STANCE ESSAY HELP 1
STANCE ESSAY
I HAVE UPLOADED DIRECTIONS AND SOME PDF FILES
1. Choosing a Child Care Center
American Academy of Pediatrics (2009)
2. Is This the Right Place for My Child? (PDF) (WILL UPLOAD BELOW)
Child Care Aware® of America (2015)
3. Child Care in America: 2016 State Fact Sheets (PDF)
(WILL UPLOAD BELOW)
Child Care Aware® of America
Choosing Child Care: What New Parents Should Know
NerdWallet, Elizabeth Renter (September 19, 2016)
Child Care Decision-Making Literature Review (PDF)U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Nicole Forry, Kathryn Tout, Laura Rothenberg, Heather Sandstrom, & Colleen Vesely (December 2013)
(WILL UPLOAD BELOW)
Daycare 101: How to Choose the Best Facility for Your Family
What to Expect
For your next assignment, you will write a stance essay. A stance essay takes a position on a topic and argues and supports that position with evidence.
Consider your topic: · What possible positions/arguments are there? · What position resonates with you? (Which position do you believe is correct?) · What are your main points? · What are the counterpoints? Are you ready to dispute them? · Do you have enough evidence to effectively support your argument? For the stance essay, your personal voice (your perspective) should come
TOPIC:
CHOOSE 3 REASONS WHY FINDING CHILDCARE DIFFICULT
Compose a (3) page paper in which you do the following:
1. Use third person point of view (POV) and the appropriate voice and tone throughout your paper.
a. Did you use third person pronouns? (he, she, they, their)
b. Does your personality carry over in your writing? Are your word choices personal and consistent? c. Is the tone formal? Does it express your attitude about the topic?
2. Write an introduction paragraph, which includes your thesis statement. It is suggested that this paragraph contain 5-7 sentences.
a. Does your introduction include solutions or approaches on the topic?
b. Does your thesis statement include three supporting reasons that clearly express your stance on the topic?\
c. Is your thesis statement clear and concise? d. Does your introduction provide a preview of the rest of your essay?
3. Write a supporting/body paragraph for each of the three (3) points/reasons from your thesis statement. It is suggested that each paragraph contain at least 5-7 sentences.
a. Do your body paragraphs support each point of your thesis with relevant examples or statistics?
b. Do you address the opinions or concerns that your audience might have?
c. Did you paraphrase, quote, or summarize properly to avoid plagiarism? Did you comment on each quotation? Do you limit quotes to no more than 25 words.
4. Write with logic and with transitions throughout your paper?
a. Are your ideas consistent and well-organized, i.e., chronological order or order of importance?
b. Do your ideas flow from one sentence to the next and one paragraph to the next, in the order presented in your thesis statement?
5. Write a conclusion paragraph. It is suggested that this paragraph contain 5-7 sentences.
a. Did you paraphrase or restate the thesis in a new way?
b. Did you leave a lasting impression, so that your readers continue thinking about your topic after they have finished reading?
6. Apply proper grammar, mechanics, punctuation and SWS formatting throughout your paper.
a. Did you check your grammar? i. The way words are put together to make units of meaning: Sentence structure, pronoun-agreement, etc.
b. Did you check your essay for mechanics? i. All the “technical” stuff in writing: Spelling, capitalization, use of numbers and other symbols, etc.
c. Did you check the punctuation? i. The “symbols” used to help people read/process sentences the way you want them to be heard and understood: Periods, question marks, commas, colons, etc. d. Did you format according to SWS style? (See requirements below.)
SWS FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: Your assignment must follow these general SWS formatting requirements: Be typed, double-spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides. It should also have numbered pages, indented paragraphs, and a numbered Source List. Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. Note: The cover page is not included in the required assignment page length of three-four (3-4) pages. In-text citations follow SWS style, using attributive tags and signal verbs. Did you cite at least four (3) sources from the list. Do your sources support your position? Have you used SWS in-text citations to document your sources? (Author’s last name, number indicating the order in which you used the source in the paper.) For example, the first source in your paper would look like this: (Wielding, 1). Do you have a source list? 1. Did you number your sources? 2. Did you list the sources in the order in which you use them in the paper? 3. Did you include major identifying information for each reference? 4. Did you apply a consistent and SWS-style flow of information? (Author’s first and last name, Title of the source, date it was published, comment on where you found it, and page numbers.)
Is This The Right Place For My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care
For additional resources or help finding your local Child Care Resource and Referral Agency call toll-free:
1-800-424-2246 | TTY: 866-278-9428 | www.ChildCareAware.org
Child Care Aware® of America 1515 N. Courthouse Road, Arlington, VA 22201
Phone (703) 341-4100 Fax (703) 341-4101 | www.usa.childcareaware.org | #1819-1008 | #121e
34147_121_EngCov.indd All Pages 4/21/16 3:24 PM
Is This The Right Place For My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 1 4/21/16 4:43 PM
Acknowledgements
These indicators were created by building upon the Thirteen Indicators of Quality Child Care developed by Dr. Richard Fiene of The Pennsylvania State University.
About Child Care Aware®
Child Care Aware® is a program of Child Care Aware® of America. We are committed to helping parents find the best information on locating quality child care and child care resources in their community. Child Care Aware®, in partnership with local Child Care Resource and Referral agencies, builds consumer awareness and supports families in making choices for the care and education of their children. Child Care Aware® is partly funded by the Office of Child Care (OCC), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Copyright © 2015 by Child Care Aware® of America. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form – except in case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews – without prior written permission from Child Care Aware® of America.
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 2 4/21/16 4:43 PM
Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care 3
Is This The Right Place For My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care (Checklist for Parents)
Choosing Child Care Choosing care for your child while you work or attend school is one of the most important decisions you will make as a parent. Unfortunately in most areas there isn’t a “consumer report” on the best care available. Child Care Aware® of America through Child Care Aware®, helps parents find licensed care (www. childcareaware.org). Because licensing and regulations vary widely, parents need more information to make informed decisions. This guide helps parents understand how to better judge quality.
In addition, some states have quality rating systems to help parents with this decision. Parents can learn if their state has a quality rating system by visiting the QRIS National Learning Network at qrisnetwork.org. You may also contact your local Child Care Resource & Referral agency (CCR&R) for information.
The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) provides a list of their accredited child care centers on their website, www.naeyc.org, as does the National Accreditation Commission (NAC) for Early Care and Education Programs at www.earlylearningleaders.org, and the National Early Childhood Program Accreditation (NECPA) at www.necpa.net. The National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC) lists accredited family child care providers at www.nafcc.org. However, only a small percentage of child care programs in the United States are accredited by any organization or are part of a quality rating system.
After using these and other resources, parents should visit the programs they are considering. Included in this publication is a checklist parents can use to evaluate child care programs. This checklist is based on research on what is important to children’s health, safety and development. Following the checklist are suggested ways to find the information you are seeking. Quality programs will want you to have all the information you need to choose the best child care for your child and family. Child Care Aware® of America produced this guide to help parents with their search for quality child care.
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 3 4/21/16 4:43 PM
The Quality Indicators listed in this guide are based on research about what is important in order for children to be protected and well cared for in a group child care setting. Each indicator is followed by a short explanation of why it is important. This is followed by what to look for and ask to learn if the program you are considering will be a safe, healthy and happy place for your child. The term “director” is used to refer to the person in charge of a child care center or the provider operating a family child care home. The term “program staff” is used to refer to individuals providing care in centers or family child care homes. It isn’t necessary to ask all of the questions or make all of the observations suggested; they are only provided as a resource to help you evaluate the programs you are considering for your child.
Child Care Aware® of America, is our nation’s leading voice for child care. We work with more than 400 state and local Child Care Resource and Referral agencies (CCR&Rs) to ensure that families in every community have access to quality, affordable child care. To achieve our mission, we lead projects that increase the quality and availability of child care, offer comprehensive training to child care professionals, undertake groundbreaking research, and advocate child care policies that positively impact the lives of children and families.
4 Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 4 4/21/16 4:43 PM
Is This The Right Place For My Child? (Make a copy of this checklist to use with each program you visit.)
Place a check in the box if the program meets your expectations. Will my child be supervised?
Are children watched at all times, including when they are sleeping?15
Are adults warm and welcoming? Do they pay individual attention to each child?40
Are positive guidance techniques used? Do adults avoid yelling, spanking, and other negative punishments?16
Are the caregiver/teacher-to-child ratios appropriate and do they follow the recommended guidelines:
➤ One caregiver per 3 or 4 infants ➤ One caregiver per 3 or 4 young toddlers ➤ One caregiver per 4 to 6 older toddlers ➤ One caregiver per 6 to 9 preschoolers19
Have the adults been trained to care for children?
If a center,
➤ Does the director have a degree and some experience in caring or children? 27/28/29
➤ Do the teachers have a credential*** or associate degree and experience in caring for children?27/28/29
If a family child care home:
➤ �Has the provider had specific training on children’s development and experience caring for children?30
Is there always someone present who has current CPR and first aid training?32
Are the adults continuing to receive training on caring for children?33
Have the adults been trained on child abuse prevention and how to report suspected cases?12/13
Will my child be able to grow and learn?
For older children, are there specific areas for different kinds of play (books, blocks, puzzles, art, etc.)?21
For infants and toddlers, are there toys that “do something” when the child plays with them?41
Is the play space organized and are materials easy-to-use? Are some materials available at all times?21
Are there daily or weekly activity plans available? Have the adults planned experiences for the children to enjoy? Will the activities help children learn?22
Do the adults talk with the children during the day? Do they engage them in conversations and ask questions, when appropriate?43
Do the adults read to children at least twice a day or encourage them to read, if they can do so?43
Is this a safe and healthy place for my child?
Do adults and children wash their hands (before eating or handling food, or after using the bathroom, changing diapers, touching body fluids, eating, etc.)?4
Are diaper changing surfaces cleaned and disinfected after each use?5
Do all of the children enrolled have the required immunizations?6
Are medicines labeled and out of children’s reach?7
Are adults trained to give medicines and keep records of medications? 7
Notes:
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 5 4/21/16 4:43 PM
Place a check in the box if the program meets your expectations. Are cleaning supplies and other poisonous materials locked up, out of children’s reach?8
Is there a plan to follow if a child is injured, sick or lost?9
Are first aid kits readily available?10
Is there a plan for responding to disasters (fire, flood, etc.)?11
Has a satisfactory criminal history background check been conducted on each adult present?
➤ Was the check based on fingerprints?14
Have all the adults who are left alone with children had background and criminal screenings?13
Is the outdoor play area a safe place for children to play?39
➤ Is it checked each morning for hazards before children use it?23
➤��Is the equipment the right size and type for the age of the children who use it?24
➤ In center-based programs, is the playground area surrounded by a fence at least 4 feet tall?25
➤ Is the equipment placed on mulch, sand, or rubber matting?23
➤ Is the equipment in good condition?39
Is the number of children in each group limited?
➤ In family child care homes and centers, children are in groups of no more than**
▪ 6-8 infants ▪ 6-12 younger toddlers ▪ 8-12 older toddlers ▪ 12-20 preschoolers ▪ 20-24 school-agers20
Is the program well-managed?
Does the program have the highest level of licensing offered by the state?42
Are there written personnel policies and job descriptions?17
Are parents and staff asked to evaluate the program?37
Are staff evaluated each year, and do providers complete a self-assessment?18
Is there a written annual training plan for staff professional development?33
Is the program evaluated each year by someone outside the program?38
Is the program accredited by a national organization?36
Does the program work with parents?
Will I be welcome any time my child is in care?1
Is parents’ feedback sought and used in making program improvements?1
Will I be given a copy of the program’s policies?2
Are annual conferences held with parents?3
* These are the adult-to-child ratios and group sizes recommended by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Ratios are lowered when there are one or more children who may need additional help to fully participate in a program due to a disability or other factors.
** Group sizes are considered the maximum number of children to be in a group, regardless of the number of adult staff.
*** Individuals working in child care can earn a Child Development Associate credential.
For help finding child care in your area, contact Child Care Aware®, a program of Child Care Aware® of America toll-free at 1-800-424-2246 or visit online at www.childcareaware.org.
For information about other AAP publications visit: www.aap.org
Notes:
Endorsed by:
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 6 4/21/16 4:43 PM
Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care 7
Will my child be supervised? Are children watched at all times, including when they are sleeping? 15 If your child is supervised at all times he or she is less likely to be injured, as well as more likely to be engaged in activities that promote learning. It is especially important that caregivers check on infants while they are sleeping because of the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Also, if adults closely supervise children outdoors, children are less likely to be injured.
➤ Observe the program staff when the children are outdoors. Do the adults stay close to the children and intervene when children engage in risky activities?
➤ If possible, visit the program when children are resting or sleeping as well as when they are awake. During rest time are the children where the adults can see them? Do the adults check on the children frequently?
Are adults warm and welcoming? Do they pay individual attention to each child? Children grow and learn when they feel cared about and comfortable. When adults pay attention to children they can respond to their individual needs, extend their learning, engage them in activities, and offer materials and information.
Observe the adults:
➤ Do they smile and talk to you? Do they smile and talk to your child? How do they act with the other children?
➤ Do they interact with individual children as well as the group of children?
➤ Do they respond when children make requests?
➤ Do they offer materials and information to extend children’s play?
➤ Do they encourage and support children’s efforts?
➤ Do they comfort children who need to be comforted?
Is This the Right Place For My Child?
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 7 4/21/16 4:43 PM
8 Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care
Are positive guidance techniques used? Do adults avoid yelling, spanking, and other negative punishments? 16 Children learn how to behave through adult example and encouragement. Positive guidance techniques include:
➤ Setting limits for the child. “Keep the paint on the paper.”
➤ Giving reasons for rules and limits. “If you eat lunch now you won’t be hungry later.”
➤ Changing something about the situation. For example, moving a breakable item out of a toddler’s reach.
➤ Ignoring behavior when it is appropriate to do so. For example, not responding when a child whines for something he or she wants.
➤ Redirecting the child’s behavior. “Ride your bike on the path, not on the grass.”
➤ Using consequences. “If you leave the paint out you won’t be able to use it tomorrow.”
Yelling, spanking, and other negative punishments provide a bad example for children and may harm the child in other ways.
➤ Ask the program director to see the program’s guidance policies. Look for prohibitions against negative punishments and examples of positive techniques such as those listed above.
➤ Observe the program staff to see what techniques they use when children misbehave. Watch for use of negative punishments (yelling, hitting, twisting arms, ridiculing, criticizing, threatening, etc.). Expect to see the positive techniques listed above.
➤ Ask the program staff, “What do you do when children don’t follow the rules?” and “What do you do when children misbehave?” and “How are children punished when they don’t behave?”
➤ Ask the program staff, “How is time out used?” Expect to hear that time out is used to help children relax, not as a punishment.
Are the caregiver/teacher-to-child ratios appropriate and do they follow these recommended guidelines?
➤ One caregiver per three or four infants
➤ One caregiver per three or four young toddlers
➤ One caregiver per four to six older toddlers
➤ One caregiver per six to nine preschoolers19
When each adult is responsible for fewer children, your child can be provided with more one-on-one attention. Attention is crucial to your child’s social and emotional development. It also helps adults get to know your child and plan activities based on his or her learning needs and interests. (In some states, programs are allowed to have each adult care for more children while the children are asleep or resting.)
Ask the program director, “How many children is each adult responsible for?” Compare his or her answer to the information above.
➤ Observe to see how many children each adult is providing care for during the day.
Is the number of children in each group limited? In child care centers, children are in groups of no more than:
➤ Six to eight infants
➤ Six to 12 younger toddlers
➤ Eight to 12 older toddlers
➤ Twelve to 20 preschoolers
➤ Twenty to 24 school-age children20
Small group sizes ensure your child will receive one-on-one attention and is part of a group that is easier to manage. Small group sizes are particularly important for young children who need more individual attention and can become overwhelmed in large groups.
➤ Ask the program director how many children are in each group. Compare the answers to the information above.
➤ Observe to see the size of the groups in which children receive care. Compare the group sizes to the information above.
➤ If the group in which your child will receive care includes one or more children with special needs, look to see if the program has adjusted the number of children in the group so that all of the children’s needs are met.
Have the adults been trained to care for children? If a center:
➤ Does the director have a degree and some experience in caring for children? 26
➤ Do the teachers each have a credential or associate degree and experience in caring for children?27/28/29
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 8 4/21/16 4:43 PM
Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care 9
If a family child care home:
➤ Has the provider had specific training on children’s development and experience caring for children?30
Staff education is the best predictor of the quality of an early childhood program. Adults with training in early childhood education provide higher quality programs for your child, implement more appropriate activities, and do a better job of preparing your child for school.
Managing a child care program is a challenging task that requires both early childhood and business management knowledge. Experience putting this knowledge to work enhances the child care program’s quality.
Experience helps adults gain knowledge of early childhood programs and effective strategies for caring for and educating your child. Experience, combined with training and education, increases the quality of early childhood programs.
➤ Ask the center director, “Do you have a college degree?” and “What field is your degree in?” Listen for early childhood education, child development or a related field.
➤ Ask the center director, “How much experience do you have managing a child care program?”
➤ Ask the center director, “How many staff members do you have? How many of them have a degree in early childhood education or a related field? How many of them
have an associate degree in early childhood education or a related field? How many of them have their CDA (Child Development Associate credential)?
➤ Ask the family child care provider, “How much training have you had in early childhood education? Did the training include information on the development of children’s social and emotional behavior, thinking, and language?” and “How many years of experience do you have providing child care?”
Is there always someone present who has current CPR and first aid training? 32 If adults are trained in emergency first aid and infant/toddler CPR they will know how to handle medical emergencies and react appropriately in case your child has a medical emergency.
➤ Ask the program director, “Who in the program has current certification in CPR and first aid?” and “Is there always someone on duty in the program with current certification in CPR and first aid?”
➤ Check the program’s job descriptions to find out if certification in CPR and first aid are required.
➤ Ask to see copies of the program staff’s or provider’s first aid and CPR cards.
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 9 4/21/16 4:43 PM
10 Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care
Are the adults continuing to receive training on caring for children? 33 If the adults caring for your child continue to receive training, they will know new information about how to protect your child’s health and safety, for example, how to reduce the incidence of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). They will also know how to promote children’s development, for example, the newest research on how children learn to read and write.
➤ Ask the program staff, “When was the last time you attended training on early childhood education?”
➤ Ask the program director, “Are staff required to attend training each year?” and “Are staff funded to attend training each year?”
➤ Review the program’s annual training plan to find out how much training staff members or providers receive each year.
Have the adults been trained on child abuse prevention and how to report suspected child abuse? 13 Caregivers who are trained in identifying and reporting child abuse will know how to respond if they suspect a child has been mistreated.
➤ Ask the program staff, “Have you been trained on how to identify and report child abuse?” and “If you suspect a child has been abused, who would you report it to?”
➤ Ask the program director, “Are the staff and volunteers trained on how to identify and report child abuse?” and “What is included in this training?”
Will my child be able to grow and learn? For children age 3 and older, are there specific areas for different kinds of play (books, blocks, puzzles, art materials, etc.)? 21 Your child will learn different concepts and skills in different interest areas (blocks, books, puzzles, art materials, music, science and math). Interest areas that are organized and orderly will help your child make choices about what to play with and where to put materials away. The areas may have different names such as library (instead of books), manipulatives (instead of puzzles), construction (instead of blocks), etc. In a family child care home the areas may be set up each day or left permanently in place.
