Understanding the Child Care Decision-Making of Low- Income Working Families May 9, 2011 West Coast Poverty Center Ajay Chaudry, Urban Institute Julia.

Understanding the Child Care Decision-Making of

Low-Income Working Families

May 9, 2011 West Coast Poverty Center

Ajay Chaudry, Urban Institute Julia R. Henly, University of Chicago

Acknowledgements Collaboration and research support from:

Marcia Meyers Heather Sandstrom, Juan Pedroza, Alejandra Ros,

Sara Rolen

Generous funding from: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation,

Administration for Children and Families, USDHHS Research Development Grant for Policy Research on

U.S. Poverty, USDHHS Center on Early Childhood Research and the Joint

Center for Poverty Research, University of Chicago

2

Why focus on the case of child care decisions in particular?

Majority of parents confront child care decisions

Considerable public expenditures go toward child care 12 billion dollars, state and federal combined (Matthews,

2011)

Child care decisions are complex

Access and use remain highly stratified by family income and other demographic characteristics.

Significant gaps in knowledge

3

Presentation draws from 3 Projects

Conceptual Frameworks for Understanding Child Care Decision-Making (co-PIs: Ajay Chaudry, Julia Henly, Marcia Meyers)

Urban Institute Study of Child Care Choices of Low-Income Working Families (PI: Ajay Chaudry)

University of Chicago Study of Child Care Fit (PI: Julia Henly)

4

Overview of Presentation Three conceptual models of decision making

applied to child care decisions Urban Institute Study of Child Care Choices

Unpacking parental preferences and decision factors Contexts and constraints shaping decisions Focus on immigrant families

Study of Work Child Care Fit Different pathways into care Importance of Social Networks

Implications For conceptual models and research For programs and policies

5

Conceptual Models of Decision-Making

Consumer Choice Model

Heuristics and Biases Model

Social Network Model

6

Consumer Choice Model of Decision Making Also known by rational choice or economic choice model Notion that individuals relate their personal preferences to the set of

alternatives they face by considering tradeoffs among the options relative to their preferences, and make a choice that maximizes their satisfaction.

Choice models recognize that choices are subject to budget and time constraints; Individuals make decisions about the type, quality, and quantity of a good or service to use subject to constrained optimization.

Provide clear, well-structured, empirically testable predictions about decision outcomes, although less suited for understanding decision-making process

Applied across a wide body of decision-making problems, with varying degrees of success (e.g., Michapolous & Robins, 2002; Blau, 2001; Blau & Hagy, 1998; Holloway, Rambaud, Fuller, & Eggers-Pierola, 1995; NICHD 2000, 2002)

Choice models have shown to be empirically effective in explaining how price changes and family income may impact child care and employment decisions

Less successful at explaining how other family factors influence choice, or how variations in quality matter.

7

Consumer Choice Model of Decision Making Strong assumptions in traditional economic choice model

may not “fit” child care context and have been relaxed by many researchers coming from consumer choice perspective:

static and exogenous preferences: some choice models allow for complex bundles of preferences (e.g., Akerlof 2005; Rabin 2000 )

good or full information: recognition of information asymmetries -- Akerlof; Stiglitz),

and individual nature of decisions: recognition that child care decisions may be made jointly with other decisions and may involve more actors than the individual alone (e.g., Davis & Connelly, 2005; Baum, 2002; Powell, 2002)

Other conceptual models may be better designed to understand things such as the origin of preferences and their complexity; how information is gathered; and the contexts, cultures, and histories that may challenge individual, rational actor models.

8

Social Network Model A sociological network model of decision making considers

how individual choices are mediated by social relationships (informal ties and organizational ties)

Social networks are an important source of information, support,status, and normative influence (e.g., Granovetter, 1974; House, Umberson & Landis, 1988, Lin, 2001)

Network models usually assume individuals are instrumental and more-or-less rational in their approach to decision-making, however choices are shaped by social network characteristics and processes and goals may be group- as well as self-interested (Portes, 1998).

Network models can be useful for understanding process (mediation) and group differences (moderating effects), providing predictions for how decisions may be affected by characteristics and quality of networks Networks can be opportunity enhancing or opportunity limiting

depending on their characteristics (Briggs, 1998; House, Umberson, & Landis, 1988).9

Heuristics and Biases Framework Decision-making as studied by psychologists and behavioral

economists is concerned with how normal psychological processes interact with social-contextual factors to influence behavior.

