Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Chapter Three: The Family Child Care Providers in the Study
This chapter describes the family child care providers who participated in the study. The provider sample includes both the original sample of providers and additional providers who were added to the sample if, at the time of the subsequent two waves of data collection, a child had switched from their original provider to a different family child care provider. In all, 673 child care providers were interviewed and observed at least once (many more than once). These represent the original sample of family child care providers recruited in 2001 (approximately 600 in the Wave 1 sample), supplemented by 73 new providers added to the sample over the life of the study.
Background Characteristics of Providers
Demographic Characteristics. About half of the providers in the sample identified themselves as Black, 28 percent as White, non-Hispanic, 17 percent Hispanic, and the remainder as Asian/Pacific Islander or of mixed ethnicity. More than half of the providers (56%) were married and living with a spouse or partner, 29 percent were divorced or separated and the remainder were widowed (5%) or never married (10%). Caregivers ranged in age from 18 to 80 years; the average age was 44. All the providers were female.
Provider Education and Training. The majority of the family child care providers (81%) had completed high school. More than a third (37%) had attended some college without receiving a four-year degree, and another 8 percent had a college degree. Providers who cared for unrelated children were three times as likely to have some education beyond high school compared with providers who cared for related children only (Exhibit 3-1).
The differences in educational background between related and unrelated providers are similar to those found in other studies. Galinsky et al. (1994) reported that 46 percent of relative providers in their sample had not completed high school, compared with 33 percent of unregulated non-relative providers and 6 percent of licensed providers.1 Other researchers have reported similar differences in formal education across different types of family child care providers (e.g., Siegel and Loman, 1991; Fuller et al., 2000). The Growing Up in Poverty Project found that just over one-quarter of kith and kin providers had some post-high school formal education, compared with 51 percent of licensed family child care providers (Fuller et al. 2000).
| All/Some Children Related to Provider % | No Children Related to Provider % | All Family Child Care Homes % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| < 9th grade | 7.6 | 1.1 | 7.3 |
| 8-11th grade—no degree | 31.0 | 3.7 | 11.5 |
| High school degree/GED | 39.4 | 34.6 | 36.8 |
| Some college/AA degree | 17.6 | 44.5 | 38.1 |
| College degree (BA or higher) | 4.5 | 16.1 | 8.3 |
| Sample size | 182 | 491 | 673 |
| Source: Provider Interview |
The majority of providers (90%) had taken one or more courses in child care or early childhood education. Almost all of the providers who cared for unrelated children had taken such courses compared with half of those who provided care only for related children (Exhibit 3-2). Across all providers, the most common type of training was a child care course or workshop (52%), followed by a child development course (38%) and teacher training (32%).
Provider Experience in Family Child Care. Caregivers in this sample had been providing family child care for seven and a half years, on average. Less than 5 percent of providers had been in family child care for one year or less, and another 3 percent for less than three years, at the time of the first interview. One quarter of the providers had been providing family child care for more than ten years. There was only a small difference in experience between providers who were caring for any related children and providers who were not – 8.7 years versus 6.6 years. This sample of providers may be more stable than a representative sample of licensed providers, in which as many as one-third might be expected to have less than a year’s experience.2
| Some/All Children Related to Provider % | No Children Related to Provider % | All Family Child Care Homes % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child care courses/ workshops | 17.4 | 59.2 | 50.0 |
| Child development courses/traininga | 11.4 | 40.0 | 33.7 |
| Teacher training | 0.0 | 3.0 | 2.3 |
| Health-related training/ courses | 9.1 | 15.4 | 14.0 |
| Social services/social work training | 2.3 | 9.8 | 6.2 |
| Other related topics | 10.6 | 40.2 | 33.7 |
| Any training | 43.9 | 88.7 | 78.6 |
| Sample size | 182 | 491 | 673 |
| a Including Child Development Associate (CDA) training Source: Provider Interview |
Licensing, Monitoring, and Professional Memberships. There are a number of ways in which family child care providers may be involved with outside agencies or organizations concerned with the quality of care. This includes formal licensure, participation in professional child care organizations, and contact with other providers.
