Gender Differences in Providing Urgent Childcare ...

25 downloads 0 Views 7MB Size Report
Similarly, Greenstein (1996) found that ..... r ideo l. CD ian gen d tari ali cn. LU. CO. OO. CN. CO. O. OO o o f child i. (D ..... Desai, Sonalde, and Linda J. Waite.
Gender Differences in Providing Urgent Childcare among Dual-earner Parents David J. Maume, University of Cincinnati It may be premature to think that contemporary families are egalitarian because wives are working more and fathers are more involved with children. This research contends that egalitarianism is reflected in gender similarity in missing work to attend to children's needs. Drawing from two national surveys of dualearner parents, familial factors (especially children and spouses work hours) exceeded job-related factors in determining women's sole provision of urgent childcare. Although men's egalitarian ideology was positively associated with urgent-childcare provision, men as a whole were less likely than women to adapt their work efforts to familial demands. Jfiese findings suggest more persistent traditionalism than progress toward egalitarianism in work-family role performance. The implications of these results for future research were briefly discussed.

Even the most casual observer is aware that women exceed men in shouldering responsibility for childrearing and housework, and scholars have shown that care giving has economic costs that are borne disproportionately by women (Budig and England 2001). It is plausible that in order to reach equality in work and family roles, women's increased commitment to careers must bo matched by men's increased commitment to family life. Prior studies evaluated this proposition by examining gender differences in attitudes, work attachment and time in household responsibilities, and inferred the extent of equality from the results. But, these measures often focus on just one side of the work-family nexus, and as such, they may inadequately reflect work-family priorities. To address this situation, I propose a measure that more clearly reveals a person's work-family priorities, specifically when dual-earner parents must decide which partner will miss work when children's needs conflict with parental work obligations. Consistent with prior research, 7Ï1ÎS research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R03-HD424U-0IA ¡) and the Charles Phelps Taft Research Center at the University oj Cincinnati. I thankfully acknowledge the constructive criticisms on earlier versions of this paper from the Social Forces editor and reviewers, as well as comments from participants in the workshop series at the University of Chicago's Sloan Center for Parents, Children and Work, and the colloquium series at the University of Cincinnati. Direct correspondence to David J. Maume, Department of Sociology, P.O. Box 210378, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0378. E-mail: [email protected]. «• The University of North Carolina FVess

Social Farces 87(1)

274 - Social Forces S7(\) • September 2008

this study infers egalitarianism (traditionaiism) in contemporary famiiy life if there is gender simiiarity (differences) in responding to an urgent child-care situation, Gender Differences in Work-Family Priorities Gender Differences in Attitudes Work schoiars have a long standing interest in gender differences in job attitudes, often interpreting their findings as an assessment of gender differences in work-family priorities. For exampie, most studies found that men exceeded women in their commitment to their employers (for a review, see Hodson 2001}. Yet, Marsden, Kalleberg and Cook (1993) explained away the gender difference in organizationai commitment in models that controlled for job traits and rewards. Perhaps some degree of egalitarianism has been realized if there is gender simiiarity in commitment at similar levels of employment. But, it should be noted that organizational commitment is typicaliy measured by asking respondents about their willingness to work hard for their companies, tumover intentions, ioyalty toward their employers, etc. These items assess the strength of the bond between workers and employers, but fail to ask respondents to prioritize that bond against attending to family needs. Other analysts have noted a sharp rise in egaütarian gender ideology, especiaily among men (e.g., see Brewster and Padavic 2000). Aithough this trend is noteworthy, it may be a misleading indicator of equality if men behave traditionally when forced to choose between career pursuits and attending to family needs. Indeed, some fatherhood scholars suggest that men's support for egalitarianism can be easiiy made in the abstract, but that men's behaviors reflect a continued emphasis on family breadwinning (LaRossa 1997; Townsend 2002). For this reason, much research has examined gender differences in work attachment. Gender Differences in Work Attachment On one hand, there is some evidence of gender convergence in the allocation of time to the roles of worker and parent. Historically, women exited the labor force when rearing children; now, women largely resemble men in their lifelong attachment to fuü-time jobs (Leibowitz and Kierman 1995). Longitudinal research confirmed that women's spells out of the labor force decreased in length and frequency with career aspirations (Desai and Waite 1991; Glass and Riley 1998). And among men, several qualitative studies reported a reluctance to adopt the workaholic behaviors of their own fathers, instead cutting back at work when they had chiidren (e.g., Coitrane 1996; Gorson 1993; Risman 1987).

