Conceptual Framework for Quality in Home-Based Child Care

The conceptual framework for quality in HBCC depicts quality features of HBCC inside the image of a house. These quality features are grouped into four components shown in the top portion of the house. Many quality features in HBCC may be similar to quality in other child care and early education (CCEE) settings. In addition, there are quality features that may be implemented differently or be more likely to occur in HBCC than in other CCEE setting types. Examples of these features may include cultural congruence, use of community resources, and support for mixed-age groups. 

The framework acknowledges that HBCC providers enact quality features under many conditions that may include pressures and opportunities presented by multiple layers of influences and contextual factors. The greatest influences on HBCC quality are provider and setting characteristics. As such, both providers and setting characteristics are included in the house shown in the framework. The characteristics and experiences of families and children as well as communities and neighborhoods also may create opportunities as well as constraints on the ways HBCC providers can put quality features into practice. In the framework, families and children are shown walking up the stairs to the house, whereas community and neighborhood influences are depicted as the space below and around the house. 

Depicted in the framework as a walkway leading to the house, systematic factors including CCEE policy regulations and requirements as well as non-CCEE policies (such as housing policies and local zoning regulations) may also impact the capacity of HBCC providers to offer quality care to children and families. Regulations and requirements often require costly materials and equipment and educational qualifications that may be difficult for many HBCC providers to afford or access. HBCC providers living with low-incomes, in rural areas, or those who experience marginalization due to race, language, ethnicity, or immigration status, may not have access to financial and social resources that could help them participate fully in these systems. Layered on all of these challenges is a history of systemic and everyday racism that HBCC providers of color and those from marginalized communities may face. 

Bidirectional relationships exist between quality components (and the features within those components) and contextual influences and factors. Quality features in HBCC settings may be shaped by the strengths, needs, and resources that providers, children, and families bring to the setting. Yet, the implementation of quality features in HBCC may also contribute to outcomes for providers, children, and families. Sometimes the needs and outcomes of providers, children, and families may not align. For example, burdensome working conditions in HBCC settings such as nontraditional hour care may benefit families who work nontraditional hours. Yet providers may offer nontraditional hour care as an extension of traditional hours which may be stressful for both providers and children.

Relationships between quality and outcomes may also look different across settings. Implementation of quality features may be related to different outcomes across communities and settings. For example, nontraditional hour care may be less stressful for children and providers in relative child care settings where the provider and child have a long-term familial relationship (and may even live under the same roof) than in nonrelative settings where this relationship may not exist. More research is needed to understand the complex pathways between quality and child and family outcomes in HBCC and the ways providers, children, and families, setting characteristics, and contextual factors may influence these relationships.

Reference

Bromer, Juliet, Toni Porter, Chris Jones, Marina Ragonese-Barnes, and Jaimie Orland. “Quality in Home-Based Child Care: A Review of Selected Literature.” OPRE Report # 2021-136. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2021.

Suggested Citation: 

Bromer, Juliet, Patricia Del Grosso, Sally Atkins-Burnett, Toni Porter, Chris Jones, Marina Ragonese-Barnes, Ann Li, Jaimie Orland, and Ashley Kopack Klein (2024). “Conceptual Framework for Quality in Home-Based Child Care.” OPRE Report #2024-162. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The conceptual framework broadly defines quality as features of HBCC settings that support equitable child and family outcomes. These features are categorized under four broad components of quality. Click on the links below to learn more about each quality component. 

1. Safe and healthy home environment and healthy home environment

2. Culturally and linguistically grounded provider—child interactions that nurture children’s self-identity and healthy development

3. Supportive provider—family relationships and family supports

4. Healthy working conditions and resources

What is meant by equitable child and family outcomes?

We use this phrase to acknowledge an underlying goal that all children and families have opportunities to achieve the same long-term outcomes, including social-emotional well-being and cognitive, language, and physical development for children and positive family—child relationships, economic stability, and reduced stress for families. Yet we recognize that pathways toward these outcomes may look different depending on access to the resources needed for healthy development and success as well as experiences with systemic and interpersonal racism and economic inequities.

Examination of equitable outcomes for children and families in HBCC requires that research acknowledges the ways that race, language, and culture may intersect with the experiences of providers, children, and families. Examination of equitable outcomes should consider the levels of resources and support that are needed in HBCC settings to ensure that race and income no longer predict kindergarten readiness. Future research should examine the ways HBCC settings and providers may both buffer inequities as well as support the strengths that children and families from underserved racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic groups may experience.