Whether or not a family child care home needs to be licensed or is exempt from licensing requirements is defined differently in the five states. The majority of providers in the sample (73%) were licensed. The percentage of providers who were licensed varied widely by type of home (Exhibit 3-3). Nearly all providers who cared for unrelated children only were licensed (90%), compared with 10 percent of those who cared for related children.
It is important to recognize that legally license-exempt homes that receive a child care subsidy for one or more children may also be subject to some regulation and monitoring by the agency that administers the subsidy. Among the homes that were not licensed, another 20 percent cared for subsidized children and therefore may have been subject to some requirements. Only 7 percent of providers were neither licensed nor cared for any subsidized children. (Exhibit 3.3)
Nearly one-quarter of the providers belonged to a family child care organization and 13 percent of providers were sponsored by an agency or other organization. All of the sponsored providers participated in the Child and Adult Care Feeding Program, a Federal program that provides subsidies and nutrition guidelines for meals served in child care settings. In addition, about half of the providers reported meeting with other family child care providers for training or support.
In general, providers who cared for related children were less likely to be linked to monitoring agencies, professional groups or more informal groups of family child care providers. For example, while a third of the providers who cared only for unrelated children were part of a family child care organization, this was true for less than 10 percent of providers who cared for related children (Exhibit 3-3). Also, over 60 percent of providers with only unrelated children met occasionally with other providers, versus 30 percent of providers who cared only for related children (Exhibit 3-3).
| Some/All Children Related to Provider % | No Children Related to Provider % | All Family Child Care Homes % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Licensing Status and Monitoring | Licensed by state | 23.8 | 90.0 | 69.7 |
| Not licensed, receive subsidies | 50.9 | 3.8 | 16.0 | |
| Not licensed, no subsidies | 25.3 | 6.2 | 14.3 | |
| Memberships | Family child care organizationa | 2.9 | 32.3 | 24.7 |
| Sponsored groupb | 27.4 | 18.0 | 20.5 | |
| Child and Adult Care Food Program | 3.4 | 16.0 | 12.8 | |
| Meet with other providersc | 45.1 | 73.0 | 65.3 | |
| Sample size | 182 | 491 | 673 | |
| a Examples of organizations include the Family Day Care Professional Association or the National Association for the Education of Young Children b Sponsoring groups include churches, Head Start, private charities, and other agencies that organize family child care programs. c For training or support. Source: Provider Interview |
Household Income. The average annual household income of providers was $35,843; median income was $27,000 (Exhibit 3-4). Providers who cared only for children unrelated to them had much higher average household incomes compared with providers who cared for some or all related children ($41.464 vs. $19,898). The proportion of the provider’s income that came from childcare was, on average, 53 percent. For providers caring only for unrelated children, this percentage was 60%; for providers with related children, the percentage was far lower—28%. Relative caregivers were much less likely to receive cash payments from parents, or they were paid token amounts for the care provided.
The average fee charged by these providers, across all ages of children, was $85 per week.
| Some/All Children Related to Provider | No Children Related to Provider | All Family Child Care Providers | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Annual household income | Mean income | $19,898 | $41,464 | $36,843 |
| Median income | $16,000 | $38,000 | $26,000 | |
| Income from child care as % of household income | Mean proportion of HH income | 27.6% | 59.8% | 53.2% |
| Median proportion of HH income | 14.0% | 58.0% | 50.0% | |
| Sample size | 182 | 491 | 673 | |
| Source: Provider Interview |
Motivation for Being a Provider
When providers were asked why they started to provide child care in the first place, the reasons given were different for relative care providers and other providers (Exhibit 3-5). Those who cared for related children cited their desire to help relatives or friends as the main reason for initially going into family child care. For providers caring for unrelated children, the reason given most frequently was to be able to have a job while staying at home with their own children. (This is borne out by the higher proportion of homes with unrelated children where the provider’s own child was also present.) The reasons for becoming child care providers given by caregivers in our sample paralleled those given by caregivers in other studies. In other studies, relative providers were most often providing care to help out the child’s parents (Galinsky et al., 1994; Kontos et al., 1995; Maleske-Samu, 1996; Porter, 1998), while others provided child care in order to stay home with their young children (Erheart and Leavitt, 1989; Galinsky et al., 1994).
