ACF OPRE: National Study of Child Care of Low-Income Families

Chapter Eleven: Stability and Change in Children’s Experiences in Care

Interviews with providers and observations of providers and children two or three times over the study period allowed us to examine stability and change for providers and for children. For providers, we looked at how the composition of their enrollment changes. For children, we looked at the types of care settings children are in and their experiences in these settings.

Changes in Family Child Care Homes over Time

Forty percent of the original sample of family child care providers were interviewed and/or observed more than once over the two year study period. In the sample of providers who were seen more than once, the number of months between observations of the same family child care provider varied widely, from 6 months up to 24 months (Exhibit 11-1).

Exhibit 11-1: Time Elapsed Between Observations of the Same Family Child Care Providers
Number of Months	Median # Months Elapsed	N	Frequency
6 - 12 months	9.8 months	99	37%%
13 - 17 months	15.7 months	106	40%
18 or more months	19.8 months	60	23%
Total sample with 2 or more observations	14.5 months	265

Source: Provider Interview

These repeated observations provide information about the stability of provider characteristics and behavior over time. The extent of stability in provider behavior from time 1 to time 2 is a function not only of the provider herself but also of the number and ages of children in the home. Over nearly two years of data collection, the providers who remained in the sample were quite stable in terms of the number of children in care and whether or not the children were relatives (Exhibit 11-2). Over time, the providers were open fewer hours a week. Also, over time, fewer children in the homes were subsidized and more children were paying. The average amount providers received per child from subsidies did increase, as did the amount parents paid out of pocket. Also, it appears that as the amount of time between interviews increases, the differences increase, suggesting that the characteristics of the care setting and the payment arrangements are quite stable over a year to a year and a half but then began to change.

Exhibit 11-2: Family Child Care Homes Over Time
Differences in Characteristics of Family Child Care Homes by Elapsed Time between Provider Interviewsa
		Difference	p-valuea	Difference	p-valuea	Difference	p-valuea	Difference	p-valuea
		All Providers with Multiple Interviews (n = 254)		Providers with 6 -12 Months between Interviews (n = 99)		Providers with 13 - 17 Months between Interviews (n = 106)		Providers with 18 Months+ between Interviews (n=60)
Characteristics of Home	# children in care	-.03	ns	.11	ns	-.08	ns	-.17	ns
	% related children in care	.01	ns	-.01	ns	-.00	ns	.01	ns
	% subsidized children in care	-.05	decreaseb*	-.04	ns	-.05	ns	-.07	decrease (p< .10)
	# hours open/week	-3.4	decrease*	-.04	ns	-3.9	ns	-7.0	decrease (p< .10)
Payment	% HH income from child care	.01	ns	-.00	ns	.01	ns	.00	ns
	Average fee (all children)	7.92	increase***	4.34	ns	11.02	increase***	8.39	increase (p< .10)
	Average fee (paying children)	5.00	increase**	1.43	ns	8.05	increase**	5.43	ns
	Average parent payment (all children)	.57	ns	.07	ns	.82	ns	.95	ns
	Average parent payment (paying children)	4.67	increase**	1.44	ns	8.05	increase**	5.43	increase (p< .10)
	Amount/child from subsidies	36.45	increase (p< .10)	2.87	ns	41.75	increase (p< .10)	23.69	ns
	% costs paid by subsidies	-.03	ns	-.01	ns	-0.04	ns	-.05	ns
	% costs paid by parent fees	.02	ns	-.01	ns	.03	ns	.03	ns
	% costs not from parents/ subsidies	.01	ns	.02	ns	.01	ns	.02	ns

a Significance levels from paired t-tests: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; decrease/increase without asterisks = p < .10; ns=not statistically significant
b "Decrease" signifies reduction in value of variable from early to later interview; "increase" signifies growth in value of variable from early to later interview.
Source: Provider Interview

Changes in Children’s Experiences in Care over Time

At the start of the study, all 642 children in the sample were in family child care. By the end of the study, the majority of children (73%) were still using family child care (relative or non-relative) full-time or part-time, 15% were in center-based care (child care or after-school programs), and others were not in any form of out-of-home care.