According to this perspective, individuals are “satisficers” rather than “optimizers” who rely on heuristics – cognitive short cuts – to make decisions (i.e., Simon, 1957).

In many cases, heuristics result in good and efficient decisions. But in other cases, heuristics result in less-optimal decisions, or

in no decision (i.e., we accept the default and don’t search). Decisions are highly sensitive to the environment.

Relatively minor changes in the environment can have large effects on choices. (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008)

Suggests malleable to policy intervention

10

Overview of Presentation Three conceptual models of decision making

applied to child care decisions Urban Institute Study of Child Care Choices

Unpacking parental preferences and decision factors Contexts and constraints shaping decisions Focus on immigrant families

Study of Work Child Care Fit Different pathways into care Importance of Social Networks

Implications For conceptual models For programs and policies

11

Urban Institute Study of Child Care Choices of Low-Income Working Families

Purpose of Study is to examine the child care decision making process of low-income, working parents within the context of their individual circumstances and community contexts, and to consider strategies that better support their efforts and offer choices that can make higher quality child care available and affordable to more families.

Study Research Questions1. What are parents’ preferences for child care and which

factors ultimately influence (facilitate or constrain) parents’ child care choices among low-income working families?

2. How does the process of choosing child care interact with several key contextual factors that can influence parents’ child care decisions, including employment contexts and early care and education supply, information, and related program policies in the community?

3. How do some particular family characteristics influence child care decisions, and do the choices of some key sub-groups of low-income families differ in important ways from low-income families overall?1. Immigrant families 2. English language learners3. Families whose children have health or other special

needs

Research Methods and Study Sample Two low-income communities with high immigrant concentrations

in Providence, RI and Seattle, WA 86 low-income working families (43 in each site)

below 250% poverty parent/primary caregiver works at least 20 hours per week child under age 5 in non-parental care

Two rounds of in-depth qualitative interviews about 1 year apart Sample Characteristics

60% foreign-born (Dominican, Mexican, Vietnamese, Somali) 47% English language learners 48% single parent household Average total hours worked per week = 33 Average hourly wage = $11.00 60% worked “non-standard” hours (beyond M-F 8am-6pm) Average child age: 31 months (SD = 15) in Providence and 23 months (SD = 14)

in Seattle 29 families (34%) received a child care subsidy

Type of Care Arrangements

Focal Child Age (years)

Informal Relative

Informal Non-

relativeFamily

Child Care

Child Care Center,

Head Start, Pre-K Total

< 1 10 1 3 1 151 13 3 8 8 322 11 1 8 2 223 8 2 9 9 284 3 0 3 9 15

Total 45 7 31 29 112

Analysis of Parents’ Preferences & Decision Factors for Current Care Arrangements

Examined qualitative parent interview data for themes related to parental preferences (i.e., what is important or ideal) and decision factors (i.e., what made parent choose particular care arrangement)

Identified 17 preferences and 16 decision factors Four categories of themes: characteristics of care

setting, caregiver characteristics, availability and accessibility, and affordability of care

Most significant preferences:1. Activities and learning opportunities (61%)2. Sensitive caregiving and positive relationships

(52%)3. Safe and trustworthy provider (49%)4. Bilingual or native speaker (43%)5. Relatives as caregivers (31%)

Parental Preferences

Most significant decision factors:

1.Convenience of location, transportation (41%)

2.Cost of care (35%)3.Relatives as caregivers (33%)4.Positive relationship with caregiver (29%)5.Hours of availability (26%)

Key Decision Factors

“The main thing is to find somebody with the hours that you need, the days that you need, a place that you can call in an emergency, that you can afford, and it’s sad that you’ve gotta choose your day care by a place that you can afford, but that’s kinda what we went through…You know we don’t have a car. So we figure we’re going to have to bus it. If there was an emergency, we had to have it close to our job…There was just so many things to take in and deal with and to find a good one.”