Safe and healthy home environment that fosters development, learning, and equity

This component of quality includes features within a home’s physical and learning environment that research suggests are associated with positive child outcomes, as well as activities within the home and in the surrounding community that support culturally relevant ways of knowing and approaches to learning. The features of quality include the following:

• Intentional arrangement of space and materials to care for children with varied characteristics (for example, ages and abilities)
• Intentional materials that reflect the racial, cultural, and linguistic communities in which children live^b 
• Predictable routines^c
• Support for good rest time and sleep habits (for example, placing infants on their backs to sleep)
• Safe indoor and outdoor spaces
• Opportunities for play and free choice activities Opportunities for informal learning^c
• Quiet, calm time and space for children (such as quiet space where school-age children can do homework)^d
• Intentional learning activities (such as literacy and numeracy activities)
• Anti-bias, antiracist, and antibullying materials and activities^b
• Healthy routines and opportunities for outdoor time and vigorous activity^b
• Opportunities for interactions with community and community resources^a

^a No correlational or causal evidence found for a link to child or family outcomes in HBCC settings. Descriptive evidence was found for the presence of this quality feature (Bromer et al. 2021).

^b This quality feature was not examined in the HBCCSQ literature review (Bromer et al. 2021).

^c Correlational or causal evidence for a link to child or family outcomes was found in non-HBCC settings only such as center-based CCEE, parenting.

^d Correlational or causal evidence for a link to child or family outcomes was found in the literature review (Bromer et al. 2021) for some indicators or dimensions of this feature but not for other dimensions or we did not look for other dimensions of this feature. Evidence may be available in other research with different search terms.

Culturally and linguistically grounded provider—child interactions that nurture children’s self-identity and healthy development

This component of quality includes provider interactions with children that support children’s development across domains, including identity formation, social-emotional, cognitive, language, and physical development. These interactions include cultural and linguistic responsiveness that supports children’s positive identity development. The features of quality include the following:

• Support for children’s social and emotional development
• Emotional attunement and responsiveness to children in care
• Individualization of care for children’s needs
• Trauma-informed care^b
• Support for positive racial and self-identity^b
• Support for children’s positive peer interactions and prosocial skills, including mixed-age peer interactions^d
• Proactive behavior management and promotion of antibullying and anti-racism^d
• Engagement in language interactions with children and support for language, including support for children’s first language and bilingualism^d
• Support for children’s cognitive development, including early literacy and numeracy
• Support for children’s health and physical development

¹ There is evidence of an association between this feature of quality in HBCC and provider outcomes (Bromer et al. 2021).

^a No correlational or causal evidence found for a link to child or family outcomes in HBCC settings. Descriptive evidence was found for the presence of this quality feature (Bromer et al. 2021).

^b This quality feature was not examined in the HBCCSQ literature review (Bromer et al. 2021).

^c Correlational or causal evidence for a link to child or family outcomes was found in non-HBCC settings only such as center-based CCEE, parenting.

^d Correlational or causal evidence for a link to child or family outcomes was found in the literature review (Bromer et al. 2021) for some indicators or dimensions of this feature but not for other dimensions or we did not look for other dimensions of this feature. Evidence may be available in other research with different search terms.

Supportive provider—family relationships and family supports that promote family well-being

This component of quality includes relational supports for families, such as cultural connectedness, reciprocal communication, and trust, as well logistical supports that HBCC providers may offer families, such as flexibility and help with meal preparation, laundry, and other non-child care tasks. The features of quality include the following:

• Cultural responsiveness to and connectedness with families^a
• Mutual trust^a
• Reciprocal communication^a
• Information shared with families about how to support children’s learning and development¹
• Flexible schedules and logistical supports within clearly communicated boundaries (including help with non-child care tasks)^d
• Facilitation of families’ access to comprehensive resources and referrals as needed^a

¹ There is evidence of an association between this feature of quality in HBCC and provider outcomes (Bromer et al. 2021).

^a No correlational or causal evidence found for a link to child or family outcomes in HBCC settings. Descriptive evidence was found for the presence of this quality feature (Bromer et al. 2021).

^b This quality feature was not examined in the HBCCSQ literature review (Bromer et al. 2021).

^c Correlational or causal evidence for a link to child or family outcomes was found in non-HBCC settings only such as center-based CCEE, parenting.

