A closer look at kith and kin care: Exploring variability of quality within family, friend and neighbor care

Abstract

This exploratory study focused on the interactional dimensions of kith and kin care, and involved childcare providers living in low-income urban communities in Los Angeles (80% African American; 20% Latina). The focus of the present study was to examine: 1) The range and variability of each index of quality — providers' professional development background, provider–child engagement, provider sensitivity and environmental quality; 2) ethnic differences for each of these constructs; and 3) whether these various dimensions of quality were interrelated. Results indicated that there are distinct patterns of provider–child engagement practices, and providers' professional education experiences were related to those practices. Provider–child relationship quality was associated with providers' ethnicity and professional background. Environmental quality was also associated with professional education and provider sensitivity. Findings from this study add to a growing base of evidence that it is important to examine the variability in the quality of care by informal kith and kin childcare providers.

Introduction

Kith and kin or informal childcare may be the oldest and most widespread form of childcare, but relatively little is known about the quality or specific characteristics of this care. One of the major obstacles in studying informal childcare is reaching agreement on how we label and define this type of care. “Informal” or “kith and kin” childcare, which are terms that are often used interchangeably, includes care by grandmothers, aunts, and other relatives of the child, as well as care by friends and neighbors (Porter, Rice, & Mabon, 2003). These caregivers may or may not be legally exempt from state licensing requirements, depending on the state and the specific circumstances. In California, the location of this study, caregivers who receive public subsidies are subject to minimal regulations — these caregivers are referred to as “license-exempt.” This exploratory study involves “license-exempt” caregivers; however, for the sake of simplicity and conformity, in this paper they are referred to as “informal” or “kith and kin” providers.

Many parents — especially those who are transitioning from welfare to work — select informal care for their very young children (Fuller et al., 2004, Raikes et al., 2005, Susman-Stillman et al., 2004). Based on current numbers from a Resource and Referral agency serving zip codes that represent the neediest areas in Los Angeles, 70% of parents eligible for childcare subsidies in that area select “license-exempt” (kith and kin) care (Crystal Stairs, Inc., Annual Report, 2004). The scarcity of a body of literature and research on kith and kin or informal care has made it difficult for researchers, advocates and policy makers to assess the likely consequences for children's well-being. The purpose of this study was to add to the small but steadily growing base of research and literature on kith and kin providers. The intent of the present study was to explore and provide information regarding the quality of kith and kin childcare with a specific focus on: 1) Providers' professional development backgrounds; 2) positive caregiving, which includes provider–child engagement and provider sensitivity; and 3) associations between providers' professional development background, provider–child engagement, provider sensitivity, and environmental quality.

Childcare quality in all forms of care is associated with young children's developing skills (Andersson, 1989, Galinsky et al., 1994, Helburn, 1995, Lamb, 1998, McCartney, 1984, NICHD Early Childcare Research Network, 1998, Phillips et al., 1987). Some research suggests that high quality care is particularly beneficial for low-income families of color (Barnett, 1999, Bryant et al., 1993, Caughy et al., 1994, Currie, 2001) who are often more likely than European American families to select informal care versus formal care arrangements (Brown-Lyons et al., 2001, Capizzano and Adams, 2003, Galinsky et al., 1994). Given scant knowledge of how quality varies in informal childcare settings, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the specific features of informal care that are related to low-income children's developing skills.

Most of the studies that have examined informal care have compared this form of care to center-based childcare and regulated family childcare (e.g., Fuller et al., 2001, Fuller et al., 2004, Kisker et al., 1991, Kontos et al., 1995, Phillips and Bridgman, 1995). Informal childcare is frequently rated as providing the lowest quality childcare (using global assessments of quality); however, some research on childcare quality indicates that there may be more variation in quality within different types of childcare than between different types of childcare (Fuller et al., 2001). Comparisons across forms of care may mask this variation. Therefore, this study focused on variations within informal care. The complex interaction of factors that are associated with variations in the quality of care provided by informal providers can inform policy funding decisions such as kith and kin childcare subsidy reimbursement rates, support for training and outreach, and spending public dollars to strengthen the infrastructure for high quality childcare centers in low-income neighborhoods.

