NOVEMBER 2020
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE
NETWORKS: SUPPORTING
QUALITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Findings from The National Study of Family Child Care Networks, Case Studies
CASE STUDIES
RECOMMENDED CITATION:
Bromer, J., Ragonese-Barnes, M., & Porter, T. (2020). Inside family child care networks: Supporting quality and sustainability. Chicago, IL:
Herr Research Center, Erikson Institute.
The report is available to download at: https://www.erikson.edu/research/national-study-of-family-child-care-networks
For more information about this study, contact:
Juliet Bromer, Ph.D.
Herr Research Center
Erikson Institute 451 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 893-7127 Email: jbromer@erikson.edu
3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the network directors and sta who participated in these cases studies and to all of the family child care educators
who agreed to have observers in their homes and to talk with us about their experiences caring for children and families. Their
willingness to commit so much of their time and their candidness about sharing information were essential to this report.
We want to thank Jon Korfmacher, Associate Professor at Erikson Institute, for his expertise and guidance throughout the
design, data collection, analyses, and writing of this report.
In addition, Erikson Institute sta contributed to the study:
• Helen Jacobsen, Project Manager
• Cristina Gonzalez del Riego, former Research Analyst
• Jennifer Baquedano, Data Collector
• Tiany Gorman, Research Assistant
• Margaret Reardon, Administrative Coordinator
• Patricia Molloy, Project Manager
We are grateful to the Pritzker Children’s Initiative, a project of the J.B. and M.K. Pritzker Foundation for its support of this study.
The views expressed in this report do not reflect the foundation’s views or policies. They are ours alone.
JULIET BROMER
Research Scientist
HERR RESEARCH CENTER
ERIKSON INSTITUTE
TONI PORTER
Principal
EARLY CARE AND
EDUCATION CONSULTING
MARINA RAGONESE-BARNES
Research Analyst
HERR RESEARCH CENTER
ERIKSON INSTITUTE
PREFACE
The case studies described in this report were conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of the findings focus on in-person
supports for family child care educators such as visits to homes and training sessions. While some of the recommended practices
that emerge from this report may not be feasible during the pandemic, we hope that findings can inform broader policy and program
decisions about the types of supports that family child care educators need and that are most likely to contribute to positive
outcomes for children and families.
4
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
Table 1.1 Child Care Assessment Tool for
Relatives (CCAT-R) constructs
overview
Table 2.1 Services oered at Little People
FCCN
Table 2.2 Little People FCCN Sample
Table 2.3 Characteristics of FCC educator
study sample at Little People
FCCN
Table 2.4 Educator motivations for doing
FCC at Little People FCCN
Table 2.5 Reasons educators participate in
Little People FCCN
Table 2.6 Characteristics of family child care
programs at Little People FCCN
Table 2.7 Enrollment in FCC homes at Little
People FCCN
Table 3.1 Services oered at Downtown
FCCN
Table 3.2 Downtown FCCN Sample
Table 3.3 Characteristics of FCC educator
study sample at Downtown FCCN
Table 3.4 Educator motivations for doing
FCC at Downtown FCCN
Table 3.5 Reasons educators participate in
Downtown FCCN
Table 3.6 Characteristics of family child care
programs at Downtown FCCN
Table 3.7 Enrollment in FCC homes at
Downtown FCCN
Box 2.1 Little People FCCN Mentoring
Program
FIGURES & TABLES
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS:
SUPPORTING QUALITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
Research Questions 8
Road Map to the Report 8
I. CHAPTER 1:
RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS
Recruitment 9
Protocols and Procedures 9
Sample 11
Data Analysis 11
II. CHAPTER 2: LITTLE PEOPLE
FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORK 12
Characteristics of Network Sta, FCC Educators,
and Families Served 13
Approaches to Service Delivery 17
Supporting Quality 21
Supporting Sustainability of FCC Businesses 26
Sta Support and Supervision 31
III. CHAPTER 3: DOWNTOWN
FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORK 32
Characteristics of Network Sta, FCC Educators,
and Families Served 33
Approaches to Service Delivery 37
Supporting Quality 42
Supporting Sustainability of FCC Businesses 47
Sta Support and Supervision 51
IV. CHAPTER 4: BENEFITS OF NETWORK
PARTICIPATION ACROSS BOTH SITES
Daily Support 52
Sense of Professionalism 53
V. DISCUSSION
Discussion and Summary of Findings 54
Limitations 56
VI. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH
Implications for How Networks Can Support
FCC Quality Caregiving 57
Implications for How Networks Can Support
FCC Sustainability 58
Implications for Future Research 59
VII. REFERENCES 60
VIII. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Methods Supplemental Detail 63
Appendix B: Little People FCCN Tables 66
Appendix C: Downtown FCCN Tables 76
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Home-based child care (HBCC), non-parental care provided in the home of a regulated family child care educator (FCC) or an
unregulated family, friend, or neighbor caregiver (FFN), is the most common child care arrangement for children under age five in
the U.S. (National Survey of Early Care and Education [NSECE] Project Team 2015a). HBCC settings are more likely to serve infants,
toddlers, and children who live in poverty as well as families who need care outside of traditional hours (Laughlin, 2013; NSECE
Project Team, 2015b, 2013; Porter et al., 2010). The widespread use of HBCC has heightened concern about the quality of care that
these educators oer. At the same time, there is a documented decline of regulated FCC in the U.S. (NCECQA, 2020) which suggests
that sustainability of FCC settings as well as the quality of these settings are critical issues for this sector of the early childhood
workforce.
HBCC or FCC networks (FCCN) – organizations that deliver a combination of services over time with specialized sta whose primary
responsibility is working with HBCC providers – have emerged as a strategy for addressing these two broad issues (Bromer & Porter,
2019). The body of research on network eectiveness is limited. Only two studies have specifically examined eects on quality in
regulated FCC settings (Bromer et al., 2009; Porter & Reiman, 2016). Both found positive results: FCC educators who participated in
networks were more likely to provide higher quality care than those who did not.
This report presents findings from in-depth case studies of two FCC networks (FFCN) that serve regulated FCC educators – Little
People FCCN and Downtown FCCN . The study sought to understand approaches to service delivery implementation, the experiences
of educators who received network services and sta who delivered these services, and the relationship between network service
delivery and both quality caregiving and business sustainability in aliated FCC homes.
• In-depth interviews and surveys with FCCN sta oered a portrait of how services are delivered to FCC educators as well as
insights into the types of relationships that networks build with aliated FCC educators
• In-depth interviews and surveys with FCC educators oered insights into educator experiences oering child care and working
with a FCCN around quality and sustainability.
• Observations of quality in FCC homes oered data on caregiver-child interactions, materials available for learning, and health
and safety materials and practices in the home child care setting.
• Focus groups with parents of children enrolled in FCC homes shed light on how FCCNs interact with and support families.
A total of 105 FCC educators, 12 sta members, and 16 parents participated in the study across the two networks. Data were collected
in 2019 through in-person site visits, telephone interviews, surveys, and in-person observations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SNAPSHOT OF THE TWO NETWORKS
The two networks served dierent types of communities, children, families, and educators. They also operated in dierent state
policy contexts (see Appendix D for comparison tables).
• Little People FCCN was located in a suburban area and served mostly white, middle- and upper-class professional families
with infants and toddlers. Families paid private tuition to the network which paid the educators for their child care work.
More than half of the FCC educators who participated in the study self-identified as immigrants from Middle Eastern
and South Asian countries, and many reported that English was not their first language. More than half had a college or
post-graduate degree. Network supports included visits to FCC homes, training workshops, an apprenticeship program
to help new educators become licensed, help with administrative and business aspects of running a child care program,
and coaching for educators who participated in the state’s Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS). In addition to
network supports, Little People FCCN also served as a licensing agency, responsible for monitoring compliance with state
regulations.
• Downtown FCCN operated in a small city and served families, many living in poverty, who were eligible for child care
subsidies, were TANF priority populations, and received child welfare services. The majority of educators self-identified
as Latinx. Over two thirds had less than a college degree with most having a high school degree or GED as their highest
level of education. Downtown FCCN administered subsidy payments to FCC educators as part of a statewide infrastructure
of supports for FCC but was not responsible for monitoring compliance with state standards. The network oered
supports including twice-monthly visits to FCC homes, a training series for new providers, professional development, and
opportunities for community engagement. The network also had sta who oered family support services to parents of
children enrolled in aliated FCC homes.
KEY THEMES & FINDINGS
The ways that networks deliver supports may contribute to the quality of observed educator-child interactions and the child care
environment. Educators at both networks demonstrated high-quality engagement with children’s learning and learning materials.
There were dierences in the quality of nurturing practices. Downtown FCCN educators had lower ratings on nurturing practices,
with scores in the poor range, compared to Little People FCCN educators, whose nurturing practices with children were rated as
acceptable. Some of these dierences may reflect educators’ levels of education as well as variations in group sizes and ages of
children in care. On average, FCC homes aliated with Little People FCCN enrolled fewer and
younger children than FCC homes aliated with Downtown FCCN.
Dierences in quality scores may also be related to approaches to service delivery. The
vast majority of educators at Little People FCCN reported that specialist visits focused on
discussions about the children in their care, including child development, and the child care
environment. Visits at Downtown FCCN, by contrast, primarily focused on crisis management,
behavioral challenges of children in care, and personal needs of educators and families.
Downtown FCCN’s focus on challenges may have been a response to its population of children
and families, who experienced many stressors including poverty, trauma, and homelessness.
Network approaches to relationship-building may contribute to health and safety compliance in FCC homes. Educators at both
Little People FCCN and Downtown FCCN had high levels of compliance around health and safety practices overall. However, there
were dierences in the proportions of educators whose homes had red flag items (items that had the potential to cause serious
injury or death). Lower proportions of Little People educators (one third) did not meet red flag health and safety indicators
compared to two thirds of Downtown educators. The most common red flag items were lack of electrical outlet covers, gates on
stairs for mobile infants and toddlers, and accessible electrical cords.
These dierences may be related to the network monitoring and enforcement roles. As a licensing agency, Little People FCCN had
an intentional and frequent focus on monitoring, which may explain the educators’ high health and safety scores. On the other
hand, the surprise unannounced visits created tensions with some educators and may have worked against the predictability and
“If we know that a provider
is a struggling with doing
art with infants and
toddlers, we’re going to
plan a training on that.”
Little People FCCN Specialist
2
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
consistency of visits that are essential elements of building strong relationships. By contrast, Downtown FCCN was not tasked with
this enforcement role, which may have resulted in less attention to health and safety checks and lower scores. Instead, Downtown
FCCN focused on building relationships with educators, which may have created tensions around giving dicult feedback about
potential health and safety violations.
Networks provided dierent kinds of support for participation in QRIS. Educators at Little
People FCCN received additional visits from a sta member whose primary responsibility
was supporting them in the state’s voluntary QRIS system. Educators reported that her
support helped them overcome initial fears about participating and made it easy to advance
to higher levels. Downtown FCCN child care specialists were expected to help educators,
who were automatically registered as Level 1 in the state’s QRIS, to move to higher levels,
and the training coordinator sometimes provided workshops on specific QRIS topics. Yet
few educators were willing to move beyond Level 1, and neither specialists nor educators
mentioned this support in the interviews.
Network business supports may contribute to the sustainability of FCC businesses. We found that dierences in the networks’
approaches to business support may have influenced the sustainability of FCC businesses. Little People FCCN oered parent
orientations about its child care services and lists of educators who might meet parent needs, but the network expected educators
to recruit families. By comparison, Downtown FCCN placed families with educators through its state contracts, and had specific sta
who helped with referral and enrollment.
These dierences may have aected FCC enrollment, which, in turn, may have contributed
to the income educators could earn from their child care businesses. A significant proportion
of Little People FCCN educators operated at less than full licensed capacity, which may have
meant less income. The relatively high fees paid by parents, however, may have compensated
for lower enrollment. Educators at Downtown FCCN, by contrast, were typically full, but the
state reimbursement rate was low, which may have presented challenges for educators with
limited financial resources.
Direct financial assistance may also help educators maintain sustainable businesses because
it can oset the often-limited income that FCC businesses generate. Both networks in our
study oered financial assistance to aliated educators. Little People FCCN absorbed the
cost of liability insurance for FCC educators and oered emergency funding to cover the cost
of substitutes if educators had to close their business. The network also facilitated access to
state-funded scholarships to complete college courses. Downtown FCCN provided no-default
loans of up to $5000 for program and home repairs. Like Little People, Downtown also
facilitated educators’ access to state grants for materials and scholarships for college courses,
a degree, or a Child Development Associate credential.
Culturally-responsive network supports may shape educator engagement in services. Some research suggests that culturally-
responsive service delivery may shape educator engagement and quality of care (Bromer & Korfmacher, 2017), although we do
not have evidence from this study about how this aspect of service delivery may have related to quality. Downtown FCCN had an
intentional approach to culturally-responsive support. There was a strong cultural match between sta and educators; all of the sta
“If there was not this training, I wouldn’t know anything, what’s going on, or the rules,
or the qualifications — what I need for myself, how to take care of the children, to
understand them, and to see also if there is something going on at their home, the way to
talk to them, the way to communicate with them.”
FCC Educator at Little People FCCN
“I will tell them that we all
need to keep up with our
professionalism…
this is not just simple
babysitting. We have a lot
of responsibilities here.”
Little People FCCN Specialist
“They taught you how
to build your business in
a way where you make
money, not lose money. For
example, if I make $400, I
can’t spend $500, it would
defeat the purpose. So, you
learn to budget and find
ways to make things work
for better profit.”
Educator at Downtown FCCN
3
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
self-identified as women of color, consistent with the population of educators in the network. Educators reported positive relationships
with sta, including trust and respect, as well as comfort and communication. All sta indicated that they provided personal support to
educators.
By contrast, Little People FCCN’s approach was less intentional. Most of the sta at Little People FCCN were white women serving
educators who were mostly immigrants from the Middle East. Both specialists and educators reported that cultural and linguistic
dierences sometimes interfered with eective support.
"For 30 years, we have been creating strong relationships. Sometimes we feel like a family... When a
provider is going through something, they receive the aection and the support.
We feel like this is more deep than just work. It goes more deeply.”
Downtown FCCN Director
Network support for families of children in FCC homes diered across the two networks.
Another notable dierence between the two networks was the role of the network in
supporting parents and families of children enrolled in aliated FCC homes. Little People
FCCN’s referral service for families and processing of parent fees were helpful for families
seeking child care, but the majority of network sta and support services were targeted
towards FCC educators.
By contrast, Downtown FCCN delivered supports to both FCC educators and to families of
children in their programs. The network had specialized sta whose job was to support and
connect families in the subsidy and child welfare systems to resources, including a social
worker. Another core component of service delivery focused on families was provision of
transportation to and from child care.
Neither network oered consistent evidence-based supports such as curriculum help or comprehensive services for children.
We found similar gaps in evidence-based services across both networks. Neither network oered consistent curriculum support for
educators, which research indicates is a key feature of high-quality early care and education (Burchinal, 2018; NSECE, 2015b). Nor did
we find evidence of delivery of comprehensive supports including developmental screening and mental health consultation for FCC
educators such as those oered by FCCNs that operate within Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
Neither network oered consistent and intentional reflective supervision for sta. Neither network had a strong infrastructure for
reflective sta supervision, which is an essential component of sta support (Bromer & Korfmacher, 2017). None of the sta at the two
networks reported receiving intentional and regular opportunities to reflect on their work with educators and to think about strategies
for improvement.
“They are opening doors
for you that otherwise, you
would not have been able
to open. I learned so much
with these people, and to
do so many other things.”
Downtown FCCN Parent
4
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IMPLICATIONS FOR HOW NETWORKS CAN SUPPORT
FCC QUALITY CAREGIVING
• Help FCC educators with regular maintenance of health and safety practices.
Regardless of a network’s enforcement role, network visits to FCC homes can help educators develop strategies and routines
around maintenance of daily health and safety precautions and practices. Monitoring visits should help educators strategize
systems and procedures for maintaining safe environments.
• Increase access to high-quality materials for FCC homes including health and safety equipment and learning materials for
dierent age groups.
Networks should consider providing funding for educators to purchase health and safety equipment for their FCC programs
and developing lending libraries that allow access to materials such as puzzles, fine and large motor materials, and books for
dierent age groups of children in care.
• Partner with QRIS to oer support through trusted family child care specialists.
Networks may be well-positioned to oer targeted QRIS support around FCC participation in quality improvement. FCC
educators may be more likely to engage in QRIS if the help comes from a trusted network rather than a state specialist.
• Use culturally-sensitive practices to recruit, engage, and sustain FCC participation in networks and in quality improvement
activities.
Culturally-responsive network stang and approaches to supporting FCC educators may increase FCC engagement in network
services. Networks should consider hiring sta who reflect the racial, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds of educators and
families served. Materials and trainings should be oered in languages that are preferred by educators and families.
• Engage in relationship-based practices with FCC educators combined with high-quality early childhood content.
Network supports may be most likely to shift FCC educator practices with children when they are rooted in strong, trusting
relationships focused on how to translate child development content into evidence-based practices. Relationships without
content may not improve quality and content without strong relationships may not engage educators in processes of
improvement.
• Support families of children in FCC homes through specialized sta and comprehensive services.
Networks have the potential to support families as well as FCC educators. Supporting families requires additional stang and
referral resources including social work sta, transportation, food, and housing supports as well as access to health services for
children and families.
• Oer training, support, and supervision to network sta who work directly with FCC educators.
Sta training, support, and supervision are key components of creating a network culture that values the process of quality
improvement at all levels. Regular and intentional reflective supervision of all sta who work directly with FCC educators may
help sta increase culturally responsive interactions, improve the quality of support oered, and intensify their focus on quality
caregiving.
5
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IMPLICATIONS FOR HOW NETWORKS CAN SUPPORT
FCC SUSTAINABILITY
• Develop contracts with state subsidy systems to increase recruitment and enrollment of families in FCC homes.
Contracts allow networks to guarantee a designated number of slots for children in aliated FCC homes and to process parent
subsidy payments for FCC educators. Contracts may be one strategy for supporting full enrollment in FCC homes.
• Help FCC educators with required paperwork for licensing and subsidy participation.
Networks spend time helping educators with paperwork and other administrative tasks that licensing and subsidy systems
require including keeping track of enrollment, child health records, and professional development hours. Networks may address
barriers that educators face by translating materials into preferred languages of educators and families or oering computer
support for accessing online trainings and applications.
• Oer training on financial management and marketing strategies that go beyond recordkeeping and contracts with families.
Networks have the potential to help educators develop business skills and practices that are most likely to lead to sustainable
operations. Educators may need technical assistance around marketing and recruitment strategies as well as financial
management.
• Oer financial assistance for home repairs and other infrastructure supports needed in FCC homes as well as for professional
development.
FCC educators may need financial help to address the regular wear and tear on their homes that results from doing child care in
a home setting. FCC educators may also need direct financial help to enroll in credential and college courses.
• Facilitate formal peer support activities for FCC educators that support provider leadership and growth.
Formal peer support activities may lead to increased educator engagement in quality improvement as well as increased
ecacy and professionalism. Networks that work with FCC educators as equal partners have opportunities to develop
leadership in the field.
This case study contributes to the relatively small research base on how family child care networks support care and education for
young children in FCC homes. The study shows how networks oer educators consistent and reliable support for their daily work
with children and families. The study also highlights the ways that networks provide educators with a sense of professionalism
through opportunities for skill and knowledge enhancement, peer to peer support, and business development. This report lays the
groundwork for future research on network eectiveness. The current study suggests potential links between network practices and
quality, including educator-child interactions, health and safety practices, and the child care learning environment. The approaches
to network support described in these case studies may be the first step towards identifying models that can be replicated in
demonstration studies that examine a range of possible outcomes for participating educators, children, and families.
6
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
INTRODUCTION
Home-based child care (HBCC), non-parental care provided in the home of a regulated licensed family child care provider (FCC) or
an unregulated family, friend, or neighbor caregiver (FFN), is the most common child care arrangement for children under five in the
U.S. There are far more infants and toddlers in these settings than in centers (National Survey of Early Care and Education [NSECE]
Project Team, 2013). Moreover, families of color, families living in poverty and those who in rural areas, and families who need child
care outside of traditional hours are more likely to use HBCC (Laughlin, 2013; NSECE Project Team, 2015a; Porter et al., 2010).
The widespread use of HBCC, especially for very young children who are at risk for poor outcomes, has heightened concern about the
quality of care that these providers oer. Research indicates that there is wide variation in HBCC quality as there is in centers (Bassok
et al., 2016), but studies consistently find that HBCC providers rate lower on global quality measures than centers (Porter et al., 2010).
There are also growing concerns about trends in the supply of HBCC, particularly FCC. Nearly one in two licensed FCC providers
left the field between 2008 and 2017 (National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance [NCECQA], 2020), and the number of
providers in the Child Care Development Fund subsidy system dropped by approximately the same percentage between FY 2011 and
FY2016 (Oce of Child Care, 2014; Oce of Child Care, 2019).
HBCC networks or FCC networks – organizations that deliver a combination of services over time with specialized sta whose
primary responsibility is working with HBCC providers – have emerged as a strategy for addressing the dual issues of quality and
supply (Bromer & Porter, 2019). The body of research on network eectiveness is limited. Only two studies have specifically examined
eects on quality (Bromer et al., 2009; Porter & Reiman, 2016). Both found positive results: FCC providers who participated in
networks were more likely to provide higher quality care than those who did not.
Other research points to the potential of the services that networks oer – visits to providers’ homes, training workshops, and peer
support – for improving provider and quality outcomes. These services may contribute to provider knowledge and support provider
emotional and psychological well-being which may be related to the quality of care provided (Bromer & Korfmacher, 2017; Forry
et al., 2013; Gray, 2015; Jeon et al., 2018; McCabe & Cochran, 2008; Porter et al., 2010; Porter & Reiman, 2016). Still other research
suggests that supports such as help with marketing to attract enrollment, collecting fees from parents, and budgeting and financial
management can enhance provider’s business skills and capacity to maintain sustainable programs (Etter & Cappizano, 2018; Stoney
& Blank, 2011; Zeng et al., 2020).
The ways in which services are implemented is another aspect of service delivery that may shape quality, provider, child, and family
outcomes. Implementation science suggests that factors such as fidelity to an existing model, frequency and dosage of services,
sta training, and organizational capacity and culture may all contribute to the quality of support services (Bromer & Korfmacher,
2017; Paulsell et al., 2010). Research from related fields such as home visiting suggests that programs that adhere to a theory of
change model, oer intensive service delivery by well-trained and prepared sta, use a relationship-based approach to services,
and match the needs and interests of those served (families or providers) are most likely to produce positive outcomes (Bromer &
Korfmacher, 2017).
The current study is the third in a suite of reports from Erikson Institute’s National Study of Family Child Care Networks. Initiated in
2017, the National Study consisted of three components: 1) a survey of networks across the U.S. to document the network landscape;
2) qualitative interviews with a sub-sample of network directors to examine implementation of services; and 3) in-depth case studies
of two networks to understand how networks deliver services and the relationship between service delivery and quality of caregiving
among aliated providers. The first report, Mapping the Landscape of Family Child care Networks (Bromer & Porter, 2019), based on
a survey sample of 156 organizations that were broadly defined as networks, provided insights into the kinds of organizations that
operate networks and the services they provide. The second report, Delivering Services to Meet the Needs of Home-based Child Care
Providers (Porter & Bromer, 2020), which was based on in-depth interviews with a sub-sample of 47 network directors, examined the
fit between perceived provider challenges and needs, including licensing, subsidy, and quality rating and improvement system (QRIS)
demands, and network supports that are most likely to shape provider, child, and family outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
& BACKGROUND
This report presents findings from in-depth case studies of two family child care networks (FCCNs). Findings are based on surveys
and interviews with family child care educators
1
and network sta specialists at the two networks that sought to better understand
how networks approach and deliver services as well as the relationships between educators and sta that may influence the
eectiveness of service delivery. It also includes observations of caregiver-child interactions and child care environments to examine
possible associations with network characteristics and quality.
We aimed to address several broad questions in these case studies:
• What types of support services do the networks oer and what are the experiences of educators who
receive these supports?
• How do the networks approach service delivery implementation and what are the experiences of sta
who deliver services to educators?
• How do educators and sta perceive the quality of sta-educator relationships?
• What is the observed quality of caregiver-child interactions among aliated family child care educators
at each network?
• What is the relationship between support services and caregiving quality?
• Which services have the greatest potential for quality improvement and business sustainability?
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
ROAD MAP TO THE REPORT
The report is divided into five chapters. Chapter I describes our data collection process and analysis including measures and sample
description. Chapters II and III present findings from each of the case studies. Each includes detailed descriptions of the educator and
sta characteristics, educator participation and engagement in services, network supports for improving quality and sustainability,
approaches to service delivery, sta-educator relationships, and results of the caregiving quality observations. Chapter IV compares
findings from the two case studies, examining the strengths and weaknesses of each network and their potential for influencing
quality and sustainability of family child care. The report concludes with implications for program and policy development.
1 Throughout this report, we use the term “educator” to describe family child care providers, not only because it more closely captures the
essential role that these individuals play in the lives of children, but also because it is the way that providers have come to see themselves. We
only use “provider” in the direct quotes from educators or sta.
8
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I.
RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS
We used a multi-site case study approach (Creswell, 2013) to examine two approaches to operating a family child care network. The
case study method allowed us to gather data from multiple sources within each network and to view educators’ experiences within
each of these network contexts. It also oered an opportunity to take a more in-depth look at how network services are implemented
and the experiences of participants within the network setting. The multi-site context allowed us to compare services, approaches,
and experiences across the two networks.
RECRUITMENT
We used several criteria to select the two networks for the case studies. One criterion was longevity, because we sought to examine
service delivery and approaches that organizations had consistently implemented over time. Another was the number of educators
served, because we needed a large enough sample to collect meaningful data on educators and sta as well as observed quality.
A third criterion was the community contexts in which the networks operated, because we aimed to better understand possible
dierences between networks that served families with dierent socio-economic characteristics.
In fall 2018 we invited Little People Family Child Care Network (Little People FCCN) and Downtown Family Child Care Network
(Downtown FCCN) to participate in the study.
1
Each met the criteria for a network: “an organization that oers HBCC providers
a menu of quality improvement services and supports including technical assistance, training, and/or peer support delivered by
a paid sta member” (Bromer & Porter, 2019, p.1). In addition, each organization was a stand-alone network that supported only
HBCC providers, unlike other networks that may be housed in umbrella organizations and also support center-based programs.
The research team had previous relationships with both networks, who had participated in prior research projects including the
National Study of Family Child Care Networks. Both networks were long standing organizations that had not engaged in any formal
evaluations.
The two sites were ideal for a case study approach. Each operated in a dierent policy context and served dierent populations of
children and families. Little People FCCN primarily served middle-income families and only accepted private pay for child care, while
Downtown FCCN primarily served low-income families who used a child care subsidy. The directors and sta at the networks helped
recruit sta, educators, and parents through emails, phone calls, and fliers for each activity in the case study research.
PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES
Data collection took place in spring and summer 2019. We used four data collection approaches in the case studies: 1) surveys of sta
and educators; 2) interviews with sta, educators, and directors; 3) focus groups with parents; and 4) observations of educators’
caregiving quality. The study received approval from Erikson Institute’s IRB. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior
to data collection.
SURVEYS
Two surveys were developed for this study to assess sta and educator experiences. The Sta Experiences Survey assessed sta
experiences delivering services, their perceptions of relationships with educators, and experiences of support and supervision at
the network and perceptions of organizational culture. Organizational culture includes psychological safety, which covers how
comfortable sta feel taking risks, making mistakes, and asking for support, which research shows is related to eective job
performance in other employment contexts (Edmondson, 1999). The Educator Experiences Survey assessed educator interest and
investment in network services, sta-educator relationship formation and development, and educators’ level of engagement and
comfort (or “fit”) with services received. The sta-educator relationships component of both surveys used the Relationship-Based
Support for Home-Based Child Care Assessment Tool (RBS-HBCC: Bromer, Ragonese-Barnes, et al., 2020) which examines emotional
connection, goal setting and collaboration, and responsiveness within these professional relationships.
1 We have changed the names of the networks to protect their confidentiality.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
9
CHAPTER I
Online surveys were sent to sta specialists who worked directly with educators and to all educators at each network. Surveys were
also available in hard copy for educators or sta who preferred that format. All educator surveys were available in English or Spanish.
Educators and sta who completed the surveys were eligible to participate in a rae for a $50 gift card.
INTERVIEWS
During spring 2019 we conducted hour-long telephone interviews with a sub-sample of FCC educators who were aliated with each
of the networks and who responded to our survey. The educator interview was designed to learn about their experiences doing
family child care, their experiences with the network services, and the relationships they had formed with network sta. All interviews
with educators were conducted in English or Spanish. All interview participants received a $50 gift card for their participation.
We also conducted interviews with sta who worked directly with educators at both networks during site visits. Sta interviews
focused on the requirements of the sta’s job role, their experiences working at the network, and the relationships they formed with
FCC educators. Sta received a $25 gift card for their participation.
Two interviews were conducted with network directors. The initial interview, which was scheduled at the beginning of the study,
focused on the network’s mission and services. Follow-up interviews were conducted after the case study site visits and were
intended to clarify answers to questions that emerged from the site visit data collection.
At Downtown FCCN we interviewed community partners including the director of a local housing agency and a public school social
worker who had long-term partnerships with the network around serving the tightknit “Downtown” community. The interviews
focused on partners’ perceptions of the network’s role in the local community.
FOCUS GROUPS
We conducted focus group discussions with parents at each network site in English and Spanish. The parent focus group protocol
focused on parents’ experiences using FCC and their reasons for choosing their educator as well as their interactions with the
network and their perceptions of network support. Parents were recruited through network sta. The two-hour discussions were
conducted in English and Spanish. Parents received a $25 gift card for their participation.
QUALITY OBSERVATIONS IN FCC HOMES
We used the Child Care Assessment Tool for Relatives (CCAT-R: Porter et al., 2006; 2007), an observational instrument designed
to assess quality in HBCC settings. Originally intended to measure quality in relative child care settings, the CCAT-R has been
used in several evaluations of HBCC, including family child care educators (Forry et al., 2011). Unlike global quality measures such
as the Family Child Care Environment Rating Scales (FCCERS: Harms et al., 2007), the CCAT-R focuses on interactions around
communication and engagement between the educator and a single focal child. Four types of educator-child interactions are
assessed: Caregiver Nurturing, Caregiver Engagement, Bidirectional Communication, and Unidirectional Communication (see Table 1.1
and Appendix A for definitions). In order to understand quality in a mixed-age group of children in FCC settings, we chose to observe
the quality of educator-child interactions with two focal children – the oldest closest to age 5 and the youngest in the setting. The
CCAT-R uses time sampling to capture the frequency of educator-child interactions in timed cycles during a two-hour in-person
observation. In addition, the CCAT-R includes a Health and Safety Checklist that assesses health and safety practices and equipment,
including the presence of “red flag” items that could cause death or serious injury to children in care. The Materials Checklist assesses
the availability (not quantity) of materials in the child care home.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
10
CHAPTER I
TABLE 1.1 CHILD CARE ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR RELATIVES
(CCAT-R) CAREGIVER-CHILD INTERACTIONS CONSTRUCTS OVERVIEW
Caregiver Nurturing
Measures the caregiver's support for social/emotional
development
Caregiver Engagement in Activity with Focus Child
Measures interactions that promote cognitive and physical
development
Caregiver/Child Bidirectional Communication
Measures interactions around language between the caregiver
and the child (i.e. reciprocal interactions), which supports
language and social/emotional development
Caregiver Unidirectional Communication with Focus Child
Measures the caregiver’s talk to the child, which supports
language development
Educators were asked in the interview if they were interested in participating in an observation. We also recruited educators for the
observations through their child care specialists. Some educators who had not completed the online Educator Experiences Survey or
the telephone interview participated in the observations and completed a short demographic survey that was administered during
the observation visit. Each educator received a $100 gift card as an incentive for participation in the observation.
SAMPLE
Detailed sample descriptions for each network site are described in the case study descriptions below and in Appendix A. A total
of 105 educators participated in at least one study activity. Nearly all network sta who worked directly with FCC educators at both
networks responded to the Sta Experiences Survey and participated in the interviews. Half of the educators at each network
(50% at Little People FCCN and 48% at Downtown FCCN)--responded to the survey. Survey respondents were not necessarily
representative of educators at the networks as the survey was sent to every educator and was not designed to gather representative
data. Additional educators who participated only in the observations completed a short demographic survey. Approximately 10
educators at each site participated in interviews. For Downtown FCCN, we also interviewed three community partners from local
organizations and agencies.
DATA ANALYSIS
Audio recordings of interviews and focus groups were transcribed and transcripts were coded with NVIVO 10 qualitative analysis
software. Codes were developed based on interview protocol questions and broad themes identified by the research team after initial
review of the transcripts and memos. We initially used the same codes across data from both network sites. Emergent codes that
were specific to each site were developed in subsequent rounds of coding. Inter-rater reliability of .80 was achieved for all coding.
Descriptive statistics were calculated for all survey and observational data. (See Appendix A for more detail.)
We used constant comparative analysis and triangulation across multiple data sources to identify emerging themes about educator
experiences with network supports and the connections between educator-sta relationships, quality caregiving, and support
services (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1992; Strauss & Corbin, 1994). Our case study approach, in which all data collection took place within
two network sites, allowed us to view educator experiences and support processes at a micro-level both within each network and
across both networks.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
11
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II.
LITTLE PEOPLE
FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORK
Little People FCCN was founded in 1983 to help parents who were attending a local college find child care. Today it identifies as a
shared service alliance, defined as an agency that helps child care programs with back-oce, administrative and business supports.
Little People serves several suburban communities in a metropolitan area. The network’s mission is to support the emotional, social,
and intellectual development of young children in high-quality FCC homes.
The network currently serves 92 FCC educators who are approved under state licensing and provides a range of services including
visits to educator homes, training, peer support, business support and financial aid (Table 2.1). It is also a state licensing agency and
performs regulatory functions around monitoring and compliance. Families who engage with the network for child care services do
not qualify for child care subsidies and pay privately for child care. Most of the network’s revenue comes from a percentage of
parent fees.
Five sta specialists worked directly with caseloads of 17 to 24 educators. Four child care specialists were responsible for conducting
licensing and monthly visits, and one quality specialist supported educators who participated in the state’s QRIS, as well as the
federal Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). In addition to these five specialists, a workforce development coordinator was
responsible for onboarding new educators, including orientation visits and trainings at the network.
TABLE 2.1 SERVICES OFFERED AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Visits to Educators’ Homes Monthly visits; Annual safety inspection visit; 3 CACFP visits annually; QRIS coaching and visits
Training Workshops or workshop series in evenings or weekends (English only)
Peer Support 40-hour peer-to-peer mentoring by a mentor prior to opening their FCC home, occasional
mentoring afterwards; Provider Appreciation event; annual international potluck; networking at
trainings
Business Support Referrals for parents; invoicing of parent fees, payments to educators; training workshops on
business management, marketing, and tax preparation; substitute pool
CACFP Yes
Financial Support Support with accessing public scholarships or grants for continued education; emergency fund
for educators
Other Resources/Supports Medication administration and health training provided by outside partners
12
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
CHARACTERISTICS OF NETWORK STAFF,
FCC EDUCATORS, AND FAMILIES SERVED
The following section draws on survey and interview data from network sta and aliated educators. Table 2.2 shows an overview of
the study sample of sta, educators, and families at Little People FCCN.
TABLE 2.2
LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN SAMPLE
Participants
in study
Total sta 6
Sta experiences survey 6
Sta interview 6
Total educators 58
Educator experiences survey 46
Educator demographic survey only 12
Educator interview
1
12
Educator quality observations
2
26
Total family members 4
Parent focus group 4
1
The educator interviews are a subsample of the total survey sample;
2
12 educators who participated in quality observations only completed
an abbreviated demographic survey
STAFF CHARACTERISTICS
The five sta specialists and workforce development coordinator ranged in age from 40 to 67 at the time of our interviews (Appendix
B, Table B.1). Four self-identified as white, one as Latinx, and the other as Asian or Pacific Islander. Two specialists had prior
experience as FCC educators and others had experience teaching preschool or a background in social work. All sta members had a
college degree or higher.
13
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
FCC EDUCATOR CHARACTERISTICS
A total of 58 FCC educators participated in the study. More than half of the educators identified as Asian or Pacific Islander and many
were recent immigrants (Table 2.3). They ranged in age from 24 to 70. In the state, child care educators are required to be proficient
in English, but the first language of educators varied and included Spanish, English, Urdu, Punjabi, Farsi, Hindi, and Arabic.
Just over one third of educators had 11 to 20 years of experience, and an additional fifth had more than 20 years of experience. Close
to half (47%) had worked with the network for more than 10 years. Just under one half (47%) reported a college or post-graduate
degree, and a quarter had some college level coursework. Only 12% of educators reported significant economic hardship with most
reporting some diculty living on their household incomes. See Appendix B, Table B.2 for characteristics of educators by study
component.
TABLE 2.3
CHARACTERISTICS OF FCC EDUCATOR STUDY SAMPLE AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Full Sample Full Sample
%
(N)
%
(N)
Gender
1
Years as a family child care educator
1
Female 100% (54) Less than 2 years 4% (2)
Race/Ethnicity
2
2-5 years 15% (8)
Black or African American 6% (3) 6-10 years 26% (14)
White 13% (7) 11-20 years 35% (19)
Hispanic origin or Latinx 13% (7) More than 20 years 20% (11)
Asian or Pacific Islander 68% (36) Time spent with network
2
Highest level of education
2
6 months to 1 year 6% (3)
High school diploma/GED or Less 26% (14) 1-3 years 13% (7)
Some college, no degree 26% (14) 4-10 years 34% (18)
Associate's degree 15% (8) More than 10 years 47% (25)
Bachelor's degree 23% (12) Other paid jobs
6
Graduate degree 9% (5) Has another paid job 2% (1)
College or graduate level coursework
3
Does not have another paid job 98% (50)
Child development or early childhood education 77% (30) Diculty level living on household income
6
Psychology 18% (7) Not at all dicult 18% (9)
Business or administration 10% (4) A little dicult 41% (21)
Elementary education 10% (4) Somewhat dicult 29% (15)
Social work 5% (2) Very dicult 8% (4)
Nursing 8% (3) Extremely dicult 4% (2)
None 15% (6)
Child development associate credential (CDA)*
4
Mean Range
Has CDA 40% (17) Educator age (estimated from birth year)
7
Does not have CDA 60% (25) 51.16 24-70
Educator preferred language*
5
English only 60% (27)
Educator Experiences Survey and demographic survey (N=58);
N=54; N=53; Out of educators who answered having completed
at least some college for highest level of education (N=39); N=42;
N=45; N=51; N=49; *Question not asked in demographic survey, all
data comes from Educator Experiences Survey sample (N=46)
English and one or more language 24% (11)
Other language only 16% (7)
14
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
FCC educator motivations. A third of educators at Little People FCCN who responded to the Educator Experiences Survey reported
wanting to do FCC in order to stay at home with their own children (Table 2.4). Another third reported that FCC was a personal
calling for them and a quarter reported wanting to help children as a primary motivation. A majority reported wanting to continue
FCC work as long as they
were able.
TABLE 2.4 EDUCATOR MOTIVATIONS FOR DOING FCC AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
% (N)
Primary reason for doing work
To have a job that lets me work at home 33% (14)
It is my personal calling or career 31% (13)
To help children 24% (10)
It is a step toward a related career 5% (2)
To help children's parents 5% (2)
To earn money 2% (1)
Number of years intends to be an educator
One more year or less 0% (0)
Two to five more years 7% (3)
As long as I am able 79% (33)
Not sure 14% (6)
Sample: Educator Experiences Survey (N=46); N=42
Reasons for joining the network. The primary reason educators reported for joining the network was to improve the quality of care
they oered children (Table 2.5). Just over half of educators who completed the survey reported wanting help working with parents
and families and/or help managing a business and slightly more than a third reported wanting help with enrollment of children or
having opportunities to meet other FCC educators.
TABLE 2.5 REASONS EDUCATORS PARTICIPATE IN LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
% (N)
Learn how to improve quality of care for children 83% (38)
Get help working with parents and families 54% (25)
Get help with managing business 52% (24)
Increase enrollment or number of children in my care 37% (17)
Meet other educators 35% (16)
Obtain materials and equipment for my child care 26% (12)
Sample: Educator Experiences Survey (N=46)
15
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
Two of the 12 educators who participated in the interviews explained that the network provided supports that they had not received
elsewhere:
"I went there [to the County] and I took orientation
class and everything, but it looks still hard for me.
Then my friends told me that what [Little People
FCCN] provides--everything is in your home every
paper in your home. You just have to read it and
sign, so it looks better or easiest to me that I think I
have to join [Little People FCCN].”
“When I worked, too, in [the County], it
is hard to get the families, but for [Little
People FCCN], it is easy. They bring family
to us. They just email to parents, and parent
email to us, so it is easy to find a family… In
[the County], we have to advertise, and it is
hard to get the kids.”
FCC PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS
Educators at Little People FCCN primarily cared for infants and toddlers (Table 2.6). Approximately 80% reported caring for toddlers,
and two thirds for infants. By contrast, fewer than a third provided care for preschoolers, and only one educator in our study oered
care to a school-age child. On average, educators cared for four children, although close to a third had an assistant. FCC hours of
operation were mostly during standard hours as well as early morning hours. Fewer reported oering evening, overnight, or
weekend care.
Little People FCCN serves private paying families. All educators who worked with the network operated under the network’s infant
toddler state license. About 30% reported participation in the state’s QRIS.
TABLE 2.6 CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY CHILD CARE PROGRAMS
AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
% (N)
Age groups
Infants (0-12 months) 64% (29)
Toddlers (13-36 months) 80% (36)
Preschoolers (3-5 years old, not in kindergarten) 31% (14)
School-agers, 5 years and older 2% (1)
Nonstandard hours of operations
Oers evening, overnight, or weekend care 13% (6)
Does not oer evening, overnight, or weekend care 87% (40)
Has an assistant
29% (13)
Participates in the state's QRIS
30% (14)
Number of children Mean Range
3.58 0-6
Sample: Educator Experiences Survey (N=46) ); N=45; N=43
16
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
FCC environments. Little People FCCN operates in a suburban metropolitan area. Housing stock consists of multi-story town houses,
apartments, and single-family homes. Many of the educators live in town houses. The 12 educators who participated in interviews
were asked to describe their child care environments. Six educators described using their whole homes for child care, as the following
educator described:
• “I kind of use almost everywhere because I use my living room for almost all of it. I have my couch, my dining room... when
[the children] are here, we use the whole thing all the way, the whole place, and then the bedrooms I use them for nap time. I
have cribs in there and … we use them for nap time. It’s like the whole thing is for business. Only evening time that it’s home.”
Five educators used a separate space such as a basement for child care. One educator described the advantage of having her child
care program separate from her family’s space:
• “It's a big, big room… I had one bathroom for them and one small kitchen. I put refrigerator and microwave and oven toaster.
These are stu I put for kids, and the food, everything [that] belongs to kids, I put it downstairs. I don't need to come
upstairs. It is near - I can watch the kids.”
Seven of the 12 educators reported that they had their own backyard. Others used local playgrounds.
CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILIES SERVED BY THE NETWORK
The majority of families served by FCC educators at the network were working professionals who paid privately for child care. Our
focus group included four married, college-educated mothers, three of whom had master’s degrees. (See Appendix B, Table B.3.)
APPROACHES TO SERVICE DELIVERY
Approaches to service delivery consisted of both relational and logistical implementation supports. Relational aspects included devel-
oping supportive and professional partnerships between network sta and aliated educators. Logistical aspects of implementation
included dosage (frequency and intensity) and content of services.
RELATIONAL ASPECTS OF SERVICE DELIVERY
At Little People FCCN, sta-educator relationships were developed through visits to FCC homes where one-on-one interactions
shaped the quality of relationships. Based on educator and sta responses to similar survey questions, approximately equal propor-
tions of educators (30%) and sta specialists (40%) saw their relationships as supervisors. More educators, however, viewed their re-
lationships with sta as like a friend or family (43%) compared to sta who did not describe relationships in this way. Sta were more
likely to view their relationships with educators as a mentoring relationship (40%) or a consulting partnership (20%). (See Appendix
B, Table B.4.)
In their conceptual model of high-quality support in home-based child care, Bromer and Korfmacher (2017) posit that emotional con-
nections and collaboration around goal-setting may be crucial elements of partnerships between FCC educators and support sta.
More than 93% of the FCC educators at Little People FCCN who responded to our survey reported strong endorsement of statements
about their specialists oering emotional support, help with goal setting, useful and responsive information, and communication.
Smaller proportions of educators, however, indicated that they felt like equal partners with sta (86%) or that their specialist cared
about them even if they did things the specialist did not agree with (67%). An even smaller proportion (12%) reported that they did
not feel their voices were heard. (See Appendix B, Table B.5.)
Specialists also reported strong emotional connections with educators including appreciation and respect. Survey responses indicat-
ed that they set goals with educators, took educators’ perspectives when interacting with them and oering support, and accepted
educators’ views even when they diered from their own.
Cultural responsiveness. Research suggests that cultural sensitivity and responsiveness are important aspects of relationships
between sta and educators, especially in terms of engaging educators in services (Blasberg et al., 2019; Bromer & Korfmacher, 2017;
Porter et al., 2010). Interviews and surveys with sta specialists and educators at Little People FCCN confirmed that language and
cultural barriers may have shaped the interactions that occurred at the network between specialists and educators. Sta at Little
People FCCN were primarily white and educators were primarily immigrant women from South Asia and the Middle East. None of
the specialists interviewed reported that they had any training in cultural responsiveness or relationship-based practices with adult
17
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
learners. A supervisor for some of the specialists explained some of the challenges that specialists faced:
• “We have so many dierent cultures. … For our child care specialists, some of them didn’t have any experience really working
with dierent cultures in this way before they came into this position. I think some do better than others.”
Our survey data suggest that two of the five child care specialists found it challenging to work with educators who may have had
dierent beliefs or cultural values around childrearing. Specialists reported not knowing about the cultural values of educators in their
caseload. Interviews with specialists confirmed their challenges negotiating dierent languages and childrearing styles:
• “Making sure that they understand, that’s my biggest goal. That can be a challenge sometimes, especially if the language is a
big enough of an issue.”
• “I don’t think they do understand the language, we try-I’m very understanding, because English is not my first language
either, but I wish they would make more of an eort. If they’re working with American families, they need to speak English.
It’s like, you need to know who you’re talking to and everything like that.”
• “I think it's wonderful that they do have dierent ideas. They do things dierently. There are certain things though that
culturally sometimes are hard for me. Number one is they forever think that they need to feed these kids. Sometimes they
use the same spoon. That's a cultural thing. We tell them, ‘You can't do that. The child needs its own spoon. You can feed
them, but if you're doing it this way, you need three bowls. You need three spoons.’”
The mismatch in cultural background between specialists and educators may have been challenging for educators as well. Survey
responses indicated that 18% of FCC educators reported discomfort with sharing information about their faith or religious practices,
and 10% reported feeling uncomfortable sharing information about their culture and cultural values with their specialist (Appendix B,
Table B.6). Although these are relatively low percentages, they are notable given the positive reports of relationships in other survey
responses. The majority of educators at Little People FCCN who participated in our study self-identified as Asian or Pacific Islanders,
and English may have been their second language. A fifth of educators who responded to our survey reported they did not receive
help and support in their preferred language.
Personal support. Specialists at Little People FCCN recognized that FCC work could be isolating and took time during visits to listen
to educators’ personal situations. However, personal support was not a primary focus or purpose of visits. As one specialist noted:
• “Some providers think that’s helpful—that when I’m there, it’s like an adult to talk to, their concerns, or to just talk. They
spend the whole day with children. Some of them really like when I go… I think they enjoy the home visits, as a whole. They
do expect me to come, and they have things to share. They do enjoy the conversations we have. I had a provider that said,
‘Oh, it was nice when you come, because we can talk,’ because we talk about various things. I think they enjoy that, the
company.”
Another specialist echoed this observation that educators often just needed to share with another adult the things happening in their
lives:
• “Sometimes there’s a variety of things with their own kids. I had a provider who had a child being bullied in school.
Sometimes they don’t just talk about daycare. They do have their own lives. Wow, there’s someone to talk to.”
Specialists at Little People FCCN reported challenges around setting boundaries with educators between professional and personal
relationships. As reported earlier, educators at Little People FCCN viewed their relationships with sta like family or friends. Sta
viewed the relationships as more professional, although three out of five specialists reported that they gave out their personal con-
tact information to educators in their caseloads. One specialist reported that she set limits on when educators could reach and call
her. Another specialist explained that she aimed to “keep things professional” by not responding to friend requests from educators on
Facebook:
• “I’m not your friend. I do enjoy the time we spend together. [Laughter] I’m happy to listen with you. I like to watch your
children grow up, but there’s limits to that.”
18
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
LOGISTICAL ASPECTS OF SERVICE DELIVERY
Research suggests that the frequency and intensity of services may influence quality as well as provider, child, and family outcomes
(Bromer & Korfmacher, 2017; Fixsen et al., 2005; Halle et al., 2013; Paulsell et al., 2010). Little People FCCN oered services including
visits to FCC homes, training, and peer supports. The network did not have separate services or supports for parents and families
beyond administration of parent fees and negotiating of educator-family relationships which are discussed in later sections.
Visits to FCC homes. The four child care specialists conducted monthly unannounced visits as well as an annual licensing visit and
three annual food program visits. Although licensing and food program visits were based on monitoring protocols, monthly visits
could be more flexible. One specialist noted this when she said, “What you do depends on what you walk into.” Sometimes she need-
ed to help with care of children depending on what was happening in the moment she arrived at the home:
• “You may walk in, the parent could still be there dropping their child o, maybe they've been to a doctor's appointment and
they've come back. Maybe the infant or child's just gotten shots. They could be fussy. You might want to help by holding the
baby. If there's anything I can do to help the provider with the kids, and if the kids are willing to come to me, I'm more than
willing to do that to assist.”
According to survey responses, a majority of educators did not find visits to be disruptive. All four child care specialists reported
that educators were engaged in visits and sometimes took initiative in bringing up topics for discussion. However, the unannounced
nature of visits may have accounted for a small percentage of educators feeling that visits were stressful, took time away from their
care of children, or made children feel uncomfortable. (See Appendix B, Tables B.7-B.8.) Four educators in our interviews described
visits as stressful and emphasized the “surprise” nature of unannounced visits. One reported, “I can’t handle it. My mind is on the
kids.” Another educator reported that she felt unfairly evaluated by her specialist for not focusing on children during an unannounced
visit where she had to ask her husband to watch the children. She described how her specialist wrote up a report about how she did
not “play with the kids” during the visit.
Training. Training workshops oered at Little People FCCN were taught by sta members and outside trainers. Both online and
in-person trainings were oered during times that were convenient for educators including evenings and weekends. Educators also
acquired training hours through one-on-one specialist visits.
The network oered a variety of training topics that included health and safety, quality caregiving, business management, working
with families, and self-care. Training topics were based on educator input and sta reports of needs based on visits to FCC homes.
For example, one sta specialist explained, “If we know that a provider is a struggling with doing art with infants and toddlers, we’re
going to plan a training on that.”
Once licensed, FCC educators were required by the state to complete 16 hours of continuing education annually. These trainings
were free of charge and oered at the network’s oce. In addition, specialists played a role in helping educators keep track of these
required training hours, notifying them about upcoming training opportunities, and recommending certain training topics.
Peer supports. Three primary peer support strategies to foster connections among educators at Little People FCCN emerged from
director and sta interviews: 1) an annual educator appreciation luncheon; 2) an international dinner for educators; and 3) opportuni-
ties to network with other educators at training workshops. In addition, the network distributed a directory with educator names and
contact information, which served as a vehicle for communication across the network. Little People FCCN did not provide any other
formal peer support services such as support groups, learning communities or cohorts nor did the child care specialists see their role
as promoting connections among educators.
In the survey, we asked broadly about peer supports. Approximately a third (35%) of educators who responded to the survey indi-
cated wanting to meet other educators as a reason for joining the network. Slightly more than four in ten (44%) reported that they
participated in social activities or an educator recognition event. A third (34%) reported that they participated in a peer networking
opportunity which was most likely during training, according to our interviews with the director and sta. Nearly a quarter of educa-
tors indicated that they did not participate in any peer support activities. See Table B.9.
Ten of the twelve educators who participated in interviews reported that they attended the appreciation luncheon, the international
dinner and/or networking at training. The Provider Appreciation Luncheon was an annual event intended to “honor” the educators in
the network, “kind of like Teacher Appreciation Week.” Educators cited the event as an opportunity to get together with other FCC
educators: “That day you have new faces, so you introduce yourself… and so many things happen.” The International Potluck dinner
19
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
for educators, parents, and children was a long-standing annual event and was an opportunity for everyone in the network to get
together. The potluck dinner facilitated cross-cultural sharing; the most recent dinner included play workshops where FCC educators
set up dierent activity stations for parents and children.
Besides these two social events, interviews with educators and sta indicated that networking at training workshops was the most
common way that educators connected with each other. One educator explained: “Because of the training… we are together, not only
the ones in my area, even the other ones. We have a great relationship because of [Little People FCCN].”
SUMMARY: APPROACHES TO SERVICE DELIVERY AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Relational aspects of service delivery
• Sta specialists and FCC educators at Little People FCCN held contrasting views of their relationships with
each other. Educators were more likely to view the relationships as a friend or family compared to sta who
were more likely to see the relationship as a mentoring one.
• Specialists reported that they discussed personal issues with educators, but it was not a focus of their work.
They tried to set boundaries between personal and professional relationships with educators.
• The majority of educators reported strong endorsement of statements about their specialists oering
emotional support, help with goal setting, useful and responsive information, and communication.
• As many as a fifth of educators reported negative aspects of their relationships with specialists including not
feeling treated as equal partners and feeling that sta did not care about or were not familiar with their FCC
needs and circumstances.