Gender and Urgent Childcare • 275

On the other hand, gender continues to strongly correlate with work efforts (for a review, see Hakim 2002); two studies are exemplary of what many others find. Although men's work attachment did vary somewhat with gender ideology, Kaufman and Uhlenberg (2000) found that fatherhood had a weaker effect on men's employment and hours worked, in contrast to motherhood which had a strong inhibiting effect on women's labor supply Sanchez and Thomson's (1997) longitudinal analysis reported similar findings, in that formerly childless men who fathered two or more children over a six-year period increased their typical work week from 42 to 47 hours. By contrast, formerly childless women who had two or more children in a six-year period decreased their work hours from 32 to 14 hours per week. But, inferring gender differences in work-family priorities from gender differences in work attachment is valid only to the extent that work schedules are freely chosen. Economists make this assumption (Hakim 2002), but sociologists tend to think that economic choices are constrained. In particular, the gender gap in pay (Budig and England 2001 ) and the scarcity and high cost of childcare (Gornick and Meyers 2003) are employment disincentives to women with young children at home. Thus, it Is not surprising that at any given point in time, women's employment is strongly linked to their status as mothers. But, as an indicant of work-family priorities, women's nearly continuous employment over the lifecourse may be a better measure of their preferences than is a gender difference in employment status at one point in time. Other scholars counter that women's greater commitment to children is also reflected in working parttime, especially during their childbearing years (Hakim 2002), Yet, research on occupational segregation suggests that employers match workers to jobs with gender stereotypes in mind. In order to fix the wage bill, employers expect long work hours in salaried jobs while limiting hours in other jobs (Jacobs and Gerson 2004; Schor 1991). Demanding jobs typically offer career prospects and are reserved for men, while low-hour jobs afford little opportunity and are female-dominated (Kanter 1977; Reskin, McBrier and Kmec 1999). This is consistent with ethnographic research showing that jobs were allocated to men on the stereotypical belief that fathers exceed mothers in their work commitment (e.g,. see Fried 1998; Hochschild 1997; Perlow 1997). It is beyond the scope of this paper to determine definitively whether work-family preferences determine work efforts or whether preferences are rationalized by work efforts. But, the larger point of this discussion is that for some workers, work schedules are imposed rather than chosen freely, if so, to the extent that employers act on gender stereotypes in matching workers to jobs, it may be misleading to infer the relative weight that men and women give to their roles as parents and workers by contrasting gender differences in work attachment.

276 • Social Forces S7il) • September 2008

Gender Differences in Time in Housework and Childcare Because time is a finite resource, allocating nnore time to one domain in the work-family nexus would necessarily imply that less time is available for the other. Conventional wisdom holds that compared with their past counterparts, contemporary fathers are more involved in family life as mothers vyork more (for reviews of this literature, see Bianchi et al. 2000; Coltrane 2000}. But, certain anomalous findings in the literature suggest that estimates of time use may be imperfect measures of a person's priorities regarding work and family roies. For example, it is widely believed that children are shortchanged by the temporal increase in women's time in market work. Bianchi (2000) disputes this notion in her analysis of time diaries, finding instead that mother's time investments in children increased from 1965 to 1998, Given concurrent increases in mothers' time with children and in paid market work, she argued that the increase in the latter came at the expense of time in leisure and household chores (see also Sayer et ai. 2004; Sayer 2005), If women can increase their commitment in one domain without a decreased commitment in the other, it is possible that men may do the same. Indeed, two studies showed that fathers and mothers spent about the same amount of time with children on weekends, but on workdays children spent considerably more time with mothers than fathers (Galinsky 1999; Yeung et al. 2001). In other words, men continue to prioritize their employment responsibilities on workdays, and a "new father" is evident only on the weekends (Yeung et al. 2001 ). If so, it may be premature to conclude that family life is increasingly egalitarian if fathers spend more time with children while mothers spend more time working. As this brief review has shown for men and women alike, it may be misleading to infer work-family priorities in measures that focus on just one side of the work-family nexus. Perspectives on Urgent Childcare Much research shows that men and women are similarly stressed by work-family conflict (for reviews, see Marsiglio et al. 2000; Perry-Jenkins. Repetti and Crouter 2000). but it may be the response to this conflict that matters more. When both partners have to be at work but someone needs to be with a child, the response to this dilemma will reveal work-family priorities. Other things equal, it is plausible that the partner who misses work to provide childcare in an emergency is placing a higher priority on family responsibilities than the partner who is reluctant to miss work. In this situation partners may differ in whether they see the dilemma as a family problem or as a work problem, and will respond based on the constraints they face at home and at work.