Providers’ reasons for continuing to provide care also varied by type of care (Exhibit 3-6). For providers of relative care, the desire to help relatives and friends continued to be the main motivation. For providers who cared for at least some unrelated children, the main reason for continuing to provide care was their enjoyment of working with children. As other studies have found (e.g., Zinsser, 1991; Galinsky et al., 1994), for unrelated providers who stay in the field, child care seems to become a career choice.
| Some/All Children Related to Provider % | No Children Related to Provider % | All Family Child Care Providers % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stay home with own children | 34.0 | 51.8 | 47.4 |
| Teach children what they need | 28.8 | 33.6 | 32.4 |
| Help young parents | 25.3 | 28.4 | 27.6 |
| Enjoyment of children | 5.2 | 8.2 | 7.4 |
| Help relatives/friends | 15.7 | 0.1 | 4.5 |
| Fill need for good child care | 8.6 | 8.4 | 8.5 |
| Make money | 5.2 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Have own business | 3.3 | 17.2 | 13.8 |
| Had taught in child care center/experienced in child care | 2.5 | 2.9 | 2.7 |
| Playmates for own children | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| Less stress, more independence than other jobs | 16.3 | 49.0 | 40.9 |
| Professional career with growth | 2.0 | 12.0 | 9.6 |
| Religious calling | 1.5 | 0.3 | 1.1 |
| Sample size | 153 | 465 | 618 |
| Source: Provider Interview |
| Main Reason | Some/All Children Related to Provider % | No Children Related to Provider % | All Family Child Care Providers % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enjoyment of children | 28.3 | 48.7 | 33.2 |
| Stay home with own children | 13.4 | 22.7 | 19.3 |
| Help relatives/friends | 37.7 | 5.4 | 19.1 |
| Fill need for good child care | 8.6 | 11.4 | 11.0 |
| Make money | 4.2 | 7.3 | 7.0 |
| Have own business | 4.8 | 3.7 | 4.4 |
| Teach children what they need | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Other reasonsa | 5.0 | 0.7 | 3.4 |
| Sample size | 181 | 490 | 671 |
| a Include giving children structure and routine, creating fun learning environment. Source: Provider Interview |
Stresses of Being a Provider
Providers were asked about various kinds of stresses related to their jobs (Exhibit 3-7). One category of stress concerns the ways in which being a family child care provider interferes with their own family life. These include ways in which their job affects their own mental health and energy, and conflicts between their family and their job responsibilities that create stress. When asked about stress in the preceding three-month period, most providers did not report mental health issues. The most commonly-cited sources of stress, identified by nearly one-third of providers, were insufficient time for themselves and inability to get everything done that they wanted to. Almost one-quarter of providers reported feeling “used up” at the end of the day. Other feelings of stress (e.g., feeling burned out by work, lacking energy) were identified by less than 15 percent of providers. Providers in different types of homes reported similar sources of stress, but providers who cared for related children appear to have a lower level of stress.
In addition, many providers reported that they experienced conflicts between their responsibilities to their families and to the children they care for (Exhibit 3-7). More than 63 percent of providers reported stress related to having to do their own housework or errands while caring for children. Thirty-two percent of providers reported problems with parents picking up their children late, and one quarter of providers reported problems with parents leaving sick children with symptoms such as a rash or fever. Further, providers reported resentment from their own family, including resentment from their own children of the children in care (reported by 35% of providers) and resentment among other family members about the disruption in household activities caused by child care in the home (25%). Work/family conflicts were reported far more frequently by providers who cared only for unrelated children compared with providers caring for related children.