• The mismatch between educator and sta cultural and linguistic backgrounds created challenges in these
relationships, especially during network specialist visits to FCC homes.
Logistical aspects of service delivery
• Monthly network visits to FCC homes were perceived as positive experiences by most educators who
responded to the survey. However, interviews with educators suggested that some found the surprise nature
of unannounced visits to be stressful and felt misunderstood by their specialists during visits which may have
been related to the cultural and linguistic mismatch between sta and educators.
• Network training included a variety of topics based on educator input as well as sta reports on educators’
needs. Training was oered in educator homes, at the network oce, or online and could be applied to the
state’s required training hours.
• Few formal opportunities for peer support, outside of two annual events and informal networking at training
workshops, were oered by the network.
20
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
SUPPORTING QUALITY
This section describes the relationship between observed caregiving quality among educators at Little People FCCN and the supports
the network oered on improving quality. First we report on findings from observations of educator-child interactions and the
learning environment in FCC homes and how the network supports these areas of quality. Second, we report on how the network
supported educators around working with families. Third, we report on findings from observations of health and safety practices and
how the network enforces compliance to health and safety licensing regulations. Throughout these sections, we describe the tensions
between supporting quality caregiving practices and enforcing licensing regulations because Little People FCCN was both a network
and a licensing agency. Sta roles at Little People FCCN included both supporters of quality as well as monitors of compliance.
EDUCATOR-CHILD INTERACTIONS AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Caregiving quality includes educator-child interactions and educator support for children’s social-emotional, cognitive, and physical
development. Caregiving quality also includes responsive and developmentally appropriate learning environments in the FCC setting.
Observed quality of educator-child interactions. The CCAT-R mean scores for educators at Little People FCCN were in the good
range (based on the field test mean scores) for Caregiver Engagement with children under age three and children ages three to five,
indicating that educators were engaging children in activities, and that children were engaged with materials. Mean scores for both
Bidirectional Communication and Unidirectional Communication (see Table 1.1 and Appendix A for definitions of CCAT-R constructs)
were in the acceptable range for both age groups, although Bidirectional Communication scores, on average, were closer to the good
range scores compared to average Unidirectional Communication scores which were closer to the poor range. This suggests that
educators were using higher level language strategies such as serve and return compared to simpler language interactions such as
labeling objects for children. Educators scored in the acceptable range on the Caregiver Nurturing construct for infants and toddlers
but scored just below acceptable for older children in care (although there were only seven observations of children three years and
older). (See Appendix B, Table B.10.)
Network support and quality caregiving. Educators who participated in interviews reported learning new ideas from the network
training about how to work with children. Five educators discussed incorporating new techniques for reading books or physical
activity plans into their curriculum or daily schedules. One educator talked about the benefit of training classes at the network: “In
the home, you have limited boundary and things, so you have no more ideas, but these class[es] really help you to think more variety
every day in your day care.”
The advice and support around caring for infants from specialists during FCC home visits may partially explain the acceptable
to good CCAT-R scores for children under age three at Little People FCCN. Child care specialists reported focusing on children’s
experience in child care and responding to educator concerns about children’s development. Educators were able to put what
they learned in training into practice during specialists’ visits. Educators who responded to the survey reported that the most
common focus for visits was discussing individual children in care (84%). Over two thirds reported they talked about their child
care environment at most visits. Fewer, but still more than half, reported discussing concerns that come up with parents, curriculum
planning, and child assessment with their specialists during most visits (See Appendix B, Table B.11).
Interviews with educators and specialists supported this focus on caregiving and, in particular, helping educators understand how to
use the developmental issues children may face as a basis for responding and planning:
• “There was one provider that was having a hard time dealing with dierent age groups. I printed out an article, and we talked
about, ‘What can you do with the older child while you are playing, changing diapers?’ The older child was hitting the baby,
so I brought an activity for him, and I was playing with him while she was playing with the baby. I said, ‘You need to integrate
both, so the older child’s not jealous of the younger child.’ She was having a hard time.”
The educator in this example reported that the specialist’s guidance was helpful: “I solved this problem… when the older child comes,
he is not hitting the baby.”
Specialists also oered information to educators around typical developmental issues with infants and toddlers, the majority
of children in care at Little People FCCN. One specialist recalled an educator asking why a 12 month old child was not walking.
She oered a checklist with developmental milestones to help the educator “check for themselves” whether the behavior was
developmentally typical. In another example, a specialist described an educator’s struggle with responding to a new infant in care
21
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
who was crying a lot: “Sometimes they cry, and then you don’t know why they’re crying. Even though their diaper is clean, you
fed them, but still they cry.” She shared some strategies for soothing the baby but also encouraged the educator to use her own
experience as a parent. The educator found the concrete strategies to be most helpful:
• “I used my own ways to help him not to scream, but at the same time, I discussed this with my child care specialist when she
came, and then she sent me some good material that helped me to use those tips. I was using those, and it was helping me a
lot, so now … it’s not as bad anymore. I’m using some tips.”
Observed quality of materials in the FCC environment. Educators at Little People FCCN had most of the furnishings and materials
for infants and toddlers on the CCAT-R Materials Checklist (See Appendix B. Table B.12). Some items, however, were observed less
frequently, especially for older children aged three to five years. For example, in only two-fifths of FCC homes observed were children
across ages allowed to find space to be alone, an important aspect of supporting children’s social-emotional development, and in
just less than a third of homes did children across ages have access to sand or water play, materials that support physical motor
development and promote early math and science learning. Older children had less access to fine motor materials, puzzles, or ride-on
toys with wheels, although this was only based on observations of seven FCC homes that had preschool-aged children in care. It’s
possible that educators at Little People FCCN had access to communal backyards as part of apartment buildings that may not have
allowed sand or water play or that apartments did not have room for these motor activities indoors. Sand and water tables may have
also been expensive for educators to purchase on their own. Instead, some educators may have used local playgrounds with sand
boxes and water play spaces.
Network support and activity planning. The high frequencies for materials for infants and toddlers on the CCAT-R Materials Checklist
may be related to the types of supports that educators received from Little People FCCN around activity ideas and materials for
children. Educators reported that their specialists taught them how to plan projects and activities for dierent age groups in care.
Sta specialists described talking to educators about rearranging their child care space to reduce crowding, make room for new
equipment and materials, and create safe spaces for infants to play. The following two examples from an educator and her specialist
described eorts to improve quality of the FCC space and environment:
• Educator: “She advised me. I have a big corner in my room, so she advised me, ‘Can we move this?’ I have a dining table in
my upstairs that used to be a sleeping room area. I have a big TV and cable, so she advised me: ‘Remove this and organize
the things and make the toys accessible. Remove this furniture and secure and put the locks in it.’ This type of thing she
helped me with.”
• Specialist: “[The educator] moved her child care area from the main living level of the home to the lower level, and it’s a large
room, but she had the child care area squished into one end. Then there was a kitchen area where a lot of personal household
stu was stored and who knows when the sink had last been cleaned. I just made some observations, and I felt like I was
being a little hard on her, but at the same time, I wanted her to have a quality child care area. I thought a parent coming
in here, this isn’t giving a good impression...I pointed out some things to her and made some suggestions and so the next
month I went, it was obvious the changes that she made, and we talked about it. She goes, ‘I feel so much better.’”
Curriculum planning was not a focus of regular child care specialist visits at Little People FCCN. As one specialist noted, “We don't
really have a curriculum, per se. We are more interested in building trust and building relationships.” Yet educators reported that they
wanted activity ideas. An educator reported that she found most of her activity ideas from YouTube and wished that the network
oered more resources around activity planning.
Supporting quality through QRIS. Educators who participated in the state’s voluntary QRIS received additional visits from a sta
member whose primary responsibility was providing support with the state system. Her visits were conducted on a by-request basis
and focused on increasing the professionalism of educators.
• “I will tell them that we all need to keep up with our professionalism… this is not just simple babysitting. We have a lot of
responsibilities here.”
Her work within QRIS also focused on educators’ own goals for their movement up in the quality system. Educators could work at
22
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
their own pace on program improvements. With her encouragement and support, an educator in her caseload moved from level one
to the highest level in the QRIS:
• “I had this one provider, because we have level one, two, three, and four. She started level one. When she started, she really
had this fear that she will not be able to accomplish all the other levels, because it’s too much work. She was so hesitant—
but she want[ed] me to come. She keeps on telling me that you can guide me. We don’t have to rush. Right? I told her that
it’s always your time. If you want to finish this certain area at this certain timing, then you can do that also. Then I was very
surprised, because I thought it will take her a long time... She made it in one month. She was so motivated inside.”
Four of the 12 educators who completed interviews echoed this positive experience participating in QRIS and working with the QRIS
specialist. All four educators spoke favorably about the specialist and emphasized her encouragement and support for their own
professional development. One educator said that the QRIS specialist helped her start to put her “ideas, dreams, and hopes” into
action. Another educator reported that because of the level she achieved in the QRIS with the specialist’s help, she was hoping to
become an FCC educator in the Department of Defense child care program which sets high standards for child care homes. Educators
also noted that they were initially afraid to participate in the system but with the specialist’s help and support, they found it easy to
advance in the quality system. One educator noted that her strained relationship with her child care specialist at Little People FCCN,
who she perceived as judgmental, contrasted with her very positive experience working with the QRIS specialist.
SUPPORTING EDUCATOR-FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
A component of high-quality caregiving in FCC settings includes a supportive and responsive family-educator relationship (Blasberg
et al., 2019; Forry et al., 2012). More than half of educators who responded to the Educator Experiences Survey (54%), joined Little
People FCCN, at least in part, to get help working with parents and families (Table 2.5).
The network played a limited role in helping educators navigate this relationship with families of children in care. It oered help
around communicating with parents and resolving conflicts on an as-needed basis. For example, the network coached educators on
how to talk to parents on the phone. For educators whose first language was not English, this may have been particularly important,
especially in interactions with parents about enrollment in their programs. The director explained this challenge:
• “I was just on the phone with somebody yesterday, and I had a dicult time understanding her on the phone. I had to ask her
to repeat things, so some parents are gonna have that happen, and they won't— they’ll turn o.”
Sta specialists also helped educators manage conflicts with families. Four educators discussed a time when their sta specialist
intervened directly with a family by calling the parent, reminding her of regulations (e.g. safe sleep, hours for pick up and drop o) or
reminding parents about required paperwork (e.g. immunizations). As the following specialist explained, this kind of sta mediation
of the educator-family relationship may be particularly helpful for those just starting out in FCC:
• “It’s the baby’s first day. She had the pacifier with the clip and the beads. She had a swaddle, this zip thing I had never seen
before. I thought, well, all that has got to go. I said I would communicate with the parent and the provider said, ‘Oh, no, I’ll
talk with the parent,’ but I wonder if it had been a year or so ago if the provider would’ve taken that responsibility herself. …
That was encouraging to me that she said she would talk with the parent.”
Sta and educators reported having to navigate inconsistent preferences among parents about how they wanted to engage with
educators. One sta member relayed a story where she agreed to follow up with a parent about an issue that an educator was
having, but the parent wanted to solve the problem directly with the educator. On the other hand, an educator explained how her
parents preferred talking to the network directly when they had a concern. Parents who participated in the focus group echoed this
discomfort with communicating directly with educators. They appreciated having a sta specialist who could intervene when needed
and help them maintain good relationships with their educators:
• “As I’m thinking of it, both those situations I mentioned could’ve been awkward, uncomfortable confrontations that, because
of the child care specialist, were not huge deals.”
Sta specialists at Little People FCCN had minimal in-person interactions themselves with families and parents beyond helping
educators navigate these relationships. Specialists would introduce themselves to parents during initial home visits as part of the
child’s enrollment process in FCC. Yet most of their subsequent interactions occurred over twice-yearly emails with parents about
their experiences and satisfaction with their FCC arrangements.
23
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
MONITORING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCING REGULATIONS
Compliance with health and safety regulations was a strong focus at Little People FCCN since the network was also a state licensing
agency responsible for monitoring compliance to basic licensing standards.
Observed quality of health and safety practices. Observations of FCC homes at Little People FCCN indicated high compliance
with health and safety practices as defined by the CCAT-R Health and Safety Checklist. However, at least one red flag item (an item
that has the potential to cause death or serious injury) was not met in a third of homes where infants and toddlers were observed
and in one home with preschool-aged children. The lack of safety caps on electrical outlets was the most commonly observed red
flag item for infants and toddlers. It’s possible that the CCAT-R observations included more rooms than licensing covered. It’s also
likely that educators needed additional support around maintaining safety practices on a daily and even hourly basis (for example,
remembering to put an outlet cover back in after vacuuming) in addition to meeting regulations on the day of a licensing visit. (See
Appendix B, Tables B.13.)
Other health and safety items that were less frequently observed, although still seen in over two thirds of FCC homes, included: 1)
accessible places for infants and toddlers to wash their hands (63%); 2) infants being held while bottle fed (70%); 3) diapers checked
and changed often (79% for children under three and 75% for children three and over); and 4) quiet area available for sick children
(81% for children under three and 75% for children three and over).
Network enforcement of regulations and standards. As part of its licensing role, Little People FCCN conducted visits focused
on licensing compliance in addition to monthly support visits and required CACFP monitoring visits (three times annually). The
enforcement role during visits to FCC homes may help explain the relatively high compliance on the CCAT-R health and safety
checklist items. As one of the specialists explained, “One of our roles and responsibilities is to ensure compliance with [the state]. If
we go in and we see something that’s noncompliant, we need to address that.”
Sta roles as monitors of compliance with licensing sometimes created tensions in their relationships with educators. One specialist
described the challenges of an “inspector” role where she had to “look for things at the house that are not safe” but not have
educators think she was there to find something wrong. Another specialist who used to work as an FCC educator herself, explained
how her own experiential knowledge of the daily work involved in oering FCC helped her work with educators around compliance:
“We can't go in there every day, ‘Where's your list? Where's your menu? You have to do this.’ It doesn't make your job easy, and it
doesn't make their job easy.”
Other specialists were more skeptical about educators and felt frustrated when educators did not comply with standards. One
specialist described being warned about educators who tried to cheat the system when she first started in the job:
• “When I started in the job, I was warned, or it was brought to my attention, that there were certain cases where the provider
is testing you to see what they can get away with… It made me wonder sometimes where perhaps policies and compliance
with standards have been budged a little bit and providers – things have been overlooked – they’ve been allowed to get away
with stu.”
Yet another specialist described her frustration with educators who did not comply with regulations despite targeted training. She
described an educator who attended a training on safe sleep practices for infants on a Saturday and on the following Monday during
a home visit, the specialist observed an infant asleep in a bouncy seat in the educator’s home. She explained her reaction: “It’s really
tough. We come up against where the providers have been through the training. We’ve maybe even addressed these things with
them during home visits, but they continue to do these things.”
The focus at Little People FCCN on licensing and enforcement of regulations sometimes took time away from supporting other
aspects of quality caregiving. A supervisor at the network noted that, “Our child care specialists don’t have a whole lot of time to
sit there and do curriculum. They have so many other things with paperwork and just the day-to-day stu.” Two sta specialists
confirmed this view and explained the tradeo between monitoring and supporting quality:
• “I think it’s a lot of paperwork. I don’t know if it’s all necessary, because it’s a lot of bureaucratic things… and not much time
that you spend [on] quality —like I would like to sit with the kids and do activities, but usually when I go there, it’s like, ‘Sign
this, sign this, sign this,’ or ‘Fill out this form…’ I wish I could visit the providers at least twice a month.”
• “I don’t know what it is, you know, a couple of us child care specialists have just felt like we’re drowning in all this paper. It
doesn’t leave a lot of time for the really important stu.”
24
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
SUMMARY: SUPPORTING QUALITY AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Educator-child interactions and learning environment
• Overall, educators at Little People FCCN demonstrated high quality care as measured by the CCAT-R,
especially for infant and toddlers in care. Care for preschool-aged children in mixed-age groups was lower but
fewer educators cared for this age group.
• Educator-child interactions were in the acceptable to good range of quality. Educators scored high on
measures of engagement with children in both age groups. Educators also used more high-level language
strategies than simpler communication interactions with both age groups of children. Educators demonstrated
acceptable nurturing behaviors with infants and toddlers but scored low on this dimension in the few
observations of older children.
• Observations of FCC home environments indicate high-quality learning environments. Educators were
observed to have nearly all of the materials on the CCAT-R Materials Checklist. Educators were less likely to
have space in their FCC homes where children could be alone or materials for sand and water play for children
across age groups. Educators were less likely to have puzzles or other fine motor materials for older children.
• Network supports around quality caregiving were delivered through visits to FCC homes. Discussions between
specialists and educators during visits to homes focused on children in care, including developmental
milestones, as well as designing activities and rearranging the FCC environment.
• QRIS supports through a dedicated specialist helped educators move up in the state’s quality system and
enhanced their sense of professionalism.
• Network supports did not focus on use of curriculum in FCC.
Supporting educator-family relationships
• Just over half of the educators reported joining the network to obtain help with working with families. The
network helped educators navigate relationships – communication and conflicts – with families of children in
care. Specialists had minimal interactions with parents outside of these types of communications.
Monitoring compliance and enforcing regulations
• The quality of health and safety practices in FCC homes at Little People FCCN was high although a third of
homes serving infants and toddlers failed to meet at least one red flag item that could harm children.
• The network’s role as a licensing agency and the regular monitoring and enforcement of health and safety
practices may have contributed to the relatively high compliance in this area.
• A focus on enforcement and monitoring may have created tensions in how specialists supported quality
caregiving interactions and how they developed relationships with educators.
25
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
SUPPORTING SUSTAINABILITY OF FCC BUSINESSES
Little People FCCN identifies as a shared service alliance and part of a growing trend in early care and education to oer early care
and education professionals support around business and administrative management so they can focus on quality caregiving of
children and families. As a shared services alliance, Little People FCCN oered many back-oce supports to FCC educators including
handling parent fees, licensing paperwork, and facilitating enrollment. To be part of the network and receive these services, FCC
educators paid 17.5% of their parent fees to the network. Parents paid a one-time fee for the network services.
This section describes three primary types of services oered by Little People FCCN that were intended to support the sustainability
of FCC educators’ businesses: (1) licensing preparation; (2) business supports including enrollment, marketing, parent fees; and (3)
financial aid.
PREPARING EDUCATORS FOR LICENSING
Educators at Little People FCCN are required to complete specific training courses prior to licensing. These courses include child
development, parent communication and interview skills, identification and reporting of abuse and neglect, professionalism, and CPR
and first-aid. Little People FCCN oered these courses and educators completed them at their own pace. One educator described the
value of the initial training:
• “If there was not this training, I wouldn’t know anything, what’s going on, or the rules, or the qualification, all the — what I
need for myself, how to take care of the children, to understand them, and to see also if there is something going on at their
home, the way to talk to them, the way to communicate with them.”
In addition to training, Little People FCCN implements a mentoring program based on an apprenticeship model and designed to
help new educators prepare for licensing. This program paired new educators with experienced FCC educators at the network and
included 40 hours of learning in the home of the experienced mentor educator (see Box 2.1).
All new educators at the network were required to
participate in and complete the mentoring program
prior to licensing. The mentoring program used an
apprenticeship model where new educators worked
alongside an experienced educator who served as a
mentor. Mentors were required to be aliated with
the network for at least two years and have a CDA,
a community college certificate, or a degree in early
childhood or related field. Mentors were also required
to obtain a recommendation from a Little People FCCN
child care specialist.
Educators started the mentoring program after they
completed initial training related to licensing. They
were required to spend 40 hours over several weeks in
a mentor’s home, learning about routines, activities to
do with children, and even how to communicate with
parents. One educator described the process:
“The classes, they help me, but the [mentoring],
they help more because you stay in the morning
from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 or to 5:30 with them, with
the kids. In a whole day with them, so you see …
how they eat, how they play… the time for sleeping,
the time to go to the backyard to play.”
A mentor described a similar experience of showing
educators how to use blocks and art materials with
children, and how to hold a three-month old baby while
also reading a book to a group of children. She noted the
impact of the mentoring program, “I explained it all. Now
they’re doing very good work [and] they have no one
complaining.”
Following the 40-hour apprenticeship, the mentor then
visited the educator’s home to help them prepare for
the licensing visit. These visits involved arranging the
child care environment for mixed-age groups, ensuring
safe spaces for infants as well as older toddlers. Mentors
also helped educators set up gates and other safety
equipment in their backyards or homes. Educators
reported feeling confident and ready for licensing after
these visits.
In some cases, the mentor-educator relationship
continued after the initial apprenticeship training
process, although continued peer mentoring was not a
formal part of the program.
BOX 2.1 LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN MENTORING PROGRAM
26
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
BUSINESS SUPPORTS
Half of the educators who responded to the survey reported that they joined Little People FCCN for help with managing their
businesses, and slightly more than one third wanted help with increasing their enrollment. Educator survey responses about the
business help that the network provided were mixed. Most educators who responded to the survey reported that they received help
with enrollment. Two thirds reported that the network helped them find substitute educators when they needed to take time o, as
well as help with paperwork and record keeping. Lower proportions indicated that the network helped them manage their businesses
by developing contracts with families, marketing their programs, or preparing their taxes. Only a handful reported the network
advocating on their behalf around zoning issues or oering bulk purchasing opportunities (See Appendix B, Table B.14). The following
sections provide some insights into these educator perceptions.
Enrollment and capacity. A majority of educators at Little People FCCN were licensed to serve five children, yet less than half of the
educators who responded to the survey were operating their FCC programs at full capacity. Educators, on average, cared for 3 to 4
children (Table 2.7). Educators at Little People FCCN were not required to have an assistant to care for five children. However, almost
30% of the educators had an assistant, most often a spouse or other family member (Table 2.6). Educators with an assistant cared for,
on average, one more child than educators without an assistant. Of the 12 FCC educators who participated in interviews, only three
were serving the maximum capacity of five children, a far smaller proportion than the 40% who reported that they were caring for
five or more children in the survey.
TABLE 2.7 ENROLLMENT IN FCC HOMES AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
% (N)
Educators caring for 5 or more children
Caring for fewer than 5 children 60% (26)
Caring for 5 or more children 40% (17)
Average number of children enrolled by assistant Mean Range
Does not have assistant 3.24 0-5
Has assistant 4.23 1-6
All educators 3.55 0-6
Sample: Educator Experiences Survey (N=46) ); N=43
Educators and specialists in the interviews shared their explanations for low enrollment. One educator felt that location of FCC homes
aected the low enrollment. She observed that FCC homes close to universities or oces had greater enrollment than FCC homes in
more residential areas. One specialist attributed low enrollment to competition among FCC educators:
• “Sometimes there is not even a family for a year, because there’s so many providers in the area. There’s also state-licensed
people. There’s big centers close to where you live. Your chances are very slim.”
Another specialist reiterated this view: “It’s the competition. It’s like having a bunch of Uber cars show up at the same time.” Still
another specialist saw the lack of full enrollment as a demand issue:
• “There just doesn’t seem to be as much need for child care. I think there are a number of variables. I think there are less
families having children. It’s gotten so expensive whether it’s family child care home or a center and parents are working
out alternative arrangements. I’ve noticed more signs at child development centers and other child care areas as I’m driving
around. They have openings, that means they don’t have a waiting list, where in the past you’d have to get your kid on the
waiting list a year ahead of time.”
27
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
Help with recruitment of families. Little People FCCN used two primary strategies to help educators with recruitment of families:
1) an in-person orientation meeting for parents to learn more about the network, its educators, and the services provided, and 2) a
website with information about FCC programs to help parents choose educators. Some parents only used the website, but others
relied on network sta for referrals. Parents were encouraged to visit FCC homes as part of the selection process.
Ten of the 12 educators in the interviews cited the orientation and the website as a source for recruiting families. Eight of the ten
expressed satisfaction with this support. They didn’t have to recruit families on their own, which they regarded as very helpful. As one
educator explained, “If I go door to door and say I’m a child care provider, it’s harder for me to do it. The oce is doing that for us.”
Another educator valued the information the network oered parents about FCC. She recognized the need for a good fit between the
parent and the FCC educator.
Parents also appreciated the network’s help with enrollment. In the focus group, one parent described her experience:
• “I contacted the network and they said, ‘Come in for an informational meeting.’ I came for the informational meeting. They
printed o a list for me of all the providers within the zip codes that I had provided to them, and my provider was the closest
one to me, and so I scheduled her interview and my husband and I went together, and I walked out of it saying, ‘She’s the one
we’re gonna go with.’ We had a really good connection.”
For two educators, however, the network’s supports did not help them increase enrollment. One educator joined the network
specifically because she had learned that it referred families, but she was disappointed when she did not receive many referrals. At
the time of the interview, she was caring for three toddlers: “I was so surprised that [in] one year, I did not receive any phone calls.”
The other educator, who only had one child in care, was dissatisfied with the network’s referral process. She felt that the orientation
sessions and the website were not eective in attracting parents, and the parent registration fee might have been a factor.
• “For the business they give me – I’m gonna say it’s not that much good ‘til now, because still I’m looking for more kids,
but I’m not getting any. I think they have to do more advertising for this to get more parents, because I heard from many
providers they’re not getting that much kids right now. Their fee is also very high. I think it’s $400.”
Help with marketing. In addition to referrals from the parent orientations and the website, Little People FCCN expected educators
to market their own programs. To help them attract families, it oered workshops on how to advertise their FCC program and how
to conduct an interview with prospective families. Child care specialists made business cards and fliers and took photos to help
educators update their Facebook pages:
• “When they’re interviewing, I want them [to be able] to show to the parents, ‘That’s how my schedule works. I’m flexible,
that’s my routine,’ and they have everything organized. I help them with paperwork, how to organize their files—especially
bulletin boards, so parents can look and say, ‘Wow! They have all this training and certifications,’ ‘cause parents, it’s important
for them.”
• “I wish I could help them more. They ask me individually, ‘Can you create a Facebook page?’ I create it for them, but then, it
doesn’t depend on me if they are responsive. I remind them. I said, ‘Check your email. Check your phone messages to see if a
parent is emailing you. Then, as soon as they email you, if you don’t know how to reply, just message me, and I will do
follow-up.’”
Some educators found this support helpful. The network director viewed the network’s support around marketing and enrollment
as a “team eort” between educators and network sta, but some specialists heard a dierent experience from educators in their
caseloads:
• “They feel like we owe them something. They do. There are some that do get angry with us if we can't get them the referrals.
Again, we try to tell them, ‘Well, this is your business. You can't be so reliant upon us. Maybe you need to do some advertising
yourself.’”
28
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
Collecting parent fees. Little People FCCN managed all of the bookkeeping and billing for aliated FCC educators and all of the
parent contracts. According to the network director, this service was one of the benefits of participating in the network: “Providers
like that we do the invoicing of the parents for the parent fees and that they get their check twice a month.” A parent in the focus
group also saw this as a benefit: “Here you don’t have to worry about taxes. You don’t have to worry about reporting.”
One child care specialist emphasized the security that educators experienced as a result of the network collecting parent fees:
“There’s no, ‘Oh, I’m gonna pay on Friday. Oh, I forgot my checkbook.’ Some things like that. They get paid.” Four educators echoed
this feeling and referred to the advantage of not having to collect fees from parents. As one said: “I don’t have to deal with the
money issue.”