Parental preferences and decision factors do not always align Example of Strong Alignment: Parents viewed having

relatives as caregivers as important or ideal (preference) and parents chose to use relative care specifically because they wanted relatives to care for their children (decision factor)

Example of Strong Misalignment: The majority of parents (61%) expressed the importance of activities and opportunities for learning; only 14% families explicitly stated they selected their current care arrangement because it provided learning activities, including opportunities to learn English.

Alignment of Parental Preferences & Decision Factors

Decision Factors by Child Age

Relatively more important for infants and toddlers: Relationships with providers

Over 80% of families with children younger than one year

Affordability Quality of physical environment (safety and

cleanliness)

Relatively more important for preschoolers:Activities and learning opportunitiesNutritious meals/ethnic foods

ECE Contexts and Constraints Availability and Affordability of Care Options

Parents often described center-based care as limited in availability, restrictive in terms of age limits, too expensive, and not meeting their scheduling needs.

Head Start and public prekindergarten were viewed as positive options, but many families did not qualify or were waitlisted, and the programs’ income limits were often described as too low.

Head Start’s half-day schedule made choices more challenging for parents needing full-day care.

Some families who did not qualify for Head Start or child care subsidies described how they still could not afford child care; described most often by married, dual-income parents.

ECE Contexts and Constraints Awareness of Care Options

Most parents were aware of some child care opportunities available in their communities but were generally not well informed of many programs.

Immigrant and ELL families were more aware of family child care than center-based child care options. ELL families and families with children with special needs often knew about Head Start.

Almost all of the parents in the sample—especially immigrants and ELLs—relied primarily on their personal social networks for information about child care and available public resources.

Fewer families used more formal information sources for child care, such as CCR&Rs; some found these agencies to be helpful in their searches, others found information to be outdated and unreliable.

Employment Contexts & Constraints

• Parents faced multiple employment constraints that limited care options: Limited employment opportunities and instability of work and

income Low-wage work and lack of benefits Non-standard hours

• Hours of work and work schedules inconsistent with care options Many parents had non-standard schedules (beyond M-F 8am-

6pm) or regularly shifting schedules. Centers opened too late or closed too early; weren’t open on

weekends. Head Start programs were half-day and required a second

care arrangement.

“The good child care around here that I want to put her in, they start at 8 a.m. and I have to be at school at 7.  So we don’t have very many options.”

“I wish I had a little bit more flexibility with the hours, because with daycare, I can’t find anything open late. So, that’s the only thing. I don’t get out ‘til seven. Daycare closes at five. It’s the one thing I wish they can do: extend daycare hours.”

“Not having a fixed schedule, especially for the past couple of months, it’s definitely hard because I don’t know what I’m doing. If my manager hasn’t drawn up my schedule yet, I don’t know what I’m doing. If I had a child care service, I’d be calling them up every day saying, you know, this is my different schedule, and next week it’ll be this different time.”

Employment Contexts & Constraints

• Jobs were very inflexible in terms of scheduling and time off. The majority of parents were in jobs that allowed them

neither paid time off, vacation time, or sick leave. Many of their employers were inflexible regarding family and child care emergencies. Parents risked losing their jobs.

Those with inflexibility with work discussed seeking more flexibility in child care.

Transportation challenges: long distances between home and child care and job locations; a lack of personal vehicles and reliable public transportation.

Immigrant Families Overall, immigrant parents were influenced by many of the same

factors as U.S.-born parents in making child care arrangements, and some additional factors.

Preferences were shaped by unique experiences growing up in their country of origin and the type of care they received growing up. Less likely to have experienced non-parental care as a child themselves, and

bring some different norms and expectations for child care. Some pointed out that the discipline and cultural practices that their

children would be taught in their native country would be ideal, and this was something they looked for in a child care arrangement in the U.S.

Parents settlement experiences, age of emigration, and acculturation in the U.S. influenced how much they knew about and considered child care opportunities.

Immigrants placed a high reliance on social networks within the local immigrant community for information and access to child care resources.

