Changes in the Availability and Quality of Licensed Tennessee Family Child Care Providers from 2002-2015

• In Event: 1-107 - New Insights on Quality and Access in Early Care and Education: Lessons from QRIS Data

Integrative Statement

In recent years states have invested in quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS) that incentivize and improve the quality of early childhood education (ECE) at scale (Zellman & Perlman, 2010). However, there is growing concern that QRIS incentives and supports are not sufficient for family child care providers (FCCs) to engage in these systems (see special issue: Tonyan, Paulsell, & Shivers, 2017), and may be driving these providers to closure (Bassok, Dee, Doromal, & Latham, 2018; Neely, 2018). These challenges are particularly concerning given that FCCs serve three million children aged 0-5 in the United States from families that traditionally have less access to center-based care (NSECE Project Team, 2016; Tonyan et al., 2017).

Many explanations for why these challenges exist point to inadequate compensation and supports for FCCs to engage in QRIS (Neely, 2018), especially relative to their center-based counterparts. To date, describing changes in the characteristics of FCCs over time, and the extent to which FCCs are able to continue operating, has been challenging because QRIS participation is voluntary for FCCs in many states, thus inhibiting our ability to track and have detailed program-level data on these providers.

This paper leverages administrative data on all FCCs operating in Tennessee (n=2,827 unique providers) over a 14-year period (2002-2015). Tennessee is a unique context for studying FCCs because all FCCs are required to be licensed and receive routine observations of classroom quality (FCCERS-R; Harms, Cryer, & Clifford, 2007). The primary research aim is to document changes in availability of FCCs (number of providers and slots) and the extent to which FCCs were successful in improving program quality under Tennessee’s mature QRIS system. I further compare these patterns to centers to explore the extent to which trends may have been specific to FCCs.

Preliminary results suggest that FCCs improved on most measures of quality, including QRIS ratings (Figure 1) and FCCERS-R scores. For example, 23.5% of FCCs received the state’s highest quality designation (three stars) in 2002, compared to 60% of FCCs in 2015.
FCC availability remained relatively stable in the first half of the panel, though the number of FCCs decreased considerably after 2008. Decreases in availability also occurred among centers, although to a lesser extent. For example, 18% of FCCs closed in an average year, relative to about 12% of centers (Table 1).

I find further that, in the years with pronounced decreases in FCC availability, program closure was not any more likely than in other years. Instead, a sharp decline in new FCCs being licensed appeared to drive changes in FCC availability, suggesting prospective FCCs have become less willing to start up in more recent years. Importantly, availability decreases were steepest in years around the economic recession in the late 2000s, offering suggestive evidence of the role of economic hardship on FCCs. This presentation will discuss implications in terms of potential barriers to entry and considerations for states as they develop strategies for incorporating FCCs into QRIS.

Author

• Justin Brian Doromal, University of Virginia
  Presenting Author