Help with paperwork. Little People FCCN helped educators with paperwork related to enrollment, attendance, and other
administrative requirements. Two child care specialists talked about helping educators organize their files. Paperwork was a challenge
for educators as this specialist described:
• “Probably the record keeping is where I’ve done the most. Cleaning out their files and helping them get organized, that’s a
big area of need. It seems like, I don’t know if it’s just people who are drawn to working with children tend not to have those
administrative organizational skills, and then it’s comes to that there is so much paperwork. That can be frustrating to always
having to be helping them find things or you sort it out and say well, keep everything here. Then the next time you go look
for it, and it’s not there.”
Educators found this support from the network helpful for getting organized, keeping track of attendance, and making schedules.
One educator appreciated the help, because she could concentrate on caring for children rather than administrative tasks:
• “I felt like they’re helping me with the paperwork. Those are taken care. Personally, I think I don’t have to go through those,
so my job is only here to be available for the children.”
Liability insurance. Once a child was placed in an FCC home, the network absorbed the cost of liability insurance at approximately
$500 a child. As one child care specialist said, “The big [benefit} is the liability insurance.” One educator captured the general view:
“That’s the most thing that we needed for our child care. We don’t know when things can happen.”
Help with taxes. Once a year, Little People FCCN oered a tax workshop lead by a tax expert who focused on recordkeeping and
related issues. In addition, the network prepared 1099 tax forms for educators.
Seven educators, all but one of whom had taken the tax class, found this support helpful. One educator explained how the workshop
helped her understand how to complete her taxes and how to report her expenses: “They said don't forget anything, even the soap
you wash for the plates or something, you have to put in.”
Help with substitute care. Little People FCCN required FCC educators to have a qualified substitute if they had to take time o
for vacation or a doctor visit. The network helped educators with this support by maintaining an educator directory with contact
information. It expected educators to arrange for substitute care and pay for it on their own. Using network educators as substitutes
was comfortable for both educators and families, as this educator explained:
• “If I need to close my day care for one or two days or even one, they give you a name…This happen lots of time that some
providers have emergency in their family. They have to go their country, so they give you full moral support and also give you
opportunity if anybody wants to go for a vacation with their families...You can send the children there, which is very good ...
Parents are also comfortable with that.”
29
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
FINANCIAL AID
Despite the revenues from their businesses, 15% of educators at Little People FCCN who responded to the survey reported that it was
very or extremely dicult to live on their household income, and another 30% reported that it was somewhat dicult (Table 2.3).
For some, limited resources meant that obtaining additional education such as an infant-toddler certificate, a Child Development
Associate (CDA) credential, or even an Associate’s degree was out of reach. Little People FCCN provided access to external
government-funded scholarships for FCC educators. Specialists helped educators with the applications as well as with the logistics of
studying and completing coursework.
Limited income also posed a challenge for educators who needed to travel to their home countries during a family emergency or
crisis. The network had an emergency fund for educators. The director explained the purpose of the fund:
• “We also have an emergency fund for our providers because they come from dierent countries, and sometimes they have
to go back to their country with some kind of a last-minute emergency, and they can apply for funds to help them with that
emergency. They have to get substitutes for the children, and they pay for the substitutes. Usually, we will help them with
making those payments for the substitutes.”
SUMMARY: SUPPORTING SUSTAINABILITY
OF FCC BUSINESSES AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Preparing educators for licensing
• Little People FCCN supported the sustainability of FCC businesses through help for licensing, technical
assistance around business management, and financial assistance.
• The network prepared new educators for licensing through training and a 40-hour mentoring program that
paired new educators with experienced mentor educators at the network.
• Educators at the network struggled to maintain full enrollment, with only 40% at full capacity.
Business supports
• While the network provided support around enrollment, some educators felt they did not receive enough
support with referrals and recruitment of new families. A combination of factors outside the network services
may have also partially explained the low enrollment including low parent demand and competition from
centers.
• Business supports included marketing training and technical assistance, management of all parent fees,
help with paperwork, liability insurance, tax workshops, and an educator directory to help educators find a
qualified substitute when they needed to take time o.
Financial aid
• The network provided minimal direct financial assistance. Educators had access to state-funded scholarships
to complete college courses and the network oered an emergency fund to cover substitute care if educators
had to close their programs for family emergencies or a death in the family.
30
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
STAFF SUPPORT AND SUPERVISION
Research from related fields such as home visiting and mental health consultation suggest that supervision, and reflective supervision
in particular, is a key aspect of eective service implementation (Bromer & Korfmacher, 2017; Watson et al., 2014). Reflective super-
vision entails taking time for sta to examine their own experiences and reactions to their relationships with educators (Watson et al.,
2014). Reflective supervision may help sta with role clarity, perspective taking, and stress reduction (Bromer & Korfmacher, 2017).
The Little People FCCN director reported oering individual supervision to sta on an as needed basis –“when they need things,
they come to me” – but she did not intentionally oer reflective supervision. Sta reported that they felt supported when needed by
the agency. Fewer sta reported that they felt there was adequate time for having deeper conversations and reflections about the
details of their work. It’s possible that the lack of reflective supervision around sta-educator interactions and relationships may have
contributed to some of the challenges that educators and sta reported about their relationships with each other and particularly
around some of the miscommunication regarding cultural and linguistic practices discussed earlier. (See Appendix B, Table B.15.)
Given the small size of Little People FCCN, sta supervision was often shared across the director and more senior sta members
who comprised the management team. Sta reported feeling supported by the network and two sta members who were former
FCC educators described the opportunities for career advancement that the network oered. Other team members commented that
they found it valuable to have these sta members with first-hand FCC experience available “for bouncing ideas and getting input or
suggestions and recommendations.”
Supervision consisted of monthly all-sta meetings and bi-monthly child care specialists’ meetings, but one-on-one supervision
occurred only on an as-needed basis. Most sta at the network worked from home and on a part-time basis leaving few opportunities
for sta to be together at the network oce for supervision. As one specialist explained,
• “I work very independently. I pretty much know this job in and out. I don’t need a lot of supervision. Sometimes, there’s a
question and I’ll be like, ‘This is how I’m handling it,’ and she’ll be like, ‘Okay. That’s great.’ It’s more bouncing things o of
each other.”
Specialists noted that the network director had an “open-door policy” and was approachable and available if support was needed.
One specialist reported that the support she received from the network leadership team was more responsive than what she
experienced in prior jobs:
• “I really appreciate the director because she’s just always open, and when there’s something that we need to talk about, she’s
available, and she’s very arming and understanding, and then in light of the situation I came from, it’s night and day.”
Surveys of sta assessed the extent to which specialists felt safe to try new ideas and felt valued at the network (Appendix B, Table
B.16). Most of the sta at Little People FCCN reported feeling supported and recognized in their jobs. Like their relationship with
supervisors, most sta reported having good relationships with their co-workers and all sta at Little People FCCN reported it was
easy to ask other sta for help. Others described a supportive environment where they could share ideas with each other.
• “I describe it as a very congenial, supportive environment. We can go days without seeing one another ‘cause we’re out in
the field, but it’s always nice when we’re in the oce together to catch up.”
SUMMARY: STAFF SUPPORT AND SUPERVISION AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
• Sta at Little People FCCN felt supported by management and coworkers.
• Reflective supervision was not a common practice at the network and sta reported few opportunities for
discussing the details of their work with educators.
• The part-time, o-site nature of the sta specialist jobs may have contributed to the lack of opportunities for
frequent, in-depth discussions about working with educators.
31
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER II
CHAPTER III.
DOWNTOWN FAMILY
CHILD CARE NETWORK
Downtown Family Child Care Network (Downtown FCCN) was founded in 1988 as a part of an economic and community
development organization that aimed to improve conditions in the neighborhood. Today, it is one of the many state-funded family
child care networks that serve educators, families, and children through the state’s child care subsidy system. Downtown FCCN serves
one small urban industrial area with a large Southeast Asian population as well as a significant population of Latinx immigrants. The
network’s mission is to support the economic self-suciency of women by helping them own and operate high-quality family child
care businesses. It currently works with 62 licensed FCC educators. Most of its revenue comes from state contracts for subsidized
families.
Downtown FCCN oers a range of services including: visits to educators’ homes by child care specialists, transportation by buses
owned by the network and subcontracted drivers for children to and from FCC homes, a training series, peer support, business
supports and small business loans for FCC educators (Table 3.1). Most of the network’s revenues come from the state contract.
Five sta members at the network regularly work with FCC educators: 1) three full-time child care specialists with caseloads of 20
educators each; 2) a training coordinator who plans and leads professional development activities; and 3) a parent engagement
coordinator who is responsible for managing contracts with families experiencing homelessness and teen parents. In addition,
the network employs a full-time social worker who works with children and families who are referred for placement in FCC homes
through the state.
TABLE 3.1 SERVICES OFFERED AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Visits to Educators’ Homes Twice monthly visits to FCC homes
Training 80-hour training provided in 5-hour sessions every other weekend; 4 professional days required
by state
Peer Support Educator recognition event; social activities for educators, families, and children; networking at
training
Business Support Parent referrals; administration of child care subsidies; invoicing of parent fees; payments
to educators; training workshops on business management, marketing, and tax preparation;
substitute pool; transportation for children
CACFP NA
Financial Support $1000 to $5000 no-default loans; support with accessing public scholarships for continued
education
Other Resources/Supports Social worker to mediate conflicts with parents
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
32
CHARACTERISTICS OF NETWORK STAFF,
FCC EDUCATORS, AND FAMILIES SERVED
The following section presents survey and interview data from network sta and aliated educators about individual demographics,
FCC program, and environment characteristics. Table 3.2 shows an overview of the study sample of sta, educators, and families at
Downtown FCCN.
TABLE 3.2
DOWNTOWN FCCN SAMPLE
Participants
in study
Total sta 6
Sta experiences survey 5
Sta interview 6
Total educators 47
Educator experiences survey 29
Educator demographic survey only 18
Educator interview
1
9
Educator quality observations
2
28
Total family members 12
Parent focus group 12
The educator interviews are a subsample of the total survey sample;
18 educators who participated in quality observations only completed
an abbreviated demographic survey
STAFF CHARACTERISTICS
The three child care specialists, the parent engagement coordinator, and the training coordinator who worked directly with educators
and families at Downtown FCCN and who responded to the survey, ranged in age from 28 to 51 years old. Four self-identified as
Latinx, like the majority of educators served by the network (Appendix C, Table C1). Approximately half of sta had worked with
the network for 6 to 10 years, the rest for five or fewer. One child care specialist reported in the interview that she had worked at
Downtown for close to 20 years. All five specialists held either an Associate’s degree or a Bachelor’s degree. Two specialists had
worked previously as FCC educators and others had prior experience in early childhood or related fields.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
33
FCC EDUCATOR CHARACTERISTICS
A total of 47 educators participated in this study and completed the Educator Experiences Survey or the demographic survey. Almost
all (91%) of the educators who responded to the survey identified as Latinx (Table 3.3). Educators ranged in age from 29 to 63.
Approximately a third held a college or post-graduate degree and two-fifths had a high school diploma or GED.
The 47 FCC educators who responded to our survey reported a range of experience working in FCC. Approximately one-fifth had less
than two years of experience, while 42% had 11 or more years of experience. Similarly, the number of years with the network varied.
Just under one-fifth of educators had been aliated with Downtown FCCN for a year or less and just over a third had been aliated
with the network for more than 10 years. Fifteen percent of educators reported experiencing diculty living on their household
income. Most did not report economic hardship. See Appendix C, Table C.2 for characteristics of educators by study component.
TABLE 3.3
CHARACTERISTICS OF FCC EDUCATOR STUDY SAMPLE AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Full Sample Full Sample
%
(N)
%
(N)
Gender Years as a family child care educator
Female 100% (47) Less than 2 years 19% (9)
Race/Ethnicity 2-5 years 19% (9)
Black or African American 0% (0) 6-10 years 19% (9)
White 9% (4) 11-20 years 36% (17)
Hispanic origin or Latinx 91% (43) More than 20 years 6% (3)
Other 4% (2) Time spent with network
4
Highest level of education Less than 6 months 7% (3)
High school diploma/GED or less 43% (20) 6 months to 1 year 11% (5)
Some college, no degree 28% (13) 1-3 years 28% (13)
Associate's degree 13% (6) 4-10 years 20% (9)
Bachelor's degree 9% (4) More than 10 years 35% (16)
Graduate degree 9% (4) Other paid jobs
5
College or graduate level coursework
1
Has another paid job 16% (7)
Child development or early childhood education 92% (24) Does not have another paid job 84% (38)
Psychology 31% (8) Diculty level living on household income
Business or administration 23% (6) Not at all dicult 43% (20)
Elementary education 12% (3) A little dicult 28% (13)
Other 12% (3) Somewhat dicult 15% (7)
Child development associate credential (CDA)*
2
Very dicult 13% (6)
Has CDA 59% (16) Extremely dicult 2% (1)
Does not have CDA 41% (11)
Educator preferred language*
3
Mean Range
English only 14% (4) Educator age (estimated from birth year)
6
Spanish only 71% (20) 46.05 29-63
English and another language 14% (4)
Sample: All educators (N=47); Out of educators who answered having
completed at least some college for highest level of education (N=26);
N=27; N=28; N=46; N=45; N=44 *Question not asked in demo-
graphic survey, all data comes from full survey sample (N=29)
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
34
FCC educator motivations. Close to half of educators at Downtown FCCN who responded to the Educator Experiences Survey
reported being motivated by a personal calling (Table 3.4). A quarter reported wanting to work from home as a primary motivation
for doing FCC and a quarter reported wanting to help children. Many educators at the network reported an intention to stay in the
FCC field for as long as they were able. A fifth reported not being sure about how long they would continue the work.
TABLE 3.4 EDUCATOR MOTIVATIONS FOR DOING FCC AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
% (N)
Primary reason for doing work
It is my personal calling or career 45% (13)
To have a job that lets me work at home 24% (7)
To help children 24% (7)
It is a step toward a related career 3% (1)
To help children's parents 3% (1)
To earn money 0% (0)
Number of years intends to be an educator
One more year or less 0% (0)
Two to five more years 10% (3)
As long as I am able 69% (20)
Not sure 21% (6)
Sample: Educator Experiences Survey (N=29)
Reasons for joining the network. The majority of educators reported that they joined Downtown FCCN in order to improve quality
of care for children, get help working with families, and get help managing a child care business (Table 3.5). Two thirds reported
wanting to increase enrollment of children in care. By contrast, only two fifths reported joining the network to meet other educators,
and slightly more than one third, obtain materials or equipment.
TABLE 3.5 REASONS EDUCATORS PARTICIPATE IN DOWNTOWN FCCN
% (N)
Learn how to improve quality of care for children 90% (26)
Get help working with parents and families 86% (25)
Get help with managing business 86% (25)
Increase enrollment or number of children in my care 66% (19)
Meet other educators 41% (12)
Obtain materials and equipment for my child care 38% (11)
Other 14% (4)
Sample: Educator Experiences Survey (N=29)
During the interviews, educators described the trust and respect from the network that motivated them to join initially. One educator
noted, “When you see people are being treated nicely, you stay.” Another described her positive view of the network:
• “I started with [Downtown FCCN] because I think it's a company of integrity, of trust, of open communication. They are
honest, all compassion, love, loyalty. They are always present at the training with us. They tell us to give our best toward the
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
35
children. They support us. They are mindful of our personal and career growth so that we can give all the best to the children
we have in our care.”
FCC PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS
Educators at Downtown FCCN cared for mixed-age groups of children, with more than 80% caring for toddlers and preschoolers and
more than half caring for infants and school-age children (Table 3.6). Most FCC homes were small group homes with an average of
six children. Only six educators (21%) reported having an assistant. The majority of educators oered care during standard hours and
early mornings before 8 a.m. Only one educator reported oering nontraditional hour care.
While FCC educators are automatically designated level 1 in the state’s QRIS, half reported reaching level 2 in the QRIS.
TABLE 3.6 CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY CHILD CARE PROGRAMS
AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
% (N)
Age groups
Infants (0-12 months) 55% (16)
Toddlers (13-36 months) 83% (24)
Preschoolers (3-5 years old, not in kindergarten) 93% (27)
School-agers, 5 years and older 62% (18)
Nonstandard hours of operations
Oers evening, overnight, or weekend care 3% (1)
Does not oer evening, overnight, or weekend care 97% (28)
Has an assistant
21% (6)
Participates in the state's QRIS
Level 1 36% (10)
Level 2 50% (14)
Not Sure 14% (4)
Number of children Mean Range
6.31 1-10
Sample: Educator Experiences Survey (N=29); N=28
FCC environments. The housing stock in Downtown FCCN’s community consists primarily of multi-family homes and apartments,
many of which were subsidized. Six of the nine educators in our interviews described how they used their homes and backyards for
child care:
• “I have my kitchen that [the children] are gonna have all the meals and the wet activities. I have my dining room set up for
transitions like changing diapers or other things there. Then in my living room, I have where they wait for the pick-up and
drop-o… I have another room that is a playroom, and I have my curriculum, my activities, all the activities over there and
outside.”
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
36
CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILIES SERVED BY THE NETWORK
The majority of families served by FCC educators at the network were eligible to receive child care subsidies or TANF, although
some educators reported caring for private pay families in addition to families who received government subsidies. According to the
directors and sta, many of the families at the network lived in poverty or experienced homelessness. Our focus groups included 12
mothers; all but one were women of color. One mother reported holding a graduate degree and most had a high school degree or
less. All but one of the mothers were single at the time of the focus group and all reported having diculty living on their current
household income. (Appendix C, Table C.3.)
APPROACHES TO SERVICE DELIVERY
Similar to Little People FCCN, approaches to service delivery at Downtown FCCN included both relational and logistical aspects.
RELATIONAL ASPECTS OF SERVICE DELIVERY
Sta at Downtown FCCN described relationships as the core of their service delivery approach, as this specialist described:
• “For 30 years, we have been creating strong relationships. Sometimes we feel like a family... When a provider is going
through something, they receive the aection and the support. We feel like this is more deep than just work. It goes more
deeply.”
Interviews with community partners confirmed the long tenure of strong relationships between the network and the local community:
“They’ve been in the community for years and years…they know their community. They know the linguistic needs, the cultural needs,
the economic needs of their community.”
We found strong alignment in sta and educator perceptions of their relationship with each other as reported in similar questions
across sta and educator surveys. For educators, over a third reported that they viewed their specialist as a supervisee and sta saw
themselves in a consultant role – dierent from a supervisory one but still a perceived expert. Another third of educators viewed sta
as peers and, similarly, a third of sta viewed their role as a mentor to educators – perhaps not as equal as a peer but similar in terms
of collaboration. Just over a third of educators and a third of sta viewed the relationship as like a friend or family. (See Appendix C,
Table C.4.)
All but a handful of educators who responded to the survey reported that they felt appreciated and listened to by their specialist,
received help that was relevant and useful, and felt they frequently had open and responsive communication with their specialist and
a voice in decision-making. They also reported setting goals around their care of children and their own professional development,
and that they were an equal partner in their work with child care specialists. Specialists also reported strong emotional connections
with educators. All three child care specialists gave educators their personal contact information and encouraged them to call at any
time. (See Appendix C, Tables C.5.)
Cultural responsiveness. Specialists and educators at Downtown FCCN emphasized the role of cultural responsiveness and
understanding in their relationships with each other. All of the educators at Downtown FCCN who responded to the survey reported
they felt comfortable or very comfortable sharing their cultural values and practices with their specialists (Appendix C, Table C.6.).
Two specialists worked primarily with educators who had similar linguistic backgrounds and all three specialists reported knowing
about the cultural values of all of the educators in their caseloads. As one specialist explained, “The majority of my providers are
similar to my culture.” Specialists described how this cultural match with educators facilitated trust and understanding.
Specialists at Downtown FCCN also worked with educators from dierent cultural backgrounds. One specialist, whose own
background diered from most of the educators in her caseload, reflected on the importance of cultural understanding, especially in
her work with Latinx educators:
• “I respect other cultures. It's really big for me. I always try to learn about other cultures. For instance, if I go to Asian provider,
we don't hug our own kids, but if I go to Spanish provider, that's what I have to do sometimes. I have to remind myself. Yeah.
Basically, I think if you're willing to learn—and they can feel it. They can see it. For me, it's really big for me that—to respect
other cultures. Just that's one of my goals, so I always try.”
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
37
Personal support. Personal support to educators at Downtown FCCN stood out as a distinct feature of visits. Sta at Downtown
FCCN reported being attuned to the personal needs of educators during visits to their homes. As a specialist explained, “That’s a
crucial part of being a home visitor. You have to connect with them. They have to trust you.” An educator noted that her specialist
always “asked how I was doing, what I needed… whether I had eaten… She asked me how I was feeling."
Sta also acknowledged the isolation and hard work that made visiting even more important for FCC educators:
• "Then I get a feel of the educator. Is she having a good day? What’s going on? How is she being with the kids? Is her home
okay? Because you can tell a lot by the way that they express themselves. It’s hard being in a house 24/7 with kids screaming
at you and especially if you're going through a family issue or problem. My first and foremost, most important thing that I
look for is how the person is."
Another specialist echoed this approach to oering emotional as well as professional support to educators in her caseload:
• “Sometimes, they will tell me about their personal stu. They stress out. Because they work with kiddos, now they just want
to have an adult and talk to and let it out, so just—I just be a good listener and give them advice.”
None of the three child care specialists at Downtown FCCN talked about challenges of maintaining boundaries between personal and
professional discussions with educators.
LOGISTICAL ASPECTS OF SERVICE DELIVERY FOR FCC EDUCATORS
Downtown FCCN oered supports to both FCC educators and parents or family members of children enrolled in aliated FCC homes.
For educators, logistics of support services included dosage and intensity of visits to educator homes, training, and peer supports.
For parents and families, services included specialized sta to support parents and transportation.
Visits to FCC homes. In addition to the monthly visits required for compliance with the subsidy program, the three child care
specialists at Downtown FCCN conducted a second monthly visit intended to support educators’ professional development and
quality improvement. None of the nine educators in our interviews described negative experiences or feelings around visits from
specialists. However, 24% of those who responded to the Educator Experiences Survey reported that visits could be stressful for
children in care and close to one fifth reported that visits were a distraction from their work with children (Appendix C, Table C.7).
Educators and sta at the network reported that responsiveness to educator needs was a feature of successful visits and was
facilitated by the twice-monthly frequency. As one educator noted about her specialist, “She visits twice a month, but in case we
need her, she comes right away.” Specialists at Downtown FCCN also acknowledged the importance of flexibility in conducting visits:
• “It’s not like this is the schedule I have to follow. Just kind of like, if I walk in and the kids are crying and the provider was
serving lunch, and let me hold the baby for them—for her to serve lunch, stu like that and then I'll be able to hand the baby
to the provider.”
Sta reported that educators frequently took initiative in engaging with their specialists around activities and discussions during the
visits, suggesting that frequent home visiting over time may lead to a deeper, sustained focus on professional development. (See
Appendix C, Table C.8.)
Training. Downtown FCCN oers a required training series for all educators who join the network. These five-hour intensive trainings
were oered every other weekend, totaling 80 training hours over a 32-week period. Some educators started the training before
becoming licensed and caring for children, while others started the series after opening their FCC programs. While the program
was designed for new educators, others could attend if they wanted to refresh their knowledge. Survey data indicated that 35% of
educators attended the network’s training series in the past 12 months, indicating that many seasoned educators continued to find
the training helpful.
The training series was oered by the network training coordinator, who brought in outside trainers for select topics. Training
sessions were discussion-based so that educators could share their experiences which helped facilitate relationship-building, a goal
of the network. The series included topics related to caring for children and managing a child care business. Educators found the
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
38
trainings helpful: “It helps our growth, and it helps us more each day to provide the best of us to the children.”
In addition to network-required training, Downtown FCCN oered four annual professional development days required by the state.
Educators had to close their programs to participate. If an educator chose not to attend, she was not paid for the day and had to
make up the training hours elsewhere. The network provided breakfast and lunch and delivered training content in English, Spanish,
and Khmer. Despite the learning opportunity, professional days could be challenging. Educators reported that parents expressed
frustration about their FCC programs closing on those days and educators felt they could not take additional days o (e.g. for a
doctor appointment) near a professional development day.
Downtown FCCN had flexibility over the topics it presented at professional days. Topics were based on educator need and input,
which was gathered through educator surveys or sta observations of educator needs. General training topics included health and
safety, quality caregiving, business support, work with families, and personal support. A common professional development day
topic was changes in regulations or licensing requirements. Often a state licensing representative lead these trainings. One educator
explained how helpful this type of training was in informing and helping them navigate regulatory changes:
• “They give us training on what is being updated…The new laws that change, they hold training for us, explain what is going
on, what we are going to see. It’s something that, as I told you, other agencies do not do.”
Peer supports. According to the directors, Downtown FCCN oered program-wide peer support including social activities and events
that included educators, families, and children as well as facilitation of more informal peer-to-peer networking among educators
during training workshops and professional days. Although only 41% of educators reported meeting other FCC educators as a reason
for joining the network (Table 3.5), nearly three quarters of those who responded to the broad survey questions about peer support
opportunities reported that they participated in social activities at the network (72%) and half in networking activities with other
educators (Appendix C, Table C.9).
Network leadership recognized the potential value of peer support. Networking was encouraged at training workshops and the four
professional development days. The meetings were intentionally designed to support these interactions: “We give them a chance
to come in and talk to each other and interact because that doesn't happen often.” The training facilitator used discussion-based
strategies, “because educators need a chance to talk and compare their experiences. They can use each other’s expertise to help each
other out.”
Educators also described the benefits of networking with their peers during training sessions. One educator saw this opportunity as a
buer against the isolation of working long days alone:
• “During these training sessions, we have the opportunity to interact, to share, to eat together, and that’s why I say it’s a very
good agency in many areas because you feel like a family. We form connections with our other colleagues or co-workers. We
collaborate because as you know, it’s work that you do on your own and there are times when you need help … it’s a job that
starts at 7:00 and ends at 5:00.”
The management team described ways the network encouraged peer support among educators including educators visiting
each other’s FCC programs as well as informal support groups. The training coordinator also encouraged these connections in her
workshops:
• “We try to make sure that they build relationships so that they can reach out to each other to help. I can only do so much.
I have my degree and I have all this knowledge, but I’ve never worked in a family child care program myself, and I’ve never
worked in a center. I’ve never worked with children like they do, so I always tell them, ‘Hey, make sure to use your colleagues,
because they’re a great person to bounce o ideas.’”
Educators and families enjoyed the network’s opportunities to socialize outside of child care hours. One educator described
Downtown FCCN social events in the parks as building a sense of community within the network:
• “We hold fairs, or during a holiday, they take the children to a designated place, there is face painting, they get snacks. The
parents can be with them, and they spend time with us… We do activities with the families so they can bring their children
and meet. I think that it's a help and more than help that's part of, like, the family that we create for the whole community.”
Parents in the focus group shared this view. One parent described these events as “one big happy family, that’s what [Downtown
FCCN] is.”