Gender and Urgent Chitdcare • 277

Of course, the traditional image of family life is a powerful backdrop for developing an understanding of urgent-childcare provision. Traditionally, men's jobs were of primary importance to the family's economic welfare, and men used this to limit their roles as caregivers. By contrast, women's jobs were of secondary importance to the family, and pursued careers only after family needs were met (Ferrée 1990; Hochschild 1989). Indeed. Presser (1989) summed up early research on parental work efforts and childcare in this way: men "accept" childcare responsibilities when they are off work, but women "adapt" their work efforts to their husband's schedules and the needs of their children. With this traditional image of family life in mind, a review of the literature is useful for identifying factors associated with providing urgent chifdcare. To my knowledge there are no studies of gender differences in the provision of urgent childcare.' There is, however, research on men's participation in childcare (but not if it means missing work}, gender differences in absenteeism (that may confound the actual reasons for missing work), and organizational effects on employees' striving for worklife balance (but without an explicit focus on urgent childcare situations). Urgent Childcare as a Family Problem If the impulse to provide childcare in an emergency is primarily governed by parenting concerns, then we might expect the need to attend to one's child will outweigh concerns about the harmful consequences of missing work. As such, the childcare literature may shed some light on a parent's choice in response to this dilemma. Yet. given that childcare is often considered primarily a mother's responsibility (Garey 1999; Hattery 2001; Williams 2000), much attention has been paid to factors associated with men's increased role in family life. After three decades of research on household labor, scholars generally draw on three overlapping perspectives to predict when men do more around the house, including caring for children (for reviews, see Bianchi et al. 2000; Coltrane 2000; Sayer et al. 2004). The first of these perspectives is time avaiiabiiity. which posits that time spent in one domain will leave less time for other domains. In regards to paid work, studies generally found that men's time with children was negatively related to their own work schedules (Sandberg and Hofferth 2001 ; Yeung et al. 2001 ). At the same time, men spend more time with children when family size increases and/or they have young children at home (Bryant and Zick 1996; Sandberg and Hofferth 2001), although Kaufman and Uhlenberg (2000) found that this relationship was stronger among egalitarian men. The relative power perspective suggests that the partner who has more power within the marriage will seek to avoid onerous domestic

278 . Socio/forres 87(1) • September 2008

responsibilities. Most studies examined the division of household labor and measured relative power by the educational attainment of the partners or by wives' contribution to family income (for reviews, see Bianchi et al. 2000; Coltrane 2000). There are fewer studies of time in childcare, but Yeung et al. (2001) found that men's education and pay were negatively associated with time with children on weekdays. Of course, these findings are also consistent with economic theory that workers supply more paid labor (and less household labor) as they possess more human capital and earn higher wages. The gender perspective suggests that women do more housework and childrearing because societal expectations converge with institutional practices to free men from this task (Coltrane 2000; Hochschiid 1989; Williams 2000). In this context, two studies linked men's progressive gender ideology with increased time investments in children (Bulanda 2004; Hofferth 2003). In addition, when examining the effect of ideology on household labor, analysts often control for age because younger cohorts tend to be less traditional than older cohorts (Carr 2002). Recent qualitative research suggests that men and women increasingly negotiate their responsibilities as workers and caregivers, and that situational contingencies determine who provides care. For example, partners often engage in "tag-team" parenting, with each taking a turn as caregiver while the other works; when this strategy fails, partners occasionallytradeoff instances of missing work (Garey 1999; Hattery2001; Hochschild 1997). Furthermore, which partner provides care depends on the nature of the child's needs (e.g., a child's illness vs. transportation to a game or a lesson) as well as on work demands (e.g., whether projects and deadlines are pressing or flexible). The narratives in these studies suggest that mothers' jobs were as important as fathers' jobs, but it is not clear that these findings generalize to all families. It is more difficult to capture marital negotiations and situational contingencies in survey research. Rather, analysts have measured negotiations indirectly by examining the congruity or incongruity in each spouse's jobs, work schedules and gender ideologies. For example. Presser (1994) found that non-professional men did more housework when wives held professional or managerial jobs, and/or when men were home during the day while their wives worked. Similarly, Greenstein (1996) found that men's relative contribution to household labor was unrelated to their own ideology when they were married to traditional wives, and was maximized when both partners were committed to egalitarianism. Of course, to the extent that marital bargaining and situational contingencies converge on gender differences in market power, then measures of partners' relative resources (education, pay, etc.) may proxy for these processes observed in qualitative studies.