^d Correlational or causal evidence for a link to child or family outcomes was found in the literature review (Bromer et al. 2021) for some indicators or dimensions of this feature but not for other dimensions or we did not look for other dimensions of this feature. Evidence may be available in other research with different search terms.

Healthy working conditions and resources for sustaining home-based child care

This component of quality includes features that support a provider’s capacity to continue offering care and education. Quality features in this component include social connections and peer supports that buffer some of the difficult working conditions of HBCC such as working alone as well as access to financial and business supports that address the economic challenges faced by many HBCC providers. Access to and participation in HBCC support initiatives (for example, staffed family child care networks or play and learn initiatives) may also help HBCC providers navigate CCEE systems and may help providers enhance other aspects of quality care that may have a link to positive child and provider outcomes. The features of quality include the following:

• Social connectedness^{a, 1}
• Management of work-life balance^{a, 1}
• Management of multiple roles^a 
• Communication with families about clear expectations regarding the HBCC arrangement^b
• Management of finances or business^a
• Access to financial or business supports^{d, 1} 
• Access to and participation in caregiver or professional support communities¹

¹ There is evidence of an association between this feature of quality in HBCC and provider outcomes (Bromer et al. 2021).

^a No correlational or causal evidence found for a link to child or family outcomes in HBCC settings. Descriptive evidence was found for the presence of this quality feature (Bromer et al. 2021).

^b This quality feature was not examined in the HBCCSQ literature review (Bromer et al. 2021).

^c Correlational or causal evidence for a link to child or family outcomes was found in non-HBCC settings only such as center-based CCEE, parenting.

^d Correlational or causal evidence for a link to child or family outcomes was found in the literature review (Bromer et al. 2021) for some indicators or dimensions of this feature but not for other dimensions or we did not look for other dimensions of this feature. Evidence may be available in other research with different search terms.

Providers are especially important in HBCC settings, where they often work alone without other adults or assistant caregivers. The framework conceptualizes four broad categories of ways that provider characteristics and experiences may influence implementation of quality features.

• Knowledge  about how children learn and develop
  • Caregiving experience and ways of knowing
  • Access to intergenerational ways of knowing and caregiving approaches^b
  • Sources of knowledge and professional development in CCEE or related fields¹
• Caregiving attitudes and beliefs
  • Motivations for providing care (for example, intentionality)
  • Self-efficacy (sense they can make difference in the lives of children and families through caregiving)
  • Cultural humility (process of self-reflection and examination of one’s own beliefs and cultural identities)^b
  • Beliefs about child-rearing and how children develop
• Provider characteristics and experiences
  • Age^b
  • Cultural, racial, ethnic, and linguistic identity^b
  • Gender identity^b
  • Documentation or refugee status^b
  • Disability statusb
  • Caregiver role identity^a
• Provider well-being
  • Physical health^a
  • Psychological health
  • Mindfulness^b
  • Financial and economic well-being
  • Experiences with trauma, including racialized trauma or trauma related to documentation or refugee status^b
  • Racialized healing and support^b
  • Cultural and social capital and wealth^b

¹ There is evidence of an association between this feature of quality in HBCC and provider outcomes (Bromer et al. 2021).

^a No correlational or causal evidence found for a link to child or family outcomes in HBCC settings. Descriptive evidence was found for the presence of this quality feature (Bromer et al. 2021).

^b This quality feature was not examined in the HBCCSQ literature review (Bromer et al. 2021).

^c Correlational or causal evidence for a link to child or family outcomes was found in non-HBCC settings only such as center-based CCEE, parenting.

^d Correlational or causal evidence for a link to child or family outcomes was found in the literature review (Bromer et al. 2021) for some indicators or dimensions of this feature but not for other dimensions or we did not look for other dimensions of this feature. Evidence may be available in other research with different search terms.

HBCC settings are diverse in many aspects including numbers of children cared for, hours offered, regulatory status, payment arrangements, and types of home settings. The framework hypothesizes that characteristics of the HBCC setting may also contribute to how quality features are implemented and, in some cases, to child or family outcomes. 

Characteristics of HBCC settings

• Hours (including nontraditional hour care)^a
• Number of children in care
• Age composition of children in HBCC^c
• Children’s prior relationships with the provider and other children in care
• Indoor and outdoor space (uses entire home, dedicated space for care and education)^a
• Presence of other adults and children who live in the home (for example, provider’s own children or partner)^a,1
• Other adults who regularly work with children (such as paid or unpaid assistants)^a,1
• Lasting relationships
• Cultural, racial, ethnic, and linguistic congruence^d
• Paid or unpaid^b
• Regulatory status (licensed, registered, certified, or exempt)
• Home ownership status (own or rent)^b

¹ There is evidence of an association between this feature of quality in HBCC and provider outcomes (Bromer et al. 2021).