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
39
LOGISTICAL ASPECTS OF SERVICE DELIVERY FOR PARENTS AND FAMILIES
Parent specialists. Downtown FCCN had a strong focus on supporting families of children in care. The network had two sta whose
work focused on families. Both the parent engagement coordinator and the social worker conducted visits to FCC homes to observe
children and make referrals for early intervention or other developmental services. The parent engagement coordinator helped
match families with FCC homes. She primarily worked with families whom the state defined as “priority populations,” including those
experiencing homelessness and families with teen parents but also with a small number of private-pay families. Parents in the focus
groups cited the parent engagement coordinator several times. They reported that she helped them find an FCC home by driving
them around to visit dierent programs until they found the right fit. Parents felt that she understood their situations and could help
them navigate language barriers with educators. The parent engagement coordinator also worked with educators, helping them to
develop relationships with families.
The network’s social worker primarily interacted with families who were referred to Downtown FCCN through a contract with the
state’s child welfare system. The state’s department of children and families aimed to keep children in their families by placing them
in FCC homes during the day and oering social work services to their parents. In this role, Downtown FCCN’s social worker helped
parents select a FCC educator who was a good fit and then monitored the well-being of these children in FCC while supporting their
parents through a range of counseling, goal setting, and logistical supports.
Overall, parents in the focus groups reported having strong, trusting relationships with Downtown FCCN sta. Parents noted that
sta were reliable and responsive: “All you have to do is call and they will always take care of you.” Many parents also described the
personal connections they developed with network sta over time. One mother, whose daughter had been in child care through the
network, relayed that after her husband died, the network helped her and her daughter get therapy and counseling. As she described,
“They came to the funeral. They came with sandwiches. They gave my daughter a big comfort basket with teddy bears… they helped
me get counseling.” Another mother had a similar story about how the network supported her after the death of her spouse: “They
helped me with the emptiness that my husband left.” Other parents noted that they maintained relationships with network sta many
years after their children were in FCC: “I’m still connected with them in some way.”
Parents in the focus groups also emphasized the help they received from Downtown FCCN around their own economic independence:
• “Now I have enough. I do not have to ask help from anybody. I no longer get food stamps, I pay for my doctor, I pay for
everything. But when I started here, I did not even have a GED. When these people tell you, ‘I can teach you about this, I can
help you with this, talk to so-and-so,’ do it ...They are opening doors for you that otherwise, you would not have been able to
open. I learned so much with these people, and to do so many other things. Before … I was out on the street…but because I
came here, I have done a lot of things to help me succeed, I got my GED, I went to college twice, I am going to college again,
now to become an RN.”
Transportation. The network provided free bus service to and/or from child care for more than 200 children a day as part of their
contract with the state subsidy system. The bus service was particularly helpful for parents who did not have a car or whose work
hours made it dicult to drop-o and pick-up their children. According to one of the directors, “For a lot of families, it allows
them to keep their jobs. It’s the dierence between their child being in care or not being in care.” This service also allowed parents
to choose an FCC home based on quality and preference instead of proximity to work or home. While some parents in the focus
group had great experiences with transportation, others reported challenges around individual drivers, communication issues,
changing schedules, long bus rides, and cancellations due to bad weather. Network directors were unanimous in reporting that the
transportation service for families was challenging to implement.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
40
SUMMARY: APPROACHES TO SERVICE DELIVERY AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Relational aspects of service delivery
• Sta, educators, and community partners emphasized the centrality of relationships in the Downtown FCCN
approach to supporting FCC.
• Educator and sta views of their relationships were strongly aligned: FCC educators and network sta
reported that they saw each other as friends and colleagues.
• Almost all of the educators reported that sta saw them as equal partners, appreciated them, listened to
them, and cared about them. They also reported that they had frequent, open and responsive communication
with their specialist and a voice in decision-making, including joint goal-setting.
• Educators and sta also emphasized how delivery of culturally and linguistically responsive support was a
core component of service delivery at the network.
Logistical aspects of service delivery
Services for FCC Educators
• Twice monthly visits allowed for a deep focus on educator needs including personal supports as well as
professional development.
• The network oered an intensive and tailored training program specifically for network-aliated FCC
educators. Topics were often based on educator input. Workshops were discussion-based and oered in
English, Spanish, and Khmer.
• The majority of educators participated in peer support activities at the networks including an annual
recognition lunch and networking sessions during training workshops. The network also encouraged informal
peer-to-peer networking among educators.
Services for FCC parents and families
• Downtown FCC served many families who were living in poverty, experiencing homelessness, or involved in
the state’s child welfare system. A parent engagement coordinator and a social worker supported parents and
families around finding FCC but also around mental health, logistical needs, and goal setting.
• Strong connections and relationships were developed between Downtown FCCN sta and parents of children
who were enrolled in aliated FCC homes.
• The network also oered all enrolled families free bus transportation that helped working parents manage
work and family responsibilities.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
41
SUPPORTING QUALITY
In this section, we present findings about caregiving quality among educators at Downtown FCCN based on the CCAT-R observations
and network supports for quality improvement. First, we describe quality of educator-child interactions and the caregiving
environment and supports for these aspects of quality. Next, we describe how the network supported educators around working with
families based on the educator and sta interviews. Finally, we present findings from the health and safety observations and network
supports in this area.
EDUCATOR-CHILD INTERACTIONS AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
Observed quality of educator-child interactions. The CCAT-R mean scores for educators at Downtown FCCN were in the good range
(based on the field test mean scores) for caregiver engagement with children in both age groups, indicating that educators were
engaging children in activities with safe materials, and that educators were not forcing their own agendas on children. Mean scores
for bidirectional and uni-directional communication (see Table 1.1 for definitions of CCAT-R constructs) were in the middle of the
acceptable range for educators’ interactions with children in both age groups, indicating that educators were using both higher-level
language strategies such as engaging children in conversations by asking questions and building on their answers as well as simpler,
more directive language with children such as labeling or naming objects. Educators rated lowest on the nurturing factor, with mean
scores in the poor range for both age groups but in the lowest range for older children, suggesting that educators may have faced
challenges oering individual attention and care to children in a mixed-age group setting. Since the CCAT-R was originally designed
for relative caregivers with only one or two children in care, the nurturing factor may look dierent in FCC settings such as those at
Downtown FCCN that included mixed-age groups of five or six children. (See Appendix C, Table C.10.)
Network support and quality caregiving. Twice monthly visits to homes were a primary way in which Downtown FCCN helped
educators improve quality caregiving. Yet, according to both educators and specialists, visits were used for many purposes that may
have left less time for a focus on quality practices. According to survey results, only half of educators (52%) reported discussing the
child care environment during most visits and fewer than half of educators reported discussing individual children in care (45%), child
assessment (45%), and/or curriculum or activity planning (45%) during most visits (Appendix C, Table C.11). For these educators,
visits may have focused instead on their own personal needs or other aspects of care.
Specialists reported an array of activities in visits ranging from enrollment and attendance paperwork, keeping children’s health
records up to date, making referrals and working with therapists for children in care with special needs, and general crisis
management related to educators’ own families, their own mental health, or crises faced by families of children in their programs.
Aspects of care such as supporting children’s development in a mixed-age group may have been less of a priority given the many
issues educators and families faced.
Children’s social-emotional development and challenging behaviors. All three child care specialists reported that a quarter to a
half of the educators in their caseloads cared for children with special needs. Many children and families in Downtown FCCN homes
experienced the stressors of living in poverty and may have been at greater risk for their children having behavioral challenges
because of stress and limited resources. Educators and sta alike described the need for oering trauma-informed care. Much of
the advice and guidance oered by specialists was specific and solution-oriented to the immediate and urgent needs of educators
around managing children’s behaviors.
Four educators with the same specialist reported that their specialist oered advice around strategies to use when faced with
children’s challenging behaviors. As one educator explained, “They help because they oer guidance, so you can determine what to
do with the child.” Another relayed two examples of her specialist oering specific activities and actions to solve the problem of a
child’s behavior and “avoid conflicts”:
• “There was another child who was also very rough and hit the other girls. She suggested I’d bring him first to the dining room
table, give him an activity to do there, and keep my son with me, while the girls would play in the other space.”
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
42
Still another educator talked about visits from her specialist as a way of getting a fast solution or answer to challenges with children:
• “Well, I think that these visits are of great importance and support to us. Because it's like an easy way for us to express what
we feel when we receive a child or when we have diculty, and we want an immediate answer, I think that it's important that
if I have a problem with a child, she helps me on the spot. The same day she arrives she tells me, ‘We are going to do this, this
is how we are going to do it.’ Every issue is resolved.”
A sta specialist echoed these reports from educators and described how she helped educators learn how to “deal with” dicult
child behaviors. The following statement illustrates the network’s focus on responding to educators’ concerns through sta modeling
of how to respond to children:
• “I’ve had a few providers that they have a hard time dealing with dicult behaviors and stu, so they let me know what’s
going on. I go and do an observation on a visit, and I see things because I have experience. I show them how they can better
redirect that behavior, and I do it by role modeling. … I demonstrate to them, and then all I tell the provider is, ‘See, by me
doing this and that, you saw how dierent he reacted to what I told him.’ They’re just like, ‘Okay,’ and then, ‘I’m gonna try it
next time,’ things like that.”
Two educators described receiving guidance from specialists that did focus on children’s developmental needs and using child
development as a way of understanding how to respond:
• “Well, she helped me, give me advice, because when you start work in this business, you don’t know everything. You don’t
know why kids behave that way.”
• “She tells me, ‘You’ve got to be patient with kids, and give them as much love and aection as you can, because that’s what
they need.’ They need to be taught that. Because you’re like their second mom, and this is like the first school they attend.”
Overall, educators who participated in the interviews emphasized that a hard part of doing FCC was experiencing children’s dicult
behaviors. Concrete advice from specialists was helpful but It’s possible that the low nurturing scores on the CCAT-R observations for
some educators reflected their frustration and focus on behavior management rather than on nurturing.
Observed quality of materials in the FCC environment. Nearly all educators at Downtown FCCN who participated in the observations
had most of the furnishings and materials on the CCAT-R Materials Checklist. Only ride-on toys with wheels and water and sand play
were less frequently observed in homes caring for children across age groups. (Appendix C. Table C.12).
Activity and environment planning. Network training and support around activity planning may explain, in part, the “good” CCAT-R
scores on caregiver engagement and the high scores on the Materials Checklist among Downtown FCCN educators. Several educators
appreciated getting information from their specialists during visits around specific ideas of things to do with children in care. One
educator related how she received help including babies and toddlers with older children in her program:
• “She gives me ideas: ‘Look, this is a great activity because it will help him to develop gross or fine motor skills’ referring to a
baby. Or, ‘Work with this for their sensory skills because they love to feel.’”
Specialists emphasized the importance of educators’ own lived experiences to guide activity planning. Specialists had themselves
been FCC educators or parents and valued and respected this experience in the educators as much as formal early childhood
knowledge. Specialists explained that they didn’t bring lesson plans to FCC homes but, instead, encouraged educators to use online
resources as well as their own knowledge to plan for dierent ages of children in care
1
. One specialist described how she encouraged
educators to draw on their lived knowledge as a quality improvement strategy:
1 Downtown FCCN had a grant in the past to purchase Creative Curriculum for all educators but after the grant ended, educators had to pay for
it on their own.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
43
• “We normally have a lot of issues at the beginning when they first start because they're getting used to it. They don’t know.
They're, like, ‘What do I do?’ It’s just a matter of giving them examples, ‘Okay. Well, with that activity… the answer is always
within you.’ That’s what I tell them. ‘You're over thinking it.’ What I do when there’s little kids, we sit down. ‘Okay, if you were
a baby, what would you want to do with an activity with an apple? Okay, now, erase that. If you were seven, what would you
want to do with an apple?’ Because sometimes we look too much for the answer outside of us when it’s always inside. I tell
them that. The reason why you're gonna succeed is because the program is gonna represent you as a person, and you are
somebody amazing, so put that in your work.”
This strengths-based approach to activity planning suggests the commitment and respect that the network had for developing
educators’ confidence and success. However, the lack of formal curriculum use or lesson planning may have resulted in educators’
limited access to evidence-based information about quality early childhood education. Most educators reported that they developed
their own curriculum and utilized resources they found from their older children’s schools or popular online sites.
Supporting quality through QRIS. All licensed educators at Downtown FCCN were automatically registered at level 1 of the state’s
QRIS. The network’s training coordinator sometimes provided workshops on specific QRIS topics that educators needed. The child
care specialists were also expected to work with educators to help them prepare for moving up levels in the QRIS although neither
specialists nor educators mentioned this in the interviews.
Once an educator was ready to move to level 3, a state QRIS specialist was required to conduct an assessment of the FCC home.
Educators’ negative experiences with the state QRIS specialists radically shifted their willingness to engage with QRIS. Senior sta
described what happened when educators at Downtown FCCN had their first assessment visit from the state’s QRIS specialist:
• “You had to have that reliable rater come through, and the very first person who had their visit, when she got her report,
it was such a mess. Her name was spelled wrong. Her program number was wrong. The description of her house and her
neighborhood and her program were clearly not her house and neighborhood and program. [The QRIS] just dug in their
heels and said, ‘Nope. This is the report. You didn't make it,’ to a point where the provider was feeling like, ‘If this is all true, I
should close. It's not safe. This isn't a good place for kids.’
At which point, really, the bulk of the other providers said, ‘Yeah, I don't want them coming into my house.’ It kind of, for lack
of a better phrase, poisoned the well. We haven't had a single provider attempt to change levels since then.”
SUPPORTING EDUCATOR-FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
A majority of educators who responded to the Educator Experiences Survey (86%), reported that help working with parents and
families was a reason for joining the network (Table 3.5). The network oered educators support for working with families (through
training workshops and visits focused on building partnerships) and good communication with parents, both core components of
high-quality child care. Both child care specialists and the parent engagement coordinator helped educators navigate conflicts or
communication problems with families. Child care specialists helped educators obtain required paperwork from families and also
intervened on behalf of educators to resolve conflicts with families, as the following educator described:
• “The girl that visits me, if I have a problem with a mother, she comes and calls the mother. She will tell the mother, ‘Look, you
need to comply with the provider’s paperwork because, without that document, she cannot care for your child,’ so, from the
moment I call the oce, very quickly, in under two hours, they’re here at the house. They tell them I won’t be able to care for
their children.”
Specialists also oered communication support for non-English speakers. A monolingual Spanish-speaking educator described the
help she received from her child care specialist:
• “Yes, my [child care specialist] is mainly the one in charge of that. For instance, she comes—and she just arrived, and I told
her, ‘I have this problem with a child. I don’t speak English. I need for the mother to bring me this, or to bring me that.’ She
makes those calls, which is a great help to me, because they are helping me with the child, and his necessities.”
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
44
MONITORING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCING REGULATIONS
Downtown FCCN was not a licensing entity and although the network worked with the state’s subsidy and licensing systems to
support educators’ adherence to regulations, compliance was not the primary focus of the network’s support approach.
Observed quality of health and safety practices. Educators at Downtown FCCN had many of the items on the CCAT-R Health and
Safety Checklist (Appendix C, Table C.13.). However, two thirds of FCC homes (64%) where an infant or toddler was observed, and
55% of FCC homes where a preschool-age child was observed, had at least one red flag item that was not fully met indicating
potential injury to children in care. Gates on stairs for mobile infants and toddlers, safety caps on all observed electrical outlets, and
inaccessible electrical cords were the safety practices that were most commonly not fully met by educators in our observations.
Other items on the health and safety checklist which were less frequently observed (partially because there were not enough
observations of the items) included: 1) infants being held while bottle fed (71%), 2) toddlers seated, or head is propped when holding
own bottle (71%); 3) no peeling or chipped paint in areas children have access to (75% for under three and 73% for three and over); 4)
diapers are checked and changed often (74% for under three and 67% for three and over); and 5) a covered sandbox (40% for under
three and 17% for three and over).
Network enforcement of regulations and standards. The close, often personal, relationships developed between specialists and
educators at Downtown FCCN may have made monitoring regulatory aspects of FCC more dicult. Two of the three specialists did
not mention health and safety checks as a regular part of their home visiting and support work with educators. All three described
challenges they had bringing up violations or practices that they knew were not meeting regulatory standards. One specialist
explained that when she tried to focus on compliance in her initial visits with educators - “I came in looking”-- she received pushback
from some educators: “Who do you think you are? You think you're licensing.” Another specialist acknowledged her own diculty
confronting educators about potential violations: “You have to follow all these regulations. Your home should reflect what we expect.
Sometimes to tell a person that she has to organize, to have the environment more clean, is tough for me.” Even one of the specialists
who said that safety was a priority for her during visits explained later in the interview how hard it was to give feedback to educators
when they were out of compliance:
• “Some people have been doing it 30, 40 years, and they're like, okay. I've been doing it for 40 years. You're like, why? Who
are you to change me now? Stu like that. They don't say it out loud, but—and I have to kind of be careful. I cannot be too
direct because I like to be polite and, yeah, it can be really challenging.”
It is also possible that the long-term positive relationships developed by the network with educators may have prevented some
specialists from giving critical feedback to some educators around quality practices. A community partner who had worked with the
network for many years described the tension inherent in the Downtown FCCN’s support strategy that focused on both educators
and children in care. As she noted, “it’s hard to say if you don’t do these things, then you cannot be taking care of children.”
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
45
SUMMARY: SUPPORTING QUALITY AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Educator-child interactions and learning environment
• Educators at Downtown FCCN varied in the quality of interactions with children in care. They rated in the
good range on caregiver engagement and in the acceptable range for bidirectional and unidirectional
communication for children in both age groups. However, educators scored in the poor range for nurturing
with both age groups.
• Educators scored high on materials and environments for supporting children’s learning as measured by the
CCAT-R Materials Checklist.
• Network visits to FCC homes focused on an array of supports including personal help, crisis management,
referrals for children with special needs, recordkeeping around enrollment and attendance, as well as help
with activities and behavior management.
• Specialists valued educators’ lived experiences as sources of planning for young children.
Supporting educator-family relationships
• Most educators reported that help working with parents and families was a reason for joining the network. The
network focused many resources on supporting families of children in FCC homes, including two sta whose
jobs were dedicated to working with families.
• The child care specialists in collaboration with the network parent engagement coordinator and the social
worker helped educators build relationships and communication with families and navigate potential conflicts.
Monitoring compliance and enforcing regulations
• More than half of FCC homes at Downtown FCCN had at least one health and safety “red flag” item that was
not met including stair gates for mobile toddlers, safety caps on outlets, and secured electrical cords.
• Specialists at Downtown FCCN juggled many tasks during visits to FCC homes and may not have had
adequate time to regularly check for maintenance of regulatory standards.
• Personal and close relationships between specialists and educators also created challenges for specialists
around bringing up child care practices that needed improvement.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
46
SUPPORTING SUSTAINABILITY OF FCC BUSINESSES
Downtown FCCN sees its mission as supporting the sustainability of educators’ FCC businesses. The network aims to achieve
full enrollment across aliated FCC homes and consistent, timely payments through collecting parent fees for the educators.
To strengthen educators’ capacity to manage their businesses, the network provided training on topics such as marketing,
recordkeeping, and tax preparation. Downtown FCCN also recognized that educators may have other financial needs. It oered a
small business loan program as well as access to grants or scholarships for CDAs or higher education courses.
This section describes how the Downtown FCCN helped educators with: 1) becoming licensed; 2) business supports such as
enrollment and collection of parent fees; 3) other supports such as business training and substitute care; and 4) financial aid.
PREPARING EDUCATORS FOR LICENSING
Downtown FCCN child care specialists sometimes helped educators prepare for their initial licensing inspection. Since the child care
specialists were not licensing monitors themselves, they were able to oer support in this area:
• “They made sure that everything was perfect and with no danger to any of the children. They told me that everything
checked out all right.”
It’s possible that educators viewed specialists as advocates rather than enforcers and that they were able to work together to prepare
for the state inspection:
• “They oered advice, they told me, ‘Remember you have to cover the outlets, this window, you can only open it like this.’ She
was very thorough about making sure I met all the requirements before the state licensing representative came to visit.”
BUSINESS SUPPORTS
The majority of educators who responded to the survey reported that they joined Downtown FCCN for help managing their
businesses and increasing their enrollment (Table 3.5). Two-thirds of educators who responded to the survey reported receiving help
with managing a child care business and help with paperwork and record keeping. Just below half of the educators also reported
receiving help with finding substitute care and developing contracts with families. (See Appendix C, Table C.14.) The following
sections describe educator experiences receiving help with enrollment, marketing, parent fees, business management, and substitute
care.
Enrollment and capacity. Economic self-suciency for educators was a primary goal of the Downtown FCCN and the majority (72%)
of FCC homes aliated with the network operated at full licensed capacity (Table 3.7). FCC homes aliated with Downtown FCCN
could be licensed by the state as small or large group homes. Small group homes could serve a maximum of eight children including
two school-age children. Large group homes could have a maximum of 10 children and required an assistant. Only one-fifth of
surveyed educators at Downtown FCCN had an assistant. On average, Downtown FCCN educators cared for six children.
TABLE 3.7 ENROLLMENT IN FCC HOMES AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
% (N)
Educators caring for 6 or more children
Caring for fewer than 6 children 28% (8)
Caring for 6 or more children 72% (21)
Average number of children enrolled by assistant Mean Range
Does not have assistant 6.00 1-8
Has assistant 7.50 2-10
All educators 6.31 1-10
Sample: Educator Experiences Survey (N=29)
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
47
By supporting full enrollment of FCC homes, Downtown FCCN aimed to help educators achieve their own financial goals, “whether
it is buying a house or a car or sending your kids to college or being able to save for retirement.” Downtown FCCN helped educators
identify potential families and then facilitated the process of families choosing and selecting an FCC program. The network’s process
entailed identifying three educators who might be a good “match” with parents, and then arranging interviews with educators. The
parents chose the educator who best fit their needs. The social worker described the process this way:
• “I’ve been here long enough that I know our providers. When I get a referral from [the state], we call the parent ... They
come in and I ask, ‘What are you looking for? What hours are you looking for? Where do you live?’ Because we do provide
transportation and we don’t wanna have a child that lives on this side of town with a provider that’s all the way on the other
side of the bridge. You need care from seven to four or you need care ‘til 6:00 in the evening? Then I match them up with the
providers that have the openings. I take the parents out to meet the provider and it’s [the] parent’s choice.”
Seven of the nine educators in the interviews had full enrollment based on their licensed capacity. One educator talked about the
network’s sensitivity and responsiveness to her economic needs:
• “There is a girl there, and she always calls me and asks me, ‘Do you have children? Should I come and help you? How many
empty spaces have you got?’ She said, ‘I know this is a job and you have to pay rent, and all the bills at the house. Some of
you are single mothers, and you need me to help you’… It feels like she always wants one to be working.”
Downtown FCCN’s contract with the child welfare system created greater demand for child care placements, but some educators did
not want to care for children from families they perceived to be “dicult.” Because they already had high enrollment, some educators
felt they could turn down prospective families. The director described the situation:
• “Our enrollment's really high, and so providers can be very picky if they want to. If you're a provider and you say, ‘You know
what? I can close an hour earlier and I'm gonna earn the same amount of money,’ what incentive is there? A provider can say,
‘This family's dicult. I don't want them.’ Then we're calling them the next day to say, ‘Oh, my God. You have an opening. Can
you take this kid?’
Help with marketing. While the educators at Downtown FCCN were not contractually required to recruit families, the network
recognized that it was important to help educators learn how to market their programs to prospective families in order to maintain
full enrollment and low turnover among families. The network’s training series included a marketing component:
• “He [the outside marketing trainer] came out and was like essentially, ‘Let’s do a pitch contest.’ Each and every one of them
had to pitch their program. He was able to ask them all these questions from the standpoint of a parent. For example,
someone who’s never visited their program before; someone who barely knows about what the business is and encourage
them to speak about all of the things that they do.”
Two specialists also described the advice they gave educators on marketing their FCC programs to parents:
• “I always advise the provider the fact that the first thing, you meet with the parent, make sure you show them your schedule,
your activities, your paperwork, what you do. Show them your kids do not sit here and watch TV all day. You have to make
sure that you impress parents so they can choose you.’”
One specialist conducted mock parent interviews with educators. She described coaching an educator on her caseload who lived
in an area that was “not the greatest spot in [the city], so she had a hard time getting kids there.” After practice “selling” her FCC
program, the educator was fully enrolled: “It took a year. Now, she’s doing great.”
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
48
Collecting parent fees. Downtown FCCN managed all of the parent payments and vouchers that came through contracts with
the state’s subsidy systems. Five of the nine educators in the interviews cited the network support with collecting parent fees as a
benefit. One educator articulated the advantage of the bi-weekly checks she received from the network: “They manage them [the
payment} for us. The stability that they provide with the business is very important for us.” Another educator expressed a similar
view: “Getting a check on time was a huge advantage because you didn’t have to deal with charging people. For me that would be
horrible.” Still another educator explained why she liked working with the network:
• “I have my own business. I can pay my bills. I don’t have to worry about if I have a mortgage, so I know in the end of the
month I’m gonna have my check, I worked with [another agency], and it was not a good experience… I spent two years with
no income. I could barely pay the gas. When I started with [Downtown FCCN], there I see the dierence.”
Training workshops on business management. The network’s rationale for business training was straightforward: “They don’t just
take care of children. They’re small business owners as well.” The training sessions on recordkeeping, budgeting, and insurance not
only enhanced educators’ capacity to manage their businesses, they also increased educators’ sense of self-ecacy. As one child care
specialist put it:
• “I’ve noticed a lot of them doubt themselves, and I think that confidence has a lot to do with running a business because…
they’re kind of thrown into a business. ‘Here, you're a business owner. Deal with it.’ I thought the way [the trainer] did it was
awesome because she’s finally teaching them, ‘You're the business owner.’ I see a change in the new providers.”
The following reports from educators point to how business and financial management training at the network benefitted their FCC
businesses:
• “Before, I practically never saved anything, honestly. Practically everything I earned went to paying for day care and for
paying the rent. I didn’t get practically anything left over, and sometimes I didn’t have anything left. With [Downtown FCCN],
I do have some savings.”
• “They taught you how to build your business in a way where you make money, not lose money. For example, if I make $400, I
can’t spend $500, it would defeat the purpose. So, you learn to budget and find ways to make things work for better profit.”
Help with substitute care. Downtown FCCN placed substitutes in FCC homes when educators wanted to take a day o, go on
vacation, or take a sick day. Five educators reported that this service was a benefit of being aliated with the network.
FINANCIAL AID
Fifteen percent of the educators at Downtown FCCN who participated in our study reported that it was very or extremely dicult to
live on their annual household income, and another 14% reported that it was somewhat dicult (Table 3.3).
Loans. Downtown FCCN provided no-default loans. The loans could be used for program purposes such as retrofitting space or for
emergencies such as a broken boiler or refrigerator, a branch that “crashed through the roof [during a storm], or “a water main break
and you have four feet of water in your basement.” Loans ranged from $1000 to a maximum of $5000; educators paid them back
monthly through network deductions from their payments.