The longitudinal design of the study provided us with an opportunity to compare children’s experiences in home-based and center-based care. Two types of analyses were conducted to investigate changes in children’s care experience over time:

Children who changed to center care by Wave 3: For children who were in center care at their last observation and who were not yet in school, analyses compared the experiences of children in the two forms of care.
Children who stayed in family child care Wave 1—Wave 3: Analyses compared the care experiences in family child care of children who were in family child care at both their first and last observations (on average, 20+ months apart). Separate analyses were conducted for children who were under 3 years at the first observation and did not achieve school-age by the last observation, and children who were at least 3 years of age at the first observation.

Comparison of Experiences of Children in Family Child Care and Center Care

From our initial sample of children in family child care, we examined the experiences of a subsample of preschool children (ages 3 to 5 years), of whom some remained in family child care and some had shifted to center-based care.1 There were multiple differences between the family child care and center-based care environments these children experienced 20 months (on average) after the first wave of data collection--in the physical characteristics of the environments, caregiver behavior with the children in care, and the interactions between the caregiver and the focal child (Exhibit 11-3). For the most part, center-based care provided more stimulating environments for the children.2

Center-based settings had significantly higher ratings on the adequacy and comfort of space for the number of children; the safety of the equipment and provider practices, both indoors and outdoors; and the overall rating of the qualities of the environments. Children in center-based settings spent significantly more time on learning activities (early literacy activities, math and science activities) and on activities defined as having high value for children’s learning and development.

Providers in centers spent significantly more time engaged in activities with the children in care and were rated significantly higher on most aspects of their affective relationships with children, including their responsiveness to children and their use of positive discipline methods. Providers in the two types of settings did not differ in their use of negative or potentially harmful discipline methods. Providers in centers provided significantly more support for learning, offered children more learning activities, and provided more support for play.

Children in centers engaged in significantly more high-level interaction with peers; the providers talked significantly more with the children and had significantly more high-level contact with them (warm physical contact, positive language, joining in play with children)

Exhibit 11-3: Preschool Children's Experiences in Family Child Care Versus Center-based Care
Averages for Characteristics of Environments, Provider Behavior and Provider/Child Interactions for Preschool Children (3-5 years of age)a
Setting/Provider Characteristics		A Family Child Care	B Center-Based Care	Significant Difference by Type of Care Setting
Setting/Provider Characteristics		Mean	Mean	p-valueb
Physical Settingc	Space and comfort of setting	2.66	2.75	B > A***
	Materials and resources	2.46	2.17
	Indoor safety and health	2.76	2.86	B > A ***
	Outdoor safety and health	2.90	2.93	B > A**
	Total score on environment	2.72	2.76	B > A***
	Absence of dangerous situations	2.67	2.74	B > A***
Caregiver Behaviorc	Caring and responding	2.72	2.83	B > A**
	Positive guidance and discipline	2.69	2.80	B > A**
	Does no harm	2.93	2.97
	Responsiveness	2.77	2.86	B > A***
	Fostering social skills	2.36	2.50	B > A**
	Support for cognitive learning	2.38	2.67	B > A***
	Learning activities	2.16	2.64	B > A***
	Support for play	2.73	2.89	B > A***
	Supervision	2.86	2.95	B > A***
	Total rating	2.55	2.76	B > A***
	Summary rating	4.62	4.77	B > A**
	Arnett: positive relationship with children	3.18	3.36	B > A*
	Arnett: lack of detachment from children	2.31	2.35
Provider/Focal Child Interactionsd	High-level object play	16.4%	12.4%
	Provider contact (visual, verbal) with child	95.0	98.6	B > A***
	Provider positive physical contact with child	20.5	25.8
	High-level provider contact with child	20.7	30.5	B > A***
	Provider language with child	38.1	50.0	B > A**
	High-level provider language with child	11.3	17.1	B > A***
	Positive provider language with child	2.3	2.0
	High-level peer interactions	21.3	22.0	B > A**
	Activities with goals	50.2	48.6	B > A**
	Child prosocial behavior with peers	5.7	5.7
Activitiesd	High-level activities	44.3%	57.4%	B > A***
	Creative activities	35.7	39.5
	Learning activities	13.0	28.1	B > A***
	Provider supervises/involved with children	88.4	96.8	B > A***
	Routines	56.0	57.8
Sample size		365	63
Median age in months		42.9	48.9

a Children in the sample at the later observation point are between their 3rd and 6th birthdays and not yet enrolled in school.
b Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant
c Environment ratings and caregiver ratings range from 1 (not true ) to 3 (usually true)
d Proportions = average proportion of time (defined by average proportion of activities observed on Snapshots and Child-Focused Observation)
Source: Environment Snapshot, Child-Focused Observation, Provider Rating

Comparison of Experiences of Children in Family Child Care at Two Time Points

We compared the experiences of a subsample of children who remained in family child care over one or two years. These analyses help us understand how children’s experiences in family child care changed as they got older. We conducted separate analyses for children who were less than 3 years of age at the first observation and children who were 3 years or older at the first observation, to see how the experience of infants and toddlers changed as they became preschoolers and how the experience of preschoolers changed as they moved closer to school age or entered kindergarten.