Defining and measuring quality in informal types of care is difficult, as the definitions of quality childcare vary across communities and families. Researchers, policy makers, parents, and providers do not always agree on definitions of quality for informal childcare arrangements (Kontos et al., 1995). In many investigations researchers who have examined quality in informal settings as compared to center care and licensed family day care homes (Fuller et al., 2001, Kisker et al., 1991, Kontos et al., 1995, Phillips and Bridgman, 1995) have been limited to standardized global measures of quality that have not been designed or validated for use in informal childcare settings (e.g., Fuller et al., 2004, Kontos et al., 1995). Increasingly, arguments have been made for the need to develop a measure of global quality that is designed and widely accepted for use in informal/kith and kin childcare settings (Porter, 2003, Susman-Stillman et al., 2004, Whitebook et al., 2003). In the absence of such a measure, quality in informal childcare settings continues to focus on traditional predictors and correlates of quality such as provider education, caregiver to child ratios, group size, provider resources, environmental provisions, and provider–child interactions. The present study focused on quality in informal childcare settings by examining constructs that are theoretically associated with and often predict optimal developmental outcomes for young children. These constructs, along with almost all of the measures used to represent them, have been widely used in quality of care studies (see Fuller et al., 2004, Kontos et al., 1995, Wishard et al., 2003). Each of these constructs — providers' professional development background characteristics, provider–child engagement, provider sensitivity and environmental quality — is discussed more fully in subsequent sections.

Much of what researchers consider quality is inherent in the childcare provider, and a provider's professional development characteristics are critical to sustaining high-quality childcare for young children (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). In the current study, providers' professional development background is also referred to as “personal investment.” Variability in the quality of regulated or formal childcare is often associated with measures that represent this construct; however, very little is known about the variability of providers' personal investment backgrounds in informal care settings. By examining the specific provider personal investment characteristics that have been shown contribute to variability in quality of care in other settings, findings may help researchers and policy makers devise meaningful improvements in these various factors as strategies for investments in the quality of informal care.

“Personal investment” includes general education level, specialized education in early childhood education, previous experience in an early childhood education (ECE) classroom, and specialized training, i.e., ECE workshops, technical assistance, and consultation with an ECE “specialist”. On average, informal providers who participate in studies have less formal education than providers in regulated childcare settings, and among informal providers, relative providers usually have the least amount of formal education (Fuller et al., 2001, Fuller et al., 2004, Kontos et al., 1995). Although an association has not been reported universally, caregivers' formal education in child development has been consistently associated with high-quality interactions and children's development (Howes, 1997, Howes et al., 2003, Howes et al., 1992, Kontos et al., 1995, Whitebook et al., 1989).

Nationally, there is a notable increase in the number of publicly and privately funded programs specifically aimed at encouraging informal providers to participate in specialized training. However, there is little to no evidence in the literature that attests to the effectiveness of specialized training in improving quality for informal providers. Kontos, Howes, and Galinsky (1996) examined whether training made a difference in quality for regulated family childcare providers. They found that while training increased global quality in two out of three childcare programs, process quality (e.g., interactions, activities and experiences with materials) was not affected. However, there are other studies that suggest recent, specialized training in child development for regulated providers is associated with quality interactions and children's developmental outcomes (Burchinal et al., 2002, Dunn, 1993, Fischer and Eheart, 1991, NICHD Early Childcare Research Network., 1996). Although these studies did not include informal caregivers, it was hypothesized that recent, specialized training in child development would be associated with quality interactions in kith and kin childcare.

Provider–child engagement includes responsive adult involvement, provider–child use of language, socialization strategies, and shared affect. Responsive and stimulating care both in childcare and at home is associated with better cognitive and social outcomes for young children (Burchinal and Cryer, 2003, Burchinal et al., 1996, Lamb, 1998). Furthermore, children who have warm, responsive and individualized interactions with caregivers in the context of a harmonious emotional climate are more likely to engage in competent behavior with peers and form secure attachment relationships with their childcare providers (Howes, 1999, Wishard et al., 2003).

When parents choose informal care for their child, they provide that child with a distinct set of experiences. For example, informal childcare providers typically work to provide a “home-like” setting that involves mostly free play (Goelman & Pence, 1987). Informal childcare environments may lack some of the physical advantages of center care, but they typically have fewer children per adult, which may mean that children receive more individual attention (Clarke-Stewart, Gruber, & Fitzgerald, 1994). It is likely that these informal providers may well have scored relatively low on a global environmental assessment, but show more variability on other indicators of quality such as responsive adult involvement, shared positive affect, language play, and positive socialization strategies.