Providers were also asked about areas of their lives aside from their child care responsibilities that were causing them stress. Family finances were the most frequently-cited aspect of providers’ lives that created worry or stress. Nearly half of all providers said that personal or family finances cause “some” or “a lot” of stress. Three other areas of stress reported by at least a third of providers were: caring for their own children as well as the children in the child care home, the providers’ own health; and relationships in their own families.
| Some/All Children Related to Provider % | No Children Related to Provider % | All Family Child Care Providers % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Frequent Feelings of Stress in Last 3 Monthsa, b
|
Insufficient time for self | 24.0 | 36.8 | 33.5 |
| Unable to get everything done | 19.4 | 34.5 | 30.6 | |
| Felt used up at end of day | 12.6 | 26.4 | 22.8 | |
| Insufficient time for family | 8.0 | 20.6 | 17.3 | |
| Felt tired when facing work day | 16.0 | 17.2 | 16.9 | |
| Felt burned out by work | 7.4 | 12.6 | 11.2 | |
| Lack of energy to do things | 6.7 | 13.6 | 9.6 | |
| Not been in a good mood | 8.0 | 11.2 | 10.4 | |
| Felt nervous or stressed | 6.3 | 6.8 | 6.7 | |
| Work/Family Conflicts | Need to do housework while working with the children | 65.7 | 63.0 | 63.7 |
| Own children resent children in care | 20.3 | 39.6 | 34.5 | |
| Parents picking up late | 14.4 | 37.3 | 31.5 | |
| Parents who bring sick children | 5.4 | 32.7 | 25.8 | |
| Other family members resent disruption | 13.0 | 29.9 | 25.4 | |
| Other conflicts | 0.6 | 7.3 | 5.6 | |
| Areas of Life Creating Some/ A Lot of Stressc, d | Personal or family finances | 46.8 | 50.5 | 49.8 |
| Own health | 35.9 | 34.8 | 34.5 | |
| Job providing care for children | 24.0 | 39.7 | 35.6 | |
| Family relationships | 27.4 | 27.8 | 32.9 | |
| Health of family members | 26.9 | 29.8 | 29.0 | |
| Care of elderly family member or member w/ disability | 20.5 | 15.0 | 16.4 | |
| Sample size | 175 | 498 | 673 | |
| a Items scored on 5 point scale, with 1=very often, 2=often, 3=sometimes, 4=rarely, 5=never. b Percent who responded “Often” or “Very Often” on item. c Items scored on 4-point scale, with 1=no stress, 2=hardly any stress, 3=some stress, 4= a lot of stress. d Percent who responded “Some stress” or “A lot of stress” on item. Source: Provider Interview |
Advantages and Disadvantages of Family Child Care
Providers were asked about what they saw as the advantages and disadvantages of family child care, both for the families of the children in their care and for themselves as providers.
Advantages of Family Child Care for Families
The two advantages of family child care most commonly cited pertain to the child’s experiences (Exhibit 3-8). More than half of the providers believed that family child care is advantageous because children are cared for in a setting that is more like a home and because children in family child care receive more individual attention, presumably because of the smaller number of children in care. Other advantages cited for the child were that he or she can be with siblings (26%) or with children of different ages (16%).