Gender and Urgent Childcare • 279

Urgent Childcare as a Work Problem If childcare is viewed as a work problem, then a parent may weight more heavily the harmful consequences of missing work against the need to attend to one's child. If so, economic theories of absenteeism may be useful in predicting a parent's response to this dilemma. That is, economists contend that missing work can be understood as a labor supply decision, and human capital theory can explain variation in labor supply. In this view, educational credentials and experience are positively associated with labor supply, and, other things equai, those with higher pay and promotion opportunities will trade off leisure for work. To the extent that there is a residual gender difference in labor supply, this reflects women's preference to be the primary caregiver in the family (for a review of these arguments, see Hakim 2002). In the sparse literature on sex differences in absenteeism, findings are generally consistent with these arguments, although measurement problems plague some studies of absenteeism. For exampie, Leigh (1983) used the 1973 Quality of Employment Survey to estimate gender-stratified models of missed work days. Among men and women alike, income was inversely related to absenteeism, but having a young child increased absenteeism only among women. Of course, if absenteeism is purely voluntary, these relationships are explained by the economic theory outlined above. But, the OES did not ask about the specific reasons for missing work, thereby potentially confounding voluntary (e.g., leisure) and involuntary (e.g., poor health) absenteeism. Vistnes (1997) tried to distinguish between absences for legitimate health problems from absences due to abuse of sick-leave policies, with an item that asked, "...did illness or injury keep you from work more than half ofthe day...?" But, Vistnes (1997) found thatme^ missed more time from work when their children were in day care. Lacking data on spouse's work efforts, Vistnes (1997) speculated that these men had working wives, and they used their own sick time to care for children when their childcare arrangements failed. Although this interpretation is plausible, a direct test of it would ask workers in dual-earner marriages which partner takes responsibility for children in an emergency situation. Sociologists have paid less attention to sex differences in absenteeism (but see Mastakaasa and Olsen [1998] who concluded that the gender difference in absenteeism was health related). Rather, sociologists focused on how organizations facilitate or impede work-life balance among employees. In the 1990s labor markets were tight, and employers increasingly implemented "family-friendly" policies to recruit and retain workers (Jacobs and Gerson 2004). Most studies concluded that well-

280 . Social Forces 87i\)

. September 2008

educated professionals employed in ¡arge firms had the most opportunity to use family-friendly policies (e,g.. schedule autonomy, flextime, parental leave), yet they worked the longest hours and experienced the most conflict with family life (Jacobs and Gerson 2004; Maume and Bellas 2001; Schor 1991), In studies of cutting back at work (e,g., part-time career tracks, reduced work weeks), findings generally show that clerical women were the most likely to take advantage of familyresponsive policies, whereas white-collar men did not (for reviews, see Fried 1998; Williams 2000), The typical explanation for these findings is that those with the highest career aspirations think that employers are disingenuous in their support of work-life balance policies, and instead reward those who place career pursuits ahead of family life; if women are more likely to take advantage of family-friendly benefits, this reflects their generally lower position in the organizational hierarchy (Fried 1998; Hochschild 1997; Williams 2000), Yet, many work-family studies draw on narratives from professional and managerial workers employed in large corporations. It is possible that in a broader sample of workers, organizational norms and policies promoting work-life balance may be more strongly linked to family-centered behaviors among men and women alike. Research Propositions Although there are no studies of gender differences in the provision of urgent childcare. the review above suggests some testable propositions enabling an assessment of how contemporary families allocate workfamily role responsibilities. 1 specify four potential patterns that may be observed in the results, depending on whether the urgent childcare situation is viewed as family problem or as a work problem (suggesting differences in the relative explanatory power of familial- vs. work-related covariates), and whether contemporary parents aspire to be egalitarian or traditional in their response to the dilemma (suggesting which partner will provide care in an emergency). First, we might expect that traditional parents who view urgent childcare as a family problem will largely obligate mothers to resolve the urgent childcare dilemma. In this case the number and ages of children will prompt women (but not men) to miss work to provide childcare, irrespective of their job situations. Further, if parents are as traditional as Presser (1989) described a generation ago, women (but not men) will continue to adapt their own work efforts to the career demands of their spouses, by taking sole responsibility for urgent childcare as their husbands work more and become more successful. Second, egalitarian parents may also view the urgent childcare dilemma as family problem. If so, in comparing across

