“They Don’t Ask Anything About This:” Family Child Care Providers’ Perceptions of Quality, Alignment, and Engagement

• In Event: Poster Session 12
  In Poster Session: PS 12 Topic - Social Policy

Abstract

Background: Regulated family child care (FCC) is an essential but undervalued aspect of the American early childhood education and care (ECEC) landscape. FCC is often the preferred or only accessible, regulated, and/or subsidized option for children who are under three, are from low-income families, live in rural areas, and/or whose parents work variable schedules (Henly & Adams, 2018). However, the national supply of FCC has fallen by nearly half in the last decade (NCECQA, 2020), and research suggests that FCC is often lower quality than center-based care. Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS) are a common quality improvement approach, but while FCCs are eligible to participate in 95% of QRIS, their engagement tends to be low (NCECQA, 2019). Some scholars have suggested that one factor in disengagement could be a misalignment between center-centric quality standards and providers’ own priorities for quality (Hallam et al., 2017; Tonyan et al., 2017). A better understanding of the relationship between quality priorities and policy engagement is needed to optimize FCC supply and efficacy.

Objectives: This study explores three research questions (RQs): (1) What components of quality do FCC providers prioritize? (2) How are these priorities aligned or misaligned with QRIS standards? and (3) How does a mis/alignment of quality priorities inform providers’ choices to engage with ECEC policy initiatives or to leave the field entirely? We examine these questions using a mixed-methods approach with data from a larger multi-state study of FCC decline and supply (Erikson Institute, 2020).

Hypotheses: Based on a conceptual framework that blends reconceptualist critiques of ECEC quality (Dahlberg et al., 2013) and institutional theories (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1977), we hypothesize that: (1) providers will identify varying quality priorities, which may be shaped by individual and program characteristics; (2) there will be variation in alignment between provider and QRIS priorities; and (3) providers with greater alignment with QRIS expectations will be more likely to participate in policy initiatives and plan to continue providing FCC long-term. In contrast, providers with less alignment may be more likely to disengage from ECEC initiatives and/or plan to leave the field.

Methods: This work uses focus group and survey data from 104 FCC providers in three states. For RQs 1 and 2, providers’ quality priorities and alignment with their states’ QRIS standards will be explored using descriptive statistics. To analyze RQ3, logistic regressions will be run to examine associations between quality alignment and engagement. Qualitative data from focus groups, analyzed using grounded theory methodology, will augment the quantitative findings to consider providers’ engagement strategies in the face of misaligned quality priorities. Data have been collected and analysis is underway.

Implications: By better understanding FCC providers’ priorities for high quality, we can begin to better engage them in the ECEC field and reverse the declining supply. The need to respect and retain FCC providers is particularly pressing in the COVID-19 context, where more families may choose FCC for its smaller groups of mixed-age children (Jacobson, 2020).

Author

• Samantha Melvin, Erikson Institute
  Presenting Author