Children who were Preschoolers at the First Observation. One hundred and seven of the children in the baseline sample were 3 years or older at the time of the first observation and were still in family child care at a later observation point. The average age of the sample at the first observation was 44 months; the children were 52 months, on average, at the later observation point.

As would be expected, the behavior of the children changed from the first to the second observation, when they were more than a year older. They engaged in more advanced object play and social play, and more often engaged in activities with clear goals (Exhibit 11-4). Further, their interaction with the family child care providers also changed over time--the providers had a higher level of contact and engagement with the older children. The activities observed in the homes also were different at the two time points. When the preschoolers were older, there were significantly more learning activities (see Exhibit 11-4).

Children who were Infants/toddlers at the First Observation. Fifty-six of the children in the baseline sample were less than 3 years at the time of the first observation in family child care and were still in family child care at a later observation point. The average age of the sample at the first observation was 29 months; at the later observation point, these children were 45 months, on average.

Exhibit 11-4: Changes in Children's Experiences in Family Child Care over two years: Preschool-Age at First Observationa
Averages for Characteristics of Environments, Provider Behavior and Provider/Child Interactions (n = 107)
Setting/Provider Characteristics		Wave 1	Later Waves (W2 or W3b)	Significant Difference
Setting/Provider Characteristics		Mean	Mean	p-valuec
Physical Settingd	Space and comfort of setting	2.66	2.75	B > A*
	Materials and resources	2.46	2.17	A > B***
	Indoor safety and health	2.76	2.86	B > A***
	Outdoor safety and health	2.90	2.93
	Total score on environment	2.67	2.76	B > A*
Caregiver Behaviord	Caring and responding	2.66	2.69
	Positive guidance and discipline	2.59	2.70	B > A*
	Does no harm	2.92	2.96
	Responsiveness	2.71	2.77
	Fostering social skills	2.39	2.43
	Support for cognitive learning	2.32	2.52
	Learning activities	2.19	2.30	B > A**
	Support for play	2.74	2.82
	Supervision	2.85	2.89
	Total rating	2.52	2.61	B > A*
	Summary rating	4.58	4.64
	Arnett: positive relationship with children	3.15	3.22
	Arnett: lack of detachment from children	2.28	2.38	B > A**
Provider/Focal Child Interactionse	High-level object play	12.1%	16.4%	B > A*
	Provider contact (visual, verbal) with child	89.6	95.0	B > A**
	Provider positive physical contact with child	17.5	20.5
	High-level provider contact with child	19.2	22.5
	Provider language with child	35.5	36.4
	High-level provider language with child	13.1	12.6
	Positive provider language with child	1.2	2.1
	High-level peer interactions	12.1	21.3	B > A***
	Activities with goals	41.6	50.1	B > A**
	Child prosocial behavior with peers	6.6	5.7
Activitiese	High-level activities	46.7%	51.7%
	Creative activities	36.9	27.7
	Learning activities	14.8	19.1	B > A*
	Provider supervises/involved with children	82.8	93.5	B > A***
	Routines	61.1	56.9
Median age in months		44.5	51.7

a Sample consists of children who were (a) 3 years or older at Wave 1; (b) not yet in school at the later observation wave, and (c) in family child care in at least one later observation point.
b If child was in a FCCH at both W2 and W3, the latest observation was used.
c Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
d Environment ratings and caregiver ratings range from 1 (not true ) to 3 (usually true)
e Proportions = average proportion of time (defined by average proportion of activities observed on Snapshots and Child-Focused Observation)
Source: Environment Snapshot, Child-Focused Observation

In general, there were fewer differences across time in this sample, possibly because the age difference in the two samples was relatively small (less than 1 year). As with the pattern for the older children, there were developmentally-based changes in children’s behavior as they grew older: there was more high-level object play and social play (Exhibit 11-5). There also was some evidence that providers played more with children as they changed from toddlers to young preschoolers.

