Family Child Care

Family Child Care

Reference	Sample Description	Measures	Results
Fischer & Eheart (1991)	177 family day care providers (59 unlicensed) 1 non-English speaking	Telephone interviews Family Day Care Rating Scale	1. Training, affiliation with support networks, and years of schooling explain 69.82% of variations in caregiving practices. 2. Overall quality of care in family day care was low.
Goelman & Pence (1987)	105 children in 53 centers and 52 family day care providers Predominantly White (Canadian) SES varied 50% two-parent families Approximate ages 3 to 4 years (ages not provided)	Observational assessment and parent ratings of classroom quality Direct assessment of child outcomes (language, peer interactions)	1. Among children attending center-based care, quality of care did not predict language development scores. 2. Children in center-based care engaged in more high-quality "information activities" than did children in family day care. 3. However, for children in family day care, the amount of "information activities" was not related to quality. 4. Children attending high-quality family day care homes had higher average scores for language development than did children attending lower-quality family day care homes.
Howes & Stewart (1987)	55 children in 55 family day care homes Heterogeneous social classes and parent educational levels (including 18% low SES) 82% two-parent families Ages 11 to 30 months	Observational assessment of family day care quality Direct assessment and observer ratings of child outcomes	1. More changes of family day care provider were associated with lower-level play with objects and peers. 2. For boys, earlier child care entry and fewer changes in provider were also associated with higher-level play with objects. 3. Higher overall quality of care was related to higher levels of competent play with adults and with objects. For girls, the relationship was also significant for higher-level play with peers.
Kontos (1994)	57 children and 30 family day care providers Middle SES 82% two-parent families Ages 2½ to 4 years	Childrearing Practices Report Questionnaire on Social Support Cognitive Play Scale Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised Howes Peer Play Scale Classroom Behavior Inventory Family Day Care Rating Scale	1. Children in family day care homes that were rated at a higher level of overall quality were significantly less likely to engage in simple cognitive and social play, were rated as significantly more sociable, and scored higher in receptive vocabulary, controlling for maternal education, caregiver experience, and conditions of caregiving. 2. Children in higher-quality family day care homes who had mothers with more education and caregivers with less experience were rated as significantly more sociable. 3. Children in higher-quality family day care homes who had mothers with a higher level of education scored higher in receptive vocabulary.
Kontos, Howes, Shinn, & Galinsky (1995)	820 mothers, 225 children, and 226 providers in CA, TX, and NC 42% White, 23% African American, 31% Hispanic Heterogeneous social classes and maternal educational levels 81% 2-parent families Ages 10 months to 5 years	Arnett Scale of Caregiver Sensitivity Howes Involvement Scale Family Day Care Rating Scale Waters & Deane Attachment Q-set Smilansky's Cognitive Play Scale Limit Setting Measure Block & Block Child Rearing Attitudes Scale Adult Work Environment Providers' perceptions of quality	1. Parents and providers agreed on most important elements: child safety, parent-provider communication about child, warm relationship between provider and child. 2. Provider sensitivity and responsiveness correlated with children being more attached to the caregiver. 3. Higher-quality providers committed to work seek learning opportunities, plan, seek out other providers, are regulated, have more children, charge more, and use standard business practices. 4. Children who spent more time with their caregiver, were cared for in homes with more children per adult, and had caregivers who used more responsive interactions engaged in greater amount of play with objects; children with more educated mothers and more responsive caregivers engaged in more high-level object play. 5. Larger group size and child:staff ratios were related to more peer play. 6. Higher global quality was related to more object play, more high-level object play, and better child attachment security. However, higher global quality was related to less high-level peer play. 7. Neither family background characteristics nor child care characteristics predicted children's language development or social adjustment.
Kontos, Howes, Shinn, & Galinsky (1997)	186 child care providers to African American, European American, and Latino children More than half of children were from very-low-income or low-income families	Provider demographics Arnett Scale of Provider Sensitivity Adult Involvement Scale Family Day Care Rating Scale Howes Peer Play Scale (revised) Object Play Scale	1. Providers for moderate-income children were rated as more sensitive than providers for very-low-income children. 2. Latino children were more uninvolved with objects and watched more television than did European American children. 3. The majority of children were cared for by a provider in the same ethnic group.
Kontos, Hsu, & Dunn (1994)	60 caregivers in 30 classrooms and 24 child care centers 117 children (55 boys, 60 in centers) Ages 30 to 60 months	Group size and adult:child ratio Childrearing Practices Report Adult-child interactions Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale Family Day Care Rating Scale 2 cognitive play scales Slosson Intelligence Test Peer Play Scale Classroom Behavior Inventory-Preschool	1. There were significant differences in structure, process, and global quality characteristics between family day care homes and child care centers. 2. There were no differences in children's level of sociability between center care and home care. 3. Variations in caregiver training and how they interact with children make a difference to children's cognitive and social competence.

References: Family Child Care

Fischer, J. L., & Eheart, B. K. (1991). Family day care: A theoretical basis for improving quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(4), 549-563. EJ 441 878.

Goelman, H., & Pence, A. R. (1987). Effects of child care, family, and individual characteristics on children's language development: The Victoria Day Care Research Project. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in child care: What does the research tell us? Research Monographs of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (pp. 43-56). Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Howes, C., & Stewart, P. (1987). Child's play with adults, toys, and peers: An examination of family and child-care influences. Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 423-430. EJ 355 917.

Kontos, S. (1994). The ecology of family day care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9(1), 87-110. EJ 489 929.

Kontos, S., Howes, C., Shinn, M., & Galinsky, E. (1995). Quality in family child care and relative care. New York: Teachers College Press. ED 390 536.

Kontos, S., Howes, C., Shinn, M., & Galinsky, E. (1997). Children's experiences in family child care and relative care as a function of family income and ethnicity. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 386-403. EJ 554 323.

Kontos, S., Hsu, H., & Dunn, L. (1994). Children's cognitive and social competence in child care centers and family day-care homes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15(3), 387-411.