➤ Look to see if there are areas with different kinds of toys and materials. Expect to see an area with books, art materials, blocks and other construction toys such as trucks, and puzzles and other small manipulatives such as Legos. You may also see a science and math area and a music area.
➤ Check to see if the areas include a variety of toys and other materials.
➤ Ask the program staff, “How often do you add new materials to the areas or rotate the materials in the
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 10 4/21/16 4:43 PM
Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care 11
areas?” Expect new or different materials will be added at least monthly.
➤ In a family child care home, look to see that infants and toddlers are protected from small items that could cause choking.
For infants and toddlers, are there toys that “do something” when the child plays with them? 41 Infants are interested in looking at toys, touching them with their hands and mouth, fitting pieces of things together, and making sense of their world.
Infants need brightly colored toys of many textures. They need toys to look at, feel, chew on, hold, and drop. As they begin to walk or crawl they enjoy push-pull toys and balls.
In the second year of life, toddlers have the physical skills that make it easier for them to play and learn. Busy toddlers need toys for physical play – walking, climbing, pushing and riding – and ones that encourage experimentation and manipulation.
For infants, look to see if the program has:
➤ Balls
➤ Grasping toys
➤ Stacking and nesting toys
➤ Toys to look at, feel, and chew on
For toddlers, look to see if the program has:
➤ Equipment for climbing
➤ Riding toys
➤ Balls
➤ Large interlocking blocks and puzzles
➤ Water and sand for sensory play
Is the play space organized and are materials easy to use? Are materials available at all times? 21 If the play areas are organized and orderly your child will be able to make choices about what materials to play with and will be able to put toys away after playing with them.
Look for:
➤ Materials organized by type (blocks, puzzles, dolls, art materials, dress-up clothes, etc.).
➤ Spaces and containers labeled with a picture or drawing of the materials.
➤ Overall organization. If you were a child wanting to play dress-up or wanting to do a puzzle, would you know where to look?
➤ Accessibility. Are some materials available at all times and easy for children to reach?
Are there daily or weekly activity plans available? Are there planned experiences for the children to enjoy? Will the activities help children learn? 22 Children benefit when adults plan activities for them. If the daily activities reflect your child’s interests and needs it increases the likelihood your child will benefit from the experiences. He or she will also benefit more if the activities are ones they enjoy and are planned to help them learn and develop. If the program plans a variety of activities it increases the potential that all of the children’s needs will be met.
➤ Ask to see the program’s daily or weekly plans. Check to see if the plans include a variety of activities – art, music, outdoor play, reading, dramatic play, science, and math.
➤ Ask the program director, “Do you have a planned curriculum? If so, what is it?”
➤ Look to see if the children seem to be enjoying the activities that are being offered and are actively engaged in them.
➤ Ask the program staff, “How do you decide which activities to offer?” Expect to hear the activities are based on the children’s interests and needs.
Do the adults talk with children during the day? Do they engage them in conversation? Do they ask questions, when appropriate? Adults can help promote children’s language development by talking with them during the day. Research has shown that early exposure to language leads to greater language skills as children grow older. The more caregivers and parents talk to children while they are caring for and playing with them, the more effectively children will learn to communicate.
Observe the adults with the children:
➤ Do they talk with babies and toddlers while they are handling daily routines?
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 11 4/21/16 4:43 PM
12 Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care
➤ Do they turn babies’ sounds into words?
➤ Do they provide words to help children label things?
➤ Do they encourage toddlers to use words?
➤ Do they add words to expand children’s vocabulary?
➤ Do they engage preschoolers and older children in conversations?
➤ Do they avoid asking older children questions to which the adult already knows the answer?
Do the adults read to children at least twice a day or encourage them to read, if they can do so? Reading aloud provides children with sounds to imitate and helps them develop phonemic awareness (the ability to hear sounds) – an important prereading skill. Reading also helps build children’s vocabulary and increases their understanding of feelings, objects, and events. When adults read to them, children get the message that reading is important. A child’s reading skills are important for success in school and life.
➤ Ask the program staff, “How often do you read to the children?” Expect to hear “at least twice day” or more. Sometimes programs read books but don’t include it on the schedule.
➤ Look around for children’s books. If few or no books are available, it may be a sign that reading is not valued by the program.
Is this a safe and healthy place for my child? Do adults and children wash their hands (before eating or handling food and after using the bathroom, changing diapers, touching bodily fluids, or eating)? 4 Germs can be passed easily from child to child. Washing hands often and well reduces the chance that germs will be passed along and that your child will get sick.
➤ Observe the adults. Do they wash the children’s hands and their hands after using the bathroom, changing diapers, before serving foods, after handling animals, etc.?
➤ Are hand-washing signs posted in center bathrooms?
➤ Are the supplies (water, soap, paper towels) needed for hand-washing near sinks and diaper-changing areas?
➤ Ask the program staff “When do you wash your hands during the day?” and “When do you wash the children’s hands?”
Are the diaper-changing surfaces cleaned and sanitized after each use? 5 Germs can be passed easily among children, particularly at the diaper-changing table. Cleaning and disinfecting the diaper- changing surface after each change reduces the chance that germs will be transmitted and your child will get sick.
➤ Observe the adults. Do they clean and sanitize the diaper- changing surface with a bleach water solution and a disposable towel after changing each child?
➤ Is the surface used for changing diapers easy to sanitize? Couches, beds, etc. cannot be easily sanitized.
➤ Are the supplies (bleach water solution/paper towels) needed to clean and sanitize the diaper-changing table located near the area, but not where children can reach them?
➤ Ask the program staff, “What procedures do you follow during diaper changing to keep children healthy?” Listen for evidence that they sanitize the diaper-changing surface.
Do all the children enrolled have the required immunizations? 6 Children who are up-to-date on their immunizations are less likely to get or pass along diseases. When all the children in a program are healthy this reduces the risk of your child getting sick.
➤ Ask the program staff, “Which immunizations do you require children to have?”
➤ Check to be sure that the program requires children to have the immunizations recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). If you want to know what those immunizations are, visit www.cdc.gov.
➤ Ask the program staff, “How does the program keep track of whether or not children have the required immunizations?”
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 12 4/21/16 4:43 PM
Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care 13
➤ Are medicines labeled and out of children’s reach? 7
This will help your child receive the right medication at the right time in the right amount and prevent your child from receiving someone else’s medication by accident. Children can be harmed by ingesting other children’s medications or too much of any medication.
Are adults trained to give medicines and keep records of medications? 7 Caregivers should be trained in how to read labels on medicines and how to give medicine to children. This will help ensure your child receives medicines when needed and does not receive medicines that are not needed. Children can be harmed by ingesting other children’s medications or too much of any medication.
➤ Ask the program director, “Does the staff receive training on giving medicines?”
➤ Ask the program staff, “Do you give prescription medicines?” and “Do you require a doctor’s directions to give prescription medicines?” and “Do you give non- prescription medicines?” and “Do you require a parent’s approval to give non-prescription medicines?”
➤ Observe to see if staff members make a written record when they give a child a medicine.
Are cleaning supplies and other poisonous materials locked up, out of children’s reach? 8 Accidental poisoning is a leading cause of injury and death among young children. Many cleaning supplies are poisonous when ingested in any amount. Storing all hazardous substances out of reach will ensure your child is not harmed.
➤ Observe where cleaning supplies and other poisonous materials are stored. Are they stored where children cannot reach them?
➤ Check to see if the janitor’s closets are locked. Most of them contain supplies that would be dangerous to children.
➤ Look to see that cleaning supplies and food are not stored together. Storing food and cleaning supplies together can result in accidental poisoning.
➤ Ask the program staff, especially the janitor and cooks, “How do you keep children away from poisonous materials?”
Is there a plan to follow if a child is injured, sick or lost? 9 Child care programs with emergency plans respond better when an emergency arises. The program should have information on each child in care so the parents or another trusted individual can be contacted if a child becomes injured, sick or lost. The staff should be trained on how to contact emergency medical services and the police.
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 13 4/21/16 4:43 PM
14 Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care
➤ Ask the program staff, “What would you do if my child was injured or became ill?” Expect to hear they would contact you and know how to contact emergency medical services.
➤ Ask the program staff, “What would you do if my child was missing?” Expect to hear they would contact the police immediately before starting to search and contacting you.
➤ Be sure the program has a phone. Check near the phones to see if the numbers for fire, police, and emergency medical services are listed.
➤ Ask the program director, “What information do you collect so you are prepared to handle emergencies involving my child?” Expect to hear they collect your home, cell, and work phone numbers and backup phone numbers from other people you would trust to make decisions about your child.
Are first-aid kits readily available? 10 If your child gets hurt, having first aid supplies nearby will ensure he or she gets basic medical attention more quickly.
➤ Ask to see the program’s first aid kit. Some programs keep a kit in each room; some have a kit in the office.
➤ Check to see if the kit contains items such as first aid instructions; disposable, non-porous gloves; soap or hydrogen peroxide; tweezers; bandage tape; sterile gauze; scissors; a baby-safe thermometer; etc.
Is there a plan for responding to disasters (fire, flood, etc.)? 11 An emergency plan that is practiced regularly will increase the likelihood that caregivers and children will act appropriately in an emergency. Programs should have an emergency plan and the staff and children should practice it regularly.
The plan should be practiced during different times of the day, especially when children are sleeping, eating, and outside. The program’s plan should include what to do during the types of disasters (hurricanes, tornadoes, winter storms, etc.) most often experienced in the area, as well as terrorist attacks.
➤ Ask the program staff, “What would you do if there was a fire?” Expect to hear that they would evacuate the children from the facility and then call 9-1-1.
➤ Look to see if there are two ways out of most areas. Check to see the paths to exit the facility in an emergency are posted in each room in a center and at least one place in a family child care home.
➤ Ask the program director to see the program’s emergency plan. Check to see if it includes information on the types of weather events experienced in the area.
➤ Ask the program staff, “Do you practice for emergencies like a fire?” and “How often do you involve the children in these practices?” and “What types of weather events are you prepared for?”
➤ Ask the program staff, “What would you do if there was a terrorist attack?”
Has a satisfactory criminal history background check been conducted on each adult present? Was the check based on fingerprints? 14 Having adults with favorable background checks helps ensure people with criminal backgrounds are not caring for your child, reducing the risk of child abuse. These checks are more valid if they are based on fingerprints. Sometimes these checks take some time to be processed; adults who have not had their background check returned should always be closely supervised by someone who has been cleared. Checks should be completed on all adults who have contact with children including bus drivers, janitors, clerks, etc.
➤ Ask the program director, “Is a criminal history background check conducted on all staff and volunteers and adult family members (if a family child care home)?” and “Are the checks based on fingerprints?”
➤ Ask the program director, “Are adults allowed to be alone with children while you are waiting for their background check to be completed?” and “How will you ensure my child will not be alone with someone without a completed background check?”
➤ Ask the program director, “Are there any adults around the program who have been arrested or convicted of a crime involving violence or children?”
Have all the adults who are left alone with children had background and criminal screenings? 13 The rare occasions when abuse occurs in child care centers typically happen when caregivers are left alone with children. Making sure center caregivers can be seen at all times greatly reduces this risk. In family child care homes the provider often will be alone with the children. The greater risk in homes is when other family members or visitors are left alone with children.
➤ In centers, look to see that at least two adults are with each group of children most of the time.
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 14 4/21/16 4:43 PM
Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care 15
➤ Ask the program director, “What precautions do you take to reduce the potential for child abuse in your program?” Expect to hear that the program avoids having one adult alone with children whenever possible.
➤ In family child care homes, ask the provider, “Will my child ever be left alone with your family members or guests?” Expect to hear this would only occur in an emergency or if a family member is an approved and trained substitute.
Is the outdoor play area a safe place for children to play?
➤ Is it checked each morning for hazards before children use it?23
➤ Is the equipment the right size and type for the age of the children who use it?24
➤ Is the outdoor area surrounded by a fence or other barrier at least 4 feet tall if there is traffic or there are other hazards nearby?25
➤ Is the equipment in good condition?39
➤ Is the equipment placed on mulch, sand, or rubber mats?23
The most common place for children to be injured is on the playground or in the yard.
If there is traffic or there are other hazards near the outdoor area there should be a barrier at least 4 feet high surrounding the area. The barrier could be a fence, hedge, or other protection.
If the outdoor area is checked daily for broken glass, metal pieces, etc., cuts and other injuries can be avoided. Children can also be injured if the play equipment is broken or splintered or missing important parts.
Most injuries on playgrounds occur when children fall. Children can get hurt if they fall from play equipment that is too high or has handholds, steps or other parts that are too big for them. Having soft surfaces under play equipment cushions the child’s fall. The materials used to cushion children’s falls should be 9 to 12 inches deep.
➤ Walk around the outdoor area; look for broken glass, metal pieces, or other debris that could injure a child. Check the equipment for missing or broken parts that could result in children falling. If there is traffic or if there are other hazards nearby, is there a fence or other barrier to protect children from injury? Is the barrier high enough to keep children inside?
➤ Check the playground equipment. Is it the right size for your child? Does it have impact-altering materials under it? Are the materials 9 to 12 inches deep? Are the materials still in place where the slide ends, where children drag their feet when swinging, and in other high-use areas?
➤ Ask the program director, “How often is the outdoor area and equipment checked?” and “When is the cushioning material under the outdoor equipment replenished?”
Is the program set up to promote quality? Does the program have the highest level of licensing offered by the state? 42 Some states offer different approval levels for child care programs. For example, family child care programs may be registered or licensed. In some states, if the family child care provider is a relative of the children in care or cares for fewer than a specific number of children, he or she is not required to be registered or licensed.
If a child care program chooses to be licensed, even if not required to be, this may indicate the program is interested in providing quality care for your child. Some states have a quality rating system for child care programs and rate programs based on various quality criteria. If the program has earned a high rating in the state’s quality rating system this is usually an indication that the program is providing quality child care.
➤ Ask the program director, “Is this program licensed by the state?” If it isn’t licensed ask, “Why isn’t it licensed?” If the answer is that the program isn’t required to be licensed, ask “Have you considered becoming licensed anyway?”
➤ Ask the program director, “Has this program received the highest quality rating given by the state?” If the answer is “no,” ask “Why didn’t the program receive the highest quality rating?” The answer may be that the state doesn’t offer quality ratings.
Are there written personnel policies and job descriptions? 17 Written personnel policies and job descriptions reflect a program’s professionalism and expectations of staff. Written policies also help staff know what is expected of them, resulting in programs running more effectively.
➤ Ask to see a center’s personnel policies and job descriptions for staff.
➤ In a family child care home, ask to see the personnel policies and job descriptions for any assistants and substitutes.
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 15 4/21/16 4:43 PM
16 Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care
Are parents and staff asked to evaluate the program? 37 Child care programs should regularly seek ways to improve the quality of the care they offer. Asking parents and staff for feedback and using the results to make improvements shows the program is responsive to your and other parents’ input.
➤ Ask the program director, “Do you ask the parents how the program could be improved?” and “Do you ask the staff how the program should be improved?”
➤ Ask the program staff, “Are you asked to provide input on how the program could be improved?”
➤ Ask other parents, “Are you asked to provide input on how well the program is doing?”
➤ Ask to see the results of any surveys parents and staff have been asked to complete.
Are staff evaluated each year? Do providers do a self-assessment? 18 Annual evaluations provide feedback to staff on their performance and provide an opportunity for staff to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement.
This feedback can improve job performance, enhancing the overall operation of the program.
➤ Ask the program director, “Are staff evaluated each year?” and “Are the results of staff evaluations shared with the individual staff members?”
➤ Ask family child care providers, “Do you do a self- assessment each year?” and “How do you use the results of the self-assessment?”
➤ Ask program staff, “Are you evaluated each year?” and “Are the results of your annual evaluation shared with you?”
Is there a written annual training plan for staff professional development? 33 A written training plan individualized for each staff member or provider helps adults get the training they need to do the best job possible of educating and caring for your child.
➤ Ask to see the center’s training plan for staff professional development. Check to see that staff members are provided opportunities to continue to learn about how to help children develop and learn.
➤ Ask the family child care provider to see his or her training plan for the year. Check to see that he or she plans to participate in training on how to help children develop and learn.
➤ Ask program staff, “Is there a written annual training plan for professional development?” and “Is the plan followed?”
Is the program evaluated each year by someone outside the program? 38 Having an outside “pair of eyes” look at the child care program each year helps ensure it will be a quality place for your child. Someone who is not in the program every day can spot health or safety hazards missed by those who are there every day. Outside evaluators can also offer suggestions on how to improve the program and make it a better place for children to grow and learn.
➤ Ask the program director, “How often are you inspected by the state?” and “Are you visited by any other outside group?”
➤ If the program has been inspected in the last year, ask “What were the results of your latest inspection?”
Is the program accredited by a national organization? 36 National accreditation is a process that typically requires self- study, feedback from families, and a validation visit by an outside organization. Participating in this process increases program quality. The stamp of approval of an outside organization means the program has received feedback on its performance by an outside entity. Accrediting agencies include the National Association for the Education of Young Children, National Association for Family Child Care, Council on Accreditation, National Early Childhood Program Accreditation and National Accreditation Commission for Early Care and Education Programs.
➤ Ask the program director, “Is this program accredited?” If the program is not accredited, ask “Why hasn’t the program sought accreditation?” and “Does the program plan to become accredited?”
➤ Look for a certificate or other display indicating that the program is accredited.
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 16 4/21/16 4:43 PM
Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care 17
Does the program work with parents? Will I be welcome any time my child is in care? 1 As a parent you should always feel welcome in the program. You should always have access to your children where they are receiving care at any time. Programs may recommend that you not visit during rest time or other specific times, but you should be able to visit during those times if you choose to do so.
➤ Ask the program director, “Will I be able to visit the program at all times?”
➤ Ask other parents, “Are you able to visit the program whenever you want to?”
Is parents’ feedback sought and used in making program improvements? 1 Your input should be welcome. Programs have the needs of many different families to balance, but you should always feel listened to and encouraged to express your opinions.
➤ Ask other parents, “Is parent input asked for and accepted?”
➤ Ask the program director, “How does the program get input from parents?” and “What are some examples of changes that have been made based on parent input?”
Will I be given a copy of the program’s policies? 2 Well-managed programs operate using a set of policies and procedures. This information may be made available to parents in a parent handbook. This usually means the program has thought through the needs and interests of parents and will be more responsive to their needs.
➤ Ask to see a copy of the program’s policies.
➤ Ask for a copy of the program’s parent handbook.
➤ Ask parents, “Have you been given a copy of the program’s policies?”
➤ Ask the program director, “Will I be given a copy of the program’s policies?”
Are annual conferences held with parents? Are parents involved in other ways? 30 Parent conferences allow you to visit with your child’s teacher or caregiver in a focused way to talk about your child’s development and progress and to share goals. These conferences can be invaluable for establishing relationships and developing shared plans for educating and caring for your child. Staff and providers should talk with parents about their child’s day and how to ease transitions between home and child care and child care and school.
➤ Ask the program director, “Are parent conferences held?” and “How often?”
➤ Ask the program staff, “Do you have planned conferences with parents?”
➤ Ask other parents, “Are annual conferences held with parents?”
➤ Ask the program director, “How will the person caring for my child keep me informed about my child’s day?”