Grants and scholarships. The network also supported educators in taking courses towards a degree or a Child Development
Associate credential at the community college in the city where the network was located. According to sta, a college grant from the
state was available for educators who wanted to take college courses because the state encouraged educators to have a Bachelor’s
degree. The network helped connect educators to resources and to access the grants for scholarships and materials for their
programs that were oered by the State.
Two educators reported that they had used the scholarships towards obtaining an Associate’s degree, but one educator complained
that the funding was not available for other undergraduate coursework.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
49
SUMMARY: SUPPORTING SUSTAINABILITY
OF FCC BUSINESSES AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Preparing educators for licensing
• Downtown FCCN oered educators support and advice around preparing for licensing visits.
Business supports
• Downtown FCCN aimed to achieve full enrollment and a consistent, timely income through collecting parent
fees for the educators.
• Nearly three quarters of the educators at the network operated at full capacity. Because enrollment was not
an issue, some educators could pick and choose among families or shorten their hours.
• The network helped educators maintain full enrollment by placing families in homes, managing parent fees,
oering substitute care, transportation, and oering training and technical assistance on marketing and
financial management and planning.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
50
STAFF SUPPORT AND SUPERVISION
Research suggests that specialized sta training and preparation may be important drivers of quality in HBCC support programs
such as networks (Bromer et al., 2009; Bromer & Korfmacher, 2017). Downtown FCCN reported having ample opportunities for sta
professional development both at the network and at local community colleges or conferences.
Sta expressed positive views about their working conditions and relationships with supervisors and coworkers (Appendix C, Table
C.15). In the interviews, sta talked about the network as being “just like a family.” Sta reported working collaboratively with their
coworkers and seeking each other out as sources of information and expertise. As one sta person noted, they can always pick up
the phone to call for support:
• “I think we have a good relationship. I always feel free to be able to just pick up the phone and call. ‘Hey, I have some problem
here. Can you help me out?’ ‘Okay. Let's do this. Let's meet up. Let me help you out. You want me to go with you?’ I love that
about us.”
However, this level of comfort between co-workers also created challenges as the following observations from sta suggest:
• “[Downtown FCCN] is a relatively small agency. We know each other really, really well. It has very little turnover. People don’t
normally leave. People are really comfortable with one another, so that’s good, and that’s also not so good, because even if
we’re in an oce setting, people fight. They argue. They say things that are probably not okay to say.”
Sta supervision at the network was more informal. Two directors split their supervisory roles with child care specialists and
administrative sta. Group sta meetings were regularly held twice a month while one-on-one supervision meetings took place on
an as needed basis or in response to a problem. As one sta person described: “We can just meet at any time.” Most sta reported
feeling supported and trusted by their supervisors and emphasized directors’ availability to talk “whenever you want to talk to them.”
One of the specialists noted, “He trusts me to do my job and he supports me in what it is that we’re trying to accomplish in helping
the educators.”
Some sta members reported frustration with the lack of feedback from supervisors. Sta reported wanting more opportunities for
reflection and growth: “Listen, I’m the type of person that I need feedback. ‘What am I doing wrong?’ That’s how you grow.” On the
other hand, three out of five sta members reported having protected time to talk with supervisors, think about how to improve their
work with educators, or how to set professional boundaries in their work (Appendix C, Table C.16).
SUMMARY: STAFF SUPPORT AND SUPERVISION AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
• Sta at Downtown FCCN had ample opportunities for professional development and training in order to
improve the quality of their support work with FCC educators.
• Although sta supervision was informal, most sta reported having opportunities to reflect on their work with
both supervisors and coworkers at the network.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER III
51
CHAPTER IV.
BENEFITS OF NETWORK
PARTICIPATION ACROSS BOTH SITES
The two networks in our case studies shared some common features. Both Little People FCCN and Downtown FCCN are stand-alone
networks that have served educators for more than three decades. Each provided visits to educators’ homes, training, and peer
support with specialized sta whose jobs are dedicated to this work, defining characteristics of networks (Bromer & Porter, 2019).
Little People FCCN and Downtown FCCN provided support to improve the quality of the care that educators oer to children. Sta
visits focused on the environment, including health and safety, space arrangement, and activities as well as educators’ support
for children’s social-emotional, cognitive, language and physical development, all of which can lead to positive educator and child
outcomes. Training workshops included topics that parallel this content. In addition, each network helped educators work with
families. The two networks also provided access to grants and supports for professional development such as college courses or a
credential.
Both networks also shared a mission of creating sustainable family child care businesses. Each helped educators maintain licensing.
Each collected fees from parents to provide regular stable income for educators and helped educators achieve enrollment in the
programs. In addition, both networks oered access to substitutes to enable educators to take vacation or time o for sick or
personal days. Each provided some kind of financial support to reduce burdens on educators who may have had limited resources.
Little People FCCN absorbed the costs for liability insurance; Downtown FCCN oered no-default loans.
In addition, Little People FCCN and Downtown FCCN provided similar opportunities for peer support. These included educator
recognition events, social events for families, children, and educators, and networking at training. Neither oered formal peer
support groups or cohorts, which research shows have potential for improving educator outcomes, reducing isolation, and enhancing
educator self-ecacy, which may influence the quality of care oered (Lanigan, 2011).
Beyond these general similarities in support services, two themes emerged from our interviews about the benefits for educators of
network participation. One theme was the general support that educators could count on in their daily experience of providing child
care. The other was the sense of professionalism that the networks provided.
DAILY SUPPORT
Aliation with a network mitigated the isolation that is a common factor for FCC educators who often work alone for long hours.
Educators at both networks cited consistent regular help they received from the network. The network was always there when they
had a problem. An educator at Downtown FCCN put it this way: “The support they give us is unconditional.” Educators also valued
the networks’ commitment to their success. One educator at Little People FCCN explained: “I have someone in my back always
supporting [me],” and one at Downtown FCCN said, “They don’t let you fall on the mud. If they have to pull you out, they do that.”
A large part of this support was network responsiveness to questions, which made the work of managing a child care program easier
when educators confronted problems. “They help you step-by step,” one educator at Little People FCCN explained, and an educator
at Downtown FCCN reiterated this sentiment: “The communication and support … makes all our tasks, or each problem that we have,
easier.”
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER IV
52
SENSE OF PROFESSIONALISM
Network aliation also contributed to educators’ enhanced view of themselves as professionals. The following suggests how FCC
providers came to view themselves as FCC educators:
• “[Little People FCCN taught us] how to do the business and how to be professional with the parents, and how to take care of
the children professionally. Mostly like — people think, this is a babysitter. People make it look like it’s just a babysitter, but no,
it’s not only babysitter. This is more than that. This is education. We are educating the children. We’re showing them step-by-
step how to start life.”
• “[Downtown FCCN] explained to us the dierence between [how] to be a babysitter and to be a provider. It changed
the view of the parents and the people that I’m not a babysitter… I’m your educator. They help us with that… [Downtown
FCCN] always tries to help you grow as a woman, as a person, as a professional. They motivate us all to see ourselves as
professionals. They would tell us, ‘Remember, you’re not a babysitter, you’re an educator, you have been trained.’”
Professionalism also meant increased confidence as FCC educators who could support children’s development and manage a
business. Three statements from educators captured these feelings of self-ecacy:
• “I feel more accomplished. I can say I have advanced in my education and economically speaking.”
• “After working with these people, I feel great. I have blossomed, financially. I have succeeded because I feel content.”
• “I think they make you more professional and I think they give you opportunity and they give you courage to do work like a
professional.”
Across both networks, educators talked about support for personal and professional growth when they described how networks
could help beginners.
• “If you are a parent, if you know how to take care of a child but you don’t have the knowledge and you’re new. So [Little
People FCCN] is the best for them to start because they’re supporting. They’re coming with them and they’re helping every
minute. That’s the best way to start and to learn how to do the business.”
• “All the support that they need, they gonna have there with [Downtown FCCN]. We have many providers who come from the
other agencies, and never go back to the other one when they see the help that they have, the support that they have with
Downtown FCCN. Downtown FCCN, we just don’t move. We stay here.”
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER IV
53
CHAPTER V.
DISCUSSION
Our case studies suggest that network services to FCC are shaped by a multitude of factors including the needs and experiences of
families and educators in the communities served, and public policy systems such as licensing, subsidy, and QRIS.
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
We found distinctive dierences between the two networks (see Appendix D for comparison tables). They served dierent types
of communities, children, families, and educators, and they also operated in dierent state policy contexts. Little People FCCN
was located in a suburban area and served mostly white, middle- and upper-class professional families with infants and toddlers.
Families paid private tuition to educators for their children’s care. More than half of the FCC educators who participated in the study
self-identified as immigrants from Middle Eastern and South Asian countries, and many reported that English was not their first
language. More than half had a college or post-graduate degree. Approximately a third reported that they viewed their child care
work as a calling and another third, as an opportunity to work from home. Little People FCCN was a licensing agency, responsible for
monitoring compliance with regulations. It also provided support to educators who participated in the state’s QRIS, but who did not
receive subsidy reimbursement.
Downtown FCCN operated in a small city and served families, many experiencing poverty, who were eligible for child care subsidies,
served TANF priority populations, and families in the child welfare system. The majority of educators self-identified as Latinx. A third
reported their highest level of education as a high school degree or a GED. Two fifths saw their work as a career or calling and a
quarter, as an opportunity to work from home. Downtown FCCN administered the subsidy system as part of a statewide infrastructure
of supports for FCC. The network helped educators comply with licensing, but was not responsible for monitoring.
NETWORK SUPPORTS AND LEVELS OF QUALITY IN AFFILIATED FCC HOMES
We found variations in FCC quality between the two networks. Educators in both networks had good or acceptable CCAT-R ratings
on support for children's cognitive, language, and physical development, but there were dierences in the quality of their support
for children’s social-emotional development. There were also dierences in the health and safety of the environment and practices
between the two networks. Our findings suggest that these dierences may be related to the characteristics of the FCC educators
and their programs, as well as their service delivery approaches and their relationships to systems.
Educators at Downtown FCCN had lower ratings on nurturing, with scores in the poor range, compared to Little People FCCN
educators, who were rated as acceptable. In part, this finding may reflect educators’ level of education, which some research indicates
is linked to quality (Iruka & Forry, 2018; Schaack et al., 2017). Downtown FCCN educators were more likely to have lower educational
levels than those at Little People. The nurturing scores may also reflect dierences in group size and child-adult ratios, which studies
suggest may be associated with caregiver sensitivity and children’s positive outcomes (Forry et al., 2013). Educators at Downtown
FCCN cared for larger groups of children, with a wide range of ages compared to educators at Little People FCCN, who cared for
smaller numbers of children, mostly infants and toddlers.
Our findings also pointed to significant dierences in the ways that supports were delivered, which may explain some of the variation
in the quality of educator-child interactions. The vast majority of Little People FCCN educators reported that specialist visits focused
on discussions about the children in their care, including child development, the child care environment, and mixed-age groups
as well as curriculum and activities. Visits at Downtown FCCN, by contrast, primarily focused on crisis management, behavioral
challenges of children in care, and personal needs of educators and families. Fewer than half of the educators at Downtown FCCN
reported discussing child assessment, curriculum, or activities for children. This focus on challenges rather than on children’s
development, in general, may have been a response to Downtown FCCN’s population of children and families, who experienced many
stressors including poverty, trauma, and homelessness.
Dierences in the networks’ approaches to relationship-building may have also had an eect on their capacity to support FCC health
and safety practices. As a licensing agency, Little People FCCN had an intentional and frequent focus on monitoring, which may
explain the educators’ high health and safety scores. On the other hand, the surprise unannounced visits created tensions with some
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER V
54
educators and may have worked against the predictability and consistency of visits that are essential elements of building strong
relationships. By contrast, Downtown FCCN was not tasked with this enforcement role, which may have resulted in less attention to
health and safety checks and lower scores. Instead, Downtown focused on building relationships with educators, which may have
created tensions around giving dicult feedback about potential health and safety violations.
NETWORK SUPPORTS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF FCC BUSINESSES
We also found dierences between the two networks’ approaches to supporting sustainable FCC businesses. Little People FCCN
oered parent orientations about its child care services and lists of educators who might meet parent needs, but the network
expected educators to recruit families. By comparison, Downtown FCCN placed families with educators through its state contracts,
and had specific sta who helped with referral and enrollment.
These dierences may have aected enrollment, which, in turn, may have contributed to the income educators could earn from their
child care businesses. A significant proportion of Little People FCCN educators operated at less than full licensed capacity, which may
have meant less income. The relatively high fees paid by parents, however, may have compensated for lower enrollment. Educators at
Downtown FCCN, by contrast, were typically full, but the state reimbursement rate was low, which may have presented challenges for
educators with limited financial resources.
CULTURALLY-RESPONSIVE NETWORK SUPPORTS
The two networks in this study operated in dierent cultural communities and served educators and families from dierent cultural
and linguistic backgrounds. Some research suggests that culturally- responsive service delivery may shape educator engagement
and quality of care (Bromer & Korfmacher, 2017), although we do not have evidence from this study about how this aspect of service
delivery shaped quality outcomes. Downtown FCCN had a more intentional approach to culturally-responsive support than Little
People FCCN. At Downtown FCCN, there was a strong cultural match between sta and educators; all of the sta self-identified
as women of color, consistent with the population of educators in the network. Educators reported positive relationships with
sta, including trust and respect, as well as comfort and communication. All sta indicated that they provided personal support to
educators. Community partners noted the network’s ability to work with diverse populations of educators and families as a unique
strength of the organization.
By contrast, both specialists and educators at Little People FCCN discussed the cultural and linguistic dierences that sometimes
interfered with eective support. Most of the sta at Little People FCCN were white women serving educators who were mostly
immigrants from the Middle East.
NETWORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES OF CHILDREN IN FCC HOMES
Another notable dierence between the two networks in this study was the role of the network in supporting parents and families
of children enrolled in aliated FCC homes. In one of the first studies to examine FCC networks, Hershfield et al. (2005) made a
distinction between networks that served only providers and those that served providers as well as families of children in care. The
networks in this study shed light on these dierent approaches to support. Although Little People FCCN’s referral service for families
and processing of parent fees were certainly helpful services for families seeking child care, the majority of network sta and support
services were targeted towards FCC educators. Little People FCCN child care specialists helped navigate and sometimes mediate
educator-family relationships, but this was not a core component of their service delivery model.
By contrast, Downtown FCCN delivered supports to both FCC educators and to families of children in these programs. The network
had specialized sta whose job was to support and connect families in the subsidy and child welfare systems to resources, including a
social worker. Another core component of service delivery focused on families was provision of transportation to and from child care.
GAPS IN SERVICES ACROSS BOTH NETWORKS
We found some gaps in evidence-based practices across both networks. Neither network oered consistent curriculum support for
educators, which research indicates is a key feature of high-quality early care and education (Burchinal, 2018; NSECE Project Team,
2015b). Nor did we find evidence of delivery of comprehensive supports including developmental screening and mental health
consultation such as those oered by Head Start and Early Head Start.
Neither network had strong infrastructure for reflective sta supervision, which is an essential component of sta support across
youth and family serving agencies (Bromer & Korfmacher, 2017; Watson et al., 2014). Sta specialist jobs that require visits to
educator homes require many dierent skills including relationship-building, observation, knowledge about child development, ability
to oer emotional and personal support while still maintaining a professional stance. Sta at both networks, although particularly
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER V
55
those at Little People, reported challenges around setting professional boundaries in their work with educators. Several sta reported
giving out their personal cell phone numbers or being on call for educators outside of formal work hours. This challenge is one
that is cited across related fields including home visiting (Spielberger et al., 2013). Sta in our case studies did not report receiving
intentional and regular opportunities to reflect on their work with educators and think about strategies for strengthening these
professional relationships while maintaining healthy boundaries between professional and personal aspects of the work.
LIMITATIONS
Several aspects of this research limit the generalizability of the findings. The small sample size inherent in the case study design
limited the analyses we could conduct. For example, we were not able to detect any meaningful dierences in quality levels by
educator characteristics because of the small numbers of educators who participated in observations at each site. Much of our
data for this case study included self-report surveys and interviews, which may have contributed to selection bias. We could
only hypothesize connections between quality observations and network service delivery strategies based on triangulation of
observational, survey, and qualitative interview data. Finally, we were not able to collect data at both networks in all of the languages
spoken by aliated FCC educators which limited the scope of our research and the validity of some of our self-report data where
educators were responding to research prompts not in their preferred language.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER V
56
CHAPTER VI.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH
We conducted these case studies in 2019 before the advent of the pandemic, which has dramatically shifted the landscape of
providing face-to-face support. The strategies proposed here apply to pre-COVIID and post-COVID conditions if and when "normal"
social interactions can occur. Findings from these case studies have implications for future development of networks as a promising
quality improvement and supply-building strategy for the FCC sector.
IMPLICATIONS FOR HOW NETWORKS CAN SUPPORT
FCC QUALITY CAREGIVING
HELP FCC EDUCATORS WITH REGULAR MAINTENANCE OF HEALTH AND SAFETY PRACTICES.
Regardless of a network’s enforcement role, network visits to FCC homes can help educators develop strategies and routines around
maintenance of daily health and safety precautions and practices. Research suggests that continuous maintenance of health and
safety practices are a core component of high-quality HBCC (Blasberg et al., 2019). Continuous quality improvement approaches
that allow educators to use rapid cycle testing to improve practices may help educators implement better monitoring systems for
themselves (Bromer, Molloy, et al., 2020). Monitoring visits should help educators strategize systems and procedures for maintaining
safe environments.
INCREASE ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY MATERIALS FOR FCC HOMES INCLUDING HEALTH SAFETY
EQUIPMENT AND LEARNING MATERIALS FOR DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS.
Networks should consider providing funding for educators to purchase health and safety equipment for their FCC programs as well as
developing lending libraries that allow access to high-quality materials such as puzzles, fine and large motor materials, and books for
dierent age groups of children in care.
PARTNER WITH QRIS TO OFFER SUPPORT THROUGH TRUSTED FAMILY CHILD CARE SPECIALISTS.
Networks may be well-positioned to oer targeted QRIS support around FCC participation in quality improvement. FCC educators
may be more likely to engage in QRIS if the help comes from a trusted network rather than a state specialist.
USE CULTURALLY-SENSITIVE PRACTICES TO RECRUIT, ENGAGE, AND SUSTAIN FCC PARTICIPATION
IN NETWORKS AND IN QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES.
Culturally-responsive network stang and approaches to supporting FCC educators may increase FCC engagement in network
services. Networks should consider hiring sta who reflect the racial, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds of educators and families
served. Materials and trainings should be oered in languages that are preferred by educators and families.
ENGAGE IN RELATIONSHIP-BASED PRACTICES WITH FCC EDUCATORS COMBINED WITH HIGH-
QUALITY EARLY CHILDHOOD CONTENT.
Network supports may be most likely to shift FCC educator practices with children when they are both rooted in strong, trusting
relationships as well as in how to translate child development content into evidence-based practices. Relationships without content
may not improve quality and content without strong relationships may not engage educators in processes of improvement.
OFFER SUPPORT TO STAFF AROUND SETTING CLEAR BOUNDARIES BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL
AND PERSONAL ASPECTS OF WORKING WITH FCC EDUCATORS.
Network sta, like those at many other social service agencies, may feel compelled to extend support to educators and families
beyond their work hours. Network sta who oer support and develop personal connections with FCC educators may find
themselves engaged in what social work practice refers to as “dual relationships” (Dewane, 2010). This blurring of professional and
personal relationships may compromise the quality of support and lead to sta burnout. Networks might consider giving sta work
cell phones or helping them set up “on call” evening hours for educators that help formalize the extended support.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER VI
57
SUPPORT FAMILIES OF CHILDREN IN FCC HOMES THROUGH SPECIALIZED STAFF AND
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES.
Networks have the potential to support families as well as FCC educators. Supporting families requires additional stang and referral
resources including mental health consultation, social work sta, financial, transportation, food, and housing supports as well as
access to health services for children and families. Head Start and Early Head Start programs oer an evidence-based model of
comprehensive, two-generation support structures that serve both early childhood educators and the children and families in their
programs.
OFFER TRAINING, SUPPORT, AND SUPERVISION TO NETWORK STAFF WHO WORK DIRECTLY WITH
FCC EDUCATORS.
Sta training, support, and supervision are key components of creating a network culture that values the process of quality
improvement at all levels. Regular and intentional reflective supervision of all sta who work directly with FCC educators may help
sta increase culturally responsive interactions, improve the quality of support oered, and intensify their focus on quality caregiving.
IMPLICATIONS FOR HOW NETWORKS CAN SUPPORT
FCC SUSTAINABILTY
DEVELOP CONTRACTS WITH STATE SUBSIDY SYSTEMS TO INCREASE RECRUITMENT AND
ENROLLMENT OF FAMILIES IN FCC HOMES.
Contracts allow networks to guarantee a designated number of slots for children in aliated FCC homes and to process parent
subsidy payments for FCC educators. Contracts may be one strategy for supporting full enrollment in FCC homes.
HELP FCC EDUCATORS WITH REQUIRED PAPERWORK FOR LICENSING AND SUBSIDY
PARTICIPATION.
Networks spend time helping educators with paperwork and other administrative tasks that licensing and subsidy systems require
including keeping track of enrollment, child health records, and professional development hours. Networks may address barriers that
educators face by translating materials into preferred languages of educators and families or oering computer support for accessing
online trainings and applications.
OFFER TRAINING ON FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING STRATEGIES THAT GO BEYOND
RECORDKEEPING AND CONTRACTS WITH FAMILIES.
Networks have the potential to help educators develop business skills and practices that are most likely to lead to sustainable
operations. Educators may need technical assistance around marketing and recruitment strategies as well as financial management.
OFFER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR HOME REPAIRS AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORTS
NEEDED IN FCC HOMES AS WELL AS FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
FCC educators may need financial help to address the regular wear and tear on their homes that results from doing child care in a
home setting. FCC educators may also need direct financial help to enroll in credential and college courses.
FACILITATE FORMAL PEER SUPPORT ACTIVITIES FOR FCC EDUCATORS THAT SUPPORT FCC
LEADERSHIP AND GROWTH.
Formal peer support activities may lead to increase educator engagement in quality improvement as well as increased ecacy and
professionalism. Networks that work with FCC educators as equal partners have opportunities to develop leadership in the field.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER VI
58
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This case study report sets the groundwork for future research on network eectiveness. The current study suggests potential links
between network practices and quality of educator-child interactions and the child care environment. Future research could further
examine how specific implementation practices such as use of curriculum or monthly versus twice monthly visits are linked to quality
practices. For example, we identified cultural responsiveness as a promising implementation practice. Future research might examine
whether cultural alignment between network sta and FCC educators leads to greater quality outcomes.
Another area ripe for future research regards how networks support families. The two networks in our case study took dierent
approaches to working with very dierent populations of families. For networks that oer services to parents in addition to
supporting FCC homes, how do these specific supports shape child and family outcomes? Additionally, how do networks support FCC
educator-family relationships? This is an area of inquiry that we did not fully examine in this study. Beyond mediating conflicts that
arise around policies between educators and parents, how do networks help FCC educators build lasting and meaningful partnerships
with families that encourage family engagement in their children’s learning?
Our study examined how FCC enrollment might be shaped by network business supports around recruitment and marketing and
subsidy system facilitation. Future research might look deeper at other business or sustainability outcomes such as financial well-
being, economic self-suciency, or percent of household income from FCC. Links between specific network supports and measures
of economic sustainability in FCC homes may oer new insights into network eectiveness.
Finally, no research currently exists on how network aliation may shape child outcomes. Such research would require an
experimental design. The approaches to network support described in these case studies may be the first step towards identifying
models that can be replicated in demonstration studies that examine a range of possible outcomes for participating educators,
children, and families.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
CHAPTER VI
59
REFERENCES
Bassok, D., Fitzpatrick, M., Greenberg, E., & Loeb, S. (2016). Within- and between-sector quality dierences in early childhood
education and care. Child Development, 87(5), 1627–1645. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12551
Blasberg, A., Bromer, J., Nugent, C., Porter, T., Shivers, E.M., Tonyan, H., Tout, K., & Weber, B. (2019). A conceptual model for quality in
home-based child care, OPRE Report #2019-37. Oce of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/cceepra_hbcc_
conceptual_model_508b.pdf
Bromer, J., & Korfmacher, J. (2017). Providing high-quality support services to home-based child care: A conceptual model and
literature review. Early Education and Development, 28(6), 745–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1256720
Bromer, J., & Porter, T. (2019). Mapping the family child care network landscape: Findings from the National Study of Family Child Care
Networks. Erikson Institute. https://www.erikson.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/FCC-Network-Landscape_Technical-
Report_Erikson-Institute_Jan2019.pdf
Bromer, J., Malloy, P., Porter, T., & Reardon, M. (2020). Erikson Institute’s family child care quality improvement learning collaborative
pilot: Lessons learned. Erikson Institute. https://www.erikson.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Lessons-Learned-
Brief-2020.pdf
Bromer, J., Ragonese-Barnes, M., Korfmacher, J., & Kim, K (2020). The Relationship-Based Support for Home-Based Child Care
assessment tool manual. Erikson Institute. https://www.erikson.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/RBS-HBCC_Manual.pdf
Bromer, J., Van Haitsma, M., Daley, K., & Modigliani, K. (2009). Staed support networks and quality in family child care: Findings from
the Family Child Care Network Impact Study. Herr Research Center for Children and Social Policy, Erikson Institute. https://
www.erikson.edu/wp-content/uploads/fccnetwork_execsummary1.pdf
Burchinal, M. (2018). Measuring early care and education quality. Child Development Perspectives, 12(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cdep.12260.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Dewane, C. J. (2010). Respecting boundaries – the don’ts of dual relationships. Social work today, 10(1), 18. https://www.
socialworktoday.com/archive/012610p18.shtml
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Etter, K., & Capizzano, J. (2018). Early learning ventures: early head start-child care partnership model: Final evaluation. Early Learning
Ventures. http://earlylearningventures.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Evaluation_Report-small2-min-final.pdf
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the
literature (FMHI Publication No. 231). University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute,
National Implementation Research Network. https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-
MonographFull-01-2005.pdf
Forry, N., Anderson, R., Banghart, P., Zaslow, M., Kreader, J.L., & Chrisler, A. (2011). Linking home-based child care and state-funded
preschool: The community connections preschool program (Illinois Action for Children). Evaluation Phase 1– Implementation
Study. Child Trends and National Center for Children in Poverty. http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_1036.pdf
60
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
VII. REFERENCES
Forry, N., Bromer, J., Chrisler, A., Rothenberg, L., Simkin, S., & Daneri. P. (2012) Family-provider relationship quality: Review of
conceptual and empirical literature of family-provider relationships. OPRE Report #2012-46. Oce of Planning, Research,
and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.
hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/fprq_literature_review.pdf
Forry, N., Iruka, I., Tout, K., Torquati, J., Susman-Stillman, A., Bryant, D., & Daneri, M. P. (2013). Predictors of quality and child outcomes
in family child care settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(4), 893–904. https://doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.05.006
Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Sociology Press.
Gray, S.A. (2015). Widening the circle of security: A Quasi-experimental evaluation of attachment-based professional development for
family child care providers. Infant Mental Health Journal, 36(3), 308-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21513
Halle, T., Metz, A., & Martinez-Beck, I. (Eds.), (2013). Applying implementation science in early childhood programs and systems.
