Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Chapter Three: Description of the Parent and Provider Samples
This chapter describes the parents and providers that form the analytic sample for this interim report. They constitute more than 90 percent of the study sample of parents and providers.3 The parents and providers described in this report were all recruited and interviewed by Summer 2001. To be eligible to participate in the study, a parent had to be working or in school for 20 hours or more a week, to have at least one child between the ages of one and nine in family child care or cared by a relative in the relative’s home, and have an annual income that made the child eligible for a child care subsidy, under the rules of the state in which the child lived. There were no eligibility requirements for the providers who cared for the focus child.
Characteristics of Families and Focus Children
Ethnicity. There are a total of 618 families in this analytic sample; more than half of them (53%) are Black Non-Hispanic, 23 percent are White Non-Hispanic, 17 percent are Hispanic, and the remaining 7 percent are Asian, Pacific Islander or multi-racial.4 All but 6 percent of the mothers were born in the United States and in all but a handful of the families (2%) English is the primary language used in the home.
Household Composition. Seventy-nine percent of the families were headed by a single parent. In 60 percent, there was a single mother, with no other adult present; in 2 percent there was a single father with no other adults. In 23 percent of homes, there was a spouse or partner present. The other 17 percent of homes had a mother with no spouse present, but with one or more adults living in the home. The number of adults in the household varied across different ethnic groups; just over one-third (37%) of the Hispanic households contained a single mother and no other adults, compared with three-quarters (76%) of the Black households (Exhibit 3-1).
One quarter (25%) of the families had only one child under age 18 in the home; 37 percent had two children and the remaining 38 percent had three or more children (Exhibit 3-2). Just under half (45%) of the households contained three or fewer people; of the remaining 55 percent, about half (27%) contained four persons and the remainder (28%) had five or more persons. The White households were smaller than those of other ethnic groups; only 16 percent of the White households contained five or more persons, compared with 39 percent of the Hispanic households and 31 percent of the Black households (Exhibit 3-3).
| White/ Non-Hispanic % |
Black/ Non-Hispanic % |
Hispanic % |
Other % |
All Families % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single parent, no other adult | 61 | 76 | 37 | 37 | 62 |
| Mother and spouse/ partner | 23 | 9 | 42 | 38 | 21 |
| Mother, no partner, other adult(s) | 16 | 15 | 21 | 25 | 17 |
| Sample size | 145 | 325 | 107 | 44 | 618 |
| Source: Parent Interview |
| White/ Non-Hispanic % |
Black/ Non-Hispanic % |
Hispanic % |
Other % |
All Families % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 child | 38 | 16 | 32 | 38 | 25 |
| 2 children | 40 | 38 | 33 | 25 | 37 |
| 3 or more children | 22 | 46 | 35 | 37 | 38 |
| Sample size | 145 | 325 | 107 | 41 | 618 |
| Source: Parent Interview |
| White/ Non-Hispanic % |
Black/ Non-Hispanic % |
Hispanic % |
Other % |
All Families % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 members | 25 | 12 | 17 | 12 | 17 |
| 3 members | 32 | 29 | 21 | 25 | 28 |
| 4 members | 27 | 28 | 23 | 38 | 27 |
| 5 or more members | 16 | 31 | 39 | 25 | 28 |
| Sample size | 145 | 325 | 107 | 41 | 618 |
| Source: Parent Interview |
Mother’s Education. Almost half of the mothers in the sample had some education beyond high school. Of these, 6 percent had college degrees another 6 percent had an associate degree, and more than one-third (35%) had a year or more of college. Sixteen percent had not completed high school; the remainder had a high school diploma (28%) or a GED (10%).
Household Income. Twenty percent of the families had an annual household income of less than $10,000, almost half (46%) had annual incomes between $10,000 and $20,000, and almost one-quarter (22%) had annual incomes between $20,000 and $30,000. Less than 10 percent had incomes over $30,000. When household size was considered, 43 percent of all the families had incomes below the Federal poverty level (FPL).
Age of the Focus Child.As we noted earlier, although we obtained some information about the child care arrangements of all the children in the family under the age of 13, we selected one child in the family as the focus child. Detailed data were collected on the focus child’s child care history and current child care schedule. In addition, we used this child as the reference child for questions addressed to the parent about her reasons for selecting the provider, among other topics. Finally, the focus child was the object of an observation measure that looked closely at the experience and functioning of an individual child in the provider’s home.