Exhibit 11-5: Changes in Children's Experiences in Family Child Care Over Two years: Under 3 Years of Age at First Observationa
Averages for Characteristics of Environments, Provider Behavior and Provider/Child Interactions (n = 56)
Setting/Provider Characteristics		Wave 1	Later Waves (W2 or W3b)	Significant Difference
Setting/Provider Characteristics		Mean	Mean	p-valuec
Physical Settingd	Space and comfort of setting	2.62	2.65
	Materials and resources	2.41	2.03	A > B***
	Indoor safety and health	2.73	2.82	B > A*
	Outdoor safety and health	2.90	2.93
	Total score on environment	2.70	2.70
	Absence of dangers	2.71	2.76
Caregiver Behaviord	Caring and responding	2.73	2.76
	Positive guidance and discipline	2.67	2.74
	Does no harm	2.88	2.96
	Responsiveness	2.76	2.80
	Fostering social skills	2.32	2.35
	Support for cognitive learning	2.39	2.45
	Learning activities	2.19	2.22
	Support for play	2.66	2.84	B > A*
	Supervision	2.86	2.85
	Total rating	2.55	2.59
	Summary rating	2.60	4.69
	Arnett: positive relationship with children	3.2	3.3
	Arnett: lack of detachment from children	2.3	2.3
Provider/Focal Child Interactionse	High-level object play	7.9%	14.1%	B > A*
	Provider contact (visual, verbal) with child	92.3	94.4
	Provider positive physical contact with child	23.9	20.3
	High-level provider contact with child	20.8	21.5
	Provider language with child	41.0	35.1
	High-level provider language with child	11.3	11.9
	Positive provider language with child	2.5	1.2
	High-level peer interactions	8.7	15.1	B > A*
	Activities with goals	35.7	41.3
	Child prosocial behavior with peers	10.1	8.3
Activitiese	High-level activities	49.0%	43.3%
	Creative activities	40.6	34.9
	Learning activities	11.6	13.2
	Provider supervises/involved with children	84.6	92.0	B > A*
	Routines	55.6	55.0
Median age in months		29.2	44.7

a Sample consists of children who were (a) younger than 3 years of age at Wave 1; (b) not yet in school at the later observation wave, and (c) in family child care in at least one later observation point.
b If child was in a FCCH at both W2 and W3, the latest observation was used.
c Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
d Environment ratings and caregiver ratings range from 1 (not true ) to 3 (usually true)
e Proportions = average proportion of time (defined by average proportion of activities observed on Snapshots and Child-Focused Observation)

Summary of Findings

Over the course of the study, family child care homes remained quite stable in terms of the number of children cared for, and whether or not they cared for related children. Over time, the number of children receiving subsidies declined.
The settings experienced by children who shifted from family child care to center-based care had significantly higher ratings than the settings experienced by children who remained in family child care in several areas: the adequacy and comfort of space for the number of children; the safety of the equipment and provider practices, both indoors and outdoors; and the overall rating of the qualities of the environments.
Compared with children who remained in family child care, children who switched to center-based settings spent significantly more time on learning activities (early literacy activities, math and science activities) and on activities defined as having high value for children’s learning and development.
Compared with the providers of children who remained in family child care, providers for children who switched to centers spent significantly more time engaged in activities with the children in care and were rated significantly higher on most aspects of their affective relationships with children, including their responsiveness to children and their use of positive discipline methods. They provided significantly more support for learning, offered children more learning activities, and provided more support for play.
Compared with children who remained in family child care, children who switched to centers engaged in significantly more high-level interaction with peers; the providers talked significantly more with the children and had significantly more high-level contact with them (warm physical contact, positive language, joining in play with children)
For preschool children who remained in family child care, the experience changed over time in positive ways. As they grew older, children engaged in more high-level play, both by themselves and with other children. More learning activities were observed and providers demonstrated higher levels of engagement and interaction with the children as they grew older.
For infants and toddlers who remained in family child care the difference in experiences was smaller but positive: the children engaged in more high-level play and providers played more with them as they changed from toddlers to preschoolers.

1 i.e., in a child care center; after-school programs were not observed. (back)

2 It is important to note that these were centers chosen by parents who opted to move from family child care to center-based care. They tended to be centers that provided care to other low-income children, including some Head Start programs, but it they are not necessarily representative of these types of center-based programs (back)

Table of Contents | Previous | Next