numerous studies have linked to negative outcomes for youth well-being (Osofsky, 1995). Despite the much lower risk of being exposed to community violence, middle-class families rate safety as a top priority when choosing neighborhoods of residence (Sweet, Swisher, & Moen, 2005).   

Community Institutions. Perhaps of most importance from a work and family perspective is the quality of public institutions and services. High quality schools and other educational opportunities, such as museums and libraries, are important resources for working families. In Bookman’s (2004) family-friendliness index, four of the 10 indicators pertained to preschool childcare, school-age childcare, elder care, and the quality of education in general. Voydanoff (2007) similarly emphasizes education and childcare as important “boundary spanning” (i.e., between workplaces, families, and communities) resources. Child- and family-oriented organizations and events are also valued community amenities for families with children (Sweet, Swisher, & Moen, 2005).

Heterogeneity and Agency in the Life Course. The life course perspective (Elder, 1998; Moen, 2003) recognizes that families look to communities for different things at varying stages of the life course (Swisher, Sweet, & Moen, 2004). The community-related needs of a single mother or father likely differ from those of a married couple with young children (or older children), and from those of a couple who has never had children or whose children have moved out of the home. In a recent study of the subjective definitions of community family-friendliness, by dual-earner, middle-class couples in upstate New York, parents were considerably more likely to place emphasis on educational opportunities (i.e., reputation of schools, libraries), and on recreational opportunities and family-oriented events. Community needs also likely vary by the career types and stages of adults within the family (Han & Moen, 1999; Moen, 2003), and by family socioeconomic status and race and ethnicity. For example, research by South and Crowder (1999), found significant differences by race in the effects of neighborhood disadvantage on premarital childbearing and transitions to first marriages.

Due to the gendered nature of the life course, the meaning of family-friendliness also likely varies for men and women (Moen, 1996). Sweet, Swisher, and Moen (2005) found some evidence of gender differences among dual-earner couples. Though in large part men and women mentioned similar factors as important to family-friendliness (e.g., educational and recreational opportunities, family-oriented events and organizations), women were considerably more likely to point to the quality and affordability of daycare, as well as cultural opportunities.

Also central to the life course perspective is that people are active agents, who engage in “planfulness” (Shanahan, Elder, & Miech, 2001) and develop “family adaptive strategies” for addressing situational imperatives and traversing life transitions (Moen & Wethington, 1992). One such adaptive strategy is to select a community that will meet current and anticipated personal and family needs. Community-related factors topping the lists of reasons that dual-earner couples chose their current communities include safety, reputation of schools, and being near to a spouse’s job. Not unexpectedly, husband’s job requirements usually take precedence over wives’ careers (Sweet, Swisher, & Moen, 2005).

Implications for Research and Practice
Research on the family-friendly community has successfully drawn attention to an important context within which working families negotiate their increasingly demanding lives. It is clear that couples are cognizant of the importance of community characteristics both within their work and family lives, and the extent to which they are able to actively strategize when making residential location decisions. Nonetheless, additional future research would be helpful in this area.

In the area of conceptualization, future research should better distinguish between the contexts of community and neighborhood, as the two are quite distinct and have potentially very different relationships to work and family life. Another important topic of future research is to elaborate the specific mechanisms, or proximal processes, through which family-friendly communities and neighborhoods influence measures of success at work, in families, and in the balancing of work and family issues. A critical need is to expand the research lens beyond dual-earner middle-class families. Though existing research suggests that middle-class families mention many of the same concerns as low-income families in poor neighborhoods, the salience of various concerns likely varies considerably (e.g., safety, quality of schools), as does the ability of families of varying socioeconomic resources, and race and ethnicity, to choose where they work and live. Finally, future research must continue to recognize the importance of other types of heterogeneity of experiences within families, such as by gender, life stage, and family type.