Genderand Urgent Childcare •281

gender groups, we may find gender similarity in the magnitude of familial and spousal effects on urgent childcare provision, and among men, familial and spousal covariates may be as important as job-related covariates in predicting urgent childcare provision. A third possibility is that parents are persistently traditional in their orientations and see urgent childcare as a work problem, from which men are largely relieved of responsibility. If so, as men have more success in the labor market (working longer hours, at higher pay and with greater promotion opportunities) they should be less likely to miss work to provide childcare in an emergency, and familial and spousal characteristics may have no effect on men's responsibility for urgent childcare. A fourth possibility is that men and women alike aspire to egalitarianism, and similarly view the urgent childcare dilemma as a work problem. If so, the magnitudes of the effects of job-related factors on urgent childcare provision will be similar for men and women, and within each gender group, job-related factors may be stronger determinants of urgent child-care provision than familial and spousal factors. Although other patterns of results are theoretically possible, the propositions clearly suggest that the strength of familial and work-related covariates will vary by gender. Thus, in seeking to adjudicate between the scenarios above the analytic models will be estimated in genderstratified samples. Data The data source for this study is the 1997 and 2002 editions of The National Study of the Changing Workforce. The NSCW was a phone survey given to samples generated by random-digit dialing (because design effects were minimal, results shown below are from unweighted samples). In 1997,20 calls pertelephone number were made to determine sample eligibility status (i.e., households with employed adults, ages 18 years or older), Interviews were completed with 3.552 individuals, a 95 percent cooperation rate when someone answered the phone. But, the eligibility status of a substantial number of telephone numbers could not be determined after 20 attempts, yielding an estimated response rate of 53 percent. In 2002, 98 percent of interviews were completed when a person answered the phone (n ^ 3,504), and the number of callbacks was increased to 50 attempts to determine the eligibility status of a telephone number. Nevertheless, the estimated response rate was virtually unchanged from 1997, at 52 percent. Analyses by survey staff showed that both samples were representative of the labor force in their respective years (see Bond. Galinsky and Swanberg 1998; Bond et al. 2003).

282 • Social Forces S7i\) • September 2008

Measures Urgent Childcare The provision of urgent chiidcare was assessed by the question, "If someone has to stay home with your (child/ren) or do something with your (child/ren) when you are both supposed to be working, which of you is more likely to take time off work?" This question was filtered on parents in dual-earner unions, yielding 599 men and 813 women.^ Undoubtedly, single parents and those with non-working spouses experience conflict between parental and work obligations, but posing this question to a sample of dual-earner parents is particularly relevant to the aims of this study. First, dual earners make up a majority of couples (Jacobs and Gerson 2004), and assessing commitment to egalitarianism is most salient when partners are simultaneously providers and nurturers. Second, responses to this question tap voluntary decisions to miss work and are not confounded by involuntary absences due to illness. Third, conflicts with work may arise when childcare arrangements fail, children are sick, school is closed or children have appointments, among other things. Thus, the question taps the full range of parental obligations to children of all ages that potentially conflict with work efforts. Table 1 shows a large gender disparity in providing urgent childcare. That is, 77.7 percent of women report that they alone miss work when it is necessary to spend time with children, compared with only 26.5 percent of men who solely take on this responsibility (because this is a sample of workers and not couples, men's and women's self-reports of urgent childcare provision need not sum to 100 percent). Table 2 presents descriptive statistics on the predictor variables in the analytic models. Because of scattered missing data on predictor variables, the analytic samples are smaller by 10 and 17 cases for men and women, respectively. Familial and Demographic Predictors When examining relative contributions to work and family life, researchers typically control for age, race (1 = Biack or Hispanic: 0 = non-Hispanic white), education (in years of completed schooiing), and egaiitarian gender ideoiogy. The latter was captured by the mean of two Likert items: (1. It is much better for everyone involved if the man earns the money and the woman takes care of the home and children (reverse-coded); and, (2. A mother who works outside the home can have just as good a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work (in this study, all Likert items were scored as 1 = strongiy disagree; 2 - agree; 3 - don't know; 4 = agree; 5 = strongiy agree). Familial factors are tapped by a continuous control for the number of chiidren (capped at four to reduce the influence

Gender and Urgent Childcare «283

Table 1: Frequency of Urgent Childcare Men f When Children Require Parental Care, Who Misses Work? Respondent does 159 It depends 76 Spouse does 364 Total 599

Women

% 26.5 12.7 60.8 100.0

f 645 79 106 830

% 77.7 9.5 12.8 100.0

Note: Dual-earner Parents, 1997 and 2002 NSCW

of outliers), and a binary control for having a preschool child (younger than 6 years old) in the household (an additional control for the number of other adults in the household had no effect on urgent child care provision, and was dropped from the analytic models). As well, a spouse's resources and work efforts may affect a respondent's provision of urgent childcare (unfortunately, measures of the spouse's occupation, usual work schedule, and gender ideology were not available in the NSCW). Thus, the models controlled for spouse's education, spouse's weekly work hours (logged), and the spouse's annual income (from all jobs, in logged 2002 dollars).^ Approximately 1 in 8 respondents refused to disclose their spouse's income and these cases were assigned the sex-specific mean; a dummy variable, imputed spouse's income, controlled for mean assignment. Job-related Predictors

The review above suggests that urgent childcare provision may be more responsive to job demands, necessitating controls for employment as a professional or manager, weekly hours worked (logged), and annual income (from all jobs, in logged 2002 dollars). Respondents who refused to report their own incomes were assigned the gender-specific mean, and a binary control for imputed income was added to the models. In addition, the models controlled ior years worked for the current employer (logged) and perceived promotion prospects (scored from 1 = poor to 5 ^ excellent in response to the question, "how would you rate your own chance to advance in your organization?").^ Workers maybe more likely to provide urgent childcare if their employers allowed them to work a flextime schedule (scored 1 if workers could vary the times when the started and ended their workdays; 0 otherwise), or if they worked for a family-friendly employer. The latter was tapped by four Likert items (e.g., 'At my place of employment, employees have to choose between advancing in their jobs or devoting attention to their family or personal lives'');^ the scale score was calculated as the mean of at least two non-missing items, with higher values indicating a more family-friendly employer.^

284 . Soda/Forces 87(1) . September 2008

Other Controls The models included two controls for idiosyncrasies in the NSCW data. First, some measures asked specifically about working at the "main" job vs. those in other jobs, but other measures were ambiguous as to which job they were referencing. Rather than restricting the sample to those with a single job, a binary control for holding two or more jobs was added to the model. Second, macroeconomic conditions may affect a worker's willingness to miss work to provide childcare (in 2002 unemployment was higher and real wages were slightly lower than in 1997 when labor markets

.74

O^ CO C31 CO ¿O CNI

C O ^

CNJ CO CN I— CN

CO

CO OO

o

CO ^

o

C 3 CO CN CN OO OO CO CD

CO

^

CN C O

CM

CN o CO l O

CO

CM CN

CO

CD CO i n

CO

r--

CO

CO CO C 3

CO

o

''

CO

CO

o

T— LO CJi CN "=!• OO "•a- CO CO h~ CNI O

i n CD CO CO

^ C O

C3 i n CM

CO O

CT)

o> CO CO T — C3> "*~ CO

o

i

c

o

Oi CD CO " ^ CO

?

ai

CD

\/

QJ O^

.,—

cn

C=5

o

CD c=>

(D JD

c= ro

E

CO • n

ro o

o m • ^

" ^

cn

LU

01

cn o

_j

o Cl-

_> oCl-

eo eo

Q>

o

CO

.

,

I



-=

t/i

.Cl Q

Q-

O —>

¿I

> s

CD

V a.

CJ)

it

o

ic °

-O

i _

CU

.:Ä:

•ro

c:

ro t : ">