Putting the “family” in family child care: The alignment between familismo (familism) and family child care providers’ descriptions of their work

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

EARCHI-1029; No. of Pages 12

Early Childhood Research Quarterly xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

Putting the “family” in family child care: The alignment between familismo (familism) and family child care providers’ descriptions of their work夽 Elena Paredes a,1 , Edgar Hernandez b,2 , Alice Herrera a , Holli Tonyan a,∗,1 a b

California State University, Northridge, United States California State University, Long Beach, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 8 June 2017 Received in revised form 5 April 2018 Accepted 14 April 2018 Available online xxx Keywords: Cultural models Familism Compadrazgo Family child care Love Affection

a b s t r a c t Latinx children under five years of age are more likely to experience home-based than center-based care (Crosby, Mendez, Guzman, & Lopez, 2016). A large and growing literature documents familismo (i.e., familism) and compadrazgo (literally, co-parenting) as common beliefs among Latino/a families who are themselves diverse in many ways including national origin, generational status, and SES. Using a cultural model framework (Quinn & Holland, 1987) and Eco(logical)-cultural Theory (Weisner, 2002, 2005), previous research indicated that family child care (FCC) providers’ descriptions of their work reflected varying prioritization of a Love and Affection cultural model. In this paper, we aimed to (a) explore the relevance of familismo and compadrazgo for FCC, and (b) refine and confirm the Love and Affection cultural model in a second sample of FCC providers. To do so, we conducted qualitative analyses of in-depth, semi-structured interviews as part of a larger study including licensed FCC providers serving children in selected areas of Los Angeles County. Many providers’ descriptions of their work contained elements of familismo and compadrazgo in ways that were quite compatible with a Love and Affection cultural model. We also identified barriers to Love and Affection. Local communities may be better able to meet the needs of Latino/a families by helping ECE professionals communicate and advertise their beliefs, as well as help Latino/a families identify ECE settings that prioritize Love and Affection. © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Early educational experiences matter for children’s development, and their impact may particularly matter for children who are Hispanic or other racial/ethnic minorities, immigrants, duallanguage learners, or from low-income families (Yoshikawa et al., 2013); much more evidence exists for center-based programs than

夽 This publication was made possible by Grant Number 90YE0153 from the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the funder. ∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, California State University, Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8255, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Tonyan). 1 At the time this manuscript was prepared, Elena Paredes and Holli Tonyan were affiliated with the Department of Psychology and Alice Herrera was affiliated with the Department of Social Work at California State University, Northridge, United States. 2 Edgar Hernandez was affiliated with the Department of Anthropology at California State University, Long Beach, United States.

for home-based programs. Families of Hispanic heritage living in the U.S. – called Latinx families in this paper to match local custom and avoid the gendered form of the word3 –may use early care and education (ECE) services at rates lower than other ethnic groups (Delgado, 2009). Although members of the ethnic category “Latinx” vary in immigration status, national origin, geographic location, and more, research indicates that there may be common elements among their child rearing beliefs (Ayon, Williams, Marsiglia, Ayers, & Kiehne, 2015). This paper examines common elements of Latinx parents’ child rearing beliefs as related to child care providers’ descriptions of their work. We studied the specific context of family child care (FCC) – licensed child care in the provider’s own home for a number of

3 In our experience, people of Hispanic heritage in the Los Angeles area tend to call themselves “Latino” or identify themselves by a national identity (e.g., Mexican, Salvadoran) more often than as “Hispanic.” However, “Latino” is gendered. We, therefore, use “Latinx” as a gender-neutral term. We use “Hispanic” when referencing a study that used that term originally or when referencing a national survey that used the Hispanic designation.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.007 0885-2006/© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Paredes, E., et al. Putting the “family” in family child care: The alignment between familismo (familism) and family child care providers’ descriptions of their work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.007

G Model EARCHI-1029; No. of Pages 12 2

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Paredes et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

reasons. Latinx children under five years of age are more likely to experience home-based than center-based care (Crosby, Mendez, Guzman, & Lopez, 2016). In addition, FCC is often more affordable than other forms of care (National Survey of Early Care and Education Project Team, 2015). As explained more fully below, structural factors may limit Latinx families’ access to center-based child care, and there may be belief-based reasons that Latinx families might prefer to keep siblings together with a trusted caregiver. One way for local communities to quickly improve access and affordability for Latinx families may be to more effectively integrate FCC into local ECE systems. FCC providers can serve children across a wide range of ages and do not require specialized facilities. On average, FCC is more affordable than center-based care: the National Survey of Early Care and Education (NSECE) found that FCC providers registered with state agencies charged a median rate of $3.00/h with little variation across age groups, whereas median prices for centers ranged from $3.60 to $4.40/h depending on the age of the child (National Survey of Early Care and Education Project Team, 2015). Of course, access to quality ECE is essential. Evidence about the quality of care in FCC settings is sparse and often based on measures that were developed for center-based child care (Goodson & Layzer, 2010), yet the NSECE indicated that a large proportion of “listed” home-based care providers, those on state lists of registered or licensed providers, had high commitment to the profession as indexed by years of experience and working long hours. However, efforts to better integrate FCC into ECE systems may not help Latinx families’ access high quality care if there are incompatibilities between the beliefs prevalent among FCC providers and Latinx families. Therefore, one purpose of the present paper is to examine the alignment between what Latinx families value in child rearing and what FCC providers value in their work. In the following sections, we first review the available literature on Latinx families’ use of, desire for, and access to ECE services, and then review literature on familismo and compadrazgo as childrearing ideals before describing our cultural models approach to understanding FCC providers’ views about their work and the relevant literature.

Crosby & Mendez, 2016), perhaps for the flexibility in scheduling typically offered there (Delgado, 2009; Crosby & Mendez, 2016). Like many families, Latinx families use centers more often for preschool-age children than for infants and toddlers (Delgado, 2009; National Survey of Early Care and Education Project Team, 2015). It is not clear whether maternal employment among Latinas impacts their desire for care: some studies show no impact, and others show that parents choose nonrelative care for flexible scheduling when working nonstandard hours (i.e. evening, overnight, weekend; Crosby & Mendez, 2016; Delgado, 2009). Structural barriers may limit Latinx families’ access to ECE, however, so use is a poor proxy for Latinx families’ preferences. Child care use likely reflects more than preferences because Latinx families who do not use any type of nonparental care arrangements, especially low-income families, have expressed a greater desire for care (Delgado, 2009). Not knowing about different types of child care available can limit Latinx families’ choices for care, possibly leading them to use parental or relative care (Zucker, Howes, & Garza-Mourino, 2007), and multiple arrangements (Crosby & Mendez, 2016). Latinx families, particularly immigrants, typically have low education levels (Krogstand, 2016) which can limit them to lower income jobs (Jung, Fuller, & Galindo, 2012; Molina, Alcántara, & Kaslow, 2013) that require nonstandard hours, all factors that limit access. In addition to structural barriers, Latinx families’ beliefs and values may impact child care choices. Parents who valued education were more likely to choose center-based care, whereas those who valued the relationship with the caregiver were more likely to choose FCC (Kim & Fram, 2009; Raikes, Torquati, Wang, & Shiegstad, 2012). Additionally, what parents perceived as quality child care was influenced by a combination of the parents’ personal preferences and their children’s needs (Barnard-Brak, Nuner, Sulak, & Davis 2015). Of course, values and beliefs are also influenced by community characteristics, including parents’ professional and social networks, the consumer education available, and child care supply (for a review, see Kim & Fram, 2009). 1.2. Familismo and compadrazgo

1.1. Latinx families’ use of, desire for, and access to ECE services Information about what Latinx families value for ECE is quite ˜ (2007) interviewed limited. Zucker, Howes, and Garza-Mourino 116 Latina mothers about nonparental child care, preschool, and ECE quality. When asked who they considered to be an ideal person to care for their child, they found that half of the mothers considered a professional caregiver to be ideal for ECE quality compared to 25% who considered the parent the ideal person for ECE quality. When asked their reasons for believing as they did about an ideal ECE arrangement, the majority of respondents indicated that socialization (54%) and interactions with peers (62%) were key. However, the authors found that ideas about ECE were related to immigration status and primary language: U.S.-born, English-speaking mothers were more likely to emphasize cultural factors whereas foreignborn, Spanish-speaking mothers were more likely to emphasize access (i.e., cost, location, schedule) and academics. With little information available about Latinx families’ beliefs about ECE, use provides an (imperfect) indication of preferences for ECE. Latinx families have most commonly used parental or relative care, but those living in poverty or in immigrant households are less likely to have relatives living nearby and may need other low-cost or subsidized child care (Guzman, Hickman, Turner, & Gennetian, 2016; Zucker, Howes, & Garza-Mourino, 2007). About two thirds of Latinx children overall are in child care during nonstandard hours (Crosby & Mendez, 2016), and Latinx children whose schedules include nonstandard hours are significantly more likely to be in home-based care, including FCC, than centers (65% versus 30%;