^a No correlational or causal evidence found for a link to child or family outcomes in HBCC settings. Descriptive evidence was found for the presence of this quality feature (Bromer et al. 2021).

^b This quality feature was not examined in the HBCCSQ literature review (Bromer et al. 2021).

^c Correlational or causal evidence for a link to child or family outcomes was found in non-HBCC settings only such as center-based CCEE, parenting.

^d Correlational or causal evidence for a link to child or family outcomes was found in the literature review (Bromer et al. 2021) for some indicators or dimensions of this feature but not for other dimensions or we did not look for other dimensions of this feature. Evidence may be available in other research with different search terms.

Children and families bring a wealth of resources, strengths, and needs into HBCC settings. The framework hypothesizes that children and families who participate in HBCC may also influence how quality features within the HBCC setting are implemented.

Family and child characteristics, identities, and experiences

• Children’s abilities and challenges
• Children’s ages
• Family and household composition (for example, number of adults and children; ages of adults and children)
• Marital status
• Family and child race and ethnicity
• Family culture and language
• Family and child health
  • Psychological health (for example, optimism, self-efficacy, level of anxiety, stress, and depression)
  • Physical health
• Family socioeconomic status
  • Financial and economic well-being
  • Education level of adults
  • Employment stability of adults
• Family documentation or refugee status
• Family and child work and school schedules and hours of care needed
• Family and child stressors
  • Experiences with trauma
  • Family and child racialized experiences
• Family and child access to resources and supports

Note: The HBCC quality literature review examined studies that included children and families with a range of characteristics, such as studies on HBCC that included children with disabilities (Bromer et al. 2021). However, the review did not conduct a comprehensive search for how child and family characteristics may relate to HBCC quality features.

HBCC is rooted in residential communities. The framework hypothesizes that local community and neighborhood characteristics may pose both opportunities and constraints on a provider’s capacity to offer quality care.

Community structural characteristics

• Availability of and access to local community resources such as schools, libraries, recreation spaces, gardens or shared produce, faith-based organizations, community-based organizations, and block clubs^a
• Health and safety^c
• Poverty or wealth^c
• Housing and gentrification; eviction rates^d
• Transportation^b
• Community demographics^c
• Community investment or disinvestment^c
• Urbanicity^c
• Presence of other CCEE settings, such as other HBCC and other center-based CCEE programs^b

Community process characteristics

• Perceptions of collective efficacy and social cohesion and trust among residents; willingness to intervene on behalf of children in the community^c
• Social ties among residents in the community^a

¹ There is evidence of an association between this feature of quality in HBCC and provider outcomes (Bromer et al. 2021).

^a No correlational or causal evidence found for a link to child or family outcomes in HBCC settings. Descriptive evidence was found for the presence of this quality feature (Bromer et al. 2021).

^b This quality feature was not examined in the HBCCSQ literature review (Bromer et al. 2021).

^c Correlational or causal evidence for a link to child or family outcomes was found in non-HBCC settings only such as center-based CCEE, parenting.

^d Correlational or causal evidence for a link to child or family outcomes was found in the literature review (Bromer et al. 2021) for some indicators or dimensions of this feature but not for other dimensions or we did not look for other dimensions of this feature. Evidence may be available in other research with different search terms.

CCEE and non-CCEE policies and regulations and community-oriented support programs

Systems factors including CCEE policy regulations and requirements as well as non-CCEE policies may also impact the capacity of HBCC providers to offer quality care to children and families. Federal, state, regional, and local policies and regulations may support or hinder the capacity of HBCC providers to enact features of quality. CCEE policies may not always recognize the distinct features of quality in HBCC since many such as quality rating and improvement systems, Head Start, and public prekindergarten were developed based on center- and school-based programs. Many CCEE policies may also create additional cost and administrative burdens for HBCC providers who often work alone. On the other hand, CCEE policies and community-oriented supports such as HBCC networks or play and learn programs may support HBCC providers in participation in publicly-funded CCEE systems and may help HBCC providers obtain the benefits from these policies.

Federal, state,* and regional CCEE policies, standards, and regulations

Federal CCEE policies, standards, and regulations

• Child care subsidy system and regulations (Child Care and Development Fund [CCDF])
• Early Head Start, Head Start, Migrant Head Start, and Tribal Head Start delivered through family child care
• Special education or early intervention for children with disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Act [IDEA])

State,* regional, and local ECE policies, standards, and regulations

• Child care licensing, certification, registration systems, and regulations
• State and county Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS)
• Professional development systems
• Publicly funded prekindergarten initiatives that allow delivery through family child care

Community-oriented programs that support quality in HBCC

Organizational platforms for quality improvement supports

• Home-based child care networks, staffed family child care networks, hubs, and systems
• Child care resource and referral networks
• Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership initiatives
• Family support and home visiting programs
• Programs that engage providers and children together (such as play and learn)
• University, community college, and local early childhood organization professional development programs
• Libraries or toy libraries
• Family child care associations
• Child care unions

Strategies to support quality in HBCC

• Home visiting, coaching, and mentoring 
• Professional development, training series, workshops
• Peer support groups and provider-facilitated supports for providers
• Small business development supports
• Infant and early childhood mental health consultation
• Programs targeted to meet needs of families with refugee status, immigration support initiatives
• Community math and literacy initiatives (such as Reach Out and Read)

Federal, state,* regional, and local non-CCEE policies and regulations

• Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and local food programs
• Health, health care, and community mental health 
• Housing
• K—12 education
• Higher education
• Child welfare
• Immigration 
• Income supports
• Financial and business (for example, banking, loans, and credit)
• Zoning and business regulations

Note: The HBCC quality literature review did not examine research on CCEE or non-CCEE policies and regulations. With a few exceptions, the review also did not focus on community-oriented programs for supporting quality in HBCC.

* Includes states, territories, and tribes. 

Structural inequities, structural and individual racism, and socioeconomic drivers

Economic and social inequities may shape HBCC providers’ access to resources, social capital, and psychological, physical, and financial stability that may support their capacity to implement high-quality care for children and families. HBCC educators of color, in particular, face intersecting historical and contemporary pressures of racism, gender, and classism which may influence their economic stability and well-being.

Child outcomes

The conceptual framework depicts hypothesized relationships between quality features in HBCC and child and family outcomes. The framework uses an equity lens in articulating outcomes for children and families. This lens acknowledges there may be different pathways by which children and families reach desired outcomes and HBCC settings may promote a range of outcomes for children, some of which are not as commonly examined in the research literature.

Emotional health and development

• Reduced stress
• Improved emotional well-being
• Emotional and behavior regulation
• Self-esteem and self-efficacy*
• Optimism*

Identity development

• Positive cultural, racial, and ethnic identity* 
• Racial coping*
• Positive gender identity*
• Biculturalism*

Social development

• Positive adult—child interactions and relationships
• Building empathy and reducing bias*
• Positive peer interactions and peer status
• Supportive friendships*

Language and literacy development

• Skilled in communicating wants, needs, interests, and ideas*
• Expanded vocabulary
• Listening comprehension
• Successful dual language acquisition*
• Home language fluency*
• Enjoyment of literacy*

Cognitive and academic development

• Engagement in play and leisure activities
• Approaches to learning (including executive functioning and soft skills)*
• Positive school transitions*
• Tools for success in school*

Physical development 

• Healthy sleep habits*
• Healthy physical activity habits
• Healthy weight and diet
• Gross motor skills to accomplish goals*
• Fine motor skills*

Family outcomes

HBCC quality may also contribute to positive family outcomes. We hypothesize that HBCC quality features have the potential to contribute to positive relationships between providers and families and positive experiences of families in HBCC settings. The close provider—family relationships and supportive interactions that often develop in HBCC settings may lead to families experiencing increased access to resources as well as development of strategies for engaging in their own children’s learning.

Positive family-provider relationships

• Positive feelings about HBCC arrangement or satisfaction with care*
• Feels supported by HBCC setting or provider*
• Parent involvement in HBCC*

Positive parent-child relationships

• Nurturing and responsive parenting*
• Enjoyment of child(ren) and parenting*
• Frequent conversations with child(ren)*
• Support for child(ren)’s learning and development*

Family economic stability

• Attend work or school*
• Positive family employment trajectories

Family well-being

• Reduced stress
• Management of work—family balance*
• Social capital and access to wealth-building and resources*
• Social supports and connections to peers*
  
  Note: The HBCC quality literature review did not systematically examine research by child outcomes.
  * Denotes this outcome was not examined by research reviewed in HBCC quality literature review (Bromer et al. 2021).