In terms of community policy, research in the area of work and family suggests that communities are facing a different set of issues than those of the 1950s. As women have increasingly entered the workforce, and as the work hours of both men and women have increased, individuals and families have less and less time to devote to communities. Community institutions, such as parent teacher associations, need to be cognizant that the needs and resources of community members varies widely. More flexible means of participation in the community might enable more to become involved. Research also suggests that communities need to ensure that families have access to affordable and quality day care and after-care programs.

A common theme within community economic development, particularly within lower-income areas, is that social capital is a necessary precursor to development. Thus, providing family-friendly services, and strengthening such institutions, may have positive economic spillovers. Moreover, communities that have such resources should be reminded that quality of life is an important draw that can be used to attract businesses, especially those that increasingly rely on workers from dual-earner families.

On the business side, corporations must be attuned to the needs of their dual-earner workers, and the resources that are available in the community. To the extent such resources exist, simple referral programs may be effective. Where family-friendly community resources are lacking, partnerships between businesses and the community, both of which have much to gain, are encouraged.

References
Bookman, A. (2004). Starting in our own backyards: How working families can build community and survive the new economy. New York: Routledge.

Bowen, G., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, N. K. (2000). Families in the context of communities across time. In S. J. Price, P. C. McKenry & M. J. Murphy (Eds.), Families across time: A life course perspective (pp. 117-128). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.

Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J., Su, M., & Chow, J. (1995). Community level factors and child maltreatment rates. Child Development, 66, 1262-1276.

Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998). The life course and human development. Handbook of Child Psychology. New York: Wiley.

Gephart, M. A. (1997). Neighborhoods and communities as contexts for development. In D. A. Brooks-Gunn (Ed.), Neighborhood poverty: Vol 1, context and consequences for children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Glass, J. L., & Estes, S. B. (1997). The family responsive workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 289-313.

Han, S. K., & Moen, P. (1999). Clocking out: temporal patterning of retirement. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 191-236.

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (2), 309-337.

Mannon, S. E., & Brooks, W. T. (2006). Neighborhood family-friendliness and its effect on family relations: Evidence from Utah. Sociological Spectrum, 26, 405-421.

Michelson, W. (1985). From sun to sun: Daily obligations and community structure in the lives of employed women and their families. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.

Moen, P. (1996). Gender, age, and the life course. Handbook of aging and the social sciences. New York: Academic Press.

Moen, P. (2003). It's about time: Couples and careers. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Moen, P., & Roehling, P. V. (2005). The career mystique. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.

Moen, P., & Wethington, E. (1992). The concept of family adaptive strategies. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 233-251.

Osofsky, J. D. (1995). The effects of exposure to violence on young children. American Psychologist, 50(9), 782-88.

Sampson, R., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 633-660.

Sampson, R., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing "neighborhood effects": Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 51(1), 443-478.

Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: Multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.

Shanahan, M. J., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Miech, R. A. (1997). History and agency in men's lives: Pathways to achievement in cohort perspective. Sociology of Education, 70(1), 54-67.

South, S. J., & Crowder, K. D. (1999). Neighborhood effects on family formation: Concentrated poverty and beyond. American Sociological Review, 64, 113-132.

Sweet, S., Swisher, R., & Moen, P. (2005). Selecting and assessing the family-friendly community: Adaptive strategies of middle-class dual-earner couples. Family Relations, 54, 596-606.

Swisher, R., Sweet, S. A., & Moen, P. (2004). The family-friendly community and its life course fit for dual-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66:281-292.

Voydanoff, P. (2001). Conceptualizing community in the context of work and family. Community, Work & Family, 4(2), 133-156.

Voydanoff, P. (2007). Work, family, and community: Exploring interconnections. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 

Locations in the Matrix of Information Domains of the Work-Family Area of Studies

The Editorial Board of the Teaching Resources section of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network has prepared a Matrix as a way to locate important work-family topics in the broad area of work-family studies. (More about the Matrix...)

Note: The domain areas most closely related to the entry's topic are presented in full color. Other domains, represented in gray, are provided for context.