➤ Ask the program director, “What will the program do to help my child adjust to child care?” and “What will the program do to help my child transition to school?”
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 17 4/21/16 4:43 PM
18 Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care
Bibliography
1Lopez, M. E. (1996). Quality in family and child care partnerships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project; U. S. Department of Education. (1994). Strong families, strong schools: Building community partnerships for learning. Washington, DC: Author.
2Diffily, D. & Morrison, K. (eds.). (1996). Family-friendly communication for early-childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
3Chang, H. N. (1996). Looking in, looking out: Redefining child care and early education in a diverse society. San Francisco, CA: California Tomorrow.
4Niffenegger, J. P. (1997). Proper hand washing promotes wellness in childcare. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 11(1), 26-31. Starr (1996).Breaking the Chain: Handwashing and infection control. Early Childhood News, 8(3), 29-31.
5Holaday, B., Waugh, G., Moukaddem, V. E., West, J. & Harshman, S. (1995). Diaper type and fecal contamination in child day care. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, March-April, 67- 74; Sauver, J. Khurana, M., Kao, A. & Foxman, B. (1998). Hygienic practices and acute respiratory illness in family and group day care homes. Public Health Reports, November- December, 113, 544-550.
6Bond, L. Nolan, T. & Lester, R. (1999). Immunization uptake, services required and government incentives for users of formal day care. Journal of Public Health, 23(4), 368-376; Fiene, R. (2002). 13 Indicators of Quality Child Care: Research Update. Presentation to Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Health Resources and Services Administration/ Maternal and Child Health Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
7Gunn, W. J., Pinsky, P. F., Sacks, J. J. & Schonberger, L. B. (1991). Injuries and poisonings in out-of-home child care and home care, American Journal of Diseases of Children. 145(7):779-81; Slack-Smith, L. M., Read, A. W. & Stanley, F. J. (1998). The use of medication in children attending childcare in Western Australia, Journal ofPediatrics & Child Health, 34(2):183-7.
8Aronson, D. (1988). Chemical hazards in childcare, Child Care Information Exchange, September, 33-37; Greenspan, N. (1991). Infants, toddlers, and indoor air pollution. Zero to Three, 11(5): 14-21.
9Fiene, R. (2002). 13 Indicators of Quality Child Care: Research Update. Presentation to Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Health Resources and Services Administration/Maternal and Child Health Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Wiebe, R. A. & Fuchs, S. (1999). Emergency medical services in the childcare setting. Healthy Child Care America Newsletter, 3(1): 3-5.
10Cummings, P., Rivara, F. P., Boase, J., & MacDonald, J. K. (1996). Injuries and their relation to potential hazards in child day care, Injury Prevention, 2(2):105-8.
11McConnell, C., Leeming, F. & Dwyer, W. (1996). Evaluation of a fire-safety training program for preschool children, Journal of Community Psychology, 24(3):213-227.
12Donohue, A. (1995). Preventing child abuse, part II. In Todd, C.M.(Ed.), Child care connections, 2(2), Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service.
13Wurtele, S. K. & Schmitt, A. (1992). Childcare workers’ knowledge about reporting suspected child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect,16, 385-390.
14Schumacher, R. B. & Carlson, R. S. (1999). Variables and risk factors associated with child abuse in daycare settings. Child Abuse and Neglect,23(9), 891-898.
15Fiene, R. (2002). 13 Indicators of Quality Child Care: Research Update. Presentation to Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Health Resources and Services Administration/Maternal and Child Health Bureau U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
16American Academy of Pediatrics. (1998). Guidance for effective discipline, AAP Policy Statement, 101(4), 723-728.
17Department of Labor, Bureau of Management Statistics: Occupational outlook handbook. Available: http://www.bls.gov/ oco/ocos021. htm; resources for child care workers available at: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos170.htm
18Department of Labor, Bureau of Management Statistics: Occupational outlook handbook. Available at http://www.bls.gov/ oco/ocos021.htm; resources for child care workers available at: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos170.htm
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 18 4/21/16 4:43 PM
Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care 19
19Dunn, L. (1993). Ratio and group size in day care programs. Child and Youth Care Forum, 22, 193-226; National Institute on Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Early Child Care and Children’s Development in the Primary Grades: Follow-Up Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. American Educational Research Journal, 42 (3); Palmerus, K.(1996). The impact of ratio of children/caregiver on social interaction and activity pattern in a day care center. Early Child Development and Care, 71, 97-103; Vandell, D. L. & Wolfe B. (2000). Child Care Quality: Does It Matter and Does It Need to be Improved? Institute for Research on Poverty: University of Wisconsin–Madison.=
20Bartlett, A. V., Orton, P., & Turner, M. (1986). Day care homes: The silent majority of child day care. Review of Infectious Disease, 8, 663-668; Dunn, L. (1993). Ratio and group size in day care programs. Child and Youth Care Forum, 22, 193-226; National Institute on Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Early Child Care and Children’s Development in the Primary Grades: Follow-Up Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. American Educational Research Journal, 42 (3); Vandell, D.L. & Wolfe B. (2000). Child Care Quality: Does It Matter and Does It Need to be Improved? Institute for Research on Poverty: University of Wisconsin–Madison.
21NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1999). Child outcomes when child care center classes meet recommended standards for quality. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1072- 1077.
22Bowman, B.T., Donovan, M.S., & Burns, M.S. (2001). Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
23Briss, P. A., Sacks, J. J., Addiss, D. G., Kresnow, M. J. & O’Neil, J.(1995). Injuries from falls on playgrounds. Effects of day care center regulation and enforcement, Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine,149(8), 906-911.
24Kotch, J. B., Chalmers, D. J., Langley, J. D. & Marshall, S. W. (1993). Child day care and home injuries involving playground equipment. Journal of Pediatrics & Child Health, 29(3), 222-227.
25Browning, K. S., Runyan, C. W. & Kotch, J. B. (1996), A statewide survey of hazards in child care centers, Injury Prevention, 2(3), 202-207.
26Honig, A. S. & Hirallal A. (1998). Which counts more for excellence in child care staff—years in service, education level or early childhood education coursework? Early Child Development & Care, 145, 31-46; Whitebook, M., Phillips, D. & Howes, C. (1993). The national child care staffing study revisited: Four years in the life of centers based child care. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project.
27Fiene, R. (2002). 13 Indicators of Quality Child Care: Research Update. Presentation to Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Health Resources and Services Administration/Maternal and Child Health Bureau U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Soto, J. C., Guy, M., Deshaies, D., Durand, L., Gratton, J., & Belanger, L. (1994). A community health approach for infection control in day-care centers. Pediatrics, 94(6), S1027.
28Honig, A. S. & Hirallal, A. (1998), Which counts more for excellence in child care staff—years in service, education level or early childhood education coursework?; Early Child Development & Care, 145, 31-46; Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Maxwell, K. & Clifford. R. (2004). The role in professional development in creating high quality preschool education.Paper presented at the Brookings- University of North Carolina Conference on Preschool Education.
29Pramling, I. P., & Palmerus, K. (1991). Increasing the competence of staff dealing with young children. Paper presented at the Fifth Early Childhood Convention, Dunedin, New Zealand.
30Galinsky et al. (1995) The family child care training study. New York: Families and Work Institute.
31Clifford, R. M., Harms, T., Pepper, S., & Stuart, B. (1992). Assessing quality in family day care. in D. L. Peters, & A. R. Pence (Eds), Family Day Care: Current research for informed public policy (pp. 243-265). New York: Teachers College Press; Galinsky et al. (1995) The family child care training study. New York: Families and Work Institute.
32Briss, P. A., Sacks, J. J., Addiss, D. G., Kresnow, M. J. & O’Neil, J. (1993). A nationwide study of the risk of injury associated with day care center attendance. Atlanta, Georgia: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 364-368.
33Miller, P. S. & Stayton, V. D. (1998). Blended interdisciplinary teacher preparation in early education and intervention, Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18(1):49-58; Mitchell, L. & Cubey, P. (2003). Characteristics of professional development linked to enhanced pedagogy and children’s learning in early childhood settings: Best evidence synthesis. New Zealand Ministry of Education: Wellington.
34Center for the Child Care Workforce. (1999). Creating Better Child Care Jobs: Model Work Standards for Teaching Staff in Center-Based Child Care. Washington D.C.: author; Department of Labor, Bureau of Management Statistics: Occupational outlook handbook. Available: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos021. htm; resources for child care workers available at: http://www.bls. gov/oco/ocos170.htm
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 19 4/21/16 4:43 PM
20 Is This the Right Place for My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care
35Center for the Child Care Workforce. (1999). Creating Better Child Care Jobs: Model Work Standards for Teaching Staff in Center-Based Child Care. Washington D.C.: author; Department of Labor, Bureau of Management Statistics: Occupational outlook handbook. Available: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos021. htm; resources for child care workers available at: http://www.bls. gov/oco/ocos170.htm
36Bloom, D. (1996). The quality of work life in NAEYC accredited and non accredited early childhood programs, Early Education & Development, 7(4),301-7; Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team (1995). Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers public report.Denver: Economics Department, University of Colorado-Denver; Frede, E. (1995). The role of program quality in producing early childhood program benefits. Future of Children, 5(3), 115–132.
37Schultz, T. & Lopez, E. (1996). Early childhood reform in seven communities: Front-line practice, agency management, and public policy. U.S Department of Education.
38Andersson, M. (1999). The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) as a tool in evaluating and improving quality in preschools. Studies in Educational Sciences, 19; Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Riggins, R., Zeisel, S. A., Neebe, E., & Bryant, D. (2000). Relating quality of center-based child care to early cognitive and language development longitudinally. Child Development, 71(2), 339-357; Clifford, R. M., Russell, S., Fleming, J., Peisner, E. S., Harms, T., & Cryer, D. (1989). Infant/ Toddler Environment Rating Scale: Reliability and validity study- Final Report. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Kontos, S. (1994). The ecology of family day care. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 9(1), 87-110; Scarr, S., Eisenberg, M., & Deater-Deckard, K. (1994). Measurement of quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9(2), 1 31-152.
39 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (July 2001). Home playground equipment-related deaths and injuries. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
40Ferrar, Heidi M., Harms, Thelma and Cryer, Debby. (1995). Places for Growing. How to Improve Your Family Child Care Home. Lessons from Child Care Research Funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. New York: Rockefeller Foundation. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from http:// www.mathematica-mpr.com/PDF/family.pdf.
41Consumer Product Safety Commission. United States of America. (n.d.). Which Toy for Which Child. A Consumer’s Guide to Selecting Suitable Toys: Ages Birth Through Five. Publication No. 285. http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/285.pdf. Accessed 1/30/2006.
42Azer, Sheri, LeMoine, Sarah, Morgan, Gwen, Clifford, Richard M., & Crawford, Gisele M. (Winter 2002). Regulation of Child Care. In National Center for Early Development & Learning. Early Childhood Research & Policy Briefs. Volume 2, #1.
43National Research Council. (1999). Starting Out Right. A Guide to Promoting Children’s Reading Success. Burns, Susan M., Griffin, Peg, and. Snow, Catherine E (Editor s). Washington< D.C.: National Academy Press.
34147_121_EngTxt.indd 20 4/21/16 4:43 PM
Is This The Right Place For My Child? 38 Research-Based Indicators of Quality Child Care
For additional resources or help finding your local Child Care Resource and Referral Agency call toll-free:
1-800-424-2246 | TTY: 866-278-9428 | www.ChildCareAware.org
Child Care Aware® of America 1515 N. Courthouse Road, Arlington, VA 22201
Phone (703) 341-4100 Fax (703) 341-4101 | www.usa.childcareaware.org | #1819-1008 | #121e
34147_121_EngCov.indd All Pages 4/21/16 3:24 PM
Child Care Decision-Making Literature Review
Issue Brief OPRE 2013-45 December 2013
Child Care Decision-Making Literature Review
Authors: Nicole Forry, Child Trends Kathryn Tout, Child Trends Laura Rothenberg, Child Trends Heather Sandstrom, The Urban Institute Colleen Vesely, George Mason University
OPRE Brief 2013-45 December 2013
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Melanie Brizzi from the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Lynette Rasmussen from Utah’s Department of Workforce Services, and Ellen Wheatley from New Hampshire’s Department of Health and Human Services for their insightful policy-related responses to the literature, included in this review. The authors would also like to thank the members of the Child Care Policy and Research Consortium’s Child Care Decision-Making Workgroup, Dawn Ramsburg, Shannon Rudisill, Ivelisse Martinez-Beck, Mary Bruce Webb, and Naomi Goldstein for their input and reviews of this literature review.
Project Officer: Ivelisse Martinez-Beck, PhD., Project Officer Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation Administration for Children and Families U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Contract Number: HHSP233200800445G (IDIQ Number: GS10F0030R)
Project Director: Nicole Forry Child Trends 4301 Connecticut Ave NW Washington DC, 20008
This report is in the public domain. Permission to reproduce is not necessary.
Suggested Citation: Forry, N. D., Tout, K., Rothenberg, L., Sandstrom, H., Vesely, C. (2013). Child Care Decision- Making Literature Review. OPRE Brief 2013-45. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, the Administration for Children and Families, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
This report and other reports sponsored by the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation are available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/index.html.http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/index.html
Members of the Child Care Policy and Research Consortium’s Child Care Decision-Making Workgroup
Members of the Child Care Policy and Research Consortium’s Child Care Decision-Making Workgroup contributed to the conceptualization of this literature review and provided substantive reviews of this product. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of these members.
Meryl Barofsky Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation
Dina Castro FPG Child Development Institute
Liz Davis University of Minnesota
Nicole Forry Child Trends
Julia Henly University of Chicago
Amber Moodie-Dwyer Ohio State University
Dawn Ramsburg Office of Child Care
Laura Rothenberg Child Trends
Heather Sandstrom The Urban Institute
Kathryn Tout Child Trends
Colleen Vesely George Mason University
Bobbie Weber Oregon State University
3
Overview
This review was produced as part of the Child Care and Early Education Policy and Research Analysis and Technical Expertise Project. The purpose of this project is to support the provision of expert consultation, assessment and analysis in child care and early education policy and research. It is funded through a contract with the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
This review was co-authored by researchers from Child Trends, The Urban Institute, and George Mason University. The purpose of the review is to summarize research on the context and factors that facilitate parents’ decision-making about child care. It is intended to provide a foundation of empirical knowledge for state administrators, early childhood program developers, and policymakers who can use information about child care decision-making processes and outcomes to improve their programs and services for families.
The review reflects current and seminal work from researchers throughout the U.S. on the preferences, constraints and supports that influence parents’ child care decision-making. Summarized literature includes published journal articles as well as reports from studies funded by the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation and other federal government agencies. Policy-relevant responses to the literature from three state child care subsidy administrators are included.
This literature review addresses the following topics: • Parents’ child care decision-making process
• Parents’ preferences and priorities in selecting a care arrangement
• Constraints to selecting preferred care arrangements
• Facilitators to selecting preferred care arrangements
4
Executive Summary The purpose of this review is to summarize research on the context and factors that facilitate parents’ decision- making about child care. It is intended to provide a foundation of empirical knowledge for state administrators, early childhood program developers, and policymakers who can use information about child care decision- making processes and outcomes to improve their programs and services for families. The review reflects current and seminal work completed by researchers throughout the U.S. on the preferences, constraints and supports that influence parents’ child care decision-making. Literature for this review comes from published journal articles as well as reports from studies funded by the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation and other federal government agencies. The structure and content were selected to reflect topics of interest to early care and education administrators, policymakers, and stakeholders.
We use a child care decision-making model developed by Weber (2011) and policy-relevant issues identified in discussions with state administrators to frame the review. Additionally, we focus on literature related to the child care decisions of parents with young children (age 0-5). Findings from the literature are organized into four main sections reflecting empirical findings about: 1) parents’ child care decision-making processes, 2) parents’ preferences and priorities in selecting a care arrangement, 3) constraints to selecting preferred care arrangements, and 4) policies and programs that support parents in selecting their preferred care arrangement. Key findings from each of these sections are provided below. Further details and citations can be found in the full literature review.
Key Findings
Parents’ Child Care Decision-Making Process
• Most low-income parents perceive having limited child care options and consider few options.1
• No negative associations have been found between the amount of time spent searching for care or number of options considered and parental satisfaction with care.2
• Most low-income parents learn about their child’s provider from friends, family members, and neighbors.3
• On average, low-income parents make child care decisions quickly;4 41% of parents from one study made choices within one day.5
Parents’ Preferences and Priorities in Selecting a Care Arrangement
• When asked for their child care preferences, the majority of low-income parents place a high value on the quality of arrangements. These preferences are not always reflected in parents’ choices when selecting a child care arrangement.6
• Parents’ definitions of quality vary across studies, but tend to include both structural and process-oriented features identified by early care and education professionals as being indicators of quality. Structural features included in parents’ definitions of child care quality include provider education7, provider experience and training8, and a low child-adult ratio9. Process-oriented features included in parents’ definitions of child care quality include provider warmth10, activities to support children’s development (including cognitive/academic skills and social skills11, and open communication within the family-provider relationship12. In addition to these specific factors, parents placed a strong emphasis on their children’s health and safety and their trust of the provider.13 5http:provider.13
• Child care preferences differ by a number of child, parent, family, and community characteristics. For example, whereas parents of infants and toddlers tend to prefer parental/relative care, parents of preschoolers tend to prefer center-based care.14 Studies have found that parents with less than a college degree place more emphasis on safety and practical features, such as cost and location, and parents with a college degree are more likely to focus on quality features.15 Studies have also found parents who are working, and particularly working full-time, are more likely to cite practical considerations than parents who are not working, or working part-time.16 Likewise, family income has been positively associated with parents’ endorsement of quality as compared to practical features (e.g., cost, location) as top priorities.17
• Child care preferences and choices among immigrants vary by county of origin18 and reflect experiences from their country of origin and values of their culture.19
• In addition to having many of the same preferences and concerns of other parents, parents of children with special needs are also concerned about specific program features that are critical to the care of their child’s special needs.20 Availability of care that meets children’s special needs is limited.21 Limits in availability of child care options that can meet children’s special needs have resulted in a high use of care from family members, friends, and neighbors as well as employment disruptions for parents.22
Constraints to Selecting Preferred Care Arrangements
• Contextual factors related to the child care market include the availability, accessibility, affordability, and parental awareness of supply.23
• Child care options for infants and school-age children tend to be more limited than options for preschool- age children.24
• Rural areas tend to have fewer regulated child care providers than metropolitan areas and more unmet child care needs have been documented in low-income communities than higher income communities.25
• Employment factors (e.g., shifting and unpredictable work schedules, nonstandard hours, and inflexible work policies) limit families’ child care options.26
• Among families reliant on public transportation, accessibility to care options is limited by the schedule and routes of public transit.27
• Families’ child care choices reflect the options they perceive to be affordable. 28
• Parents, particularly immigrants or refugees, may have limited awareness of their eligibility for free/ subsidized early care and education arrangements, such as Head Start.29
Facilitators to Selecting Preferred Care Arrangements
• The majority of low-income parents knows about resources and referral services, but did not use this service to find their child’s care.30
• Most parents have reported that they would be interested in the type of information that Quality Rating and Improvement Systems provide, and would use this information in making child care choices.31
• Most parents are not aware of state/local Quality Rating and Improvement Systems, though the percent of parents who are aware of these systems are growing.32
6http:growing.32http:choices.31http:Start.29http:transit.27http:options.26http:communities.25http:children.24http:supply.23http:parents.22http:limited.21http:needs.20http:culture.19http:priorities.17http:part-time.16http:features.15
• The use of child care subsidies have been associated with parents using their preferred type of care.33
• Scholarships, designed to facilitate parents’ access to high quality care, have been associated with changes from unlicensed to regulated (primarily center-based) care.34
Implications for Policy and Practice
• Resources to support child care decision-making should acknowledge the multitude of inter-related factors that shape how decisions are made and the fact that preferences for different features of child care arrangements may vary by the characteristics of the families.