| All/Some Children Related to Provider % | No Children Related to Provider % | All Family Child Care Providers % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parent Needs | Flexibility of hours/match Fits parent’s schedule | 23.8 | 42.9 | 38.1 |
| Siblings can be in same place | 24.3 | 26.1 | 25.7 | |
| Lower cost | 10.1 | 22.3 | 19.2 | |
| Care is close to child’s home | 4.8 | 12.9 | 9.8 | |
| Children can stay in care if ill | 1.1 | 2.3 | 2.0 | |
| Any parent need (above) | 41.7 | 60.2 | 55.4 | |
| Parent/Provider Relationship | Provider is like family member | 35.4 | 33.3 | 33.8 |
| Can help parent and child | 12.5 | 22.5 | 19.9 | |
| Provider shares parent values | 11.9 | 10.6 | 11.0 | |
| Parents know, trust provider | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.5 | |
| Any aspect of parent/provider relationship (above) | 47.4 | 41.0 | 42.6 | |
| Child Care Environment | Care is like a home | 58.1 | 44.6 | 54.6 |
| More individual attention | 44.1 | 59.9 | 55.0 | |
| Children of mixed ages | 10.6 | 17.9 | 15.7 | |
| Safe, healthy environment | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.3 | |
| Consistent care with 1 provider | 2.4 | 4.9 | 4.3 | |
| Any aspect of care environment | 70.3 | 84.8 | 81.0 | |
| Sample size | 182 | 491 | 673 | |
| a Percentages do not add up to 100% because multiple responses were allowed. Source: Provider Interview |
The major advantage for parents (cited by 38% of providers) is the flexibility of hours for family child care, and therefore the ability of family child care to meet the needs of parents’ work schedules. Because family child care is available at a wider range of times than center care and because providers are flexible about changing or irregular schedules, they are able to provide care at hours that match parents’ schedules. Other advantages for parents were: the lower cost of family child care, compared with center care (19%); and the fact that family child care can be found close to the parent’s home (10%). Qualities of the parent/provider relationship were also cited as advantages of family child care. Shared values and being like a family member were advantages cited by 11 percent and 34 percent of providers, respectively.
Providers in different types of family child care homes perceived different advantages of family child care. Providers who cared for related children were less likely to identify individual attention for children as an important advantage (44% versus more than 60% among other providers). They were also less likely to mention flexibility of hours as an advantage for parents (24% versus more than 43% for other providers). Indeed, these providers came up with fewer advantages overall, suggesting that this was not a question to which they had given much thought, compared with providers caring for unrelated children.
Personal Advantages of Being a Family Child Care Provider
Providers were asked about the personal advantages to them of being family child care providers. Overall, the most commonly-cited personal advantages were being able to stay at home with their own children3 and working on their own (Exhibit 3-9). For providers who cared for related children, being able to stay home with their own children and helping others were the most important advantages of being a family child care provider. For providers who cared for unrelated children, characteristics of the job itself were important advantages, including working for oneself while still being a teacher and not having to worry about standard job requirements such as business attire. Helping young parents was also stated as an advantage by more than a quarter of the providers caring for unrelated children.
| All/Some Children Related to Provider % | No Children Related to Provider % | All Family Child Care Providers % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Job Characteristics | Feel independent | 16.3 | 49.0 | 40.9 |
| No business attire or traffic | 17.3 | 25.4 | 23.2 | |
| Being a teacher but working for self | 3.3 | 17.2 | 13.8 | |
| Feel like professional | 2.0 | 12.0 | 9.6 | |
| Like working from home | 1.9 | 3.6 | 3.1 | |
| Need/like the money | 5.2 | 5.0 | 5.0 | |
| Any job characteristic (above) | 22.3 | 55.8 | 47.2 | |
| Helping Others | Can teach children things they need | 28.8 | 33.6 | 32.4 |
| Can help young parents | 25.3 | 28.4 | 27.6 | |
| Enjoy working with children | 5.2 | 8.2 | 7.4 | |
| Any aspect of helping others (above) | 39.4 | 48.1 | 45.9 | |
| Benefits to Own Family | Can stay at home with own children | 29.0 | 51.8 | 44.2 |
| Like caring for family members | 15.7 | 0.9 | 4.5 | |
| Any benefit to own family (above) | 41.7 | 48.5 | 46.8 | |
| Sample size | 182 | 491 | 673 | |
| a Percentages do not add up to 100% because multiple responses were allowed. Source: Provider Interview |
Disadvantages of Being a Family Child Care Provider
Nearly two-thirds of the providers cited at least one personal disadvantage to the family child care provider role, although providers caring for unrelated children were much more likely to perceive any disadvantages, compared with providers caring for related children--75 percent versus 32 percent (Exhibit 3-10). The most commonly identified disadvantages were personal stresses. Forty-two percent of caregivers mentioned some personal stress, although less than half as many of the providers caring for related children mentioned any personal disadvantages. The stresses mentioned most often were insufficient personal time (22%) and wear and tear on their home (25%). Problems with parents were the second most common source of disadvantages for family child care providers (18 percent), followed closely by professional disadvantages (16 percent). For both categories of disadvantages, providers caring for unrelated children cited more disadvantages overall.
| All/Some Children Related to Provider % | No Children Related to Provider % | All Family Child Care Providers % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personal Life | Wear and tear on home | 3.1 | 28.6 | 22.0 |
| Not enough personal time | 19.9 | 27.1 | 25.2 | |
| Not enough time for own children | 0.0 | 8.5 | 6.3 | |
| Always at home/isolated | 0.0 | 2.8 | 2.1 | |
| Any aspect of personal lifeb | 22.9 | 49.3 | 42.5 | |
| Problems with Parents | Parents pick up children late | 3.1 | 11.4 | 9.1 |
| Parents change schedules without notice | 0.6 | 8.7 | 6.6 | |
| Parents don’t respect provider | 0.6 | 3.7 | 2.9 | |
| Parents don’t pay | 1.9 | 8.1 | 6.5 | |
| Parents pay late | 0.6 | 3.8 | 3.0 | |
| Transportation problems for kids | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| Any problem with parents | 5.7 | 22.4 | 18.1 | |
| Professional Life | Not paid enough | 4.4 | 12.2 | 10.2 |
| Not seen as a professional | 0.0 | 9.0 | 6.6 | |
| Any aspect of professional lifec | 5.7 | 19.6 | 16.0 | |
| Difficulties of Job | Hard to treat children the same | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Stress of caring for children | 3.1 | 4.8 | 4.4 | |
| Licensing standards are too high | 0.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | |
| Any difficulty of jobd | 3.6 | 5.1 | 4.9 | |
| One or more disadvantages cited | 32.3 | 74.9 | 63.8 | |
| Sample size | 182 | 391 | 673 | |
| a Percentages do not add up to 100% because multiple responses were allowed. b Items listed above plus others: exposed to illness, hard on spouse, children in care are bad influence on own children. c Items listed above plus others: inconsistent pay, no professional support or networking. d Items listed above plus others: not licensed to care for special needs children. Source: Provider Interview |
Summary of Findings
- The average age of the family child care providers was 44, and more than half were married and living with a spouse.
- Most providers had completed high school and more than one-third had some college experience. Only 8 percent had a college degree. Most had taken one or more courses or workshops in child care or early childhood education; this kind of training was much less common among providers who cared only for related children.
- On average, income from child care constituted more than half of the family income; for those who cared for related children the proportion was far lower – 28%.
- The ability to work at home while raising young children motivated many providers; however, for those who cared for relatives’ children, the desire to help out a family member was the primary reason for going into child care.
- Almost two-thirds of providers reported stress as a result of conflicting demands of family and the children for whom they were providing care. A similar proportion reported resentment of the children in care by other family members. These kinds of stresses and conflicts were less frequent among those providers who cared for related children only.
- For children, providers perceived family child care as offering individual attention in a place that looks like home. For parents, the flexible hours offered by family child care were seen as the major advantage.
1 Galinsky’s sample, like that of all the researchers who have studied family child care, is a sample of convenience, rather than a representative sample. (back)
2 In our use of licensing lists for studies of the Child and Adult Care Feeding Program (CACFP), we found that about one-third of providers stop providing care each year and are replaced by new ones. (back)
3 In an earlier study that examined the advantages and disadvantages of child care from the providers’ perspective, family child care providers reported that they enjoyed the close relationships with parents and children, and the ability to earn some money while being at home with their own children. (back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |