| Literature DB >> 34108828 |
Christen E Park1, Katherine M Zinsser1, Lieny Jeon2.
Abstract
Background: There is a concern regarding the decreasing number of family childcare (FCC) providers, due to the population that primarily relies on it. Compared to studies of center- and school-based preschool practitioners, the FCC literature is lacking robust workforce studies, including examinations of whether and how FCC providers' workplace appraisals of and feelings while at work are associated with indicators of interaction quality (relationships with families, relationships with children, and responsiveness to children's negative emotions) and the quality of their interactions with children and families. Objective: The present study examines how groups of FCC providers, categorized based on differences in appraisals of and feelings experienced at work, differ in the quality of interactions with children and families. The study seeks to extend the FCC literature by also describing socio-ecological factors, such as provider and program characteristics, of these different groups of providers. Method: Survey data was collected through a national study of FCC providers (N = 888). A person-centered analysis using hierarchical clustering was used to classify providers into groups based on their workplace appraisals and feelings experienced at work.Entities:
Keywords: Early childhood workforce; Family childcare; Family relationships; Professional commitment; Social–emotional teaching
Year: 2021 PMID: 34108828 PMCID: PMC8178656 DOI: 10.1007/s10566-021-09625-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Child Youth Care Forum ISSN: 1053-1890
FCC provider characteristics for overall sample and by cluster group
| Variable | Mean (SD) or frequency (%) | Positive appraisals/ feelings (n = 641) | Moderate appraisals/ feelings (n = 152) | Negative appraisals/ emotionally exhausted (n = 57) | Moderate appraisals/ emotionally exhausted (n = 22) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female (n(%)) | 868 (98.4%) | 628 (98.0%) | 149 (98.0%) | 54 (94.7%) | 21 (95.4%) |
| Race/ethnicity (%) White, non-hispanic | 663 (78.7%) | 479 (77.5%) | 122 (81.9%) | 44 (81.5%) | 18 (85.7%) |
| Black/African American | 126 (15.0%) | 101 (16.3%) | 16 (10.7%) | 8 (14.8%) | 1 (4.8%) |
| Multi-racial | 30 (3.6%) | 24 (3.9%) | 4 (2.7%) | 1 (1.9%) | 1 (4.8%) |
| Hispanic | 49 (5.7%) | 28 (4.4%) | 14 (9.2%) | 4 (7.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Other | 23 (2.7%) | 14 (2.3%) | 7 (4.7%) | 1 (1.9%) | 1 (4.8%) |
| Age (M(SD)) | 49.1 (11.8) | 50.5 (11.3) | 44.9 (11.4) | 45.8 (14.0) | 44.7 (13.1) |
| Marital status (M(%)) married | 611 (71.4%) | 445 (70.6%) | 108 (71.5%) | 41 (75.9%) | 17 (81.0%) |
| divorced/separated | 137 (16.0%) | 99 (15.7%) | 26 (17.2%) | 10 (18.5%) | 2 (9.5%) |
| Co-habiting | 24 (2.8%) | 19 (3.0%) | 4 (2.6%) | 1 (1.9%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Single | 84 (9.9%) | 67 (10.6%) | 13 (8.6%) | 2 (3.7%) | 2 (9.6%) |
| Household income (M) | $35,001–$40,000 | $35,001–$40,000 | $35,001–$40,000 | $35,001–$40,000 | $40,001–$50,000 |
| Income as FCC (M) | $25,001–$30,000 | $25,001–$30,000 | $20,001–$25,000 | $20,001–$25,000 | $15,001–$20,000 |
| Less than high school, no GED | 8 (0.9%) | 8 (1.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| High school diploma or GED | 214 (24.7%) | 181 (28.4%) | 26 (17.3%) | 5 (8.9%) | 2 (9.1%) |
| Some college, no degree | 292 (33.8%) | 212 (33.3%) | 54 (54.0%) | 19 (33.9%) | 7 (31.8%) |
| Associate degree | 143 (16.5%) | 102 (16.0%) | 26 (17.3%) | 15 (26.8%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Bachelor’s degree | 146 (16.9%) | 91 (14.3%) | 35 (23.3%) | 13 (23.2%) | 7 (31.8%) |
| Beyond bachelor’s degree | 62 (7.2%) | 43 (6.8%) | 9 (6.0%) | 4 (7.2%) | 6 (27.2%) |
| Years experience | 13.37 | 15.15 | 11.02 | 11.73 | 6.95 |
| Taken CD or ECE course beyond high school | 648 (76.1%) | 476 (76.2%) | 111 (73.5%) | 41 (75.9%) | 22 (90.9%) |
| PD participation | 661 (79.6%) | 81.10% | 75.20% | 75.90% | 57.10% |
| Relationship with schools/programs that provide resources | 510 (59.7%) | 61.20% | 54.30% | 58.50% | 57.10% |