• Studies suggest that friends, families and, in some cases, trusted professionals (such as case workers and pediatricians) play a role in decision making. Creating a cadre of trusted child care advisors who can listen to families’ unique circumstances and provide guidance that is culturally sensitive would be a potentially valuable service to families. Additionally, community or neighborhood-based initiatives, such as provider open houses and yard signs, could be used to increase community members’ awareness of the child care options, and particularly options that have been rated as high quality through QRIS, available in a neighborhood.
• A focus on effective marketing and engagement strategies is needed to increase the awareness and utility of QRIS, especially for low-income families. States may choose to market QRIS as a system that rates providers on specific quality indicators that will likely resonate with parents. For example, states could highlight how their QRIS includes indicators of quality identified as important by parents in extant literature (e.g., provider background checks, small group sizes, and training on learning activities that can support children’s growth). The timing of these efforts should consider the participation rates of programs so that parents responding to marketing efforts will encounter a sufficient supply of rated programs.
• Child care subsidies and other sources of financial supports (such as scholarships) can enable parents to access these preferred settings when they are available. Interactions with families to provide informational resources at the point of application for child care subsidies may be used to support families’ search process and provide them with information about other free or low-cost programs, such as Head Start or pre-K.
7
Endnotes 1 Anderson, S., Ramsburg, D. M., & Scott, J. (2005). Illinois study of license-exempt child care: Final report. Layzer, J. I., Goodson, B. D., &
Brown-Lyons, M. (2007). National Study of Care for Low-Income Families: Care in the home: A description of family child care and the experiences of the families and children that use it: Final Report.
2 Forry, N. D., Isner, T. K., Daneri, P., & Tout, K. (2012a). Child care decision-making: Understanding priorities and processes used by subsidized low-income families in Minnesota. Manuscript submitted for publication. Layzer, J. I., Goodson, B. D., & Brown-Lyons, M. (2007). National Study of Care for Low-Income Families: Care in the home: A description of family child care and the experiences of the families and children that use it: Final Report.
3 Iruka, I. U., & Carver, P. R. (2006). Initial Results from the 2005 NHES Early Childhood Program Participation Survey. (NCES 2006-075). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Layzer, J. I., Goodson, B. D., & Brown-Lyons, M. (2007). National Study of Care for Low-Income Families: Care in the home: A description of family child care and the experiences of the families and children that use it: Final Report. Pungello, E. P., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (1999). Why and how working women choose child care: A review with a focus on infancy. Developmental Review, 19, 31-96.
4 Forry, N. D., Isner, T. K., Daneri, P., & Tout, K. (2012a). Child care decision-making: Understanding priorities and processes used by subsidized low-income families in Minnesota. Manuscript submitted for publication. Layzer, J. I., Goodson, B. D., & Brown-Lyons, M. (2007). National Study of Care for Low-Income Families: Care in the home: A description of family child care and the experiences of the families and children that use it: Final Report.
5 Layzer, J. I., Goodson, B. D., & Brown-Lyons, M. (2007). National Study of Care for Low-Income Families: Care in the home: A description of family child care and the experiences of the families and children that use it: Final Report.
6 Sandstrom, H., & Chaudry, A. (2012). ‘You have to choose your childcare to fit your work’: Childcare decision-making among low-income working families. Journal of Children and Poverty, 18, 89-119.
7 Rose, K. K., & Elicker, J. (2008). Parental decision making about child care. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1161-1184.
8 Shlay, A. B., Tran, H., Weinraub, M., & Harmon, M. (2005). Teasing apart the child care conundrum: A factorial survey analysis of perceptions of child care quality, fair market price and willingness to pay by low-income, African American parents. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 393-416.
9 Shlay, A. B. (2010). African American, White and Hispanic child care preferences: A factorial survey analysis of welfare leavers by race and ethnicity. Social Science Research, 29, 125-141. Van Horn, M. L., Ramey, S. L., Mulvihill, B. A., & Newell, W. Y. (2001). Reasons for child care choice and appraisal among low-income mothers. Child & Youth Care Forum, 30(4), 231-249.
10 Cryer, D., & Burchinal, M. (1997). Parents as child care consumers. Early Child Development and Care, 12, 35-58. Shlay, A. B. (2010). African American, White and Hispanic child care preferences: A factorial survey analysis of welfare leavers by race and ethnicity. Social Science Research, 29, 125-141. Shlay, A. B., Tran, H., Weinraub, M., & Harmon, M. (2005). Teasing apart the child care conundrum: A factorial survey analysis of perceptions of child care quality, fair market price and willingness to pay by low-income, African American parents. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 393-416.
11 Barbarin, O. A., McCandies, T., Early, D., Clifford, R. M., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Howes, C., …Pianta, R. (2006). Quality of prekindergarten: What families are looking for in public sponsored programs. Early Education & Development, 17, 619-642. Chaudry, A., Pedroza, J. M., Sandstrom, H., Danziger, A., Grosz, M., Scott, M., …Ting, S. (2011). Child care choices of low-income working families. Retrieved from The Urban Institute website: http://www.urban.org/publications/412343.html. Gamble, W. C., Ewing, A. R., & Wilhelm, M. S. (2009). Parental perceptions of characteristics of non-parental child care: Belief dimensions, family and child correlates. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 70-82. Holloway, S. D., Rambaud, M. F., Fuller, B., & Eggers-Pierola, C. (1995). What is “appropriate practice” at home and in child care?: Low-income mothers’ views on preparing their children for school Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 451-473. Ispa, J. M., Thornburg, K. R., & Venter-Barkley, J. (1998). Parental child care selection criteria and program quality in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan communities. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 14, 3-14. Leach, P., Barnes, J., Nichols, M., Goldin, J., Stein, A., Sylva, K., …Malmberg, L.-E. (2006). Child care before 6 months of age: A qualitative study of mothers’ decisions and feelings about employment and non-maternal care. Infant and Child Development, 15, 471-502. Mensing, J. F., French, D., Fuller, B., & Kagan, S. L. (2000). Child care selection under welfare reform: How mothers balance work requirements and parenting. Early Education and Development, 11(5), 573-595. Van Horn, M. L., Ramey, S. L., Mulvihill, B. A., & Newell, W. Y. (2001). Reasons for child care choice and appraisal among low-income mothers. Child & Youth Care Forum, 30(4), 231-249.
12 Barbarin, O. A., McCandies, T., Early, D., Clifford, R. M., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Howes, C., …Pianta, R. (2006). Quality of prekindergarten: What families are looking for in public sponsored programs. Early Education & Development, 17, 619-642. Forry, N. D., Wheeler, E., & Simkin, S. (2012b). “You know how it makes you feel”: Low-income parents’ child care preferences and definitions of high quality child care. Manuscript submitted for publication. Leach, P., Barnes, J., Nichols, M., Goldin, J., Stein, A., Sylva, K., …Malmberg, L.-E. (2006). Child care before 6 months of age: A qualitative study of mothers’ decisions and feelings about employment and non-maternal care. Infant and Child Development, 15, 471-502.
8http://www.urban.org/publications/412343.html
13 Anderson, S., Ramsburg, D. M., & Scott, J. (2005). Illinois study of license-exempt child care: Final report. Cryer, D., & Burchinal, M. (1997). Parents as child care consumers. Early Child Development and Care, 12, 35-58. Henly, J. R., & Lyons, S. (2000). The negotiation of child care and employment demands along low-income parents. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 683-706. Ispa, J. M., Thornburg, K. R., & Venter- Barkley, J. (1998). Parental child care selection criteria and program quality in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan communities. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 14, 3-14. Leach, P., Barnes, J., Nichols, M., Goldin, J., Stein, A., Sylva, K., …Malmberg, L.-E. (2006). Child care before 6 months of age: A qualitative study of mothers’ decisions and feelings about employment and non-maternal care. Infant and Child Development, 15, 471-502. Mensing, J. F., French, D., Fuller, B., & Kagan, S. L. (2000). Child care selection under welfare reform: How mothers balance work requirements and parenting. Early Education and Development, 11(5), 573-595. S hlay, A. B. (2010). African American, White and Hispanic child care preferences: A factorial survey analysis of welfare leavers by race and ethnicity. Social Science Research, 29, 125-141. Weber, R. B., & Grobe, D. (2011). Oregon subsidy policy impact research project: Parent survey. Corvallis: Oregon Child Care Research Partnership.
14 Rose, K. K., & Elicker, J. (2008). Parental decision making about child care. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1161-1184. Rose, K. K., & Elicker, J. (2010). Maternal child care preferences for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers: The disconnect between policy and preferences in the USA. Community, Work, & Family, 13, 205-229.
15 Johansen, A. S., Leibowitz, A., & Waite, L. J. (1996). The importance of child-care characteristics to choice of care. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 759-772. Leslie, L., Ettenson, R., & Cumsille, P. (2000). Selecting a child care center: What really matters to parents? Child and Youth Care Forum, 29, 299-322. Rose, K. K., & Elicker, J. (2008). Parental decision making about child care. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1161-1184. Van Horn, M. L., Ramey, S. L., Mulvihill, B. A., & Newell, W. Y. (2001). Reasons for child care choice and appraisal among low-income mothers. Child & Youth Care Forum, 30(4), 231-249.
16 Kim, J., & Fram, M. S. (2009). Profiles of choice: Parents’ patterns of priority in child care decision-making. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 77-91. Peyton, V., Jacobs, A. C., O’Brien, M., & Roy, C. (2001). Reasons for choosing child care: Associations with family factors, quality and satisfaction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 191-208.
17 Gamble, W. C., Ewing, A. R., & Wilhelm, M. S. (2009). Parental perceptions of characteristics of non-parental child care: Belief dimensions, family and child correlates. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 70-82. Gordon, R. A., & Hognas, R. S. (2006). The best laid plans: Expectations, preferences, and stability of child-care arrangements. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 68, 373-393. Leslie, L., Ettenson, R., & Cumsille, P. (2000). Selecting a child care center: What really matters to parents? Child and Youth Care Forum, 29, 299- 322. Peyton, V., Jacobs, A. C., O’Brien, M., & Roy, C. (2001). Reasons for choosing child care: Associations with family factors, quality and satisfaction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 191-208. Rose, K. K., & Elicker, J. (2008). Parental decision making about child care. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1161-1184.
18 Becerra, R. M., & Chi, I. (1992). Child care preferences among low-income minority families. International Social Work, 35, 35-47. Buriel, R., & Hurtado-Ortiz, M. T. (2000). Child care practices and preferences of native- and foreign-born Latina mothers and Euro American mothers. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 314-331. Fuller, B., Holloway, S. D., & Liang, X. (1996). Family selection of child-care centers: The influence of household support, ethnicity, and parental practices. Child Development, 67, 3320-3337.
19 Chaudry, A., Pedroza, J. M., Sandstrom, H., Danziger, A., Grosz, M., Scott, M., …Ting, S. (2011). Child care choices of low-income working families. Retrieved from The Urban Institute website: http://www.urban.org/publications/412343.html. Matthews, H., & Jang, D. (2007). The Challenges of Change: Learning from the Child Care and Early Education Experiences of Immigrant Families. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy. Obeng, C. S. (2007). Immigrants families and childcare preferences: Do immigrants’ culture influence their childcare decisions? Early Childhood Education Journal, 34, 259-264. Vesely, C. K. (2013). Low-income African and Latina immigrant mothers’ selection of early childhood care and education (ECCE): Considering the complexity of cultural and structural influences. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 470-486.
20 Chaudry, A., Pedroza, J. M., Sandstrom, H., Danziger, A., Grosz, M., Scott, M., …Ting, S. (2011). Child care choices of low-income working families. Retrieved from The Urban Institute website: http://www.urban.org/publications/412343.html. DeVore, S., & Bowers, B. (2006). Childcare for children with disabilities: Families search for specialized care and cooperative childcare partnerships. Infants and Young Children, 19(3), 203–212. Haussler, A., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (1998). Child care for preschoolers with autism: An exploration of mothers’ beliefs, decision-making, and knowledge. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(3), 485-499. Ward, H., Morris, L., Atkins, J., Herrick, A., Morris, P., & Oldham, E. (2006). Child care and children with special needs: Challenges for low income families. Portland, ME: Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service, Catherine E. Cutler Institute for Child and Family Policy, University of Southern Maine.
21 Chaudry, A., Pedroza, J. M., Sandstrom, H., Danziger, A., Grosz, M., Scott, M., …Ting, S. (2011). Child care choices of low-income working families. Retrieved from The Urban Institute website: http://www.urban.org/publications/412343.html. Haussler, A., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (1998). Child care for preschoolers with autism: An exploration of mothers’ beliefs, decision-making, and knowledge. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(3), 485-499. Ward, H., Morris, L., Atkins, J., Herrick, A., Morris, P., & Oldham, E. (2006). Child care and children with special needs: Challenges for low income families. Portland, ME: Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service, Catherine E. Cutler Institute for Child and Family Policy, University of Southern Maine.
9http://www.urban.org/publications/412343.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/publications/412343.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/publications/412343.html
22 Booth-LaForce, C., & Kelly, J. F. (2004). Childcare patterns and issues for families of preschool children with disabilities. Infants & Young Children, 17(1), 5-16. Chaudry, A., Pedroza, J. M., Sandstrom, H., Danziger, A., Grosz, M., Scott, M., …Ting, S. (2011). Child care choices of low- income working families. Retrieved from The Urban Institute website: http://www.urban.org/publications/412343.html. National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs (NS-CSHCN) 2009/10. Data query from the Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative, Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health website. Retrieved from www.childhealthdata.org. Ward, H., Morris, L., Atkins, J., Herrick, A., Morris, P., & Oldham, E. (2006). Child care and children with special needs: Challenges for low income families. Portland, ME: Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service, Catherine E. Cutler Institute for Child and Family Policy, University of Southern Maine.
23 Davis, E. E., & Connelly, R. (2005). The influence of local price and availability on parents’ choice of child care. Population Research and Policy Review, 24, 301-334. Sandstrom, H., Giesen, L., & Chaudry, A. (2012). How contextual constraints affect low-income working parents’ child care choices. Perspectives on Low-Income Families Brief 22. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
24 Chaudry, A., Pedroza, J. M., Sandstrom, H., Danziger, A., Grosz, M., Scott, M., …Ting, S. (2011). Child care choices of low-income working families. Retrieved from The Urban Institute website: http://www.urban.org/publications/412343.html. Davis, E. E., & Connelly, R. (2005). The influence of local price and availability on parents’ choice of child care. Population Research and Policy Review, 24, 301-334. Paulsell, D., Cohen, J., Stieglitz, A., Lurie-Hurvitz, E., Fenichel, E., & Kisker, E. (2002). Partnerships for quality: Improving infant-toddler child care for low-income families. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
25 De Marco, A. (2008). A qualitative look at child care selection among rural welfare-to-work participants. Journal of Children and Poverty, 14(2), 119-138. National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. (2006). Child Care In Thirteen Economically Disadvantaged Communities. Retrieved from: http://www.naccrra.org/sites/default/files/default_site_pages/2011/13_communities_ rept2006.pdf
26 Chaudry, A., Pedroza, J. M., Sandstrom, H., Danziger, A., Grosz, M., Scott, M., …Ting, S. (2011). Child care choices of low-income working families. Retrieved from The Urban Institute website: http://www.urban.org/publications/412343.html. Henly, J. R., & Lambert, S. (2005). Nonstandard Work and Child-Care Needs of Low-Income Parents. In L. M. C. Suzanne M. Bianchi, and Rosalind B. King (Ed.), Work, Family, Health, and Well-Being (pp. 473-492). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Henly, J. R., & Lyons, S. (2000). The negotiation of child care and employment demands along low-income parents. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 683-706. Henly, J. R., Shaefer, H. L., & Waxman, R. E. (2006). Nonstandard work shcedules: Employer and employee-driven flexibility in retail jobs. Social Science Review, 80, 609-634. Scott, E. K., Leymon, A. S., & Abelson, M. (2011). Assessing the impacts of Oregon’s 2007 changes to child-care subsidy policy.
27 Chaudry, A., Pedroza, J. M., Sandstrom, H., Danziger, A., Grosz, M., Scott, M., …Ting, S. (2011). Child care choices of low-income working families. Retrieved from The Urban Institute website: http://www.urban.org/publications/412343.html. Henly, J. R., & Lyons, S. (2000). The negotiation of child care and employment demands along low-income parents. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 683-706.
28 Powell, L. M. (2002). Joint labor supply and childcare choice decisions of married mothers. The Journal of Human Resources, 37, 106-128.
29 Chaudry, A., Pedroza, J. M., Sandstrom, H., Danziger, A., Grosz, M., Scott, M., …Ting, S. (2011). Child care choices of low-income working families. Retrieved from The Urban Institute website: http://www.urban.org/publications/412343.html. Ward, H. D., Oldham LaChance, E., & Atkins, J. A. (2011). New Americans: Child care decision-making of refugee and immigrant parents of English language learners. Portland, ME: Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service.
30 Chase, R., & Valerose, J. (2010). Child care use in Minnesota: Report of the 2009 Statewide Household Child Care Survey. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research.
31 Chase, R., Arnold, J., Schauben, L., & Shardlow, B. (2005). Child care use in Minnesota: 2004 Statewide Household Child Care Survey. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research. Starr, R., Tout, K., Albertson-Junkans, L., Moodie, S., Rothenberg, L., & Soli, M. (2012). Findings from the Kentucky Early Care and Education and School-Age Care Household Survey, Evaluation Brief #8. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends. Retrieved from: www.kentuckypartnership.org/starsevaluation. Thornburg, K. R., Mauzy, D., Mayfield, W. A., Hawks, J. S., Sparks, A., Mumford, J. A., Foulkes, T., …Fuger, K. L. (2010). Data-driven decision making in preparation for large-scale Quality Rating System implementation. In M. Zaslow, I. Martinez-Beck, K. Tout & T. Halle (Eds.), Quality Measurement in Early Childhood Settings. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Inc.
32 Elicker, J. G., Langill, C. C., Ruprecht, K. M., Lewsader, J., & Anderson, T. (2011). Evaluation of “Paths to QUALITY,” Indiana’s Child Care Quality Rating and Improvement System: Final Report (Technical Report #3). West Lafayette, IN: Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Center for Families, Purdue University. Starr, R., Tout, K., Albertson-Junkans, L., Moodie, S., Rothenberg, L., & Soli, M. (2012). Findings from the Kentucky Early Care and Education and School-Age Care Household Survey, Evaluation Brief #8. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends. Retrieved from: www.kentuckypartnership.org/starsevaluation. Tout, K., Starr, R., Isner, T., Cleveland, J., Albertson- Junkans, L., Soli, M., …Quinn, K. (2011). Evaluation of Parent Aware: Minnesota’s Quality Rating System pilot: Final evaluation report.