Of the 618 focus children, 31 percent were between 12 and 36 months of age at the time of the first interview; a larger proportion (39%) were school-age – between the ages of five and nine. The remaining 30 percent were preschoolers (37 – 60 months) at the time of the first interview with the parent.
Child’s Relationship to Provider. More than one-third (36%) of focus children were related to the adult who provided out-of-home care for them while the mother worked or attended classes. White families in our sample were less likely than families in other ethnic groups to use relative care (Exhibit 3-4). A higher proportion (45%) of school-age children were cared for by relatives, compared with 26 percent of children under three years and 35 percent of preschoolers (3 to 5 years).
| White/ Non-Hispanic % |
Black/ Non-Hispanic % |
Hispanic % |
Other % |
All Families % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-relative care | 87 | 54 | 61 | 68 | 64 |
| Relative care | 13 | 46 | 39 | 32 | 36 |
| Sample size | 145 | 325 | 107 | 41 | 618 |
| Source: Parent Interview |
Subsidy Status. At the time of the first interview, 78% of the families in the study were receiving a child care subsidy. In the study sample, Black families were most likely and Hispanic families least likely to be receiving a subsidy (89% vs. 50%; Exhibit 3-5). Two-thirds (66%) of the subsidized families used care provided by a non-relative for the focus child. More than two-thirds of the children who received subsidies lived in single-parent households with no other adult present. Families with incomes below 100 percent FPL were more likely to receive a subsidy (86% vs. 72%).
| White/ Non-Hispanic % |
Black/ Non-Hispanic % |
Hispanic % |
Other % |
All Families % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Receives child care subsidy | 74 | 89 | 50 | 78 | 78 |
| Sample size | 145 | 325 | 107 | 41 | 618 |
| Source: Parent Interview |
Characteristics of Providers
There are 533 child care providers in the analytic sample for this report. The discrepancy in the numbers of parents and providers reflects the fact that interviews and observations in the provider’s home often lag behind the parent interview because they are more difficult to schedule. Visits must be rescheduled if the focus child is absent for any reason, or if the provider is ill or unable, for other reasons, to accommodate a visit.
Demographic Characteristics of Providers. To a large extent, the ethnicity of the providers reflects the ethnicity of the families for whom they provided care; 55 percent are Black, 32 percent are White, 8 percent are Hispanic and the remainder are Asian/Pacific Islander or of mixed ethnicity. More than half (55%) were married and living with a spouse or partner, 27 percent were divorced or separated and the remainder were widowed (5%) or never married (13%). Caregivers ranged in age from 18 to 79 years; the average age was 44 at the time of the interview.
Provider Education and Training. The majority of the family child care providers (78%) completed high school. More than a third (38%) attended some college without receiving a four-year degree, and another 5 percent had a college degree. Providers who cared for unrelated children were almost three times as likely to have some education beyond high school as those who cared for related children only (Exhibit 3-6).
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.5 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 Children Related to Provider % |
Some Children Related to Provider % |
No Children Related to Provider % |
All Family Child Care Homes % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 9th grade | 8.9 | 3.2 | 0.8 | 3.4 |
| 8-11th grade—no degree | 29.0 | 12.7 | 4.9 | 12.9 |
| High school degree/GED | 39.5 | 36.7 | 34.6 | 36.3 |
| Some college/AA degree | 17.7 | 43.0 | 44.3 | 37.8 |
| College degree (BA or higher) | 4.8 | 4.4 | 15.5 | 9.6 |
| Sample size | 124 | 158 | 246 | 529 |
| Source: Parent Interview |
The majority of providers (82%) had taken one or more courses in child care or early childhood education. Across all providers, the most common type of training was a child care course or workshop (48%), followed by a child development course (39%) and teacher training (34%). Almost all of the providers who cared for unrelated children had taken such courses compared with less than half of those who provided care only for related children (Exhibit 3-7).