Overview of Presentation Three conceptual models of decision making

applied to child care decisions Urban Institute Study of Child Care Choices

Unpacking parental preferences and decision factors Contexts and constraints shaping decisions Focus on immigrant families

Study of Work Child Care Fit Different pathways into care Importance of Social Networks

Implications For conceptual models For programs and policies

28

The Study of Work-Child Care Fit

Qualitative study of 54 employed mothers of young children working in hourly jobs in the retail sector recruited from 6 employment sites: 4 retail stores

and 2 retail distribution centers. 2 in-depth interviews per employee (~90 min. each)

Demographically diverse sample 61.5% African American, 17.3% Latino, 21.2 Non-

Latino White 1/3 married or cohabiting, 1/3 single, 1/3 extended

household 90% with at least one child 5 or under (10% with 1st

or 2nd grader) Mean age of child = 1.65 (SD=1.28) Avg number of kids = 1.85

29

Employment Characteristics of Sample Occupation:

Manual (27.8%), Customer Service/Clerical (22.2%), Cashier (16.7%), Sales (25.9%), Other (7.4%)

Job Status: 59% full time, rest are part time, flex-time, or on-call; all

hourly jobs Low Wage and Earnings:

$7-$14 per hour (mean= $10.06, sd=2.46) 45% have earnings below poverty line; 95% below 185%

poverty line Nonstandard Work Schedules the Norm:

24 % majority hours outside daytime hours 63% weekend hours and/or majority hours outside

daytime hours 28% have 3+ start times a week; 37% have 3+ end times 50% receive schedule with one week or less notice (range

2 days to 4 weeks); with frequent changes

30

Child Care Characteristics of Sample Primary arrangement of youngest child:

Center/Pre-K 16.7%; Family Child Care 20.4%; FFN 50% (grandmother 63%); Father 5.6%; School 7.4%

83% have secondary arrangements; all center users have secondary arrangements.

Most common strategy is to package care across multiple providers

Cost of care: No Expense 35.2%; $1-25 = 14.8%; $26-50= 24.1%; $51 + =

25.9% (weekly) Mean $32.53; Median $14 27% of sample currently receives subsidy; another 16% used to be

on subsidy but lost it due to earnings increase or administrative problem

Number of hours with primary provider Less than 30 = 8.5%; 30-45 = 66%; 46+ = 25.5%

31

Analysis of Pathways Previous analyses with these data focused on

employment and work schedule instability and parental strategies for managing work and caregiving (e.g., Henly, Shaefer, & Waxman, 2006; Henly & Lambert, 2005).

This re-analysis of the data examined child care search strategies, considering themes related to how parents found care, with particular attention to preferences, information, resources, and constraints

32

Pathways into Care No Search

Family Norms/ Family Strategy Someone else decides Goes with past experience

More-or-less active searching Short, serial searches the norm Satisficing strategy Need to accommodate multiple constraints

About evenly split across the two groups

33

No active search:

Family Norms/Family Strategy Several participants described a taken for granted, tacitly understood

agreement that relatives (usually grandmother) would provide care. “it’s always kind of understood”, “an instinct” (10);” an automatic thing”

(176) “We choose to try to raise them in the home until we think they’re ready for

school” (165) In other cases, it was less “automatic,” and more of a strategic

decision to keep child care within the family…sometimes for economic reasons " so I’m like, my momma started coming around, she started watching him

and stuff and I told her about the childcare [subsidy] and what she would be getting and so she like, that that sounds good, that help out with her rent, so…" (45)

“[Mom] was off of work for awhile. Ah, she was diagnosed with sugar or whatever and her blood pressure…And ah, she really didn’t have no source of income coming in and stuff. And she was watching the kids, but I was paying her out of my check. I didn’t have [a subsidy] then. But when I found out that your mother can watch them…and get paid for it, that’s when. It happened about a year ago. That’s how that came about.” (94)

34

No active search:

Family Norms/Family Strategy Strong alignment between preferences and arrangement in

family norm group; more ambivalence in family strategy group Both 45 and 94 (prior page) reported preferring “day care,” but didn’t

seek it perhaps putting collective family interest over individual interest.