There is congruence in the research literature on one essential element to a quality childcare setting: The presence of a sensitive, nurturing provider who can build positive and trusting relationships with children (Howes, 1999, Lamb, 1998, NICHD Early Childcare Research Network, 1998, Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000, Wishard et al., 2003). Researchers who study children and their caregivers in community-based childcare settings find that caregivers who are rated as sensitive and positively involved with the children in their care tend to construct positive provider–child attachment relationships (Goosen and van IJzendoorn, 1990, Wishard et al., 2003). Optimal provider–child relationships are particularly important for children living in difficult life circumstances, as they may provide a buffer against negative developmental outcomes normally associated with poverty (Garmezy, 1995, McLoyd, 1990, Pedersen et al., 1978). Other studies similarly report that the quality of children's early relationships with their providers in regulated childcare emerges as an important predictor of older school children's social relations with teachers and peers (Howes and Hamilton, 1993, Howes and Tonyan, 1999), their behavior problems (Howes and Ritchie, 1999, Howes and Ritchie, 2002, Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001) and school satisfaction and achievement (Baker, 1999, Peisner-Feinberg et al., 1999).

Environmental quality is included in this study because of well-documented associations between environmental quality and children's concurrent and long-term social and cognitive development (Lamb, 1998). The measures used most often to assess overall environmental quality of childcare programs are the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale (ECERS) for childcare centers (Harms & Clifford, 1984) and the Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS) for family childcare homes (Harms & Clifford, 1989). The latter environmental assessment tool rates six areas of caregiving practice: 1) Space and furnishings, 2) basic needs, 3) language and reasoning, 4) learning activities, 5) social development, and 6) adult needs. In studies using the FDCRS, which was developed for formal childcare settings, informal childcare often is rated lower than regulated programs (Fuller et al., 2001, Fuller et al., 2004, Hofferth, 1995, Kontos et al., 1995, Peth-Pierce, 1998). Recent findings from the Growing Up in Poverty Project (Fuller et al., 2004) rated kith and kin providers as having significantly lower environmental quality scores, as measured by the FDCRS, than regulated providers. Galinsky et al. (1994) reported similar findings. As Fuller and other researchers point out, it may be that the FDCRS, which was designed and validated with European American, middle-class, regulated family childcare providers, does not hold the same predictive and correlational validity when used with low-income ethnic minority informal childcare providers. Arguably, understanding and unpacking quality in kith and kin settings may require researchers to interpret findings on the FDCRS using a paradigm that is sensitive to the limited resources of most kith and kin providers.

This study explored some of the traditional predictors and correlates of childcare quality such as provider training and education, environmental provisions, and provider–child interactions. This approach to examining childcare quality was guided by a theoretical framework that is grounded in an ecological model that emphasizes the multiple layers of the childcare environment that influence children's experience in childcare (Phillips, Howes, & Whitebook, 1992). Previous work has demonstrated that childcare quality in family childcare homes (as well as center-based childcare) is affected by provider characteristics, such as the amount of training and education the provider has received (Blau, 2001). This study was also informed by another theoretical framework, which posits that the dimensions assessed by mainstream quality measures are important for all children, but those dimensions should be examined within the particular cultural context of low-income kith and kin providers of color (Wishard et al., 2003). As such, exploration of how providers' ethnicity relates to each of the constructs was also examined. It is important to move closer to an understanding of how not only proximal environmental characteristics contribute to childcare quality, but also how more distal environmental characteristics, such as one's cultural community, can contribute to our understanding of childcare quality in low-income kith and kin settings.

As sensitive and stimulating care are linked with children's concurrent development in childcare and their later developmental outcomes in school, and as a significant portion of low-income young children are spending their days or parts of their days in informal/kith and kin settings, it becomes clear that more evidence is needed regarding how multiple indicators of quality may be interrelated or not (Fuller et al., 2004, Raikes et al., 2005). Accordingly, the focus of the present exploratory study was to provide information regarding: 1) The range and variability of each index of quality — providers' professional development background, provider–child engagement, provider sensitivity and environmental quality; 2) ethnic differences for each of these constructs; and 3) whether these various dimensions of quality are interrelated.

The results from this inquiry have critical implications for decisions regarding the investment of public dollars on quality enhancement initiatives for kith and kin providers. Implementing the findings of studies that assess variability and correlates of kith and kin quality of care is one important way we can begin to ensure more equitable quality for those families selecting informal care. Fuller et al., 2004, Fuller et al., 2003 have offered evidence that shows “institutional factors (like state quality regulations) shape local quality through mechanisms that play-out differently among states and regions.” Arguably, the quality of care in home-based childcare (as well as center based childcare) is highly variable in many low-income communities, and institutional forces, like state-funded programs (including childcare subsidy receipt), can positively influence the quality of care in informal care settings through the implementation of evidence-based standards. But it is difficult to implement such standards with scarce observational childcare data from low-income neighborhoods. The issues explored in this study could be used to inform the creation of such standards and regulations.