Provider Experience in Family Child Care. Caregivers in this sample had been providing family child care for more than seven years, on average. Only 5 percent of providers had been in family child care for one year or less, and another 2 percent for less than three years. One quarter of the providers had been providing family child care for more than ten years. There was little difference in experience between providers who were caring for only related children and other providers – 8 years versus 7 years. This sample of providers is probably 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.6
| All Children Related to Provider % |
Some Children Related to Provider % |
No Children Related to Provider % |
All Family Child Care Homes % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child care courses/ workshops | 15.2 | 57.6 | 59.0 | 48.3 |
| Child development courses/traininga | 10.4 | 43.7 | 50.6 | 39.1 |
| Teacher training | 10.4 | 41.0 | 42.4 | 34.2 |
| Health-related training/ courses | 8.0 | 15.8 | 20.1 | 15.9 |
| Social services/social work training | 1.6 | 8.2 | 11.2 | 8.1 |
| Other related topics | 11.2 | 6.3 | 11.6 | 9.9 |
| Any training | 48.0 | 92.8 | 93.0 | 99.3 |
| Sample size | 125 | 158 | 249 | 532 |
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 isexempt from licensing requirements is defined differently in the five states. The majority of providers in the sample (73%) were state-licensed family child care providers. The percentage of providers who were licensed varied widely by type of home (Exhibit 3-8). Nearly all providers who cared for unrelated children were licensed, compared with fewer than 15 percent of those who cared for related children only.
We need 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. Even among the homes that were not licensed, another 19 percent that cared for subsidized children may have been subject to some requirements. Only 7 percent of providers were neither licensed nor cared for any subsidized children. (Exhibit 3.8)
A quarter of all the providers belonged to a family child care organization. In general, providers who cared only for related children were less closely tied in with monitoring agencies, professional groups or more informal groups of family child care providers. Fifteen percent of providers were sponsored by an agency or other organization, and all of these 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, over half of the providers met with other family child care providers for training or support. For all these types of affiliations, the proportion of providers who belonged was much larger for providers who cared for some or all unrelated children. While a third of these providers were part of a family child care organization, this was true for only 3 percent of providers who cared for related children only (Exhibit 3-8). Also, over 60 percent of providers with some or no unrelated children met occasionally with other providers, versus 28 percent of providers who cared only for related children (Exhibit 3-8).
| All Children Related to Provider % |
Some Children Related to Provider % |
No Children Related to Provider % |
All Family Child Care Homes % |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Licensing Status and Monitoring | Licensed by state | 13.6 | 92.7 | 90.5 | 73.4 |
| Not licensed, receive subsidies | 68.0 | 2.0 | 7.6 | 19.2 | |
| Not licensed, no subsidies | 18.4 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 7.4 | |
| Memberships | Family child care organization a | 3.2 | 28.0 | 35.1 | 25.5 |
| Sponsored group b | 18.4 | 17.7 | 12.7 | 15.6 | |
| Child and Adult Care Food Program | 18.4 | 17.7 | 12.7 | 15.6 | |
| Meet with other providers c | 27.8 | 61.0 | 73.2 | 56.9 | |
| Sample size | 125 | 158 | 247 | 530 | |
|
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 $36,570; median income was $28,500. Providers who cared only for children unrelated to them had higher household incomes than providers in the other two groups ($44,734 vs. $35,931 for providers with a mix of related and unrelated children and $20,375 for providers who cared only for relatives’ children).
Characteristics of the Homes
Number of Children. The number of children enrolled in the family child care homes ranged from a single child to 20 children,7 with an average of just over six children across all homes. The number of children actually present in the home at any one time ranged from a single child to thirteen children, with an average of three enrolled children. Homes in which all children were related to the caregiver tended to be smaller, with an average of three children and a range of from one to ten children (Exhibit 3-9). Compared with these, homes in which only some or none of the children were related to the caregiver were more than twice as large, on average. On average, these homes provided care for seven to eight children; the largest homes had an enrollment of twenty children.
| All Children Related to Provider | Some Children Related to Provider | No Children Related to Provider | All Family Child Care Homes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Range | Mean | Range | Mean | Range | Mean | Range | |
| Number of children | 2.8 | 1-11 | 7.4 | 1-20 | 7.7 | 1-20 | 6.3 | 1-20 |
| Sample size | 147 | 262 | 144 | 553 | ||||
| Source: Family Child Care Home Home Observation Roster |
Ages of Children. Almost half (45%) of the homes provided care for children in all age groups--infants, toddlers, preschool children and school-age children (Exhibit 3-10). Conversely, only a fifth of homes provided care for a single age group. The majority of homes (80%) provided care for infants but, in most homes, infants were cared for with older children. Homes in which all children were related to the provider were more likely to serve a single age group and were more likely to have at least one infant in care (Exhibit 3-10).