Lack of trust of non-family members, especially for infants/toddlers Largely influenced by media and cultural histories; sometimes personal

experience but limited

Norms dictating preference for family caregivers directed primarily at younger children, although not always Belief in family caregivers until children could talk, or until preschool

Family norm/Family strategy group lived in extended household structures or very nearby family caregivers May be an intentional caregiving strategy; or may operate the other

way, i.e., greater availability and salience of kin increases use35

No active search: Someone else decides No search by participant because someone else either

volunteered to take care of child or made the decision for parent; “it wasn’t my decision” Usually participant’s mother, sometimes baby’s

father/husband decided All these arrangements are with relatives

The result of strong preference for relative care by the person making the decision

Respondent sometimes had additional information about alternatives, but did not seriously consider them

Several in this group overlap with Family norm/ Family strategy group

Alignment of arrangement with participant’s preferences varied [see quotes next page]

36

R’s Mom Decides, Aligned with R’s Preference (190) IW: How did you decide that your mom would be taking care of the kids?

R: Oh my mom decided it. She’s not fond of other people that are not your family members taking care of kids. She likes to see the news a lot. At nighttime, and she sees that caretakers kill kids, and they hit kids, and they abuse. You know, they do all these crazy things to kids.…She says, you know, “Nobody’s going to take care of my grandkids. They’re too small. They can’t defend themselves, they can’t tell us what happens to them.” [I1: Right.] She says, “It’s not happening.” She says, “I’d rather take care of them. I’m going to take care of them.”

Although Mom decided, it was consistent with R’s preferences

Boyfriend Decides, Against R’s Preference (104) IW: Did you…did you consider any other options? [Son is cared for by R’s

mother]

R: I did. I wanted to put him in daycare…but, my boyfriend didn’t want to; he still doesn’t want to…(IW: I see) but ah, I really do want to put him in daycare because my mother wants to get a job, she wants to work and help my father out…(I1: I see) but, he doesn’t want me to put my son in daycare, so…

37

No active search: Goes with past experience Families with older children, often reported going with

an arrangement they had already used, rather than searching

These arrangements varied in type of care (e.g., family child care; center; YMCA; “babysitter”; relatives)

Familiarity and convenience seemed to drive decision Knew a lot about the arrangement already; reduced need to

seek out more info Convenient when other kids also in care Decision did not always align with R’s preferences, but

“satisficing” Some voiced reservations about the choice, concerns

about the arrangement, or indicated plans to move child in the future.

38

IW: how you decided to send him to Kiddie Care [child care center]?

R: Because ah, Alexandra [older daughter] had been at that center since she was fifteen months old. So he was actually on the waiting list when I was pregnant with him. /// …so I put him on the waiting list. And I pressed the issue, and pressed the issue, and pressed the issue for them to let him start. And they finally let him start [when he was 6 mos. old.] ///

IW: And did you have, were you considering other options or that was that the only thing you considered?

R: That was the only thing I considered.

IW: Okay. Cause it was convenient?

R: It was convenient. Convenient. I didn’t have to go over here to drop her off, there to drop him off. [With this arrangement I] drop off everybody here and go on about my way. (70)

[R notes that when older daughter graduates from center, she is going to find a different center for her son that is closer to her home or her work. She doesn’t like the distance of the current center and she has some safety concerns as well.]

39

More-or-less active searching The majority of respondents reported at least

some search prior to accepting an arrangement

Searches were often (not always) restricted to one child care sector (i.e., R was looking for a pre-school for their 3 year old)

Searches varied in their deliberativeness and scrutiny of alternatives

40

More-or-less active searchingExample of more intentional search, scrutinizing option (178)

After several years of respondent’s mother watching son, when it was time to seek a kindergarten she describes the following search, noting that it was hard to find a program that met her care needs:

R: I mean, yes I did [search] and, especially when he first turned five. I started looking into different schools and different kindergarten programs, which was hard because most of them were ah, for just two or three hours a day. And I’m like, “Okay, that’s really going to be hard because I have to have someone, you know, dropping him off and picking him up in the mornings?” And when I found the full-day program, then I started thinking, “Okay, that’s a long time for him to be there, but.”

IW: Right.

R: Ah, I got a lot of referrals to this one school. So, I checked it out, I went, I did visits, ah, they gave me a tour, I met most of the staff there, and I liked it. (178)

41

More-or-less active searchingExample of search focused primarily on cost, within type (179) R: I was shoppin' around for different schools, plus price range,

and Saint Paul’s was the best choice for me as far as child care.

IW: And, um, how did you find out about St. Paul’s? I mean...

R: Well [Aunt’s grandson] went to St. Paul’s, so...

IW: Okay, … did you consider other schools or...?

R: Well yeah. For one the price wasn't--it was too much as far as the extended care. One of the problems was the tuition, it was the child care half of the school and whatever. [I1: Right.] Yeah. 'Cause they vary from school to school. One school may be, uh, eighty dollars a month, one school was two-hundred dollars, one was two-eighty, I was like, no. I can't pay that.

IW: So you settled on this partly because it was more affordable, or...?

R: Right.

42

More-or-less active searching: Very restricted searches the norm Number of alternatives considered were

extremely limited Of 21 searches for which we could determine the

number of alternatives: 10 considered ONE option – (maybe non-searchers?) 2 considered TWO options 9 considered MULTIPLE options

“Short searchers” relied heavily on informal referrals

A problem with a previous arrangement was precursor for most “short searchers,” creating significant time pressure to find new care

43

More-or-less active searching: Extended searches Rather than increasing their choice set, respondents

who described conducting extended searches were often still left with one or no choice. Searches tended to be serial: By far the most common

search strategy was to identify one possible provider, determine if it would work, and if not, continue to search until the next provider was found.

Alternatives not viable because: cost, child’s age, location, schedule, full/wait list

4 of 9 “extended searchers” ended up with an arrangement that wasn’t even found through their search. In three cases, a chance encounter with someone who

knew about an opening and in one case, R’s mom found the arrangement for her.

44

IW: How did you find out about [Ms. Parker], how, why did you decide to…

R: My mother, she um, she found her, she told me about her.

IW: How’d she find her?

R: [CHUCKLE] I don’t even know how she found her, she just came [INAUDIBLE] and told me she found um daycare for him and that she set up an interview.

IW: Had she been looking for you? Did you know that she’d been looking?

R: No, she didn’t tell me, and um

IW: Had you been looking for day care?

R: Yeah, I had looked before. The day cares that I was um looking at, they wanted kids that was potty trained and my son isn’t potty trained yet, he just turned one.

IW: Ok, so she, so she found this for you, and did she know Ms. Parker? Like was it someone she knew?

R: She didn’t know her personally but someone she knew knew her and told her about her about . .( IW: Ok, ok.) And she called and set up an interview with her, we went over there... and I liked her, it was nice, so she asked me when I wanted to start and I told her the following Monday, (116)

45

Fortuitous encounter in beauty salon (174) Respondent met her boyfriend’s mother in the beauty parlor and

was discussing her problem finding a preschool for her daughter. By chance, a kindergarten teacher who her boyfriend’s mother knew was in the beauty salon and overheard the conversation:

R: She [boyfriend’s mother] hadn’t, actually she hadn’t been to the shop in almost a year... (IW: I see.) … and it just so happened that particular day, after I’ve been out all day and I was actually running late for my appointment, I got there and she was there and I was talking to her about, “Oh, what am I gonna do? It’s been so hard. Everybody’s got a waiting list. All the good schools in the area, you gotta go through testing” and this, that, and the other, and [the kindergarten teacher] is like, “Well, how old is she?” And I was telling her. She said, “Well we have a Preschool Program at my school, but let me talk to the Pre-K Teacher to see when the testing are setup. “ So she called me up the very next day, “Testing is this week, you gotta get down here before Friday.” 

46

Searches as Satisficing Searches often reflected Simon’s notion of

“satisficing.”

Strategies were accommodations reflecting good-enough rather than optimal decisions, given limited information and a constrained environment

47

Multiple contexts constraining or enabling response to care needs

48

Social Networks Regardless of the pathway followed, social networks

proved to be instrumental in the search process Referrals: Family and friends were by far the most

frequent source for learning about providers. Only 4 respondents relied on formal institutions for

information about child care arrangements, with 3 obtaining information from child care centers and 1 from both a child care center and a public program.

But referrals did not necessarily come from close network ties; often fairly casual acquaintances (“weak ties”)

Informal networks and formal institutions were both important sources of information about child care subsidies. 8 respondents reported learning about the child care subsidy

program from someone in their informal network & 9 from another public program, child care center, or a home-based provider.

49

Social Networks Family and friends often helped negotiate the

arrangement connected respondent to the provider, brought her to the

arrangement to observe and interview with the director, vouched for her, and so on.

