From Policy to Practice: Examining North Carolina’s Subsidy Supplement Initiative for Family Child Care Homes

• In Event: Supporting Access to Quality Child Care: Subsidy Policy, Providers, and Underserved Families

Abstract

Introduction/Background 
North Carolina's family child care homes (FCCH), an integral part of the state’s mixed delivery early care and education (ECE) system, have decreased by 24% since February 2020 (Dukes, 2026) and are closing at a faster rate than centers (Soliday Hong et al., 2024). FCCH providers often serve vulnerable families, including those working nontraditional hours, residing in rural communities, needing infant-toddler care, or experiencing language and/or income barriers (National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance, 2019). Given increased attention to the needs of FCCH by policy makers and advocates, understanding how FCCH policy translates to practice is of increasing importance.  

Purpose/Research Question 
A PDG B-5 funded project provided a six-month subsidy supplement to FCCH providers who enrolled children eligible for child care subsidy payments. North Carolina's child care subsidies for families meeting income requirements do not match the true cost of care (Bell, 2026). Drawing on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR; Damschroder et al., 2022), this presentation examines the facilitators and barriers experienced by FCCH providers as they navigated an open-ended policy designed to improve quality and compensation, addressing the following research questions: 
1. How did providers spend a supplement intended to support quality and compensation? 
2. What implementation drivers and barriers were identified by FCCH providers to the goal of 1) increasing quality and 2) improving compensation? 
3. Did the supplemental subsidy payments address those barriers or facilitate those drivers? 

Methods 
This parallel mixed-methods study collected data through surveys and focus groups. Additional qualitative data were collected from stakeholder interviews and used to contextualize and extend initial findings. Focus group and stakeholder interview transcripts were coded using a collection of a priori and in vivo codes (Marshall & Rossman, 2014). Thematic analysis was used to collapse codes into themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Themes were integrated into a joint display with the descriptive analysis of survey data and the five levels of CFIR (Guetterman et al., 2015).  

Results/Findings 
Preliminary results indicate that facing inner setting barriers such as attrition and outer setting barriers such as broader economic forces, FCCH providers predominantly used the supplemental funds to meet basic economic needs for their programs (mortgage/loan payments, supplementing food budgets, new learning materials) and provide economic relief for families, limiting their ability to increase their own compensation. Providers rarely referenced quality directly in their responses, which may have been related to the open-ended nature of the supplement and unclear framing of its purpose (implementation process). When providers were able to increase quality or compensation, they often referenced outer setting supports such as their state agency provided consultants.  

Conclusion/Implications 
When provided with a loosely framed subsidy supplement, FCCH providers first addressed internal barriers to remaining open before addressing quality and compensation. Long term changes may be required to the external subsidy system to ensure providers have the internal capacity to address quality and compensation. Additional supports for individual providers (e.g., small business training) may enhance provider abilities to prioritize issues of compensation and quality.

Author

• Lindsay Ann Gomes, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  Presenting Author