| All Related Children % | Some Related Children % | No Related Children % | All Homes % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single Age Group | All infants/toddlers | 13.6 | 6.0 | 4.5 | 7.3 |
| All preschoolers | 9.7 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 2.8 | |
| All school-age children | 24.5 | 2.7 | 4.5 | 9.4 | |
| Mixed Ages | Infants/toddlers and preschoolers | 14.2 | 16.7 | 16.4 | 15.9 |
| Infants/toddlers and school-age | 20.0 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 12.2 | |
| Preschoolers and school-age | 8.4 | 4.7 | 8.6 | 7.5 | |
| All age groups a | 9.7 | 60.7 | 56.5 | 45.0 | |
| Sample size | 147 | 262 | 144 | 553 | |
a Includes homes with at least one infant or toddler, one prescribed and one school-age child. Source: Family Child Care Home Observation Roster. |
Presence of Subsidized Children. Seventy-one percent of the children in the family child care homes were subsidized, and most of the homes in the sample (89%) had at least one child enrolled who received a subsidy. The proportion of subsidized children varied markedly by type of home. In homes in which all children were related to the provider, 90 percent of children were subsidized, compared with 75 percent in homes with some related children and 60 percent in homes with no related children (Exhibit 3-11).
| All Children Related to Provider % | Some Children Related to Provider % | No Children Related to Provider % | All Family Child Care Homes % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subsidized children | 90.1 | 74.7 | 59.7 | 70.8 |
| Sample size | 125 | 158 | 249 | 532 |
| Source: Provider Interview |
Presence of Related Children. Two kinds of related children can be found in a family child care home. First are related children who do not live with the provider; these are most often grandchildren or (less frequently) nieces/nephews for whom she is providing child care. A majority (54%) of homes in this sample had at least one of these children in care. (Exhibit 3.12). Second, are the providers’ own children who are living in their households at the same time that they care for other children. In nearly one-third of family child care homes (31%), the provider took care of her own children during at least some of the hours she cared for other children.8 In 20 percent of homes, the provider had more than one of her own children present during the hours of care. Providers who cared for their own young children were less likely to care for other related children and more likely to care for unrelated children.
| Types of Related Children in Care % | |
|---|---|
| Provider’s own children present, no relatives’ children | 20.2 |
| Relative’s child(ren) present, no provider’s children | 42.4 |
| Provider’s own and relative’s child(ren) present | 10.8 |
| Only unrelated children present | 26.5 |
| Sample size | 553 |
| Source: Family Child Care Home Observation, Provide Interview |
Adults in the Family Child Care Homes. In the majority of homes, the provider was the only adult caregiver in the home. In 22 percent of homes, one or more assistants were present (Exhibit 3-13). In homes with an assistant, the assistant was present most of the day. In addition to assistants, adult family members of the provider were also present. Adult family members were observed in nearly 30 percent of the homes during day-time hours.
The type of adult present in the home was related to the type of home and the ages of children in the home. In relative care, formal assistants were less common, possibly because these homes tended to be smaller (Exhibit 3-13). Conversely, members of the provider’s family were more likely to be present.
| All Children Related to Provider % | Some Children Related to Provider % | No Children Related to Provider % | All Family Child Care Homes % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assistant(s) | 4.8 | 26.4 | 29.4 | 22.1 |
| Adult member(s) of provider’s familya | 48.8 | 27.2 | 24.6 | 29.8 |
| Unrelated adult(s)b | 2.7 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 3.1 |
| Parent(s) of children in homec | 4.1 | 6.3 | 3.8 | 4.5 |
| Sample size | 147 | 262 | 144 | 553 |
|
a Adult family members defined as household members age 16 years and older. b Includes neighbors, friends; does not include parents of children in care. c Median = 0% of time present Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Snapshot |
Observed Ratio of Children to Providers. In this sample of family child care homes, the average observed ratio of children to providers was three children to one provider, including the provider’s own children.9 Ratios ranged from a single child with one provider to 13 children with a single provider. The majority of homes (80%) had five or fewer children with a provider, and 44 percent of homes had three or fewer children (Exhibit 3-14). The number of children a provider cared for was related to the ages of the children in the home. Homes in which all children were less than 3 years old had the lowest average ratio (1.7 children to a provider), while homes in which all children were school age had a higher average ratio -- 2.4 children to a provider. Very few homes had more than ten children with one provider. Among these latter homes, all but one provided care for multiple age groups, either infants through school-age or preschool through school-age. (The single exception was a home that cared only for school-age children.)