Family and friends were providers themselves 50% of the sample used family, friend, or neighbor care

as a primary arrangement and almost all used these individuals as secondary arrangements

50

Why are social networks so important to the search process? Social network members are more immediately

accessible than formal information and referral sources. Embedded in the contexts (work, school, family, etc) that

parents are trying to negotiate and therefore may better understand what parents need.

Alternative sources of information are often elusive

Social network members are credible sources to parents, and parents seem to believe in the trustworthiness of an arrangement/provider recommended by a network member.

” And ah, my aunt had her son in there [center]. So, she’s like, “It’s good! They have patience! You can trust them.” And ah, “Okay!”

51

Overview of Presentation Three conceptual models of decision making

applied to child care decisions Urban Institute Study of Child Care Choices

Unpacking parental preferences and decision factors Contexts and constraints shaping decisions Focus on immigrant families

Study of Work Child Care Fit Different pathways into care Importance of Social Networks

Implications For conceptual models For programs and policies

52

Accommodation Perspective Emphasizes constrained nature of decisions

Decisions “accommodate market, family, and social realities” (Meyers & Jordan, 2006)

Attention to behavior “in context”

Preferences interact with constraints, and change over time and context Not necessarily stable or exogenous

Information is always partial and comes from multiple sources, but especially social networks Social networks are critical to accommodation model, as they

are the link between environment and individual In addition to providing information, they are important

sources of influence and shape how parents interpret information and options

53

Applying the accommodation model to child care: In a conventional rational choice model the search process is

conceptualized as deliberative and intentional, whereby individuals consider the various tradeoffs of a set of alternatives, and selects the ‘best’ choice.

In contrast, the accommodation model assumes that the search process varies in intentionality and deliberativeness due to: Cognitive limitations: Heuristic processing and short cuts are

fundamental to human decision making Well-learned patterns of behavior: Social norms, and the social

networks that create and reinforce them, are powerful contributors to information, preferences, and decisions, and can significantly reduce the perceived need for deliberative searches.

Thus, when navigating the complexities of the child care search, the process gets simplified as a result of normal psychological processes and help from the social messages reinforced in our social environment Shortening search efforts and lessening their reflective, deliberative

quality• Yet, individuals are understood as having agency, not simply

creatures of habit or of their environment. The extent of agency will vary with individual characteristics, context,

and circumstance54

Policy ImplicationsMany challenges low-income families face in arranging child care are due to tight constraints on choices related to supply, information, and access to subsidies.This implies that it is hard to change care choices without changing these care constraints, and expanding, integrating, and targeting ECE resources to increase the availability of affordable care options in low-income communities.•Expand child care subsidy funding to guaranteed child care assistance for low-income working families with young children.•Increase and shift more Head Start resources to lowest income communities; expand program to require full-day and extended hours care options. Strategically integrate early childhood resources to provide a continuum

of child care opportunities from ages birth to five that meets families’ needs and preferences.

Support development of supply to match unmet needs with contracts with child care centers that offer a broader array of hours.

Target these efforts where the supply and integration of services is most limited.

Policy ImplicationsIncrease consumer awareness and access to child care

services Support information campaigns to educate parents on child care and resources

that are targeted and involve social network members and consistent with network values and norms in the community.

Ease access to early childhood services with community-based enrollment, simplified common applications, and streamlined eligibility.

Make preferred options defaults by coupling subsidy access with opportunities for information and enrollment to high-quality care opportunities

Support community agencies to provide parents with easy-to-access information about availability of local care providers, eligibility, and enrollment opportunities for all publicly supported early care and education programs.

Ensure quality of child care options in low-income communities.

Require states to develop strong, externally validated quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS) for all forms of subsidized child care.

Implications for Future Research • How we conceptualize child care decision-making has

implications for how we design research studies to understand care choices, how parents consider quality in care decisions, and how public resources may or may not support care opportunities for low-income families.

• Understanding individual decisions within social contexts and the role of social networks in child care choices.

• Evaluate efforts to overcome information constraints: what is available to families, how do they access it and use it, and how can it be improved?

• Using mixed methods approaches to develop insights on the interactions between family, work and social processes within larger population studies.. Use longitudinal designs to examine transitions and timings of decisions.