33 Forry, N. (2009). The impact of child care subsidies on low-income single parents: An examination of child care expenditures and family finances. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30, 43-54. Michalopolous, C., Lundquiest, E., & Castells, N. (2010). The effects of child care subsidies for moderate-income families in Cook County, Illinois.
34 Gaylor, E., Spiker, D., Williamson, C., & Ferguson, K. (2011). Saint Paul Early Childhood Scholarship evaluation: Final evaluation report–2008-2011. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/Omnera/VerV/s3finder/38/pdf/ Scholarships_2008-2011Final_FulReport.pdf.
10https://s3.amazonaws.com/Omnera/VerV/s3finder/38/pdfwww.kentuckypartnership.org/starsevaluationwww.kentuckypartnership.org/starsevaluationhttp://www.urban.org/publications/412343.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/publications/412343.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/publications/412343.htmlhttp://www.naccrra.org/sites/default/files/default_site_pages/2011/13_communitieshttp://www.urban.org/publications/412343.htmlhttp:www.childhealthdata.orghttp://www.urban.org/publications/412343.html
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this review is to summarize research on the context and factors that facilitate parents’ decision- making about child care. It is intended to provide a foundation of empirical knowledge for state administrators, early childhood program developers, and policymakers who can use information about child care decision- making processes and outcomes to improve their programs and services for families. The review reflects current and seminal work completed by researchers throughout the U.S. on the preferences, constraints and supports that influence parents’ child care decision-making. Literature for this review comes from published journal articles as well as reports from studies funded by the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation and other federal government agencies. The structure and content were selected to reflect topics of interest to early care and education administrators, policymakers, and stakeholders.
Framework and Issues Addressed in this Review
We use a child care decision-making model developed by Weber (2011) and policy-relevant issues identified in discussions with state administrators to frame the review. Additionally, we focus on literature related to the child care decisions of parents with young children (age 0-5). Findings from the literature are organized into four main sections reflecting empirical findings about: 1) parents’ child care decision-making processes, 2) parents’ preferences and priorities in selecting a care arrangement, 3) constraints to selecting preferred care arrangements, and 4) policies and programs that support parents in selecting their preferred care arrangement. Aspects of the decision-making process addressed in this review include the scope (number of options considered, information sought) and duration of the search process. Our review of parents’ preferences and priorities includes a discussion of quality features identified as being important to parents,
11
as well as an overview of variation in child care preferences/priorities by child, parent, family, and community characteristics. Issues affecting the child care decision-making process and priorities for select special populations (immigrants and families with children who have special needs) are also considered. Constraints in selecting care arrangements are then discussed, followed by a review of literature on programs designed to facilitate parental access to preferred care arrangements. It should also be noted that, though there are a plethora of studies addressing each of the topics covered in this review, the process of making child care choices is complex and there remains a number of unanswered questions. Additionally, the sample and methodology of available studies addressing each of these topics varies. To assist the reader’s interpretation of research findings, information on the methodology, sample size, and analytic methods of cited studies is provided. This review concludes with a summary of research highlights as well as emerging issues. Finally, possible implications for research to inform policy and practice from both researchers’ and state administrators’ perspectives are explored.
FINDINGS FROM THE LITERATURE
Parents’ Processes in Making Child Care Choices
Research on the child care decision-making process examines how parents make child care choices. In general, literature on the child care decision-making process is underdeveloped. Available literature on this topic addresses select aspects of this process, including the number of options parents consider, which sources they rely on for information, and the duration of the search process. Additionally, a few studies address differences in how mothers versus fathers make child care decisions (e.g., Ceglowski, 2006). Though theoretical work has highlighted the dynamic complexities that influence parents’ child care decision-making process (e.g., Chaudry, Henly, & Meyers, 2010; Meyers & Jordan, 2006; Pungello & Kurtz-Costes, 1999), there is a dearth of literature addressing the quality of information parents obtain, their thought process when making a child care decision, and the dynamic nature of the child care decision-making process in response to changing family circumstances.
Number of options parents consider. Two large studies with a high proportion of low-income parents have examined the scope of families’ child care search processes. Based on survey and administrative data from families and their license-exempt providers in Illinois, Anderson, Ramsburg, and Scott (2005) found approximately three-quarters of parents using a subsidized care arrangement considered only one option during their last search process. In contrast, Layzer, Goodson, and Brown-Lyons (2007) found that slightly more than half (52%) of low-income parents using home-based care who participated in the National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families considered more than one child care arrangement in their most recent search, though the number of options considered was not specified. Layzer et al. reported that 31% of parents in their study perceived having no alternative arrangements to choose from, and the majority (83%) of those who perceived having alternative options felt limited to one or two other options.
While there is literature documenting parental perceptions of limited options, there are no empirical findings to date suggesting that considering few options is associated with worse outcomes for children and families. Layzer et al. (2007) did not find an association between the number of available options and parental satisfaction with their selected arrangements. Similarly, in a study of care changes among infants from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care, Gordon and Hognas (2006) found parents who only considered one child care option to be more likely to use their preferred type of care and less likely to switch arrangements in the first six months.
12
Sources of information parents rely on. A few studies address the sources of information parents consult in the process of making child care decisions. Based on their review of the literature, Pungello and Kurtz-Costes (1999) concluded that most parents begin their decision-making process based on information from informal sources (e.g., friends, family, and neighbors). A minority of parents in these reviewed studies then sought information from referral agencies. Pungello and Kurz-Costes’ findings are consistent with descriptive analyses of parents using family child care from the National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families. In this study of 642 low-income parents, 64% of parents who used non-relative care were either referred to their provider by friends, families or neighbors or had a pre-existing relationship with the provider (Layzer et al., 2007). Likewise, Iruka and Carver’s (2006) analysis of data from the 2005 National Household Education Survey’s Early Childhood Program Participation Survey found that most parents had learned about their child’s provider from a friend.
Duration of the search process. Few studies, to date, have provided information on the average duration of parents’ child care searches. Studies that have addressed this topic have found relatively short search durations. For example, although the average duration of the search process for parents in the National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families was four weeks, approximately 41% of parents made a choice within one day (Layzer et al., 2007). Additionally, in a forthcoming study of a sample of welfare applicants with young children in Minnesota, Forry, Isner, Daneri, and Tout (2012a) found 82% of respondents reported making child care choices within two weeks. Based on existing studies, it is unclear whether quick child care decisions are indicative of time constraints parents face in their child care decision-making process, or their satisfaction with available choices. Forry and colleagues found no differences in the perceived quality of arrangements or satisfaction of parents who made decisions within two weeks, compared to those who took, on average, eleven weeks (Forry et al., 2012a). It should be noted that it is unclear in the studies summarized in this section whether parents are making their first child care choice, or switching their children’s care arrangements.
Priorities and Preferences in Making Child Care Choices
Research on parental values and preferences in selecting a care arrangement has yielded few consistent patterns of findings. The lack of consistent findings may be partially explained by differences in the study methodologies employed or variations in child care preferences related to child, parent, family, and community characteristics. Additionally, variation in research findings may reflect the dynamic nature of parental preferences, which are informed by social norms, past experiences, and current situations (Chaudry et al., 2010; Weber, 2011).
Methodological Considerations in Interpreting Child Care Decision-Making Literature Review Findings
When interpreting research findings presented in this review, readers should be mindful of the sample size and criteria used to select study samples, data collection strategies, and methods used to analyze data. These considerations are particularly important when interpreting findings related to child care preferences and priorities as findings on these topics tend to vary across studies.
Samples included in this review vary and include small samples (< 10) from in-depth qualitative studies, mid-sized samples (between 50 and 300) that tend to represent families living in a particular city or various localities within a state, and nationally representative samples, which are selected to be representative of all families living in the United States. While qualitative studies with small sample sizes tend to offer insights into individuals’ perceptions or behaviors, quantitative studies with larger sample sizes may be more representative of the population being studied and thus more generalizable. Likewise, the criteria used to select sample
13
members vary across studies. Samples in this review include welfare recipients and recent welfare leavers, low- income families, immigrant families, and families with children who have a special need. In reviewing study findings, it is important to recognize that findings are most pertinent for the population being studied.
Data collection strategies used to study child care preferences and priorities include individual and group qualitative techniques (e.g., focus groups), semi-structured and structured interviews, and interviews with parents to assess their responses to hypothetical scenarios. Each data collection strategy offers unique information, with strategies that collect more in-depth information (e.g., those using qualitative techniques) tending to be based on data from smaller samples, and strategies that ask for specific information (e.g., through close-ended questions) tending to include information from larger samples. In addition to variation in data collection strategies, variation in question wording used to assess parental preferences and priorities (e.g., prospective vs. retrospective questions and ratings vs. rankings) have yielded different results across studies using the same data collection strategy (Rose & Elicker, 2008). Data collection strategies and techniques used to analyze data are closely related. Below are brief descriptions of different strategies for obtaining and analyzing information about parental preferences/priorities:
• Open-ended questions: Typically used in qualitative research, open-ended questions allow parents to describe their preferences/priorities using their own words. Open-ended questions can be prospective (e.g., What would you consider?) or retrospective (e.g., Last time you chose an arrangement for your child, what did you consider?). Responses to prospective questions may reflect parents’ ideals, whereas retrospective questions may prompt parents to provide reasons for an actual decision. Open-ended questions tend to be analyzed using inductive methods, in which themes or generalizations are developed based on data from individuals.
• Close-ended questions: Close-ended questions come in multiple forms, including:
o Rankings (e.g., Which of the following are most important to you?)
o Ratings (e.g., How important would you rate each of the following?)
o Fixed Choice (e.g., What is most important to you? A) Cost, B) Convenience, etc.)
Close-ended questions tend to be analyzed using descriptive methods, in which the information collected is summarized across individuals, or deductive methods, in which analyses are used to test a specific hypothesis. Deductive methods may include statistics that compare samples or multivariate methods that assess associations while controlling for other characteristics.
• Scenario-based techniques: Scenario-based data collection techniques present parents with a scenario to rate. Two commonly used methods for analyzing scenario-based data are factorial analysis and conjoint analysis. Both of these methods present parents with multiple child care scenarios whose characteristics vary systemically (e.g., one scenario may be a child care center that is close to the respondent’s home but has a mediocre quality rating, while a second may be a child care center that has a high quality rating but is far away from the respondent’s home). Parents’ rankings of multiple scenarios are used to identify their priorities when making child care choices that are contingent upon multiple factors.
Due to the wide variation in methods used to study parental preferences and priorities, it is difficult to compare findings across studies. Additionally, conceptual and empirical work is needed to clarify the range of phenomena related to parent preferences, the reasoning underlying stated preferences, and the stability of preferences over time.
14
Early work on parental preferences distinguished between practical features of care arrangements (e.g., cost and convenience) and correlates or indicators of quality in an arrangement (e.g., education or sensitivity of provider;(Hofferth & Wissoker, 1992). More recent research has continued to highlight the importance of each of these factors (Henly & Lyons, 2000). The majority of findings in the literature suggest that parents place a high value on perceived quality of care arrangements. Though parents less frequently report cost, location, and hours to be their top priority, evidence suggests that these factors do inform parents’ preferences and constrain their choices (Brandon, 1999; Davis & Connelly, 2005; Hofferth, Brayfield, Deich, & Holcomb, 1991; Johansen, Leibowitz, & Waite, 1996; Lowe & Weisner, 2004; Peyton, Jacobs, O’Brien, & Roy, 2001).1
Though parents’ value for quality in selecting a care arrangement is clear from the literature, parents’ definitions of “high quality” care vary. Features of high quality care valued by parents include structural or regulated features (e.g., education, training, and experience of provider, child-adult ratio) and process- oriented features related to health and safety, the emotional tone of the setting, quality of the caregiver-child relationship, structured activities to support children’s development, and the parent-provider relationship. Due to variations in the design of studies (e.g., use of open vs. close-ended questions, differences in features assessed through close-ended questions, etc.), existing literature does not allow for reliable comparisons of parental priorities among features of care across studies.
Structural features of quality. A number of studies have documented parents’ attention to structural features when selecting a care arrangement for their child. Structural features most often cited in studies of parental priorities/preferences for care are provider education, training, and experience, and the child: adult ratio of child care programs. A mixed-methods study of economically and ethnically diverse working mothers, which used ratings, rankings, and conjoint analysis to analyze parental preferences for care found the education of a caregiver to be among the top three priorities of parents across methods (Rose & Elicker, 2008). Likewise, in a study of low-income African American parents using a survey featuring scenarios rated by parents, Shlay, Tran, Weinraub, and Harmon (2005) found that parents place a high value on child care providers’ experience and specialized training in child development. Low-income parents’ value for a low child: adult ratio in care arrangements has also been highlighted in studies about parental priorities in selecting a child care arrangement by Shlay (2010) and Van Horn, Ramey, Mulvihill, and Newell (2001) using factorial analysis and open-ended questions, respectively.
Process-oriented features of quality. Multiple aspects of process-oriented quality have been identified in the literature as being of interest to parents. These aspects include health and safety, emotional tone of the care environment and quality of the caregiver-child relationship, structured activities to support children’s development, and a positive, trusting relationship between the provider and parent.
Health and safety. Safety has been identified as an important consideration for parents in multiple studies. Using factorial analysis with 93 recent welfare leavers, Shlay (2010) found that regardless of race/ethnicity, parents consistently prioritized health and safety over other quality features when selecting a preferred care arrangement. Another study by Shlay and colleagues (2005), using the same methods with a sample of 143 low-income, employed African American mothers, found safety to be an important consideration, but not the highest priority. The importance of health and safety to parents has been highlighted in qualitative studies of racially and ethnically diverse mothers in entry-level jobs and employed mothers of young children by Henly and Lyons (2000) and Leach et al. (2006). Using ratings of importance, Cryer and Burchinal’s (1997) found parents of young children (birth-5 years) from the Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study to rate health and safety as important, regardless of child age. Also using quantitative methods, Ispa, Thornburg, and Venter- Barkley (1998) asked parents to indicate the three most important criteria to them when making their last child care choice and found health and safety to be, on average, in parents’ top three priorities. This finding was 1 Please note that research has demonstrated that parental preferences do not always reflect parent’s choices (Sandstrom & Chaudry, 2012).
15
consistent across parents living in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. It is notable that 68% of parents in Anderson, Ramsburg, and Scott’s (2005) study of families using license-exempt care, who were given a list of criteria and asked to select the three most important criteria in their last child care search, cited safety as central to parents’ definitions of high quality care.
Emotional tone/ quality of the caregiver-child relationship. Evidence regarding the importance of the care environment’s emotional climate to parents has also been found in multiple studies. Specific quality features related to emotional climate include provider affect, provider-child interactions, and interactions among children in the classroom. The majority of parental preferences for care or their definitions of high quality care related to emotional tone focus on the affect of the provider. Specifically, multiple studies have found provider warmth to be important to parents (Ispa et al., 1998; Raikes et al., 2005; Rose & Elicker, 2008; Shlay, 2010; Shlay et al., 2005). In three studies using different methodologies (ratings, rankings, and conjoint analysis) provider warmth was the most important criteria in choosing a provider (Ispa et al., 1998; Raikes et al., 2005; Rose & Elicker, 2008). Other researchers have found the provider-child relationship and/or emotional tone of the care setting to be important to parents as well. For example, in the Illinois Study of License-Exempt Care, 68% of parents cited the provider-child relationship to be one aspect of a high quality arrangement. Cryer and Burchinal (1997) examined parents’ ratings of specific criteria and found positive interactions in the care setting more broadly to be an important dimension of high quality care.
Structured activities to support children’s development. Though parental preferences regarding specific teaching practices vary, the availability of structured activities to support children’s development has been identified as an important quality feature to parents. In a study of ethnically and economically diverse parents, Gamble, Ewing, and Wilhlem (2009) found activities/components of programs that facilitate children’s problem solving, social skills, executive functioning, early reading, health, and behavior to be the most frequently endorsed component of parents’ definitions of high quality care, using parent’s ratings of importance. Ispa et al.(1998) analyzed parents’ rankings of the three most important criteria parents of young children used when selecting their last child care arrangement and found daily programming to be, on average, one of parents’ top criteria for selecting a program. When compared, families in metropolitan areas were more likely than parents in non-metropolitan areas to endorse daily programming as important (Ispa et al., 1998). Leach et al. (2006) found cognitive stimulation to be one of the most important features of high quality care in qualitative interviews with 57 mothers of infants in the U.K. Mensing, French, Fuller, and Kagan (2000), through longitudinal qualitative interviewing of seven mothers over a 15-month period, found learning opportunities to be a key criteria in selecting care among low-income parents. Van Horn et al. (2001) found low-income parents to be more likely to indicate learning/school-like activities as important using a checklist than open-ended questions. Finally, in a quantitative study of 439 parents whose children were enrolled in pre-kindergarten, sound instruction was endorsed as a feature of high quality arrangement as well as a factor in selecting a care arrangement by at least one-fifth of parents in the study (Barbarin et al., 2006).
Findings related to parents’ specific expectations regarding learning opportunities vary in specificity across studies, at times reflecting the interview protocols/data collection strategies used. Parents participating in qualitative studies have highlighted both cognitive stimulation through instruction (Barbarin et al., 2006; Holloway, Rambaud, Fuller, & Eggers-Pierola, 1995) and opportunities to foster children’s social development (Chaudry et al., 2011; Van Horn et al., 2001) when discussing the importance of learning opportunities. A qualitative study of African immigrant parents with preschool-aged children highlighted a value for learning through exploration and discovery (Obeng, 2007), and Leach et al.’s (2006) qualitative study found mothers of infants to emphasize the importance of a stimulating and busy environment with equipment to facilitate play. Using quantitative methods, Gamble et al. (2009) found, among low-, middle-, and high-income parents, two features of a child-centered orientation (encouraging confidence and instilling a love of learning) were rated
16
among the top five most important features of care. However, other studies have found low-income parents, in particular, to place a high value on more didactic, structured learning activities (Bredekamp & Willer, 1993; Holloway et al., 1995). Though much of the literature focuses on the development of children’s cognitive or pre-academic skills, parents’ commitment to children’s social development has also been highlighted in studies using ratings and qualitative methods (e.g., Layzer & Goodson, 2006; Lowe & Weisner, 2004; Obeng, 2007).
Positive, trusting parent-provider relationship. In a qualitative study with low-income mothers from different ethnic groups, Mensing and colleagues (2000) found trust of caregivers to be a preeminent criterion for child care selection, with trust being required before other features are considered. Similarly, Weber and Grobe (2011) found that parents who were either currently receiving a subsidy or had recently exited the subsidy program ranked trust as the most important reason for selecting the provider currently caring for their child(ren). Leach and colleagues (2006) and Barbarin and colleagues (2006), using qualitative and quantitative interviews, respectively, found parents to value open communication and a sense of partnership between themselves and their early education providers. Likewise, through focus groups with low-income parents in Maryland, Forry, Wheeler, and Simkin (2012b) documented parents’ endorsement of regular communication, flexibility, opportunities for parent involvement, and provider support of the family as indicators of high quality care. Despite the rich literature on family engagement in early care and education settings, few studies have
directly asked parents about the importance of the family-provider relationship in seeking a care arrangement.
