Family, Friend, and Neighbor Child Caregivers: Results of a Statewide Study to Determine Needs and Desires for Support

Abstract

Family, friend and neighbor (FFN) child caregivers represent a significant proportion of caregivers for young children. Yet, these caregivers receive little support for their services. In 2003, the First 5 California Children and Families Commission (First 5 California) began a study to determine the work-related needs of FFN caregivers in California. This paper reports on the results of all study activities, including focus groups and interviews with caregivers and parents. It details the specific needs related to licensing, materials and equipment, education and training, and support systems that were identified by FFN caregivers, parents, and other stakeholders as being important to improve the quality and working conditions of FFN care. It also discusses needs of agencies that provide services to FFN caregivers, including awareness of and knowledge about the population, funding and other resources, and professional development topics.

Family Child Care Providers’ Perspectives Regarding Effective Professional Development and Their Role in the Child Care System: A Qualitative Study

“…The vast majority of providers in the current study reported feeling isolated from sources of advice and support. This is consistent with previous studies of family, friends, and neighbor care involving both regulated and unregulated family child care homes (Annie E. Casey Foundation 2006; Drake et al 2006). The current study examined regulated family child care providers who operated in a state that required 10 h of annual professional development.…”

Supporting family child care and quality improvement: findings from an exploratory survey of Illinois child care resource and referral agency staff

“…Ackerman (2008) identified three aspects of working with FCC providers that coaches rated as their greatest challenges including: (1) working with providers who have personal issues; (2) observing inappropriate practices with children; and (3) working with providers who are not motivated to change caregiving practices. In a state-specific study of supports to FFN caregivers, agency directors reported that working with FFN caregivers was time intensive and that agencies often lacked adequate staff or funding to carry out the work (Drake et al 2006). …”

“…Nearly a third of staff reported wanting additional training in supervision and management. Drake et al (2006) found that agency staff would like additional knowledge on the specific needs of FFN caregivers as well as models of effective support and professional development for home-based child care providers. Ackerman (2008) found that QRIS coaches who only have a background in early childhood education and experience may lack the necessary skills and knowledge required to perform the work of quality improvement coaching.…”

“…Prior research on FCC providers finds that many providers experience isolation from other colleagues, early childhood resources, and supports (Bromer and Pick 2012;Drake et al 2006;Lanigan 2011;Porter et al 2010). As a result, it is not surprising that providers across studies report interest in opportunities for social and peer support and networking with other child care providers (Lanigan 2011;Liu and Anderson 2010;Rusby 2002;Shivers 2008).…”

“…In a qualitative examination of FCC provider participation in one state's professional development system over a threeyear time period, providers reported that ongoing cohort-based training was beneficial and that the opportunity to develop a trusting supportive relationship with a facilitator and other providers helped to reduce their experiences of isolation and marginalization (Lanigan 2011). In another state-specific study, Drake et al (2006) found that more isolated providers (i.e., those living in rural areas of the state) needed more support, and providers living in poverty needed more material resources for children in care.…”