| Children Per Adult Mean |
Ratio Less than 3:1 % |
Ratio between 5:1 and 3:1 % |
Ratio between 8:1 and 5:1 % |
Ratio between 10:1 and 8:1 % |
Ratio over 10:1 % |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single Age Group | All infants/toddlers | 1.6 | 80 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| All preschoolers | 1.2 | 88 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| All school-age children | 2.1 | 65 | 24 | 9 | 0 | 2 | |
| Mixed Ages | Infants/toddlers and preschoolers | 2.8 | 49 | 36 | 14 | 0 | 1 |
| Infants/toddlers and school-age | 2.5 | 59 | 30 | 10 | 1 | 0 | |
| Preschoolers and school-age | 3.1 | 49 | 33 | 11 | 5 | 2 | |
| All age groups | 3.8 | 25 | 45 | 27 | 2 | 1 | |
| All homes | 553 | 44 | 36 | 18 | 1 | 1 | |
|
a Average number of children/adult computed across up to 15 records of numbers of children and adults present in the home over a half-day period.
Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Snapshot |
The average ratio varied not only by the ages of the children in care but also by the type of home (Exhibit 3.15). Homes in which all of the children were related to the provider had the fewest children per provider, on average. This held true regardless of the ages of children in the home.
| All Children Related to Provider Mean |
Some Children Related to Provider Mean |
No Children Related to Provider Mean |
All Family Child Care Homes Mean |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single Age Group | All infants/toddlers | 1.3 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 1.6 |
| All preschoolers | 1.2 | NAb | 2.1 | 1.2 | |
| All school-age children | 1.7 | 3.7 | 4.3 | 2.1 | |
| Mixed Ages | Infant/toddlers and preschoolers | 2.0 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 2.8 |
| Infants/toddlers and school-age | 2.1 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 2.5 | |
| Preschoolers and school-age | 2.7 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.1 | |
| All age groups | 3.3 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 3.8 | |
| All Homes | 2.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 2.8 | |
|
a Average number of children/adult computed across up to 15 records of numbers of children and adults present in the home over a half-day period. b No homes with all preschoolers and some related children Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Snapshot |
Ethnicity of Children and Providers. In 69 percent of the family child care homes in this sample, all of the children in the home shared the same ethnic background. Nearly half of the homes cared for only Black, non-Hispanic children, another 15 percent cared for only White, non-Hispanic children, and 6 percent contained only Hispanic children (Exhibit 3.16). The majority of Black providers (86%) cared for children who were also Black; a smaller proportion, but still a majority, of Hispanic providers cared for children who were Hispanic (62%). White providers, on the other hand, were as likely to care for children from different ethnic groups as they were to care for White children. Homes in which all children were related to the provider had the highest proportion of homes with only one ethnic group represented by the children – 94 percent. This compares with 75 percent of homes in which some children were not related to the provider, and 54 percent of homes in which none of the children were related to the provider.
| White Non-Hispanic Providers % |
Black Non-Hispanic Providers % |
Hispanic Providers % |
Providers of Other Ethnic Groupsa % |
All Homes % |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Same Ethnic Group | All children White, non-Hispanic | 43.6 | 0.0 | 7.0 | 6.9 | 15.2 |
| All children Black, non-Hispanic | 2.4 | 86.4 | 6.8 | 10.3 | 47.8 | |
| All children Hispanic | 2.4 | 0.0 | 61.9 | 0.0 | 6.0 | |
| Children of Mixed Ethnicities | Mix of ethnic groupsb | 51.5 | 13.5 | 22.3 | 82.7 | 31.0 |
| Sample size | 163 | 286 | 41 | 29 | 519 | |
|
a Includes Asian, American Indian, Alaska native, Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islander b Mix of children from among Asian, American Indian, Alaska native, Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islander, Black Non-Hispanic, White Non-Hispanic, Hispanic Source: Provider Interview |
Children with Special Needs.10 Twenty-six percent of the homes had at least one child with special needs enrolled. Providers who did not care for relatives’ children were more likely to care for a special needs child. Approximately 30 percent of these homes had a special needs child enrolled, while only 16 percent of homes with relative care served a child with special needs.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |