A Person-Centered Approach to Early Childhood Professionals’ Well-being

• In Event: A Holistic Approach to Early Childhood Educators’ Well-being and Work Environments

Abstract

In order for early childhood (EC) professionals to be effective in supporting children’s well-being, they must be well (Jeon et al., 2014; Zinsser et al., 2013). Because many studies of well-being have frequently focused on single indicators of well-being, such as depression, this exploratory study uses a person-centered approach to examine meaningful well-being subgroups (e.g., classes) of educators based on various indicators of well-being.
This study was conducted as a part of a larger mixed-methods study of EC educators’ well-being. Participating sites included six programs serving children (birth to age five) and families experiencing financial hardship. Lead and assistant teachers, directors, coaches, and home visitors (N=121) completed an online anonymous survey. Measures captured psychological well-being (Ryff & Keyes, 1995), self-compassion (Raes et al., 2011), self-care practices (Lee et al., 2016), stress (Karasek & Theorell, 1990), burnout (Rohland et al., 2004), health related quality of life (CDC, 2000), adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and economic and personal factors.
Profiles of EC educators’ well-being were identified using latent class analysis, for which a two-class model was the most parsimonious (entropy = 0.78, LMR p = .002). Table 1 presents unstandardized means and standard error of estimates for continuous variables and item response probabilities for categorical variables. Group 1 (48% of sample), labeled more positive well-being, reported more favorable well-being (fewer unhealthy days, greater psychological well-being, more frequent self-care, more self-compassion, less stress, fewer ACEs, and less economic strain). Group 2 (52% of sample), labeled less positive well-being, reported less favorable well-being on all indicators (more unhealthy days, lower psychological well-being, less frequent self-care, less self-compassion, more stress, more ACEs, and more economic strain).
Next, we examined the demographic characteristics of each group (Table 2). Compared to the full sample, less positive well-being (Group 2) was disproportionally reported by people of color, individuals with less education, and staff in assisting roles (e.g., associate teachers and aides). Furthermore, over half (55%) of the less positive well-being group had symptoms of burnout compared to 38% of the more positive well-being group. Additional analyses will control for other pertinent factors.
In conclusion, two distinct groups of individuals emerged from these analyses which were entirely delineated by more positive and less positive well-being. Over half of the early childhood professionals surveyed reported less positive well-being, a disproportionate number of whom were people of color in assistant/non-leadership roles. This suggests ways that systemic racism manifests in the EC system, and plays a role in EC educators’ well-being and burnout. In order to retain a diverse and thriving EC workforce, programs should engage in racial healing for all staff and target supports to those experiencing less positive well-being, particularly EC professionals of color. Furthermore, while much research has focused on EC educators’ well-being as a single construct (e.g., depression), it is evident from this study that well-being is multi-faceted, and that more research is needed to understand and support this critical workforce.

Authors

• Amy Roberts, University of Denver
  Presenting Author

• Alexandra M. Daro, Buffett Early Childhood Institute
  Non-Presenting Author

• Kathleen Cranley Gallagher, University of Nebraska
  Non-Presenting Author