Variation in Preferences by Demographic Features
A number of research studies have found associations between child, parent, family/household, and community characteristics and parental preferences for child care. Most of these studies are non-experimental and cross-sectional (i.e., one time data collection) in nature. Before summarizing findings from this literature, a caution is warranted. First, though non-experimental studies offer valuable information, causal inferences cannot be made based on their findings. Second, even when regression models control for observable competing variables, unobservable factors underlying associations may not be specified in this research. For example, a shortage of supply for families with certain characteristics could, at least partially, underlie associations between stated child care preferences and demographic features (e.g., age of child, family income). The research summarized below uses multiple techniques for identifying differences in child care preferences. Some of these techniques allow the researcher to account for (or “control for”) characteristics of the child, parent, family, or community while others do not. When applicable, information on control variables included in analyses is provided.
Variation by child characteristics. Research indicates that parental preferences when selecting child care vary by certain child characteristics, including child’s age, temperament, and social skills. Multiple studies have documented parents’ preferences for infants/toddlers to be in parental/relative care and for preschoolers to be in center care. For example, Rose and Elicker (2008) found mothers of infants placed more emphasis on their child being in relative care and less emphasis on convenience or their child being in center-based care than did mothers of preschoolers using conjoint analyses. In another study, Rose and Elicker (2010) conducted a survey with 345 employed mothers to assess their ideal preferences for child care and found that the majority of mothers of infants and slightly more than half of mothers of toddlers preferred parental care, and slightly more than half of mothers of preschoolers preferred center-based care.
17
Parental perceptions of child temperament and/or skills have also been associated with child care preferences. Through an analysis of correlations using survey data from 220 parents with children in non-parental care, Gamble, Ewing, and Wilhelm (2009) examined parents’ beliefs about child care and found that parents who rated their children as being shy, immature or less developmentally advanced were less likely to cite school readiness and curriculum options as important than parents who did not rate their child as being shy, immature, unable to focus, or anxious. It should be noted that multivariate analyses, controlling for characteristics of the mother/family (e.g., hours of employment, income, education, ethnicity, marital status, and number of children in the household) and select characteristics of the child (e.g., gender, time in non- parental care) found no difference in parental preferences by temperament, though a positive association between perceived developmental skills and the importance of curriculum and school readiness was documented (Gamble et al., 2009). Based on data from a mixed-methods study involving surveys with 200 parents with children in center-based early care and education, Grogan (2011) used hierarchical regressions and found that, controlling for socioeconomic status, ethnicity, family beliefs, and select child characteristics and skills, low-income parents who reported their children to have strong social skills were more likely to include practical considerations in their criteria for selecting an early care and education arrangement.
Variation by parental characteristics. Associations have also been found between child care preferences and parents’ demographics, features of employment, stress, and beliefs.
Parent demographics. Research has identified associations between parental preferences for child care and both parent education and parent ethnicity, though findings on each of these associations vary across studies. Studies linking parental preferences for child care and maternal education have found mothers with less education to place a higher emphasis on safety and practical features (cost and hours). By asking parents to select among center-based child care scenarios with varying characteristics, Leslie and colleagues (2000) found that, compared to women without a college degree, women with a college degree were less likely to endorse cost as a strong determinant in making a child care choice and more likely to endorse child:staff ratio and curriculum. Using data from a checklist and open-ended questions with 1,001 subsidy-receiving mothers, Van Horn and colleagues (2001) used logistic regression to control for type of care and select child, maternal, and community characteristics and found mothers without a high school degree to be more likely to cite safety than mothers with a high school degree or higher education. Finally, Rose and Elicker (2008) found a few differences by parental education. Compared to mothers with a college degree, those with less than a high school education had a stronger preference for flexible hours and low cost when rating program characteristics using conjoint analyses. Additionally, mothers with either a high school diploma or college degree more strongly valued an academic-based curriculum, as compared to play-based curriculum, than mothers with graduate-level degrees. According to a study by Johansen and colleagues (1996), both mothers and fathers of three-year-olds with higher levels of education (college or more advanced degrees) reported educational components of child care to be more important than mothers/fathers with less than a college degree.
Mixed findings have resulted from studies addressing the association between parental race/ethnicity and child care preferences. Inconsistent findings may reflect differences in the methodologies used and/or challenges in disentangling associations between race, ethnicity, culture, income, education, and neighborhood characteristics. Using qualitative interview data from 501 families who participated in the National Center for Early Development and Learning’s Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten (NCEDL), Barbarin and colleagues (2006) found small ethnic differences in the attributes parents associate with high quality care. Specifically, African Americans prioritized home-school partnerships and close relationships with staff, Caucasians prioritized classroom emotional climate, and Latinos prioritized comprehensive service provision. Two other studies found differences in child care preferences by parent race/ethnicity. First, in a person-centered analysis by Kim and Fram (2009), the researchers found African American and Hispanic parents to be more likely than white parents to rate all
18
queried characteristics of arrangements as important, as compared to rating practicality, learning, or another specific characteristic of arrangements as most important. Second, using logistic regressions, Rose and Elicker (2010) found that, controlling for maternal education, income, employment and marital status, and family role ideology, non-white mothers were more likely to prefer parental care as their first choice for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers than white mothers. In contrast, two studies using factorial survey methods with low-income parents found no differences in child care preferences by ethnicity (Shlay, 2010; Shlay et al., 2005).
Features of parent employment. Parental preferences have been associated with select features of parents’ employment. In Kim and Fram’s (2009) study of profiles of child care preferences, they found that working mothers placed more emphasis on practical considerations than on quality considerations. With regard to employment hours, controlling for type of care and select child, maternal, and community characteristics Van Horn and colleagues (2001) found that compared to unemployed or part-time working mothers, full- time working mothers were less likely to take into account the specific hours of available care. Additionally, Peyton and colleagues (2001) found that, controlling for families’ income-to-needs ratio, maternal sensitivity, and parenting stress, mothers working fewer hours tended to make child care decisions rooted in quality considerations more often than in practical considerations (Peyton et al., 2001). Finally, Johansen and colleagues (1996) found that, controlling for indicators of the relative price of care for families, their ability to pay for care and select demographic characteristics of the child and family, higher hourly wages of a child’s father were associated with greater considerations of educational attributes of care.
Parental stress and beliefs. Finally, research has shown that child care preferences vary by parental stress and childrearing beliefs. In their study of 633 mothers, mothers with a high level of parenting stress, as compared to a moderate level of parenting stress, were more likely to make child care decisions based upon practical considerations (including hours of operation, cost, or location) than the quality of the care environment (Peyton et al., 2001). Rose and Elicker (2008) found, when rating the importance of child care characteristics, mothers with traditional family role ideologies were more likely to value home-based/relative care and caregiver warmth than mothers with egalitarian role ideologies. Conversely, as compared to traditional mothers, egalitarian mothers rated cost, convenience, and location in a center to be more important (Rose & Elicker, 2008). Johansen et al. (1996) found, controlling for indicators of the relative price of care for families, their ability to pay for care and select demographic characteristics of the child and family, maternal expectations for their children’s education are positively associated with their value of educational and developmental features of care. Additionally, in their qualitative study, Lowe and Weisner (2004) highlighted the importance of family routines and belief sets in determining parental priorities.
Variation by family/household characteristics. Family income, socioeconomic status, and family structure have each been associated with parental preferences for care. Family income has been negatively associated with attunement to cost when selecting a child care arrangement (Leslie et al., 2000; Rose & Elicker, 2008). Rose and Elicker (2008) found other variations in child care preferences related to the education of caregivers and location of care by family income using ratings and conjoint analyses. Additionally, three studies about parents’ considerations when selecting child care, two of which included a small number of control variables, have found income to be positively associated with parental emphasis on quality, as compared to practical features of care (Gamble et al., 2009; Grogan, 2011; Peyton et al., 2001). Using profile analysis, Kim and Fram (2009) found differences in profiles of child care preferences associated with a family’s socioeconomic status. Specifically, the most socio-economically disadvantaged parents rated all characteristics as important, whereas those with higher incomes were more likely to be in the subgroup of parents focused primarily on features of a care setting related to children’s learning. Family structure has also been associated with parental preferences for child care. In Leslie et al.’s (2000) study of child care preferences, single mothers were more attuned to cost and less attuned to child:staff ratio than married mothers.
19
Variation by community characteristics. Variation in parental priorities has been associated with features of the community as well as social networks within the neighborhood. For example, Johansen and colleagues (1996), using data from the National Longitudinal Study and controlling for relative indicators of families’ ability to pay for care and the price of care, as well as sociodemographic characteristics of the child, parent, and family, and an indicator of parents’ expectations for their child’s future education, found parents in metropolitan areas to more highly value structural and process-oriented measures of quality settings (e.g., use of educational materials and recreation equipment, staff training) for young children than parents in rural areas. Likewise, Ispa and colleagues (1998), using survey data collected from 127 couples with young children in Missouri and controlling for both parent gender and family social class, both found parents in metropolitan areas to more highly value the developmentally appropriate practice in child care programs than parents in rural areas. In addition to urbanicity, Garavuso (2006) found mothers’ social networks within communities to inform their values and ideas regarding evaluation of child care options.
What We Know about Child Care Decision-Making with Special Populations
It is clear from the review of research that child care decision-making is influenced by multiple, complex factors. From the perspective of developing effective policy and programs, it is important to consider how these factors may vary for particular groups of families. Recent research on child care decision-making in two special populations – immigrant families and families of children with special needs – is summarized in this section.
Immigrant Families
With one in four children in the U.S. having a foreign-born parent, children of immigrants are the fastest growing population of children in the United States (Fortuny, Hernandez, & Chaudry, 2010). As immigrant families exhibit different patterns of child care use than families with native-born parents (Karoly & Gonzalez, 2011), it is important to understand the correlates and processes that shape immigrant families’ child care choices.
Child care preferences and decision-making processes. The literature to date addresses families’ preferences in selecting a care arrangement for select immigrant groups. In a telephone survey of 396 randomly sampled mothers of young children (birth-5 years) living in California, including 209 low-income immigrant mothers from Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean, Buriel and Hortado-Ortiz (2000) found that immigrant Latina mothers preferred relative care for their children. When relatives were not available, these mothers tended to opt for licensed care, but expressed dissatisfaction with their care arrangements. Likewise, Fuller, Holloway, and Liang (1996) using 1991 NHES data to examine child care decisions among families with preschool-aged children ages (3-5 years), found that Latino immigrant families with a residential grandparent were far less likely to use center-based care than Latinos without a grandparent in the household. Becerra and Chi (1992) examined the child care experiences of low-income Chinese and Mexican immigrant families, and non-Hispanic, white non- immigrant families, living in Los Angeles with children under age three. Mexican families preferred relative care. Despite indicating a preference for home-based care, Chinese mothers in this study believed center-based care was ideal because it would help their children begin their education and start acculturating to American culture. Recent qualitative studies provide further insight into immigrant parents’ preferences for child care. In particular, qualitative interviews with low-income immigrant parents from Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean found that immigrant parents preferred child care, whether it was relative- or center-based care, that reflected aspects of families’ cultures and country of origin, including discipline, socialization of values and beliefs, and food served (Chaudry et al., 2011; Obeng, 2007).
20
A few recent qualitative studies highlight and provide insight into aspects of child care decision-making that are unique to immigrant families. Qualitative studies of immigrant families by Chaudry et al. (2011), Matthews and Jang (2007), and Vesely (2013) highlight the importance of considering immigrants’ experiences in their country of origin. In particular, findings from all three studies indicated that parents’ knowledge of and use of formal child care in their countries of origin, as well as their experiences related to community responsibility for ensuring children’s safety in their countries of origin, were not aligned with the individual responsibility for children embraced by the U.S. (Chaudry et al., 2011; Matthews & Jang, 2007; Vesely, 2013). Moreover, these studies elucidated the important roles of social networks in influencing immigrants’ use of child care and their knowledge of eligibility for government subsidized child care programs (Chaudry et al., 2011; Matthews & Jang, 2007; Vesely, 2013).
Child care choices. The implications of variation in child care decision-making across different immigrant groups are evident when examining child care choices. Some of the earliest as well as more recent work focused on child care choices among immigrant families examined the demographic characteristics of these families as correlates for their choices regarding child care. Using data from the Early Childhood Program Participation component of the 2005 National Household Education Survey (NHES), Karoly and Gonzalez (2011) found that low parental education, low family income, two-parent family structure, and Latino ethnicity together account for immigrant families’ lower use of centered-based child care for their three- and four-year-old children compared to non- immigrant families. Likewise, using nationally representative data from the 1996 panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), Brandon (2004) found that Mexican and Asian immigrant families’ child care choices for preschool children were linked to family income and structure. Moreover, Hirshberg, Huang, and Fuller’s (2005) study of 1,974 parents with children birth to age five, including both Latin American and Vietnamese immigrants, found that married immigrant parents were less likely to use non-parental care for their children under age five, and Spanish speaking parents were less likely to select center-based child care for their children compared to English-speaking Latino and white parents. Finally, in their study of Chinese and Mexican immigrants, Becerra and Chi’s (1992) found that Mexican mothers, in particular, who could not speak English well were less likely to use center-based care.
Children with Special Needs
According to the 2009–10 National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs, more than 15 percent of U.S. children under age 18 have an identified special health care need (National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs (NS-CSHCN) 2009/10). Children with special health care needs are defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as “those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a type or amount beyond that required by children generally” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007, p. 5). Such needs include asthma, allergies, behavioral disorders, speech problems, seizures, autism, severe physical disabilities, mental retardation, and more. Although some special needs go undetected until children enter school, nearly one in every 10 children under age 6 has a special health care need (NS-CSHCN 2009/10). These rates have risen since the last national survey in 2006 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007), which suggests that more special needs are being identified among young children.
Child care preferences and decision-making process. Several recent studies have explored parents’ preferences and process in selecting a child care arrangement for children with special needs. Qualitative and survey research has shown that, in addition to having many of the same preferences and concerns about child care as other parents, parents of children with special needs are also concerned about specific program features that are critical to the care of their children’s special needs (e.g., individualized intervention services, specialized equipment, inclusion activities, and trained providers who can administer medication) (Chaudry et al., 2011; DeVore & Bowers, 2006; Haussler & Kurtz-Costes, 1998; Ward et al., 2006).
21
Availability of care that can accommodate children’s special needs has been documented as a challenge in multiple studies (Chaudry et al., 2011; Haussler & Kurtz-Costes, 1998; Ward et al., 2006). In a mixed methods study including a statewide survey of 441 parents of young children with special needs in Maine, which has one of the highest rates of special needs children in the country, Ward et al. (2006) found that parents experienced significant problems finding and keeping their child care arrangements due to an inability of providers to accommodate children’s special needs. DeVore and Bowers (2006) highlighted that the success of parental choices may depend not only on their options but on the steps they take to search for and partner with providers. They found that parents who searched on the basis of whether providers offered specialized care ended up cycling through multiple providers, whereas other parents who searched for a provider who would cooperatively partner with them to care for their child developed more successful arrangements the first time around.
Child care choices. Research shows that a significant number of families are struggling to provide appropriate care for their special needs children. One quarter of families with a special needs child report that a parent had to either reduce their work hours or stop working to care for their child, with more severe needs linked to greater employment problems (NS-CSHCN 2009/10). Largely due to the difficulties mentioned, parents of children with special needs are more likely to utilize care from a relative, friend, or neighbor than from a child care center or family child care provider (Booth-LaForce & Kelly, 2004; Chaudry et al., 2011; Ward et al., 2006). Booth-LaForce and Kelly (2004) conducted longitudinal interviews with 89 mothers with children diagnosed with a severe disability at birth (e.g., Down’s syndrome) and 77 mothers with children at biomedical risk for developing a disability (e.g., very low birth weight), from the time children were 12 months until 30 months. Children with special needs enrolled in non-maternal care at the average age of 12 months, which is much older than the national average of three months (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2001), and the majority of mothers in this study used informal care arrangements (Booth-LaForce & Kelly, 2004). Similarly, based on in-depth qualitative interviews, Chaudry et al. (2011) found children with severe special needs requiring medical equipment were typically cared for by relatives in the home, because no affordable and suitable alternative was available. In Ward et al.’s (2006) study, parents reported being concerned about the high cost of inclusive care, frustrated that their providers refused to administer medications and/or called more often than parents felt was necessary, and disappointed in providers’ lack of support and inclusion of their children in activities. Parents in this study overwhelmingly used informal care arrangements, with usage rates being even higher among children with multiple needs, and used family child care the least often.
Constraints and Facilitators to Selecting Preferred Care Arrangements
As presented in Weber’s (2011) child care decision-making framework and Chaudry et al.’s (2010) expanded accommodation model, a comprehensive understanding of how parents select child care arrangements can only be achieved when the contexts in which decisions are made are taken into account. Recent child care research demonstrates that families’ choices are constrained and facilitated by various individual and contextual factors.
Contextual constraints. Contextual factors related to the child care market include the availability, accessibility, affordability, and parental awareness of supply (Davis & Connelly, 2005; Sandstrom, Giesen, & Chaudry, 2012). Research related to each of these factors is summarized below.
Limited availability. Families’ child care decisions are dependent on the supply of care in their communities and the opportunities available to them. Davis and Connelly (2005) analyzed how various child, family, and market characteristics, including availability and cost, predicted the type of care used in a Minnesota sample.
22
Results showed that families were more likely to use the care of a relative, friend or neighbor when they knew someone who was available to provide care. Similarly, Henly and Lyons (2000) interviewed low- income mothers in Los Angeles who reported that the proximity of informal caregivers, competing provider obligations, and relationship conflicts all limited the availability of informal arrangements.
Availability and child/family characteristics. Depending upon child and family characteristics, child care options within a community can be limited. Multiple studies reported that parents of infants and school-aged children have fewer child care options than parents of preschool-age children (Chaudry et al., 2011; Davis & Connelly, 2005; Paulsell et al., 2002). Likewise, a study by the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) documented unmet child care needs in low-income communities (NACCRRA, 2006) and DeMarco (2008) cited lack of availability as limiting the choices of families in rural areas. Additionally, Chaudry et al. (2011) found low-income parents with limited English proficiency, who wanted a provider that spoke their language, had fewer care options than English speaking families. Finally, two studies have found parents of children with special needs that are difficult to accommodate have a limited number of provider options (Chaudry et al., 2011; Ward et al., 2006; see text box for further details).
Availability and features of parental employment. Parental employment characteristics can enable or constrain families’ access to child care options. In a study of primarily white, married couples in the Midwest, mothers returning to work after giving birth were more likely to use fathers for care (which they preferred) when they worked an evening or night shift (Riley & Glass, 2002). In addition to enabling the use of parental care, employment factors can constrain the formal child care options available to families (Henly & Lyons, 2000; Sandstrom & Chaudry, 2012; Scott, London, & Hurst, 2005). Low-income workers, in particular, often experience shifting and unpredictable work schedules, nonstandard hours, and inflexible work policies that limit their child care options (Chaudry et al., 2011; Henly & Lambert, 2005; Henly & Lyons, 2000). Qualitative interviews with low-income, nonstandard workers in the Workplace Environment Study (Henly & Lyons, 2000), the Study of Work-Child Care Fit (Henly & Lambert, 2005), and the Child Care Choices of Low-Income Working Families study (Chaudry et al., 2011) as well as a sample of current subsidy recipients (Scott, Leymon, & Abelson, 2011) each highlight the difficulty parents with nonstandard hours and unpredictable and variable schedules have in finding affordable care arrangements that can accommodate their work schedules. Based on telephone interviews with 580 current and past subsidy recipients, Weber and Grobe (2011) found that almost two-thirds of parents had one or more work-related child care constraints: less than seven days notice of work schedule, evening or night shifts, or weekend shifts. Additionally, using qualitative data from the Study of Work-Child Care Fit, Henly, Shaefer, and Waxman (2006) found precarious work schedules (e.g., non-standard, variable, and fluctuating hours from day-to-day with little notice) to constrain the child care options of hourly workers, especially those in retail.