Brookes.
Harms, T., Cryer, D., & Cliord, R.M. (2007). Family Child Care Environment Rating Scale revised edition. Teachers College Press.
Hershfield, B., Moeller, A., Cohen, A. J., & the Mills Consulting Group. (2005). Family child care networks/systems: A model for
expanding community resources. Child Welfare League of America.
Iruka, I. U., & Forry, N.D. (2018). Links between patterns of quality in diverse settings and children’s early outcomes. Journal of
Education, 198(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057418800941
Jeon, L., Kyong-Ah Kwon, K-A., & Choi, J.Y. (2018). Family child care providers’ responsiveness toward children: The role of
professional support and perceived stress. Children and Youth Services Review, 94, 500–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2018.08.023
Lanigan, J.D. (2011). Family child care providers’ perspectives regarding eective professional development and their role in the child
care system: A Qualitative study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 399-409.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-010-0420-2
Laughlin, L. (2013). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2011. Current Population Reports, P70-135. U.S. Census
Bureau. https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p70-135.pdf
McCabe, L., & Cochran, M. (2008). Can home visiting increase the quality of home- based child care? Findings from the Caring for
Quality project. Cornell Early Childhood Program. https://static1.squarespace. com/static/56be46a6b6aa60dbb45e41a5/t/58
a620da59cc68856a5fd148/1487282395310/McCabe+Research+Brief.pdf
National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance (NCECQA). (2020). Addressing the decreasing number of family child care
providers in the United States. National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance. https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/
default/files/public/addressing_decreasing_fcc_providers_revised_march2020_final.pdf
National Survey of Early Care and Education (NSECE) Project Team (2013). Number and characteristics of early care and education
teachers and caregivers: Initial findings from the national survey of early care and education, OPRE Report #2013-38. Oce
of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nsece_wf_brief_102913_0.pdf
National Survey of Early Care and Education Project Team (2015a). Fact Sheet: Provision of Early Care and Education during Non-
Standard Hours, OPRE Report No. 2015-44. Oce of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/factsheet_
nonstandard_hours_provision_of_ece_toopre_041715_508.pdf
National Survey of Early Care and Education Project Team (2015b). Measuring Predictors of Quality in Early Care and Education
Settings in the National Survey of Early Care and Education, OPRE Report #2015-93. Oce of Planning, Research and
Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.
gov/sites/default/files/opre/measuring_predictors_of_quality_mpoq_in_the_nsece_final_092315_b508.pdf
61
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
VII. REFERENCES
Oce of Child Care. (2014). FY 2011 CCDF data tables (final). Oce of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/resource/fy-2011-ccdf-data-tables-final.
Oce of Child Care. (2019). FY 2017 CCDF data tables (preliminary). Oce of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2019. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/resource/preliminary-fy2017
Paulsell, D., Porter, T., Kirby, G., Boller, K., Martin, E.S., Burwick, A., Ross, C., & Begnoche, C. (2010). Supporting quality in home-based
child care: Initiative design and evaluation options. Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/
opre/supporting_options.pdf
Porter, T., & Bromer, J. (2020). Delivering services to meet the needs of HBCC providers: Findings from the director interviews sub-
study of the National Study of Family Child Care Networks. Herr Research Center, Erikson Institute. https://www.erikson.
edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Delivering-Services-to-Meet-the-Needs-of-HBCC-National-Study-of-Family-Child-Care-
Network.pdf
Porter, T., & Reiman, K. (2016). Examining quality in a family child care: An evaluation of All Our Kin. All Our Kin. http://www.allourkin.
org/sites/default/files/ExaminingQualityinFCC2016.pdf
Porter, T., Rice, R., & Rivera, E. (2006). Assessing quality in family, friend and neighbor care: The child care assessment tool for relatives.
Bank Street College of Education.
Porter, T., Rice, R., Kearns, S., & Mabon, S. (2007). The child care assessment tool for relatives manual. Bank Street College of
Education.
Porter, T., Paulsell, D., Del Grosso, P., Avellar, S., Hass, R., & Vuong, L. (2010). A review of the literature on home-based child care:
Implications for future directions. U.S. Administration for Children and Families, Oce of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/lit_review.pdf
Schaack, D. D., Le, V.N., & Setodji, C.M. (2017). Home-based child care provider education and specialized training: associations with
caregiving quality and toddler social-emotional and cognitive outcomes. Early Education and Development, 28(6), 655–668.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1321927
Spielberger, J., Gitlow, E., Winje, C., Harden, A., & Banman, A. (2013). Building a system of support for evidence-based home visitation
programs in Illinois: Findings from year 3 of the Strong Foundations evaluation Chicago. Chapin Hall at the University of
Chicago. https://www.chapinhall.org/wp-content/uploads/Strong-Foundations_Year_3.pdf
Stoney, L., & Blank, S. (2011). Delivering quality: Strengthening the business side of early care and education. Opportunities Exchange.
https://opportunities-exchange.org/wp-content/uploads/OpEx_IssueBrief2_BizSide-final.pdf
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology—An overview. K.D. Norman & S.L.Y. Vannaeds (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 22-23) Sage Publications.
Watson, C., Gatti, N. S., Cox, M., Harrison, M., & Hennes, J. (2014). Reflective supervision and its impacts on early childhood
intervention. E. Nwokah & J. A. Sutterby (Eds.), Early childhood and special education: Advances in early education and
daycare (pp. 1–26) Emerald Group.
Zeng, S., Douglass, A., Lee, Y., & DelVecchio, B. (2020). Preliminary ecacy and feasibility of a business leadership training program
for small child care providers. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01046-4.
62
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
VII. REFERENCES
APPENDIX A:
METHODS SUPPLEMENTAL DETAIL
QUALITY OBSERVATIONS IN FCC HOMES
The CCAT-R assesses quality of caregiver-child interactions on four factors: 1) Caregiver Engagement in Activity with Focus Child;
2) Caregiver/ Child Bidirectional Communication; 3) Caregiver Unidirectional Communication with Focus Child; and 4) Caregiver
Nurturing. Caregiver Engagement in activity with child measures support for cognitive and physical development. Bidirectional
Communication assesses high-level support for language development through reciprocal interactions between the caregiver and the
child. By comparison, Unidirectional Communication measures lower-level language support that is primarily directed at the child.
Caregiver Nurturing measures support for children’s social-emotional development (Porter et al., 2007). Quality ratings are reported
separately for children under age three and those ages three through five.
The factor scores are calculated by adding up the items observed on the Action Communication Snapshot (ACS) which includes ten
20-second observations per cycle and Summary Behavior Checklist (SBC) which is based on the observations over each 6-minute
40-second cycle (Appendix A, Table A.1). If a factor includes items from both checklists, the two totals are averaged for the final
score. The CCAT-R sets thresholds for poor, acceptable, and good.
The Materials Checklist measures the availability, not quantity, of items like books and puzzles that could be found in the home. The
Health and Safety Checklist measures the presence of standard safety equipment such as electrical outlet covers and safety gates
as well as accepted practices such a putting babies to sleep on their backs and washing children’s hands after toileting. Items that
have the potential to cause death or serious injury are categorized as red-flag items. There are two versions of each Checklist, one for
children under age three, and another for children ages three through five.
Four observers were trained for reliability on the CCAT-R in spring, 2019 during a two- and a-half day in-person training at Erikson
Institute with the developer of the measure. All four observers achieved the CCAT-R standard for reliability, 80% accuracy on each
item, with a “gold standard” observer. Teams of two observers, one of whom was fluent in Spanish, completed observations in FCC
homes aliated with each network during July through September, 2019. Each observer completed between 14 and 38 observations
of focal children. We modified the CCAT-R protocol by conducting observations of educator-child interactions with children of
dierent age groups separately on the same observation day. An educator may have two observations within the same age group
depending on the age of the oldest and youngest child.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX A
63
TABLE A.1 CCAT-R FACTOR SCORE ITEMS
Caregiver Nurturing
1 SBC: Kiss or hugs child (caregiver interaction with FC)
2 SBC: Holds, pats or touches child (caregiver interaction with FC)
3 SBC: Comforts child (caregiver interaction with FC)
4 SBC: Caregiver does own activities excluding FC*
Caregiver Engagement in Activity with Focus Child
1 ACS: Names or labels (caregiver verbal communication with FC)
2 ACS: Other talk (caregiver verbal communication with FC)
3 ACS: Caregiver does activity with FC alone or with other children
4 ACS: Caregiver directs FC's activity without regard for child's interests*
5 ACS: Safe materials or objects (FC interacts with or attends to)
6 SBC: Smiling/laughing (predominant caregiver tone with FC)
7 SBC: Engaged (predominant caregiver tone with FC)
8 SBC: Not engaged (predominant caregiver tone with FC)*
Caregiver/Child Bidirectional Communication
1 ACS: Responds to FC language or vocalization (caregiver verbal communication with FC)
2 ACS: Requests language or vocalization (caregiver verbal communication with FC)
3 ACS: Verbally directs FC action (caregiver verbal communication with FC)
4 ACS: Repeats or builds on what child says (caregiver verbal communication with FC)
5 ACS: Names or labels (caregiver verbal communication with FC)
6 ACS: Other talk (caregiver verbal communication with FC)
7 ACS: Caregiver does activity with FC alone or with other children
8 ACS: FC talks or vocalizes to caregiver
9 ACS: FC interacts with or attends to caregiver
10 SBC: Smiling/laughing (predominant caregiver tone with FC)
11 SBC: Engaged (predominant caregiver tone with FC)
12 SBC: Not engaged (predominant caregiver tone with FC)*
13 SBC: Holds, pats or touches child (caregiver interaction with FC)
14 SBC: Comforts child (caregiver interaction with FC)
Caregiver Unidirectional Communication with Focus Child
1 ACS: Responds to FC language or vocalization (caregiver verbal communication with FC)
2 ACS: Requests language or vocalization (caregiver verbal communication with FC)
3 ACS: Verbally directs FC action (caregiver verbal communication with FC)
4 ACS: Repeats or builds on what child says (caregiver verbal communication with FC)
5 ACS: Names or labels (caregiver verbal communication with FC)
6 ACS: Caregiver directs FC's activity without regard for child's interests*
7 ACS: Self-talk (FC talks or vocalizes to)
8 ACS: FC interacts with or attends to caregiver
9 SBC: Kiss or hugs child (caregiver interaction with FC)
10 SBC: Holds, pats or touches child (caregiver interaction with FC)
FC=Focus Child; ACS=Action Communication Snapshot; SBC=Summary Behavior Checklist; *Negative item
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX A
64
SAMPLE
TABLE A.2 STUDY SAMPLE OVERVIEW
Little People
FCCN
Downtown
FCCN
Total
Staff experiences survey and interview 6 6 12
Educator experiences survey 46 29 75
Educator demographic survey only 12 18 30
Educator interview 12 9 21
Educator quality observations 26 28 54
Parent focus groups 4 12 16
One sta member at Downtown FCCN did not complete the survey; The educator interviews are a
subsample of the total survey sample; 18 educators at Downtown FCCN and 12 educators at Little People
FCCN who participated in quality observations only completed an abbreviated demographic survey
Our sample of educators varied depending on the type of data collected. Overall, 105 educators participated in at least one activity in
our study. A total of 75 educators responded to the Educator Experiences Survey, including all 21 educators who participated in the
telephone interviews. A total of 54 educators participated in the quality observations. Of these educators, only 24 responded to the
Educator Experiences Survey. The remaining 30 educators completed a demographic questionnaire.
DATA ANALYSIS
Every 4th transcript was double coded and inter-rater reliability was checked. The research team discussed any thematic codes that
had a kappa coecient below .80 and consensus was reached. In an iterative process, broad codes were analyzed further using sub-
codes.
Stata 14 was used for all quantitative data analysis. Several Educator Experiences Survey responses were incomplete. The research
team made the decision to keep survey responses as long as at least 10% of the survey questions were answered. For this reason,
some tables may have higher numbers of missing responses than others.
CCAT-R factor scores were calculated following the instructions in the user manual (Porter et al., 2007). The number of cycles for
each observation varied from 4-6. In order to compare scores across observations with a dierent number of cycles, an average score
per cycle was calculated by dividing each score by the number of cycles. Likewise, the thresholds for poor, acceptable, and good were
divided by 6 (the number of observation cycles used during the field test). For the materials checklist, percent of educators with an
item on the checklist was calculated by dividing the number of homes where a material or furniture item was observed by all of the
homes with an observation. The percentages for the Health and Safety Checklist were calculated out of applicable homes. All CCAT-R
analyses were done by the age group of the focal child (under three years old and three to five years old).
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX A
65
APPENDIX B:
LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN TABLES
TABLE B.1 STAFF CHARACTERISTICS
FROM SURVEY AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
% (N)
Gender
Female 100% (6)
Male 0% (0)
Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American 0% (0)
White 67% (4)
Hispanic origin or Latinx 17% (1)
Asian or Pacific Islander 17% (1)
Highest level of education
Bachelor's degree 33% (2)
Masters degree 67% (4)
Time employed by the network
2-5 years 33% (2)
6-10 years 33% (2)
11-20 years 17% (1)
More than 20 years 17% (1)
Prior job
Family child care educator 33% (2)
Other early care and education 33% (2)
Related field 17% (1)
Other 17% (1)
Age (estimated from birth year) Mean Range
50 40-67
Sample: Sta experiences survey (N=6)
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX B
66
TABLE B.2 EDUCATOR CHARACTERISTICS BY DATA TYPE AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Entire Sample
Educator Experiences
Survey
Interviews Observations
% (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)
Gender
(N=54) (N=42) (N=12) (N=26)
Female
100% (54) 100% (42) 100% (12) 100% (26)
Male
0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0)
Race/Ethnicity
(N=53) (N=41) (N=12) (N=26)
Black or African American
6% (3) 7% (3) 17% (2) 4% (1)
White
13% (7) 17% (7) 17% (2) 15% (4)
Hispanic origin or Latinx
13% (7) 12% (5) 0% (0) 15% (4)
Asian or Pacific Islander
68% (36) 63% (26) 67% (8) 65% (17)
Highest level of education
(N=53) (N=41) (N=12) (N=26)
High school diploma/GED or Less
26% (14) 20% (8) 25% (3) 35% (9)
Some college, no degree
26% (14) 22% (9) 8% (1) 27% (7)
Associate's degree
15% (8) 20% (8) 8% (1) 8% (2)
Bachelor's degree
23% (12) 24% (10) 33% (4) 27% (7)
Graduate degree
9% (5) 12% (5) 25% (3) 4% (1)
College or graduate level coursework
(N=39) (N=32) (N=9) (N=17)
Child development or early childhood education
77% (30) 75% (24) 89% (8) 88% (15)
Psychology
18% (7) 6% (2) 22% (2) 29% (5)
Business or administration
10% (4) 6% (2) 33% (3) 24% (4)
Elementary education
10% (4) 6% (2) 22% (2) 24% (4)
Social work
5% (2) 6% (2) 22% (2) 12% (2)
Nursing
8% (3) 6% (2) 11% (1) 12% (2)
None
15% (6) 19% (6) 0% (0) 0% (0)
Child development associate credential*
(N=42) (N=42) (N=12) (N=14)
Has CDA
40% (17) 40% (17) 25% (3) 43% (6)
Does not have CDA
60% (25) 60% (25) 75% (9) 57% (8)
Years as a family child care educator
(N=54) (N=42) (N=12) (N=26)
Less than 2 years
4% (2) 5% (2) 8% (1) 4% (1)
2-5 years
15% (8) 14% (6) 25% (3) 19% (5)
6-10 years
26% (14) 29% (12) 25% (3) 19% (5)
11-20 years
35% (19) 29% (12) 33% (4) 38% (10)
More than 20 years
20% (11) 24% (10) 8% (1) 19% (5)
Time spent with network
(N=53) (N=41) (N=12) (N=25)
6 months to 1 year
6% (3) 7% (3) 8% (1) 4% (1)
1-3 years
13% (7) 15% (6) 25% (3) 20% (5)
4-10 years
34% (18) 34% (14) 25% (3) 28% (7)
More than 10 years
47% (25) 44% (18) 42% (5) 48% (12)
Other paid jobs
(N=51) (N=40) (N=12) (N=25)
Has another paid job
2% (1) 3% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0)
Does not have another paid job
98% (50) 98% (39) 100% (12) 100% (25)
Diculty level living on household income
(N=51) (N=39) (N=12) (N=26)
Not at all dicult
18% (9) 15% (6) 33% (4) 23% (6)
A little dicult
41% (21) 38% (15) 17% (2) 42% (11)
Somewhat dicult
29% (15) 31% (12) 33% (4) 27% (7)
Very dicult
8% (4) 10% (4) 8% (1) 8% (2)
Extremely dicult
4% (2) 5% (2) 8% (1) 0% (0)
Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range
Educator Age (estimated from birth year)
(N=49) (N=38) (N=11) (N=23)
51.16 24-70 50.53 24-70 50.27 33-69 53.35 39-69
Samples: Full educator sample (N=58) (included 46 responses from educator experiences survey and 12 responses from demographic survey); Educator experiences survey
(N=46); Interview sample (N=12); Quality observation sample (N=26); The interviews are a subsample of the total survey sample; There is some overlap between survey
sample and observation sample; Out of educators who answered having completed at least some college for highest level of education; *Question not asked in demographic
survey, all data comes from full survey sample (N=46)
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX B
67
TABLE B.3 PARENT FOCUS GROUP
CHARACTERISTICS AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
% (N)
Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American 0% (0)
White 100% (4)
Hispanic origin or Latinx 25% (1)
Asian or Pacific Islander 25% (1)
Highest Level of Education
High school diploma/GED or less 0% (0)
Some college, no degree 25% (1)
Associate's degree 0% (0)
Bachelor's degree 0% (0)
Graduate degree 75% (3)
Employment Status
Employed 100% (4)
Not Employed 0% (0)
Relationship Status
Married/Live with a partner 100% (4)
Single 0% (0)
Non-traditional hours work
Only work traditional hours 33% (1)
Work non-traditional hours 67% (2)
Diculty living on household income
Not at all dicult 25% (1)
A little dicult 25% (1)
Somewhat dicult 25% (1)
Very dicult 25% (1)
Extremely dicult 0% (0)
Mean Range
Parent age
(estimated from birth year)
37.25 30-45
Length of time in community 13.00 8-19
Number of children 2.75 1-6
Sample: Parent focus group survey (N=4); N=3
TABLE B.4 EDUCATOR AND STAFF PERCEPTIONS
OF RELATIONSHIPS AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Educator
Perceptions
Specialists
Perceptions
% (N) % (N)
Supervisor/supervisee 30% (13) 40% (2)
Like a friend 27% (12) 0% (0)
Like family 16% (7) 0% (0)
Mentor/ mentee 11% (5) 40% (2)
A colleague or peer 11% (5) 0% (0)
Employer/ employee 2% (1) 0% (0)
Consultant/ client 2% (1) 20% (1)
Samples: Educator experiences survey (N=46) and sta experiences
survey of child care and quality specialists (N=5); N=44
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX B
68
TABLE B.5 EDUCATOR PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR SPECIALISTS AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Agree Disagree
% (N) % (N)
Emotional Connection
My specialist respects my child care work 98% (41) 2% (1)
I feel that my specialist appreciates me 93% (39) 7% (3)
I feel that my specialist cares about me even when I do things she does not agree with 67% (26) 33% (13)
My specialist oers help in response to my needs around caring for children 95% (40) 5% (2)
My specialist/visitor recognizes my strengths 93% (39) 7% (3)
I feel that my voice is heard 90% (38) 12% (5)
Goal Setting
We work together on setting goals 95% (41) 5% (2)
We agree on what is important for me to work on 98% (42) 2% (1)
It is easy to work with my specialist when planning for children in my care 91% (39) 9% (4)
I am an equal partner in the relationship I have with my specialist 86% (37) 14% (6)
Support Received
My specialist/home visitor is available when I have a problem or question 98% (40) 2% (1)
Talking with my specialist/visitor helps me with dicult situations 93% (37) 8% (3)
I feel comfortable sharing dicult situations with my specialist/visitor 93% (39) 7% (3)
Working with my specialist/visitor has made me feel more capable 93% (38) 7% (3)
My specialist/visitor understands my concerns 98% (40) 2% (1)
I feel I can pick up the phone and call my specialist/visitor 95% (39) 5% (2)
My specialist/visitor provides me with good information about how to take care of
children
95% (39) 5% (2)
My specialist/visitor provides me with good information about how to work with
parents and families
93% (38) 7% (3)
Sample: Educator experiences survey (N=46); Agree or Strongly Agree; Disagree or Strongly Disagree
N=42; N=39; N=43; N=41; N=40
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX B
69
TABLE B.6. EDUCATOR COMFORT SHARING INFORMATION ABOUT THEMSELVES AND THEIR PROGRAMS
AND STAFF KNOWLEDGE OF EDUCATOR CIRCUMSTANCES AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Educators Sta
Comfortable Majority of Educators
% (N) % (N)
If there are other adults and children living in your household 92% (36) 100% (5)
Your child care schedule 93% (37) 80% (4)
Your financial situation 83% (33) 40% (2)
The role that faith and religion play in your child care 83% (33) 20% (1)
Your culture and values 90% (36) 80% (4)
Changes in your home 95% (38) 60% (3)
Health or mental health issues you may experience 86% (32) 60% (3)
Health or mental health issues family members in your home may
experience
89% (33) 20% (1)
Other jobs you may hold in addition to child care 85% (33) 40% (2)
Sample 1: Educator experiences survey (N=46); 1Comfortable or Very Comfortable; N=39; N=40; N=37
Sample 2: Sta experiences survey of child care and quality specialists (N=5); Most or All
TABLE B.7 EDUCATOR REPORT OF THEIR COMFORT WITH HOME VISITS AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Agreement Disagreement
Comfort with home visits % N % N
Visits from a specialist make me feel uncomfortable 16% (7) 84% (37)
Visits take time away from caring for children 14% (6) 86% (37)
Visits are stressful for children in care 10% (4) 90% (38)
Sample: Educator experiences survey (N=46); Agree or Strongly Agree; Disagree or Strongly Disagree; N=44; N=43; N=42
TABLE B.8 STAFF REPORT OF EDUCATOR ENGAGEMENT IN VISITS AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Half of visits
to every visit
Never to occasionally
% (N) % (N)
Educators bring up things discussed in past conversations 40% (2) 60% (3)
Educators try out new suggested activities 20% (1) 80% (4)
Educators try out a new approach that was discussed 40% (2) 60% (3)
Educators initiate a discussion about their work with a child or family 80% (4) 20% (1)
Sample: Sta experiences survey of child care and quality specialists (N=5)
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX B
70
TABLE B.9 EDUCATOR PARTICIPATION IN PEER SUPPORTS AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
1
% N
Social activities for educators and families 44% (18)
An educator recognition event 44% (18)
A support group or networking meeting with other FCC educators 34% (14)
Peer mentoring from another FCC educator 15% (6)
Other 2% (1)
None 24% (10)
Sample: Educator experiences survey (N=46);
N=41; Note: Survey asked educators if they had participated in any of these activities within the last 12 months
TABLE B.10 CCAT-R SCORES FOR EDUCATORS BY AGE GROUP AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Actual Scores CCAT-R Ranges
Under 3 years old N Mean Min Max Poor Acceptable Good
Caregiver Nurturing 38 1.21 -0.17 2.4 <1.17 1.17-1.83 >1.83
Caregiver Engagement 38 11.83 4.92 16.75 <7.83 7.83-9.50 >9.50
Bidirectional Communication 38 16.2 8.92 30.08 <13.17 13.17-17.92 >17.92
Unidirectional Communication 38 8.99 4.08 17.42 <8.08 8.08-11.42 >11.42
Three to five years old N Mean Min Max Poor Acceptable Good
Caregiver Nurturing 7 0.45 -0.33 1.67 <0.50 0.50-0.83 >0.83
Caregiver Engagement 7 11.24 8.08 13.25 <7.33 7.33-9.42 >9.42
Bidirectional Communication 7 17.36 13.5 21.25 <12.83 12.83-18.08 >18.08
Unidirectional Communication 7 9.05 6.42 11.67 <6.58 6.58-10.17 >10.17
Sample: Quality observations by focus child (N=45)
TABLE B.11 EDUCATOR REPORT OF ACTIVITIES AND DISCUSSIONS DURING
SPECIALIST VISITS AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Half of visits
to every visit
Never
to occasionally
Activities % (N) % (N)
Discuss individual children 84% (37) 16% (7)
Discuss the child care environment 67% (29) 33% (14)
Plan curriculum and activities 60% (26) 40% (17)
Get help with child assessments 55% (22) 45% (18)
Discuss issues or concerns that come up with parents of children 51% (22) 49% (21)
Sample: Educator experiences survey (N=46); N=44; N=43; N=40
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX B
71
TABLE B.12 CCAT-R MATERIALS CHECKLIST AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Items Under 3 3-5 Years
Furnishings
Soft materials in area used for child care 96% 100%
A high chair or booster seat available for children who need them 88% ~
Adult chairs with materials used to boost child to table level, OR child size
table and chairs available
80% 86%
Children are allowed to find space to be alone 40% 43%
Materials
Cuddly, soft or pretend play toys like dolls or teddy bears 100% ~
Children’s books 100% 86%
Toys that teach color, size shape ~ 100%
Push or pull toys available 96% ~
Pretend play materials 96% 100%
Toys that talk or make music or sounds 96% 100%
Toys that have pieces that fit together 88% ~
Construction toys that can be put together in dierent ways 88% 86%
Toys that permit free expression ~ 86%
Toys that help learn numbers ~ 86%
Toys that let child work his/her muscles 80% ~
Painting, coloring or writing materials 72% 86%
Toys that require fine motor movements ~ 57%
Puzzles ~ 43%
Toys with wheels that children can ride on 64% 43%
Materials for sand and water play 32% 29%
Sample: FCC homes with a quality observation (N=25 for children under 3 and N=7 for children 3 and over); ~Item not included in
checklist for age group
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX B
72
TABLE B.13 CCAT-R HEALTH & SAFETY CHECKLIST AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Items Under 3 3 and over+
Food Preparation
Infants and toddlers are not put to bed with bottles, or only with bottles of water 100%+ ~
Hands are washed before food is prepared 94% 100%
Toddlers seated or head propped when holding own bottle 93% ~
Pot handles turned to back of stove* 86%+ N/A
Infants held while bottle fed 70% ~
Raw meat and fish handled appropriately N/A N/A
Environment
Clean, safe indoor space 100% ~
Blind cords out of infant's reach* 100% ~
No peeling or chipped paint in area children have access to 100% 100%
Smoke detector [or sprinkler] installed 100% 100%
Rotary fan or space heater is child-safe (heating coils or blades protected) 100%! 100%!
No protruding nails on furniture or boards 100% 100%
Dangerous substances are locked away or out of reach* 100% 100%!
Crib or playpen slats no more than 2 inches apart* 100% ~
Toys and objects small enough to be swallowed kept away from children* 100% 100%
Children do not use walker 100% ~
Area used for child care has enough light to read by 100% 100%
Temperature in area used for child care is comfortable enough that children or are not
shivering or sweating
100% 100%
Some fresh air in the area used for child care 100% 100%
Good space for resting (home is quiet) 100% 100%
Radiators and pipes covered 100%! 100%!
Electrical cords are inaccessible or secured* 96% 86%
Educator can see or hear children age 5 and under at all times* 96% 86%
Children are not left in play pens, swings, jumpers, strollers or other restraints for more than
half of the observation period unless sleeping
92% 86%
Gate on stairs for mobile infant or toddler* 89% ~
Quiet area for sick children available 81% 75%!
Safety caps on electrical sockets* 77% 100%
Routines
Children's hands are washed after using the toilet 100%! 100%!
Extra clothes available to change children 100%+ 100%!
Babies under one are put to sleep on back or side* 100%+ ~
Feeding is appropriate: cereal fed with spoon, sandwiches and finger food in small pieces 100% 100%
Children are safe while being changed* 100% 100%!
Caregiver washes hands with soap and water or sanitizing lotion after each diapering or when
helping children with toileting
94% 100%!
Diapers are checked and changed often (observe at least one checking during observation
period, no prolonged odor)
79% 75%!
Accessible place for children to wash hands (e.g., steps or stool near sink) 63% 100%
Outdoor Play
Covered sandbox 100%! 100%!
No protruding nails on outdoor play equipment 100% 100%!
Outdoor play area free of animal feces and/or broken glass 100% 100%!
Soft surface under swings (e.g., grass or dirt)* 90% 100%!
Sample: FCC homes with a quality observation (N=25 for children under 3 and N=7 for children 3 and over). The total N per item varies from 1-25
depending on the number of households where the item was applicable. ~Item not included in 3 and over checklist; *red flag item; !Fewer than 5
observations; + Fewer than 10 observations, interpret with caution
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX B
73
TABLE B.14 EDUCATOR REPORT OF BUSINESS SUPPORTS
AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
1
% (N)
Any Business Support 90% (37)
Enrolling families 73% (30)
Finding substitute care 63% (26)
Paperwork and record keeping 61% (25)
Managing a child care business 59% (24)
Developing contracts with families 51% (21)
Marketing 41% (17)
Tax preparation 34% (14)
Advocacy around zoning or budget cuts 15% (6)
Bulk purchasing opportunities 15% (6)
Sample: Educator experiences survey (N=46); N=41
TABLE B.15 STAFF EXPERIENCES WITH REFLECTIVE SUPERVISION AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Frequently occurs Infrequently occurs
My supervisor made my supervision a priority regardless of what was going
on within our program
100% (6) 0% (0)
I was able to think about what I've learned from recent visits to FCC homes 67% (4) 33% (2)
My supervisor helps me to set appropriate professional boundaries with
educators I work with
67% (4) 33% (2)
Supervision sessions provided me with protected time to talk about my
work amidst the busyness of our program
50% (3) 50% (3)
We focused on my work with educators free from other program
distractions
50% (3) 50% (3)
I had adequate time to "just talk" about the work I do with educators
without feeling rushed
50% (3) 50% (3)
I talked about my actions and how they aect the work I do with educators 50% (3) 50% (3)
My supervisor helped me "process" how my work can be done successfully 50% (3) 50% (3)
We scheduled and maintained weekly individual supervision sessions 33% (2) 67% (4)
Sample: Sta experiences survey (N=6); Occurs at least sometimes; Occurrs occasionally or rarely
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX B
74
TABLE B.16 STAFF REPORT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY AT LITTLE PEOPLE FCCN
Agreement Disagreement
People at this agency will support me if I try something new in my work 100% (6) 0% (0)
No one at this agency would deliberately act in a way that undermines
my eorts
100% (6) 0% (0)
I receive sucient recognition for my work 83% (5) 17% (1)
My unique skills and talents are valued and utilized by other sta at
this agency
67% (4) 33% (2)
It is dicult to asks other sta at this agency for help* 0% (0) 100% (6)
Sample: Sta experiences survey (N=6); Agree or Strongly Agree; Disagree or Strongly Disagree; *negative item
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX B
75
APPENDIX C:
DOWNTOWN FCCN TABLES
TABLE C.1 STAFF CHARACTERISTICS FROM SURVEY
AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
% (N)
Gender
Female 100% (5)
Male 0% (0)
Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American 0% (0)
White 20% (1)
Hispanic origin or Latinx 80% (4)
Asian or Pacific Islander 20% (1)
Highest Level of Education
Associate's degree 40% (2)
Bachelor's degree 60% (3)
Masters degree 0% (0)
Time employed by the network
Less than 2 years 25% (1)
2-5 years 25% (1)
6-10 years 50% (2)
Prior job
Family child care educator 40% (2)
Other early care and education 20% (1)
Related field 40% (2)
Other 0% (0)
Age (estimated from birth year) Mean Range
38 28-51
Sample: Sta experiences survey (N=5); N=4
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX C
76
TABLE C.2 EDUCATOR CHARACTERISTICS BY DATA TYPE AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Entire Sample
Educator Experiences
Survey
Interviews Observations
% (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)
Gender
(N=47) (N=29) (N=9) (N=28)
Female
100% (47) 100% (29) 100% (9) 100% (28)
Male
0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0)
Race/Ethnicity
(N=47) (N=29) (N=9) (N=28)
Black or African American
0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0)
White
9% (4) 7% (2) 11% (1) 11% (3)
Hispanic origin or Latinx
91% (43) 97% (28) 89% (8) 82% (23)
Other
4% (2) 3% (1) 11% (1) 4% (1)
Highest level of education
(N=47) (N=29) (N=9) (N=28)
High school diploma/GED or less
43% (20) 38% (11) 44% (4) 54% (15)
Some college, no degree
28% (13) 28% (8) 22% (2) 21% (6)
Associate's degree
13% (6) 17% (5) 11% (1) 14% (4)
Bachelor's degree
9% (4) 10% (3) 0% (0) 4% (1)
Graduate degree
9% (4) 7% (2) 22% (2) 7% (2)
College or graduate level coursework
(N=26) (N=17) (N=5) (N=13)
Child development or early childhood education
92% (24) 88% (15) 80% (4) 100% (13)
Psychology
31% (8) 41% (7) 60% (3) 23% (3)
Business or administration
23% (6) 18% (3) 0% (0) 31% (4)
Elementary education
12% (3) 18% (3) 20% (1) 0% (0)
Other
12% (3) 12% (2) 40% (2) 8% (1)
Child development associate credential (CDA)*
(N=27) (N=27) (N=9) (N=10)
Has CDA
59% (16) 59% (16) 56% (5) 70% (7)
Does not have CDA
41% (11) 41% (11) 44% (4) 30% (3)
Years as a family child care educator
(N=47) (N=29) (N=9) (N=28)
Less than 2 years
19% (9) 28% (8) 56% (5) 14% (4)
2-5 years
19% (9) 14% (4) 11% (1) 25% (7)
6-10 years
19% (9) 21% (6) 11% (1) 14% (4)
11-20 years
36% (17) 34% (10) 22% (2) 39% (11)
More than 20 years
6% (3) 3% (1) 0% (0) 7% (2)
Time spent with network
(N=46) (N=29) (N=9) (N=27)
Less than 6 months
7% (3) 10% (3) 11% (1) 0% (0)
6 months to 1 year
11% (5) 17% (5) 22% (2) 4% (1)
1-3 years
28% (13) 24% (7) 33% (3) 33% (9)
4-10 years
20% (9) 14% (4) 11% (1) 26% (7)
More than 10 years
35% (16) 34% (10) 22% (2) 37% (10)
Other paid jobs
(N=51) (N=40) (N=12) (N=25)
Has another paid job
2% (1) 3% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0)
Does not have another paid job
98% (50) 98% (39) 100% (12) 100% (25)
Diculty level living on household income
(N=47) (N=29) (N=9) (N=28)
Not at all dicult
43% (20) 45% (13) 33% (3) 39% (11)
A little dicult
28% (13) 21% (6) 33% (3) 29% (8)
Somewhat dicult
15% (7) 14% (4) 11% (1) 18% (5)
Very dicult
13% (6) 17% (5) 11% (1) 11% (3)
Extremely dicult
2% (1) 3% (1) 11% (1) 4% (1)
Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range
Educator Age (estimated from birth year)
(N=44) (N=28) (N=9) (N=25)
46.05 29-63 45.46 29-63 45.33 33-61 46.96 33-61
Samples: Full educator sample (N=47) (included 29 responses from educator experiences survey and 18 responses from demographic survey); Educator experiences survey
(N=29); Interview sample (N=9); Quality observation sample (N=28); The interviews are a subsample of the total survey sample. There is some overlap between survey
sample and observation sample; Out of educators who answered having completed at least some college for highest level of education; *Question not asked in demographic
survey, all data comes from full survey sample (N=29)
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX C
77
TABLE C.3 PARENT FOCUS GROUP
CHARACTERISTICS AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
% (N)
Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American 33% (4)
White 8% (1)
Hispanic origin or Latinx 58% (7)
Asian or Pacific Islander 17% (2)
Highest Level of Education
High school diploma/GED or less 67% (8)
Some college, no degree 17% (2)
Associate's degree 8% (1)
Bachelor's degree 0% (0)
Graduate degree 8% (1)
Employment Status
Employed 80% (8)
Not Employed 10% (1)
Other 10% (1)
Relationship Status
Married/Live with a partner 8% (1)
Single, live alone with my child(ren) 67% (8)
Single, live in a shared household (with relatives or friends) 8% (1)
Other 17% (2)
Non-traditional hour work
Only work traditional hours 33% (3)
Work non-traditional hours 67% (6)
Diculty living on household income
Not at all dicult 0% (0)
A little dicult 64% (7)
Somewhat dicult 27% (3)
Very dicult 9% (1)
Extremely dicult 0% (0)
Mean Range
Parent age (estimated from birth year) 31.56 19-45
Number of years in community 6.36 0.2-19
Number of children 2.08 1-4
Sample: Parent focus group survey (N=12); N=4; N=10; N=9; N=11;
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX C
78
TABLE C.4 EDUCATOR AND STAFF PERCEPTIONS
OF RELATIONSHIPS AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Educator
Perceptions
Specialists
Perceptions
% (N) % (N)
Supervisor/supervisee 38% (11) 0% (0)
A colleague or peer 31% (9) 0% (0)
Like a friend 24% (7) 33% (1)
Like family 7% (2) 0% (0)
Mentor/ mentee 0% (0) 33% (1)
Employer/ employee 0% (0) 0% (0)
Consultant/ client 0% (0) 33% (1)
Samples: Educator experiences survey (N=29) and sta experiences survey of child care specialists (N=3)
TABLE C.5 EDUCATOR PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR SPECIALISTS AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Agree Disagree
% (N) % (N)
Emotional Connection
My specialist respects my child care work 97% (28) 3% (1)
I feel that my specialist appreciates me 93% (27) 7% (2)
I feel that my specialist cares about me even when I do things she does not agree with 93% (26) 7% (2)
My specialist offers help in response to my needs around caring for children 97% (28) 3% (1)
My specialist/visitor recognizes my strengths 100% (28) 0% (0)
I feel that my voice is heard 93% (27) 7% (2)
Goal Setting
We work together on setting goals 93% (26) 7% (2)
We agree on what is important for me to work on 93% (26) 7% (2)
It is easy to work with my specialist when planning for children in my care 100% (28) 0% (0)
I am an equal partner in the relationship I have with my specialist 96% (27) 4% (1)
Support Received
My specialist/home visitor is available when I have a problem or question 100% (29) 0% (0)
Talking with my specialist/visitor helps me with difficult situations 97% (28) 3% (1)
I feel comfortable sharing difficult situations with my specialist/visitor 97% (28) 3% (1)
Working with my specialist/visitor has made me feel more capable 93% (27) 7% (2)
My specialist/visitor understands my concerns 97% (28) 3% (1)
I feel I can pick up the phone and call my specialist/visitor 100% (29) 0% (0)
My specialist/visitor provides me with good information about how to take care of
children
93% (27) 7% (2)
My specialist/visitor provides me with good information about how to work with
parents and families
93% (27) 7% (2)
Sample: Educator experiences survey (N=29); A lot like or Exactly like my specialist; Not at all or a little like my specialist; N=28
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX C
79
TABLE C.6 EDUCATOR COMFORT SHARING INFORMATION ABOUT THEMSELVES AND
THEIR PROGRAMS AND STAFF KNOWLEDGE OF EDUCATOR CIRCUMSTANCES AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Educators Sta
Comfortable Majority of Educators
% (N) % (N)
If there are other adults and children living in your household 96% (27) 67% (2)
Your child care schedule 100% (28) 100% (3)
Your financial situation 79% (22) 67% (2)
The role that faith and religion play in your child care 97% (28) 33% (1)
Your culture and values 100% (29) 100% (3)
Changes in your home 100% (28) 100% (3)
Health or mental health issues you may experience 90% (26) 33% (1)
Health or mental health issues family members in your home may
experience
79% (22) 33% (1)
Other jobs you may hold in addition to child care 93% (25) 100% (3)
Sample 1: Educator experiences survey (N=29); Comfortable or Very Comfortable; N=39; N=40; N=37
Sample 2: Sta experiences survey of child care specialists (N=3); Most or All
TABLE C.7 EDUCATOR REPORT OF THEIR COMFORT WITH HOME VISITS AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Agreement Disagreement
Comfort with home visits % N % N
Visits from a specialist make me feel uncomfortable 14% (4) 86% (25)
Visits take time away from caring for children 17% (5) 83% (24)
Visits are stressful for children in care 24% (7) 76% (22)
Sample: Educator experiences survey (N=29); Agree or Strongly Agree; Disagree or Strongly Disagree
TABLE C.8 STAFF REPORT OF EDUCATOR ENGAGEMENT IN VISITS AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Half of visits
to every visit
Never to occasionally
% (N) % (N)
Educators bring up things discussed in past conversations 67% (2) 33% (1)
Educators try out new suggested activities 33% (1) 67% (2)
Educators try out a new approach that was discussed 33% (1) 67% (2)
Educators initiate a discussion about their work with a child or family 100% (3) 0% (0)
Sample: Sta experiences survey of child care specialists (N=3)
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX C
80
TABLE C.9 EDUCATOR PARTICIPATION IN PEER SUPPORTS AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
% N
Social activities for educators and families 72% (21)
An educator recognition event 69% (20)
A support group or networking meeting with other FCC educators 48% (14)
Peer mentoring from another FCC educator 21% (6)
Other 7% (2)
None 3% (1)
Sample: Educator experiences survey (N=29); Note: Survey asked educators if they had participated in any of these
activities within the last 12 months
TABLE C.10 CCAT-R SCORES FOR EDUCATORS BY AGE GROUP AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Actual Scores CCAT-R Ranges
Under 3 years old N Mean Min Max Poor Acceptable Good
Caregiver Nurturing 29 0.34 -0.75 1.25 <1.17 1.17-1.83 >1.83
Caregiver Engagement 29 10.86 8.08 15.58 <7.83 7.83-9.50 >9.50
Bidirectional Communication 29 15.45 7.63 24.58 <13.17 13.17-17.92 >17.92
Unidirectional Communication 29 9.06 4.75 14.25 <8.08 8.08-11.42 >11.42
Three to five years old N Mean Min Max Poor Acceptable Good
Caregiver Nurturing 24 -0.08 -0.75 0.25 <0.50 0.50-0.83 >0.83
Caregiver Engagement 24 11.44 7.25 14.75 <7.33 7.33-9.42 >9.42
Bidirectional Communication 24 17.86 11.6 26.08 <12.83 12.83-18.08 >18.08
Unidirectional Communication 24 9.68 5.88 15.25 <6.58 6.58-10.17 >10.17
Sample: Quality observations by focus child (N=53)
TABLE C.11 EDUCATOR REPORT OF ACTIVITIES AND DISCUSSIONS
DURING SPECIALIST VISITS AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Half of visits
to every visit
Never
to occasionally
Activities % (N) % (N)
Discuss the child care environment 52% (15) 48% (14)
Get help with child assessments 45% (13) 55% (16)
Discuss individual children 45% (13) 55% (16)
Plan curriculum and activities 45% (13) 55% (16)
Discuss issues or concerns that come up with parents of children 38% (11) 62% (18)
Sample: Educator experiences survey (N=29)
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX C
81
TABLE C.12 CCAT-R MATERIALS CHECKLIST AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Items Under 3 3-5 Years
Furnishings
Children are allowed to find space to be alone 100% 100%
Adult chairs with materials used to boost child to table level, 88% ~
OR child size table and chairs available 96% 100%
Soft materials in area used for child care 96% 95%
A high chair or booster seat available for children who need them 84% ~
Materials
Toys that have pieces that fit together 100% ~
Pretend play materials 100% 100%
Painting, coloring or writing materials 100% 100%
Construction toys that can be put together in dierent ways 100% 100%
Children’s books 100% 100%
Toys that talk or make music or sounds 100% 95%
Cuddly, soft or pretend play toys like dolls or teddy bears 96% ~
Toys that permit free expression ~ 95%
Toys that help learn numbers ~ 95%
Toys that teach color, size shape ~ 86%
Toys that let child work his/her muscles 92% ~
Push or pull toys available 84% ~
Toys that require fine motor movements ~ 91%
Puzzles ~ 91%
Toys with wheels that children can ride on 56% 64%
Materials for sand and water play 48% 45%
Sample: FCC homes with a quality observation (N=25 for children under 3 and N=22 for children 3 and over); ~Item not included
in checklist for age group
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX C
82
TABLE C.13 CCAT-R HEALTH & SAFETY CHECKLIST AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Items Under 3 3 and over
Food Preparation
Hands are washed before food is prepared 100% 100%
Infants and toddlers are not put to bed with bottles, or only with bottles of water 100%! ~
Pot handles turned to back of stove* 92% 89%
Infants held while bottle fed 71%+ ~
Toddlers seated or head propped when holding own bottle 71%+ ~
Environment
Clean, safe indoor space 100% ~
Rotary fan or space heater is child-safe (heating coils or blades protected) 100%+ 100%+
No protruding nails on furniture or boards 100% 100%
Toys and objects small enough to be swallowed kept away from children* 100% 100%
Educator can see or hear children age 5 and under at all times* 100% 100%
Area used for child care has enough light to read by 100% 100%
Temperature in area used for child care is comfortable enough that children or are not
shivering or sweating
100% 100%
Some fresh air in the area used for child care 100% 100%
Quiet area for sick children available 100% 100%
Radiators and pipes covered 100%! 100%+
Children do not use walker 100% ~
Smoke detector [or sprinkler] installed 100% 94%
Children are not left in play pens, swings, jumpers, strollers or other restraints for more than
half of the observation period unless sleeping
96% 100%
Good space for resting (home is quiet) 96% 95%
Blind cords out of infant's reach* 96% ~
Crib or playpen slats no more than 2 inches apart* 95% ~
Dangerous substances are locked away or out of reach* 89%+ 88%+
Electrical cords are inaccessible or secured* 76% 73%
No peeling or chipped paint in area children have access to 75% 73%
Safety caps on electrical sockets* 65% 67%
Gate on stairs for mobile infant or toddler* 47% ~
Routines
Caregiver washes hands with soap and water or sanitizing lotion after each diapering or when
helping children with toileting
100% 100%+
Children's hands are washed after using the toilet 100% 100%+
Extra clothes available to change children 100%+ 100%+
Babies under one are put to sleep on back or side* 100%+ ~
Children are safe while being changed* 100% 100%+
Accessible place for children to wash hands (e.g., steps or stool near sink) 90% 84%
Feeding is appropriate: cereal fed with spoon, sandwiches and finger food in small pieces 94% 94%
Diapers are checked and changed often (observe at least one checking during observation
period, no prolonged odor)
74% 67%
Outdoor Play
No protruding nails on outdoor play equipment 100% 86%
Soft surface under swings (e.g., grass or dirt)* 100%! 75%!
Outdoor play area free of animal feces and/or broken glass 95% 88%
Covered sandbox 40%+ 17%+
Sample: FCC homes with a quality observation (N=25 for children under 3 and N=22 for children 3 and over). The total N per item varies from 1-25
depending on the number of households where the item was applicable. ~Item not included in 3 and over checklist; *red flag item; !Fewer than 5
observations; + Fewer than 10 observations, interpret with caution
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX C
83
TABLE C.14 EDUCATOR REPORT OF BUSINESS SUPPORTS
AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
% (N)
Any business support 93% (27)
Managing a child care business 66% (19)
Paperwork and record keeping 66% (19)
Finding substitute care 48% (14)
Developing contracts with families 45% (13)
Enrolling families 38% (11)
Marketing 38% (11)
Advocacy around zoning or budget cuts 21% (6)
Tax preparation 14% (4)
Bulk purchasing opportunities 3% (1)
Sample: Educator experiences survey (N=29)
TABLE C.15 STAFF REPORT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Agreement Disagreement
My unique skills and talents are valued and utilized by other sta at
this agency
100% (4) 0% (0)
People at this agency will support me if I try something new in my work 80% (4) 20% (1)
No one at this agency would deliberately act in a way that undermines
my eorts
80% (4) 20% (1)
I receive sucient recognition for my work 75% (3) 25% (1)
It is dicult to asks other sta at this agency for help* 0% (0) 100% (5)
Sample: Sta experiences survey (N=5); Agree or Strongly Agree; Disagree or Strongly Disagree; N=4; *negative item
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX C
84
TABLE C.16 STAFF EXPERIENCES WITH REFLECTIVE SUPERVISION AT DOWNTOWN FCCN
Frequently occurs Infrequently occurs
I was able to think about what I've learned from recent visits to FCC
homes
100% (5) 0% (0)
I talked about my actions and how they aect the work I do with
educators
100% (5) 0% (0)
We focused on my work with educators free from other program
distractions
80% (4) 20% (1)
I had adequate time to "just talk" about the work I do with educators
without feeling rushed
80% (4) 20% (1)
My supervisor made my supervision a priority regardless of what was going
on within our program
60% (3) 40% (2)
Supervision sessions provided me with protected time to talk about my
work amidst the busyness of our program
60% (3) 40% (2)
My supervisor helped me "process" how my work can be done successfully 60% (3) 40% (2)
My supervisor helps me to set appropriate professional boundaries with
educators I work with
60% (3) 40% (2)
We scheduled and maintained weekly individual supervision sessions 40% (2) 60% (3)
Sample: Sta experiences survey (N=5); Occurs at least sometimes; Occurrs occasionally or rarely
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX C
85
APPENDIX D:
COMPARISON TABLES
TABLE D.1 SELECTED EDUCATOR CHARACTERISTICS
Little People
FCCN
Downtown
FCCN
Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American 6% 0%
White 13% 9%
Hispanic origin or Latinx 13% 91%
Asian or Pacific Islander 68% 0%
Other 0% 4%
Highest level of education
High school diploma/GED or Less 26% 43%
Some college, no degree 26% 28%
Associate's degree 15% 13%
Bachelor's degree 23% 9%
Graduate degree 9% 9%
Primary reason for doing work
To have a job that lets me work at home 33% 24%
It is my personal calling or career 31% 45%
To help children 24% 24%
It is a step toward a related career 5% 3%
To help children's parents 5% 3%
To earn money 2% 0%
Note: This is a summary table. For more detail and information about the sample, please see tables 2.3, 3.3, 2.4, and 3.4.
TABLE D.2 EDUCATOR PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS
Little People
FCCN
Downtown
FCCN
Age groups
Infants (0-12 months) 64% 55%
Toddlers (13-36 months) 80% 83%
Preschoolers (3-5 years old, not in kindergarten) 31% 93%
School-agers (5 years and older 2% 62%
Has an assistant 29% 21%
Mean number of children 3.58 6.31
Note: This is a summary table. For more detail and information about the sample, please see tables 2.6 & 3.6.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX D
86
TABLE D.3 SELECTED STAFF CHARACTERISTICS
Little People
FCCN
Downtown
FCCN
Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American 0% 0%
White 67% 20%
Hispanic origin or Latinx 17% 80%
Asian or Pacific Islander 17% 20%
Prior work as a family child care educator 33% 40%
Prior work in other ECE 33% 20%
Note: This is a summary table. For more detail and information about the sample, please see tables B.1 & C.1
TABLE D.4 NETWORK SERVICES
Little People FCCN Downtown FCCN
Visits to Educators’ Homes
Monthly Twice monthly visits to FCC homes
Annual safety inspection visit
3 CACFP visits annually
QRIS coaching and visits
Training
Workshops or workshop series in evenings or
weekends (English only)
80-hour training provided in 5-hour sessions
every other weekend
4 professional days required by state
Peer support
40-hour peer-to-peer mentoring by a mentor
prior to opening their FCC home
Provider appreciation event; annual
international potluck
Educator recognition event; social activities for
educators, families, and children
Networking at trainings Networking at trainings
Business Support
Parent referrals Parent referrals
Invoicing of parent fees Invoicing of parent fees
Payments to educators Payments to educators
Training workshops on business management,
marketing, and tax preparation
Training workshops on business management,
marketing, and tax preparation
Substitute pool Substitute pool
Transportation for children
Financial support
Support with accessing public scholarships or
grants for continued education
Support with accessing public scholarships for
continued education
Liability insurance
Emergency fund for educators $1000 to $5000 no-default loans
Family supports
Referral service and processing of parent fees Specialized sta to support and connect
families to resources
Transportation to and from care
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX D
87
TABLE D.5 NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS
Little People FCCN Downtown FCCN
Geographic areas served Suburban Small urban
Characteristics of families served Mostly white, middle- to upper-class
professionals
Mostly families of color who were eligible
for CCDF child care subsidy, TANF priority
populations, and/or child welfare child care
supports
Revenue sources Private tuition from parents, membership
fees from educators
State child care subsidy programs
Regulatory role Licensing and monitoring Subsidy administration
Number of educators 92 62
Number of sta child care specialists 5, including a QRIS/CACFP specialist 3
Other sta Workforce development director Training coordinator, parent engagement
coordinator, social worker
TABLE D.6 AVERAGE OBSERVED QUALITY OF EDUCATOR-CHILD INTERACTIONS ON THE CCAT-R
Little People
FCCN
Downtown
FCCN
CCAT-R Ranges
Under 3 years old (N=38) (N=29) Poor Acceptable Good
Caregiver nurturing 1.21 0.34 <1.17 1.17-1.83 >1.83
Caregiver engagement 11.83 10.86 <7.83 7.83-9.50 >9.50
Bidirectional communication 16.2 15.45 <13.17 13.17-17.92 >17.92
Unidirectional communication 8.99 9.06 <8.08 8.08-11.42 >11.42
Three to five years old (N=7) (N=24) Poor Acceptable Good
Caregiver nurturing 0.45 -0.08 <0.50 0.50-0.83 >0.83
Caregiver engagement 11.24 11.44 <7.33 7.33-9.42 >9.42
Bidirectional communication 17.36 17.86 <12.83 12.83-18.08 >18.08
Unidirectional communication 9.05 9.68 <6.58 6.58-10.17 >10.17
Note: This is a summary table. For more detail and information about the sample, please see tables B.10 & C.10.
INSIDE FAMILY CHILD CARE NETWORKS
APPENDIX D
88