| Chosen occupation | 0.16% | 5.52% | 1.89% | 90.48% | |
| Good while my children are young | 3.27% | 4.14% | 1.89% | 9.52% | |
| Stepping stone to related work | 12.58% | 40.69% | 67.92% | 0.00% | |
| Temporary occupation | 83.99% | 49.66% | 28.30% | 0.00% |
*ECE Early childhood education, CD Child development
Bivariate correlation of variables
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Professional commitment (again) | ||||||||||||
| 2. Professional | ||||||||||||
| Commitment (12 months) | 0.56 | |||||||||||
| 3. Job satisfaction | 0.82** | 0.58* | ||||||||||
| 4. Perceived competence | 0.54 | 0.40 | 0.77** | |||||||||
| 5. Emotional exhaustion | − 0.75** | − 0.50 | − 0.79** | − 0.57 | ||||||||
| 6. Stress | − 0.81** | − 0.57 | − 0.87** | − 0.63* | 0.82** | |||||||
| 7. Family relationships | 0.39 | 0.13 | 0.43 | 0.34 | − 0.61* | − 0.60* | ||||||
| 8. Child relationship (conflict) | − 0.64* | − 0.44 | − 0.66* | − 0.62* | 0.69* | 0.63* | − 0.62* | |||||
| 9. Child relationship | 0.29 | 0.14 | 0.32 | 0.39 | − 0.47 | -0.45 | 0.59* | − 0.68* | ||||
| 10. CCNES (expressive Encouragement) | 0.30 | 0.05 | 0.36 | 0.34 | − 0.48 | − 0.45 | 0.41 | − 0.54 | 0.49 | |||
| 11. CCNES (negative reactions) | − 0.42 | − 0.32 | − 0.42 | − 0.53 | 0.30 | 0.35 | − 0.42 | 0.57 | − 0.61* | − 0.51 | ||
| 12. CCNES (positively-focused reactions) | 0.37 | 0.09 | 0.43 | 0.47 | − 0.55 | − 0.52 | 0.48 | − 0.64* | 0.63* | 0.77** | − 0.56 | |
| N | 882 | 881 | 887 | 881 | 883 | 887 | 883 | 880 | 880 | 883 | 866 | 879 |
| Mean | 4.33 | 4.63 | 5.89 | 6.44 | 3.59 | 2.13 | 3.54 | 2.05 | 4.75 | 5.11 | 1.65 | 6.10 |
| SD | 1.00 | 0.92 | 1.36 | 1.00 | 1.89 | 0.93 | 0.46 | 0.60 | 0.33 | 0.98 | 0.75 | 0.77 |
Professional Commitment (Again): "Knowing what I do now, if I could decide all over again, I would become a childcare provider again;" Professional Commitment (12 months), "Within the next 12 months, I will continue to be a childcare provider;" CCNES: Coping with Children's Negative Emotions scale; * indicates p < 0.05. ** indicates p < 0.01
Fig. 1Visualization of cluster analysis. Participants are represented by points on the scatterplot
Mean FCC provider appraisal and experience of FCC work ratings by cluster group
| Scale | Positive appraisals/ feelings (n = 641) | Moderate appraisals/ feelings (n = 152) | Negative appraisals/ emotionally exhausted (n = 57) | Moderate appraisals/ emotionally exhausted (n = 22) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of sample in cluster | 72.2% | 17.12% | 6.4% | 2.5% | ||
| Commitment: i would be a FCC provider again** | 1–5 | 66.76** | 4.51 (0.85) | 3.98 (1.03) | 3.37 (1.48) | 3.95 (1.17) |
| Commitment: within the next 12 months** | 1–5 | 25.56** | 4.87 (0.42) | 4.77 (0.47) | 1.95 (1.11) | 3.59 (1.44) |
| Job satisfaction** | 1–7 | 74.78** | 6.29 (1.01) | 5.02 (1.35) | 4.23 (1.89) | 4.32 (1.81) |
| Perceived competence | 1–7 | 1.05 | 6.62 (0.78) | 5.99 (1.16) | 5.74 (1.71) | 6.23 (1.23) |
| Emotional exhaustion* | 1–7 | 3.98* | 3.35 (1.88) | 4.22(1.71) | 4.28 (1.95) | 4.32 (2.12) |
| Stress | 1–5 | 0.38 | 1.99 (0.88) | 2.38 (0.92) | 2.82 (1.04) | 2.50 (1.02) |
Standard deviations reported parenthetically. Significant analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) comparisons are marked; * = p < .05. ** = p < .0001
FCC program characteristics by cluster group
| Variable | Positive appraisals/ feelings (n = 641) | Moderate appraisals/ feelings (n = 152) | Negative appraisals/ Emotionally exhausted (n = 57) | Moderate appraisals/ emotionally exhausted (n = 22) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Have adult caregivers who help provide care (%) | 35.3% | 27.0% | 61.8% | 0.0% |
| Children in care each week (M) | 8.3 | 7.7 | 7.4 | 7.6 |
| FCC receiving subsidized care funding (%) | 44.5% | 41.5% | 35.1% | 45.5% |
| Hours of care per week (M) | 51.2 | 50.7 | 51.7 | 50.9 |
| Caring for mixed-age children (%) | 91.6% | 94.1% | 93.0% | 86.4% |
*ECE Early childhood education, CD Child development
Fig. 2Provider relationships with families and children by cluster group
Fig. 3Provider ratings in responsiveness to children’s negative emotions by cluster group