Child Care Provider's Primary Language

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

English Spanish Other

Percentage

Licensed Family Child Care Provider Primary Language: English Licensed Family Child Care Provider Primary Language: Spanish Licensed Family Child Care Provider Primary Language: Other

Note: Bars indicate standard errors of the means. Bars that do not overlap indicate statistically significant differences. For example, children whose home language is Spanish are significantly more likely to have licensed family child care providers whose primary language is Spanish than licensed family child care ssproviders whose primary language is English or Other.

Age groups. The large majority of children attend-ing centers were toddlers and preschoolers, whereas licensed family child care homes served substantial numbers of children across the full age range, from infancy through school age. Two-thirds of the cen-ters, for example, did not serve infants, and only six percent of children in centers were infants (13%

were of school age). In contrast, 13 percent of chil-dren in licensed family child care homes were infants, and 21 percent were school-age children (see Figure 2.6).

Children with special needs. Over two-thirds (69%) of center directors reported that they served children with special needs, with an average of 7.8 children per center (or 9.7% of the children). In con-trast, only 30 percent of the licensed homes cared for children with special needs. Two-thirds of the center directors who enrolled children with special needs felt prepared to guide their staff in serving these chil-dren. Only one-third of the licensed family child care providers had received specific training for working with such children.

Two Years in Early Care and Education: A Community Portrait of Quality and Workforce Stability

40

2

Figure 2.6. Percentage of Children by Age Group, by Type of Care

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Infants Toddlers Preschool School-age

Percentage

Center

Licensed Family Child Care

Note: Bars indicate standard errors of the means. Bars that do not overlap indicate statistically significant differences.

For example, licensed family child care are significantly more likely than centers to care for Infants and Centers are significantly more likely to care for preschoolers than are licensed family child care.

was Spanish (F(2) = 5.024, p< .01).1 In contrast, teachers who spoke a language other than English or Spanish were more likely than English-speaking teachers (Games Howell, p<.05) and Spanish-speak-ing teachers (Games Howell, p<.05) to have children who spoke languages other than Spanish or English.

Spanish-speaking teachers were only marginally more likely (p=.057) to have Spanish-speaking chil-dren. The pattern was similar in licensed family

child care. Spanish-speaking providers were signifi-cantly more likely to provide care to children who spoke Spanish at home than were providers whose native language was not Spanish (F(2,57)=42.28, p<.001, Games Howell, p<.01). Providers whose native language was other than English or Spanish were more likely to serve children who spoke a lan-guage other than English or Spanish at home (F(2,57)=6.1, p<.01).

Children receiving subsidies. Three-quarters of centers but only one-third of family child care homes in our sample served subsidized children. Many of the centers that did serve this population enrolled very few subsidized

children. Most cen-ter directors and home providers who did not serve subsi-dized children indi-cated that they would be willing to do so (80% and 71%, respectively).

Licensed family child care providers were asked to esti-mate the family income level of the children in their care. We were thus able to examine the distribution of chil-dren, by their family income, across groups of providers defined by neighbor-hood income and

receipt of subsidies (see Figure 2.7). Subsidized providers in low-income neighborhoods had the largest percentage of children of low-income families (73%) (F(2,55)=44.97, p<.001). Providers in

middle-Chapter 2

41

The vast majority of center directors and licensed family child care providers serving subsidized chil-dren reported experiencing benefits from providing care for these families, and had every intention of continuing to do so in the future. Especially prominent were the good feelings they derived from helping families who could not afford care on their own.

These positive reactions were not dampened by the problems that were also frequently reported.

Three-fifths of center directors and home providers accepting subsidized children experienced problems with excessive paperwork, delayed or irregular payments, insufficient payment levels, dif-ficulties with agencies or caseworkers, and collecting payments from parents.

Largely unrecognized are the many ways in which child care providers serve as a critical link between families and the subsidy system. Nearly one-half of the providers serving subsidized families, for example, said that they had helped parents obtain subsidies or deal with the agency distributing subsidies, and 24 percent reported assisting parents with the paperwork required to obtain a subsidy.

3

Figure 2.7. Family Income of Children in Licensed Family Child Care, by Income Subsidy Groups

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Subsidized Low-income Nonsubsidized Middle-income Nonsubsidized

Percentage

Low-income Children Middle-income Children High-income Children

Note: Bars indicate standard errors of the means. Bars that do not overlap indicate statistically significant differences. For example, low-come children are significantly more likely to be in subsidized programs than are middle- or high-income children.

Group sizes. In center-based programs, classrooms that served toddlers and preschoolers had an average of 21.7 children enrolled per classroom. On the day of observation, an average of 16.6 children and 2.8 staff were present. Classes serving infants were sub-stantially smaller, with an average of 11.6 children enrolled. On the day of observation, infant classes had an average attendance of 9.1 children. These fig-ures for infants compare quite favorably to licensed family child care programs, which served an average of 9.3 (range of 1 to 22) children over the course of their operating hours, not including their own chil-dren, and were observed to care for an average of 5.7 children. One-third of these providers had young children of their own and, of this group, 90 percent reported that those children were present most of the

time while they were caring for other children.

Child-staff ratios. The centers, on average, employed 14 teaching staff. For toddlers and preschoolers, the average child-to-adult ratio was 6.1:1. The subsidized centers had notably better tod-dler/preschooler ratios of 5.7 children per adult than the 6.8 ratio observed in non-subsidized centers (t(65)

= 2.09, p< .05). Infants in centers experienced an average ratio of 3:1 and there were no differences by income or subsidy status of the center. (See Figure 2.8.) Again, this child-staff ratio for infants compares favorably with family child care homes, in which the mean child-staff ratio was 3.18:1 (encompassing all age groups). The child-to-adult ratio did not differ by the income or subsidy status of the home.

income neighborhoods enrolled mainly children of middle- and high-income families (86%).

Interestingly, non-subsidized providers in low-income neighborhoods also enrolled primarily chil-dren of middle- and high-income families (87%).

This is presumably driven by economic necessity, given the difficulty that low-income families have in covering the full cost of care when they do not receive subsidies.

Two Years in Early Care and Education: A Community Portrait of Quality and Workforce Stability

42