Limited accessibility. Accessibility of providers is also a strong correlate of child care choices. For example, in Chaudry et al.’s (2011) study, low-income working families in Providence, Rhode Island and Seattle described how they relied heavily on public transportation in accessing child care programs. For these parents, travel beyond their community to seek additional child care opportunities, which were possibly of higher quality, was unmanageable. Henly and Lyons (2000) also identified concerns about location and accessibility among low- income working mothers in Los Angeles; many traveled long and complicated routes on public transportation to get to workplaces or child care providers, or relied on others for a ride.
Limited affordable options. High child care costs constrain families’ options, particularly for families who do not qualify for child care assistance or subsidized early care and education programs and have limited financial resources to purchase high quality care. Results from the Canadian National Child Care Survey show that the price of various care types (i.e., center-based, nanny care, relative care) predicts the probability of whether mothers work and use these types of care. Specifically, working mothers with lower wages were less likely
23
than higher-wage mothers to use center-based care or nanny care and more likely to use relative or father care (Powell, 2002). Additionally, Davis and Connelly (2005) found families to be more likely to use family child care when the average price of center-based care was high and the average price of family child care was low. Qualitative interviews with low-income and immigrant parents in the Child Care Choices of Low- Income Working Families study (Chaudry et al., 2011) and the New Americans Study (Ward, Oldham LaChance, & Atkins, 2011) underscore families’ challenges with waiting lists—for Head Start and other early care and education programs—and that the lack of affordable alternatives results in many parents choosing relative care or other home-based care arrangements.
Arranging care on a limited budget, and in some cases, in the context of a constrained supply, sometimes results in the use of multiple care arrangements. Due to scarce economic and social resources—specifically, financial and work constraints, difficulties accessing subsidies, changes in provider availability, and inflexibility of providers—women in Ohio who recently left welfare for work used multiple arrangements that were highly unstable (Scott et al., 2005). Morrisey’s (2008) analysis of data from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care suggests that the availability (or lack thereof) of affordable, full-time early care and education programs is highly associated with the use of multiple child care arrangements, particularly for full-time working mothers with preschool-age children.
Limited awareness of options. Parental awareness of child care options, regardless of the supply, also influences the decision-making process. Studies have found that some parents have limited sources of information and are unaware of how to search for available options (Sandstrom et al., 2012; Ward et al., 2011). For example, in two recent qualitative studies, immigrant and refugee families sought referral information from their personal contacts and social networks rather than formal sources, which limited their awareness of available opportunities, including their potential eligibility for Head Start and child care subsidies (Chaudry et al., 2011; Ward et al., 2011). Specifically, Ward et al. (2011) found that some immigrant and refugee families in Maine did not know Head Start was free and so they did not apply, even though they were eligible. Most families in that study used relatives as caregivers in part because of the high costs of alternative options—as well as the mismatch between their work hours and child care hours (Ward et al., 2011).
Facilitators to Accessing and Selecting Preferred Care Arrangements
A number of supports are available to alleviate constraints and support parents in selecting their preferred care arrangement. These supports include state resource and referral services, consumer education programs, Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS), and Child Care and Development Fund child care subsidies and scholarship programs.
Resource and referral, consumer education, and QRIS. Child care resource and referral services are a primary connection point through which parents access child care listings and receive educational materials about what to look for in child care settings. In addition, if available, a QRIS provides parents with information about program quality ratings (Tout et al., 2010). A small but growing body of research is available on how well these efforts are working to facilitate child care decision-making (see forthcoming brief by Child Trends for a synthesis of research on QRIS).
Resource and referral and consumer education. Research indicates that parents do know about resource and referral agencies and other consumer education initiatives, though these are not the primary sources of information most parents seek when selecting a care arrangement. In a household study of parents conducted in Minnesota, nearly two-thirds of parents (62%) reported awareness of child care resources and referral services (Chase & Valerose, 2010). Among low-income families in this study, those receiving child care subsidies were significantly more likely to be aware of resource and referral services than those not receiving
24
subsidies (92% compared to 64%), however, across groups only a small proportion actually learned about their child’s care arrangement through resource and referral services (21% subsidy, 7% non-subsidy; Chase & Valerose, 2010). Additionally, regardless of subsidy status or income, most parents (90%) reported that they learned about their child’s primary arrangement through sources other than resource and referral (Chase & Valerose, 2010).
Awareness of QRIS. Though a primary goal of QRIS is to provide information to parents, many systems are new and may be unfamiliar to parents. In many states, funds have not been set aside to support marketing efforts, so states are limited in the strategies they can use to promote their QRIS to parents (Tout et al., 2010). To date, a few studies have addressed parents’ awareness of pilot or state-wide QRIS. For example, Elicker and colleagues (2011) led an evaluation of Indiana’s QRIS, Paths to Quality (PTQ). In a phone survey of parents living in Indiana, Elicker and colleagues (2011) found a small increase in the number of parents that had heard of PTQ from one year to the next (12% vs. 19%, respectively). Among parents whose children were enrolled in PTQ-rated child care programs, the majority (78%) knew that their child’s provider was participating in PTQ. Most parents who were aware of PTQ had heard about it from their own child care provider (Elicker et al., 2011). Tout and colleagues conducted a multi-year evaluation of Minnesota’s pilot QRIS and found that the majority of parents whose children were enrolled in QRIS-rated programs did not recognize the QRIS’s name (Parent Aware) (Tout et al., 2011). Yet recognition of Parent Aware among parents whose children were enrolled in rated programs increased steadily across the pilot period from 20% to 34% (Tout et al., 2011). Finally, as a part of the Kentucky STARS for KIDS NOW evaluation, Starr and colleagues (2012) conducted a household survey of 400 parents across the state. This survey was similar to the PTQ survey in Indiana because it was conducted with parents statewide in Kentucky, regardless of whether they had a child participating in a rated program. However, while Indiana’s PTQ and Minnesota’s Parent Aware were both newly created QRIS, Kentucky STARS for KIDS NOW has been implemented for over a decade. Nevertheless, results indicated that only 17% of parents had heard of Kentucky’s statewide QRIS (Starr et al., 2012). Overall, parental awareness of QRIS in each state noted here was lower than expected by program administrators.
Parents’ perceptions and use of QRIS. In addition to awareness of QRIS, it is also important to understand parents’ perceptions of quality rating systems in general and the extent to which they would use QRIS in their decision-making. Data from household child care surveys in Minnesota (Chase, Arnold, Schauben, & Shardlow, 2005) and Missouri (Thornburg et al., 2010) indicated that the majority of parents were interested in information from a quality rating system (88 percent of parents in each state). In addition, the studies in Indiana and Kentucky noted above also queried the importance parents ascribe to QRIS when selecting a child care arrangement. In Elicker et al.’s (2011) Indiana study, 67% of the 450 surveyed parents who were using a provider rated by PTQ reported that when making child care decisions in the future, PTQ would be important or very important and half (50%) said they would agree to pay higher costs for providers with higher PTQ levels. Elicker et al. (2011) conducted phone surveys with a different sample of parents in the state from 2009 through 2011 and found the value parents ascribed to Indiana’s QRIS when making a child care choice increased over time, as did the proportion of parents who would be willing to pay more for providers at a higher level of PTQ. In the household survey conducted for the Kentucky STARS for KIDS NOW evaluation, Starr and colleagues (2012) found that though parents had low overall awareness of STARS, the majority (73%) of parents indicated that a provider’s quality rating would be somewhat or very important in their child care decision-making after hearing a brief description of STARS.
25
Utah recently concluded a public awareness project to introduce their QRIS, Care About Child Care. Care About Child Care has been operational since April 2012 and allows parents to view the licensing records of child care providers. Data as of February 2013 indicates a 33% overall participation rate in Care About Child Care by child care providers (35% center, 30% family child care), close to 6,000 visitors have been to the website, and 2,392 parents have conducted a referral.
As part of the public awareness project, parent focus groups were conducted. The thoughts and feelings of parents in these focus groups mirrored the findings in this review. The Utah parent groups identified nurturing/ loving environment as their number one concern, safety and cleanliness second, followed by cost of care, educational experiences, staff-to-child ratio, flexible hours and staff first aid/CPR training.
In a survey of 403 parents conducted in 2012, almost 80% of respondents who had visited the Care about Child Care website found it to be helpful (Richter, 2013). Based on data conducted before and after the public awareness project, the survey results indicated that fewer children were being cared for by friends or neighbors following the public awareness campaign and fewer respondents indicated a desire to change something about their child care (Richter, 2013). At the same time, the gap between the importance respondents ascribed to education and their feelings about their own children’s current educational widened (Richter, 2013).
To learn more about Care About Child Care, visit careaboutchildcare.utah.gov.
Lynette Rasmussen Director, Office of Work and Family Life Utah Department of Workforce Services
Child care subsidies. A few studies have explored the association between receipt of a child care subsidy, designed to reduce the price of care, and parental satisfaction with care. Using data from a small state-specific sample in a mixed-method study, Forry (2009) found some eligible parents who received a child care subsidy after being on a waiting list to switch from informal arrangements to their preferred care arrangement (formal care). Likewise, in an experimental study, Michalopoulos et al. (2010) found increasing access to child care subsidies through expanded income eligibility resulted in increased satisfaction with care for moderate-income families using regulated center- and home-based child care arrangements, compared to families denied subsidy eligibility. Based on telephone surveys with 580 current or past subsidy recipients, Weber and Grobe (2011) found education and skill of the provider and support for children’s learning were parents’ highest ranked reasons for parents using a subsidized provider, but not for parents using unsubsidized providers.
In addition to child care subsidies, some states have developed scholarship programs to support the selection of care with high quality ratings by reducing cost constraints. Gaylor and colleagues (2011) conducted an evaluation of the Saint Paul Early Childhood Scholarship Program and found that before entering the Scholarship Program, most children (57%) attended unlicensed care. Upon receiving a scholarship to attend a program with high quality ratings, the majority of children (57%) enrolled in center-based facilities, about one- third (30%) selected a Head Start program, and the remaining children (13%) chose a family child care or public school-based program (Gaylor et al., 2011).
26http:careaboutchildcare.utah.gov
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS
This review of the literature provides detailed evidence about the context of child care decision-making and the factors that facilitate or challenge the process. Looking across the review, key findings emerged that can inform state child care administrators and other policymakers:
Across multiple states, low-income parents’ search process is relatively short (2-4 weeks), with few options considered and many parents relying on informal sources such as friends and family to learn about care options.
It is difficult to synthesize findings on parents’ preferences in child care searches due to different methods used in research studies. On balance, the literature indicates that parents value “quality” in child care arrangements, though definitions of quality vary. Additionally, features related to the promotion of health and safety, warmth and sensitivity in relationships and support for children’s learning have been noted across studies as aspects of quality that parents value.
Multiple characteristics of the child, parent and community are related to the child care decision-making process. However, the reasons underlying these associations are not always clear.
o Parents of infants tend to prefer care by relatives or parents, while parents of preschoolers prefer center-based care.
o Parents who have concerns about their child’s social skills or temperament may value individualized supports over other aspects of curriculum.
o Associations between ethnicity and child care decision-making preferences are detected in some studies but not in others.
o Parents who are employed full time and parents who report high levels of stress may focus more on practical features of the care arrangement (cost and schedule) than features related to quality.
o Parents’ beliefs about family roles and education, household income, and family structure are related to child care preferences.
o Parents in metropolitan areas may prefer more structured learning opportunities for their children than parents in rural areas.
Families’ unique situations are reflected in their child care decision-making process. For example, among immigrants, country of origin and social networks are important factors in child care decision-making process. Additionally, families with children who have special needs emphasize finding providers or programs that can accommodate their children’s medical and physical needs.
The decision-making process can be constrained in low-income families by a number of factors, including limited availability of child care options for children with particular characteristics (for example, infants and toddlers) or that are consistent with parents’ work schedules (for example, night and weekend schedules and fluctuating and unpredictable hours); limited accessibility due to transportation issues; lack of affordable options; and limited knowledge of information sources about child care and financial supports.
Resource and referral agencies, QRIS, and child care subsidies can facilitate the child care decision-making process, though these systems and supports currently serve a small proportion of eligible families.
27
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
EMERGING ISSUES AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Research on child care decision-making has expanded our knowledge of the critical factors playing a role in the process. Further research and demonstration projects are needed to identify and test features of decision- making that could be enhanced through policy and program improvements and to understand any unintended consequences of these initiatives. In this section, we discuss several key questions that would benefit from further research and evaluations.
What are the options for designing child care subsidies that are linked to the quality of child care? Research findings on the effectiveness of various tiered reimbursement options are not yet available. In future work, it will be important to identify whether higher reimbursement rates for higher-rated programs are benefitting both families who use subsidies as well as the programs who receive them. In addition to tiered reimbursement rates, states have a number of options for supporting quality programs, such as contracts for slots available only to programs with a documented level of quality or bonuses (one-time or annual) to help highly-rated programs sustain quality. Tiered rates may not be sufficient for covering the cost of certain program with rates that are above the maximum reimbursement rate and may be out of reach for low-income families.
How should QRIS be designed to work effectively for families? Though some research has been conducted to know whether families would use a QRIS if available, researchers and program administrators are still at an early understanding of the best process for designing “family-friendly” QRIS. For example, do families want information at a summary level or would they also prefer information about the various components of quality that make up a star level? What are the words that families understand best in descriptions of various features of quality?
What happens to families for whom high quality programs identified in a QRIS are not accessible? As efforts expand to promote the use of high quality programs, it will be important to track the consequences of limited access among families whose work schedules, finances or other factors do not allow them to enroll in high quality programs. What arrangements do these families use? What additional supports could be provided to promote access?
What is an appropriate balance for states with respect to investments in promoting program quality improvement and ensuring families’ access to services? States make policy decisions about the balance of investments in quality and access. What demonstration projects could be conducted to illuminate the tradeoffs and benefits of various investment profiles?
APPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS TO POLICY AND PRACTICE
Research on child care decision-making is characterized primarily by studies of families with particular characteristics or living in certain geographical areas. Findings from this work emphasize the importance of considering the individual circumstances of families’ lives when trying to understand how they make decisions. Yet even with this focus on individual profiles, findings from this body of research can inform policy and programs to support child care decision-making across low-income families. In this section, we highlight several broad conclusions from the literature that are relevant for policy and practice.
28
Ø
Ø
Ø
The child care search process may be constrained in a variety of ways for low-income families. Resources to support child care decision-making should acknowledge the multitude of inter-related factors that shape how decisions are made and the fact that preferences for different features of child care arrangements may vary by the characteristics of the families. Studies suggest that friends, families and, in some cases, trusted professionals (such as case workers and pediatricians) play a role in decision making. Creating a cadre of trusted child care advisors who can listen to families’ unique circumstances and provide guidance that is culturally sensitive would be a potentially valuable service to families. Additionally, community or neighborhood-based initiatives, such as provider open houses and yard signs, could be used to increase community members’ awareness of the child care options, and particularly options that have been rated as high quality through QRIS, available in a neighborhood.
Several studies found that families do not report high levels of awareness of the Quality Rating and Improvement System in their state. A focus on effective marketing and engagement strategies is needed to increase the awareness and utility of QRIS, especially for low-income families. States may choose to market QRIS as a system that rates providers on specific quality indicators that will likely resonate with parents. For example, states could highlight how their QRIS includes indicators of quality identified as important by parents in extant literature (e.g., provider background checks, small group sizes, and training on learning activities that can support children’s growth). Research on social networks suggests that information dissemination may be most successful if marketing strategies make use of key informants and network members (Chaudry et al., 2010). The timing of these efforts should consider the participation rates of programs so that parents responding to marketing efforts will encounter a sufficient supply of rated programs. This “tipping point” of QRIS participation density is not yet known. Efforts to track availability of slots in high-need areas can inform marketing decisions.
Research has shown that a substantial portion of parents prefer center care for their 3- and 4- year old children. Child care subsidies and other sources of financial supports (such as scholarships) can enable parents to access these preferred settings when they are available. Interactions with families to provide informational resources at the point of application for child care subsidies may support families’ search process. Depending on priorities at the state or local level, these interactions with families may also provide a point of entry to programs such as Head Start or pre-kindergarten programs which are free or low-cost to families.
From Research to Policy and Practice: Perspectives from State Administrators
The subject of parent choice is simultaneously a whole and independent issue of its own and a vital component of other issues with which State Child Care Administrators must struggle. Within this review are data concerning what have been daunting or controversial policy decision points Administrators face related to the child care decision-making process and constraints parents experience during this process. As is often true when addressing child care policy, these decisions points seldom address only one issue at a time. Policy decisions developed to influence parents’ child care decision-making process will, of necessity, overlap with policies concerning child care access, quality, and availability. With limited funding, it isn’t possible for State policymakers to effectively do everything that would benefit parents regarding their child care decision-making. Instead, Administrators must select the few most effective among many choices for interventions to support parents.
29
State Administrators must also consider possible unintended consequences of policy choices. For example, parents may choose a license-exempt opportunity because they prefer it, but it is also possible that they know they can better afford it, compared to a high quality licensed child care center. If a State child care initiative requires parents to choose a high quality licensed child care center, are they more likely to change the arrangement because they fall behind on the more expensive payments? As continuity of care is an essential issue in early learning and development, this is an important consideration. To address this constraint, Administrators must work to develop policies that support low-income families to afford high quality child care arrangements. For example, in NH, we have reduced the amount of the parents’ co-pay so that parents can more easily afford to maintain their child in a high quality child care center.
Economic conditions can also affect the implementation of child care policies. A child care center’s enrollment vs. its licensed capacity fluctuates with the economy. During a positive economic environment, parents may find waiting lists for child care spaces. States can address such shortages through incentives and supports for high quality child care programs to increase their enrollment capacity. During an economic downturn, child care programs may have reduced enrollments. The literature is clear that specific groups of parents seek close and supportive relationships with their child care providers. This finding supports State investment in initiatives to improve child care teachers’ relationship-building skills. For example, since 2005, NH has been disseminating Strengthening Families training to child care programs to improve their ability to develop relationships with and support families. Between 2009 and 2011, child care programs implementing Strengthening Families had higher enrollment rates than many other programs.
Parents may only take a few days to choose a child care arrangement due to their life circumstances. For example, families that cannot afford child care when they have recently immigrated or experienced long term joblessness may have only days to find child care provider once they receive a job offer. Changing the role of child care resource and referral programs (CCRR) staff from child care referral to child care advisor could assist families in determining the most appropriate child care arrangement option for their child within the parent’s limited timeframe. From 2009-2011, NH CCRR provided intensive child care advisor services to families entering and being released from the child care subsidy wait list so that parents would not miss employment opportunities while waiting for child care assistance. In addition to State Child Care Programs supporting parents, many other child/family services and supports can provide timely information. Partnerships with obstetricians, who see parents before the birth; home visitors, who see parents and infants through the first year; and pediatricians, who regularly see parents of children birth through 12 years and with greatest frequency in the early years, could result in parents receiving vital information regarding available supports such as child care subsidy and decision making tools, including QRIS, at the time when they most need it.
Special populations, such as immigrant families and children with special needs, may benefit from targeted training and technical assistance services. For example, to meet the needs of immigrant families, targeted training, education and technical assistance in the immigrant community could produce teachers/child care providers from this community. Additionally, parents whose children have special needs are constrained by a lack of competence in many licensed child care programs regarding their child’s needs. This is an obvious training and technical assistance need, which presents Administrators with another conundrum. Considering the reality of limited funding, where should funds targeted for teacher education be spent?
While, as reported here, parents of infants prefer relative or other informal child care arrangements, infancy is when the achievement gap between low-income and higher-income children begins. In addition, the quality of infant care in child care programs is generally not as high as in the preschool classrooms. State Administrators need to look beyond parent education regarding QRIS to address this issue. In NH, we recently completed Infant/Toddler Professional Competencies and added the Infant/Toddler Credential Endorsement to the Early Childhood Professional Development System. Institutions of higher education and training and technical assistance providers will use these resources to improve quality in infant/toddler classrooms.
30
Questions regarding some of the issues that State Administrators face concerning parents’ decision-making process remain, particularly questions about the accessibility of child care arrangements and constraints parents may experience. For example, in rural communities, where there may be zero or only one licensed child care program, there is no public transportation and often little or no employment. Parents obtain employment outside of their communities, sometimes driving long distances to work. How do parents in this situation decide between informal care close to home and licensed child care close to work?
Additionally, it is important to understand that parents of young children may be tech savvy enough to use the Internet and social media for learning about and choosing most of the goods and services they need. The Internet has become an inexpensive and easily accessible tool and parents who do not already have an understanding regarding what to look for in a child care arrangement can easily be led astray. As Administrators, the challenge is to adjust consumer education efforts to meet parents where they are searching for the information we want them to have. We don’t know, however, how much Internet searches are influencing parent decision-making regarding child care arrangements.
Ellen C. Wheatley Administrator, Child Development Bureau Division for Children, Youth and Families New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services
This research reinforces the need for States to promote and support a large number of high quality child care options from a variety of auspices – including Family, Friend and Neighbor care, licensed family child care homes, faith-based programs and a variety of licensed centers. Because there are so many different reasons why families make the choices that they make, there must be a wide variety of high quality care available so that families can find care that meets their unique needs and preferences.
This, of course, is difficult when budgets are tight and quality spending must be carefully prioritized. Often funding in Indiana gets allocated based on number of children impacted, so larger centers may have more supports than smaller family child care homes or FFN care. However, larger centers are often not viable in rural areas or during non-traditional hours. Thus, smaller, locally-based quality improvement projects and initiatives should be promoted in order to build the number of high quality choices for families throughout all areas of states including rural communities.
Quality Rating and Improvement Systems that are open to a variety of provider types can assist with this by not only providing quality supports for different provider types, but by also giving families an easy to recognize symbol of quality by which to reliably compare different choices. Given this, states must carefully consider how they communicate information about QRIS. For example, in Indiana, parent surveys have shown that health and safety is rated as the most important quality indicator for families. Within Indiana’s QRIS, the entry level (level 1), is defined by programs that are meeting health and safety standards. By using the term “health and safety” as the indicator for the lowest level, are we inadvertently promoting level one to families instead of the higher levels?
In the face of many unknowns about parental choice, how can we better use what we do know? We know that recommendations from friends and family members are essential to families when choosing care. Research in Indiana indicated in the early phase of our QRIS (Paths to QUALITY™), families whose children were enrolled in a Paths to QUALITY (PTQ) program were not always aware that their provider was even participating. We had to consider what approaches we could take to ensure that every family attending a PTQ program knows about it and talks about it with their friends and families. In response, Indiana created a marketing tool kit for providers that includes templates of newsletters and flyers for use with families and community members.
31
We offered free training sessions on the use of the toolkit to providers to assist them in marketing themselves. We provide signage for higher rated programs (banners, yard signs and garden flags) and arrange for local media recognition for QRIS level advancements. We are also looking at other low cost, high impact ways for child care programs to inform their enrolled families about PTQ and their own program’s commitment to quality improvement. More and more families are asking both the CCR&R offices and providers for a Paths to QUALITY provider, but more details are needed about how the information is impacting parental choice.
More information is needed on how Administrators apply research to best serve the low-income families in their State. For example, how do States respond to the fact that families often choose child care in a very short timeframe with limited visits to available options? How do we get information out in a timely way that recognizes the challenges families face? (Indiana is hoping that our robust on-line child care search may help with this as families can obtain a wide range of information on child care options without leaving their home or workplace.) What other social media options can States capitalize on to get the most important information out to families? How do we empower parents to make the best choices possible and support their role as their child’s most important advocate? These are complex issues that could be addressed in future research.
Melanie Brizzi Child Care Administrator Bureau of Child Care, Division of Family Resources Indiana Family and Social Services Administration
32
References
Anderson, S., Ramsburg, D. M., & Scott, J. (2005). Illinois study of license-exempt child care: Final report.
Barbarin, O. A., McCandies, T., Early, D., Clifford, R. M., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Howes, C., …Pianta, R. (2006). Quality of prekindergarten: What families are looking for in public sponsored programs. Early Education & Development, 17, 619-642.
Becerra, R. M., & Chi, I. (1992). Child care preferences among low-income minority families. International Social Work, 35, 35-47.
Booth-LaForce, C., & Kelly, J. F. (2004). Childcare patterns and issues for families of preschool children with disabilities. Infants & Young Children, 17(1), 5-16.
Brandon, P. (2004). The child care arrangements of pre-school age children in immigrant families in the United States. International Migration, 42, 65-87.
Brandon, P. D. (1999). Income-pooling arrangements, economic constraints, and married mothers’ child care choices. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 350-370.
Bredekamp, S., & Willer, B. (1993). Professionalizing the field of early childhood education: Pros and cons. . Young Children, 48, 82-84.
Buriel, R., & Hurtado-Ortiz, M. T. (2000). Child care practices and preferences of native- and foreign-born Latina mothers and Euro American mothers. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 314-331.
Ceglowski, D. (2006). Child care through the eyes of parents, children, and child care providers: Significant male figures’ perceptions of child care. Saint Paul, MN: Minnesota Child Care Policy Research Partnership, Minnesota Department of Human Services.
Chase, R., Arnold, J., Schauben, L., & Shardlow, B. (2005). Child care use in Minnesota: 2004 Statewide Household Child Care Survey. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research.
Chase, R., & Valerose, J. (2010). Child care use in Minnesota: Report of the 2009 Statewide Household Child Care Survey. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research.
Chaudry, A., Henly, J., & Meyers, M. (2010). ACF-OPRE White Paper: Conceptual frameworks for child care decision-making.
Chaudry, A., Pedroza, J. M., Sandstrom, H., Danziger, A., Grosz, M., Scott, M., …Ting, S. (2011). Child care choices of low-income working families. Retrieved from The Urban Institute website: http://www.urban.org/ publications/412343.html
Cryer, D., & Burchinal, M. (1997). Parents as child care consumers. Early Child Development and Care, 12, 35-58.
Davis, E. E., & Connelly, R. (2005). The influence of local price and availability on parents’ choice of child care. Population Research and Policy Review, 24, 301-334.
De Marco, A. (2008). A qualitative look at child care selection among rural welfare-to-work participants. Journal of Children and Poverty, 14(2), 119-138.
DeVore, S., & Bowers, B. (2006). Childcare for children with disabilities: Families search for specialized care and cooperative childcare partnerships. Infants and Young Children, 19(3), 203–212. 33http:http://www.urban.org
Elicker, J. G., Langill, C. C., Ruprecht, K. M., Lewsader, J., & Anderson, T. (2011). Evaluation of “Paths to QUALITY,” Indiana’s Child Care Quality Rating and Improvement System: Final Report (Technical Report #3). West Lafayette, IN: Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Center for Families, Purdue University.
Forry, N. (2009). The impact of child care subsidies on low-income single parents: An examination of child care expenditures and family finances. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30, 43-54.
Forry, N. D., Isner, T. K., Daneri, P., & Tout, K. (2012a). Child care decision-making: Understanding priorities and processes used by subsidized low-income families in Minnesota. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Forry, N. D., Wheeler, E., & Simkin, S. (2012b). “You know how it makes you feel”: Low-income parents’ child care preferences and definitions of high quality child care. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Fortuny, K., Hernandez, D. J., & Chaudry, A. (2010). Young children of immigrants: The leading edge of America’s future. Policy Brief. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Fuller, B., Holloway, S. D., & Liang, X. (1996). Family selection of child-care centers: The influence of household support, ethnicity, and parental practices. Child Development, 67, 3320-3337.
Gamble, W. C., Ewing, A. R., & Wilhelm, M. S. (2009). Parental perceptions of characteristics of non-parental child care: Belief dimensions, family and child correlates. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 70-82.
Garavuso, V. (2006). Early care and education choices of women in a parent support group in a working class neighborhood: Three women coconstruct notions of appropriate settings. Early Education and Development, 17(4), 511-533.
Gaylor, E., Spiker, D., Williamson, C., & Ferguson, K. (2011). Saint Paul Early Childhood Scholarship evaluation: Final evaluation report–2008-2011. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws. com/Omnera/VerV/s3finder/38/pdf/Scholarships_2008-2011Final_FulReport.pdf.
Gordon, R. A., & Hognas, R. S. (2006). The best laid plans: Expectations, preferences, and stability of child-care arrangements. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 68, 373-393.
Grogan, K. E. (2011). Parents’ choice of pre-kindergarten: A transactional ecological approach. Psychology Dissertations, Paper 83.
Haussler, A., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (1998). Child care for preschoolers with autism: An exploration of mothers’ beliefs, decision-making, and knowledge. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(3), 485-499.
Henly, J. R., & Lambert, S. (2005). Nonstandard Work and Child-Care Needs of Low-Income Parents. In L. M. C. Suzanne M. Bianchi, and Rosalind B. King (Ed.), Work, Family, Health, and Well-Being (pp. 473-492). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Henly, J. R., & Lyons, S. (2000). The negotiation of child care and employment demands along low-income parents. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 683-706.
Henly, J. R., Shaefer, H. L., & Waxman, R. E. (2006). Nonstandard work shcedules: Employer and employee- driven flexibility in retail jobs. Social Science Review, 80, 609-634.
Hirshberg, D., Huang, D. S.-C., & Fuller, B. (2005). Which low-income parents select child-care? Family demand and neighborhood organizations. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 1119-1148.
Hofferth, S., Brayfield, A., Deich, S., & Holcomb, P. (1991). The National Child Care Survey, 1990. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Hofferth, S. L., & Wissoker, D. A. (1992). Price, quality, and income in child care choice. The Journal of Human Resources, 37, 70-74.
Holloway, S. D., Rambaud, M. F., Fuller, B., & Eggers-Pierola, C. (1995). What is “appropriate practice” at home and in child care?: Low-income mothers’ views on preparing their children for school Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 451-473.
Iruka, I. U., & Carver, P. R. (2006). Initial Results from the 2005 NHES Early Childhood Program Participation Survey. (NCES 2006-075). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Ispa, J. M., Thornburg, K. R., & Venter-Barkley, J. (1998). Parental child care selection criteria and program quality in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan communities. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 14, 3-14.
Johansen, A. S., Leibowitz, A., & Waite, L. J. (1996). The importance of child-care characteristics to choice of care. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 759-772.
Karoly, L. A., & Gonzalez, G. C. (2011). Early care and education for children in immigrant families. Future of Children, 21(1), 71-101.
Kim, J., & Fram, M. S. (2009). Profiles of choice: Parents’ patterns of priority in child care decision-making. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 77-91.
Layzer, J. I., & Goodson, B. D. (2006). National study of child care for low-income families: A description of family child care and the experiences of the families and children who use it: Wave 1 Report.
Layzer, J. I., Goodson, B. D., & Brown-Lyons, M. (2007). National Study of Care for Low-Income Families: Care in the home: A description of family child care and the experiences of the families and children that use it: Final Report.
Leach, P., Barnes, J., Nichols, M., Goldin, J., Stein, A., Sylva, K., …Malmberg, L.-E. (2006). Child care before 6 months of age: A qualitative study of mothers’ decisions and feelings about employment and non-maternal care. Infant and Child Development, 15, 471-502.
Leslie, L., Ettenson, R., & Cumsille, P. (2000). Selecting a child care center: What really matters to parents? Child and Youth Care Forum, 29, 299-322.
Lowe, E. D., & Weisner, T. S. (2004). ‘You have to push it – who’s gonna raise your kids?’: Situating child care and child care subsidy use in the daily routines of lower income families. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 143-171.
Matthews, H., & Jang, D. (2007). The Challenges of Change: Learning from the Child Care and Early Education Experiences of Immigrant Families. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
Mensing, J. F., French, D., Fuller, B., & Kagan, S. L. (2000). Child care selection under welfare reform: How mothers balance work requirements and parenting. Early Education and Development, 11(5), 573-595.
Meyers, M. K., & Jordan, L. P. (2006). Choice and accommodation in parental child care decisions. Journal of the Community Development Society, 37, 53-70.
Michalopolous, C., Lundquiest, E., & Castells, N. (2010). The effects of child care subsidies for moderate-income families in Cook County, Illinois.
35
Morrisey, T. W. (2008). Familial factors associated with the use of multiple child-care arrangements. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(2), 549-563.
National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs (NS-CSHCN) 2009/10. Data query from the Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative, Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health website. Retrieved from www.childhealthdata.org.
National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies [NACCRRA]. (2006). Child Care In Thirteen Economically Disadvantaged Communities. Retrieved from: http://www.naccrra.org/sites/default/files/ default_site_pages/2011/13_communities_rept2006.pdf
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2001). Nonmaternal care and family factors in early development: An overview of the NICHD study of early child care. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 457-492.
Obeng, C. S. (2007). Immigrants families and childcare preferences: Do immigrants’ culture influence their childcare decisions? Early Childhood Education Journal, 34, 259-264.
Paulsell, D., Cohen, J., Stieglitz, A., Lurie-Hurvitz, E., Fenichel, E., & Kisker, E. (2002). Partnerships for quality: Improving infant-toddler child care for low-income families. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Peyton, V., Jacobs, A. C., O’Brien, M., & Roy, C. (2001). Reasons for choosing child care: Associations with family factors, quality and satisfaction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 191-208.
Powell, L. M. (2002). Joint labor supply and childcare choice decisions of married mothers. The Journal of Human Resources, 37, 106-128.
Pungello, E. P., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (1999). Why and how working women choose child care: A review with a focus on infancy. Developmental Review, 19, 31-96.
Raikes, H., Wilcox, B., Peterson, C. A., Hegland, S. M., Atwater, J., Summers, J. A., Thornburg, K. R., Scott, J. L., Torquati, J. C., …Edwards, C. P. (2005) Parent perceptions of child care choice and quality in four states. Paper read at University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Center on Children, Families, and the Law. Lincoln, NE.
Richter. (2013). State of Utah quality child care initiative: 2012 update to 2011 baseline research.
Riley, L. A., & Glass, J. L. (2002). You can’t always get what you want – infant care preferences and use among employed mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 2-15.
Rose, K. K., & Elicker, J. (2008). Parental decision making about child care. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1161-1184.
Rose, K. K., & Elicker, J. (2010). Maternal child care preferences for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers: The disconnect between policy and preferences in the USA. Community, Work, & Family, 13, 205-229.
Sandstrom, H., & Chaudry, A. (2012). ‘You have to choose your childcare to fit your work’: Childcare decision- making among low-income working families. Journal of Children and Poverty, 18, 89-119.
Sandstrom, H., Giesen, L., & Chaudry, A. (2012). How contextual constraints affect low-income working parents’ child care choices. Perspectives on Low-Income Families Brief 22. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Scott, E., London, A. S., & Hurst, A. (2005). Instability in patchworks of child care when moving from welfare to work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 369-385.
Scott, E. K., Leymon, A. S., & Abelson, M. (2011). Assessing the impacts of Oregon’s 2007 changes to child-care subsidy policy.
36http://www.naccrra.org/sites/default/fileshttp:www.childhealthdata.org
Shlay, A. B. (2010). African American, White and Hispanic child care preferences: A factorial survey analysis of welfare leavers by race and ethnicity. Social Science Research, 29, 125-141.
Shlay, A. B., Tran, H., Weinraub, M., & Harmon, M. (2005). Teasing apart the child care conundrum: A factorial survey analysis of perceptions of child care quality, fair market price and willingness to pay by low-income, African American parents. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 393-416.
Starr, R., Tout, K., Albertson-Junkans, L., Moodie, S., Rothenberg, L., & Soli, M. (2012). Findings from the Kentucky Early Care and Education and School-Age Care Household Survey, Evaluation Brief #8. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends. Retrieved from: www.kentuckypartnership.org/starsevaluation.
Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Balz, J. P. (2010). Choice Architecture. Retrieved from http://www.sas.upenn. edu/~baron/475/choice.architecture.pdf.
The National Association Of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies. (2006). Child Care In Thirteen Economically Disadvantaged Communities
Thornburg, K. R., Mauzy, D., Mayfield, W. A., Hawks, J. S., Sparks, A., Mumford, J. A., Foulkes, T., …Fuger, K. L. (2010). Data-driven decision making in preparation for large-scale Quality Rating System implementation. In M. Zaslow, I. Martinez-Beck, K. Tout & T. Halle (Eds.), Quality Measurement in Early Childhood Settings. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Inc.
Tout, K., Starr, R., Isner, T., Cleveland, J., Albertson-Junkans, L., Soli, M., …Quinn, K. (2011). Evaluation of Parent Aware: Minnesota’s Quality Rating System pilot: Final evaluation report.
Tout, K., Starr, R., Soli, M., Moodie, S., Kirby, G., & Boller, K. (2010). Compendium of quality rating systems and evaluations. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2007). The National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs Chartbook 2005–2006. Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007.
Van Horn, M. L., Ramey, S. L., Mulvihill, B. A., & Newell, W. Y. (2001). Reasons for child care choice and appraisal among low-income mothers. Child & Youth Care Forum, 30(4), 231-249.
Vesely, C. K. (2013). Low-income African and Latina immigrant mothers’ selection of early childhood care and education (ECCE): Considering the complexity of cultural and structural influences. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 470-486.
Ward, H., Morris, L., Atkins, J., Herrick, A., Morris, P., & Oldham, E. (2006). Child care and children with special needs: Challenges for low income families. Portland, ME: Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service, Catherine E. Cutler Institute for Child and Family Policy, University of Southern Maine.
Ward, H. D., Oldham LaChance, E., & Atkins, J. A. (2011). New Americans: Child care decision-making of refugee and immigrant parents of English language learners. Portland, ME: Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service.
Weber, R. (2011). Understanding Parents’ Child Care Decision-Making: A Foundation for Policy Making, OPRE Research-to-Policy, Research-to-Practice Brief OPRE 2011-12. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Weber, R. B., & Grobe, D. (2011). Oregon subsidy policy impact research project: Parent survey. Corvallis: Oregon Child Care Research Partnership.
37http://www.sas.upennwww.kentuckypartnership.org/starsevaluation
- Structure Bookmarks
- Child Care Decision-Making Literature Review