One of the most commonly identified concepts among Latinx families’ beliefs about child-rearing is familismo – a word not readily translated into English. Familismo has been characterized as “the attachment, loyalty, and reciprocity that characterize relationships among members of the nuclear family and extended family members, including significant nonfamily individuals who play a key role in the upbringing of children” (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2007, pp. 18–19). Essentially, familismo captures the idea that multigenerational networks of families and relationships driven by an obligation to family contribute to the communal upbringing and maintenance of families (Contreras et al., 1999; Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2007; Sotomayor-Peterson, Figueredo, Christensen, & Taylor, 2012; Sue & Sue, 2003; Zeiders et al., 2016). Familismo is both attitudinal, including normative ideas about family unity and solidarity (Cauce & DomenechRodrıguez, 2002), and behavioral (Calzada, 2010; Lugo Steidel & Contreras, 2003). Behavioral familismo refers to how beliefs are enacted and evidenced, including shared finances, shared living, shared daily activities, shared childrearing, and immigration when extended family members provide the motivation and means to immigrate (Sabogal, Marín, Otero-Sabogal, Marín, & Perez-Stable, 1987). The main component of familismo, whether defined by values or behaviors, is the centrality of the (extended) family where family support, obligation, and reciprocation extend beyond the nuclear family to an extended network (Bernal & Shapiro, 1996; Cauce & Domenech-Rodriguez, 2002; Keefe, 1984; Zea, Quezada, & Belgrave, 1997). Given that familismo has a normative component,

Please cite this article in press as: Paredes, E., et al. Putting the “family” in family child care: The alignment between familismo (familism) and family child care providers’ descriptions of their work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.007

G Model EARCHI-1029; No. of Pages 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Paredes et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

it seems likely, although empirically untested, that familismo could have a major impact on child care choices and/or relationships with child care providers. In the context of familismo, extended family provides social and emotional support to the parents and supplements the support parents provide to children when parents cannot provide it themselves (Ayon et al., 2015). These extended networks, encourage “. . .positive parenting among Latinx immigrants” (Ayon et al., 2015, p. 208) by providing additional support for the parents, leading to positive outcomes in the children (Leidy, Guerra, Toro, & Santiago Rivera, 2012). A related concept expands the bonds of family beyond blood relations (Toro-Morin, 2012): compadrazgo, literally translated as co-parenting or as baptismal- or god-parenting “can refer to the relationship between parents and godparents of a child or to a close friend or confidant. . .[that] may be formalized through the Catholic sacraments or may be a less formal bond between close friends” (Tatum, 2013, p. 342). Compadres aim to support parents in implementing the parents’ values, traditions, and norms (Cauce & Domenech-Rodriguez, 2002). It is not clear how FCC providers fit within the extended family aspects of familismo and compadrazgo. On one hand, multiple scholars suggest that familismo as a structural characteristic of Latinx families includes more than just biologically related individuals (Chang et al., 2016; Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2007; López, 1999; Roosa et al., 2002, Toro-Morin, 2012). Such extended family networks have been described as “thick networks” that are “multifaceted and complex” (Jacobson, Englund, and Barrus, 2008, p. 480). López (1999) quoted a participant in her research as stating, “I have many friends who are my comadres, although we do not have any baptized children between us. . .We carry on the tradition of comadres as a networking and mentoring tool and process” (p. 37). So, family child care providers could be considered a part of a thick network of extended kin that includes people who are not biologically related or formalized into a god-parenting relationship. On the other hand, scholars have noted a tendency for familismo to include living in close proximity together and turning first to family networks rather than turning to services when support is needed (Contreras, Kerns, & Neal-Barnett, 2002; Comeau, 2012; George, 1986, as cited in Luna et al., 1996), which could mean that families for whom familismo is salient would prefer to rely on family rather than a FCC provider. Although the values of familismo and compadrazgo are prevalent among Latinx individuals, these concepts are not equally salient to all Latinx families (Calzada, 2010; Guarnaccia & Rodriguez 1996; Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2007; Martinez, 1999; Solís-Cámara & Fox, 1996). Certain components of familismo like family obligation varied among Latinx families, for example by nation/region of origin (i.e., Mexican, Cuban, Central American) and acculturation, yet the perception of family support was salient across individuals and subgroups (López, 1999). Thus, these are important ideals to consider when thinking about Latinx individuals and families, but they should not be applied indiscriminately regardless of age, immigrant/generational status, gender, or other markers of within group variability (Jacobson, Englund, & Barrus, 2008). 1.3. Cultural models Analyses of providers’ beliefs about child care presented in this paper stem from Quinn and Holland’s definition of cultural models as “presupposed, taken-for-granted models of the world that are widely shared. . .by the members of a society” (Quinn & Holland, 1997, p. 4). They are made up of mental representations “into which people code their interpretations of the environment and events, what is valued and ideal, which activities should be enacted and which avoided, who should participate, how people should interact, and so forth” (Gallimore & Lopez, 2002, p. 725). Some cultural models are conceptual tools to be selected and used (e.g., metaphors

3

for a heating device as used by heating technicians) or implicit and even “compelling” with “directive force” leading to feelings of need or obligation (Quinn & Holland, 1997, p. 9) similar to descriptions of familismo as “normative.” Based on this view, researchers have identified cultural models of mental processes, emotional states, kinship obligations, career choices, and more (see Holland & Quinn, 1997). Although cultural models have a cognitive component, they develop from and influence day-to-day interactions. In particular, cultural models that are imbued with “directive force” (Quinn & Holland, 1997, p. 9) can compel behavior and serve as standards by which one’s own and others’ behavior may be evaluated. Thus, asking people to talk about their daily life, and particularly asking people to compare current ways of doing things with past ways of doing things or ways other people do things can reveal tacit and taken-for-granted expectations about how things are and should be. In a pilot study of 30 family child care providers in the Los Angeles area, researchers in our lab documented two cultural models that together captured a variety of ways of organizing family child care (Tonyan, 2013, 2015, 2017). Our pilot study was designed based on Eco(logical)-cultural Theory (ECT). ECT suggests that activities are the most proximal external influence on human development and are constrained by both ecological (i.e., physical and material) and cultural (e.g., cultural models) contexts. As developing humans participate in activities, they act out cultural models in roles and scripts that are organized by adults who are, in turn, adapting from the activities in which they have participated. Thus, talking with people about how and why they organize their daily routine activities as they do provides a window into their cultural models. Specifically, in-depth interviews about daily routines, decision-making around their family child care home, and the rewards and challenges of their work provided a window into child care providers’ cultural models. One cultural model, summarized as Love and Affection, captures a pattern of providers for whom love and affection were valued, prioritized aspects of their work. A School Readiness cultural model reflects providers for whom daily routine activities, rewards, and challenges centered around ensuring that children were ready for school. These were not mutually exclusive cultural models; many providers evidenced both. In our pilot research, we identified preliminary differences in how much providers valued (i.e., talked about as important), enacted/practiced (i.e., described daily routine activities in which children experience opportunities to experience what they value), and/or “saw” noticed/documented/assessed (i.e., described changes in children that the provider attributed to experiences in the child care) each of these two cultural models. Some providers prioritized both cultural models, some prioritized one cultural model more than the other, and still others did not prioritize either of these two cultural models. Probably, these are but two of many cultural models relevant to family child care. Little, if any, research outside our lab explores FCC providers’ cultural models. Some research has examined ECE professionals’ (used here to include FCC providers) beliefs, although there has been little research on FCC providers’ beliefs specifically. Indeed, ECE professionals’ beliefs have been a consistent predictor of child care quality in general (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1996, 2000, 2006) and in FCC (Bryant et al., 2009; Forry et al., 2013). However, most of the research has examined beliefs relative to formal philosophical approaches to ECE (see review in Tonyan, Mamikonian-Zarpas, & Chien, 2013). In this paper, we explored the potential intersection between the Love and Affection cultural model and the concepts of familismo and compadrazgo. Importantly, we have no reason to believe that Latinx families would be more likely than other families to value, enact, and see/document/assess Love and Affection over other mod-

Please cite this article in press as: Paredes, E., et al. Putting the “family” in family child care: The alignment between familismo (familism) and family child care providers’ descriptions of their work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.007

G Model EARCHI-1029; No. of Pages 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Paredes et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

4

els or that Latinx families would be more likely to value, enact, and see/document/assess this cultural model than would families of other ethnicities. It is clear, however, that extended family networks are integral to the concept of familismo, although the uniqueness of this emphasis on extended family networks for Latinx families in comparison with families of other ethnicities is not clear because evidence has been mixed (Beutell & Schneer, 2014; Schneer, 2014; Cauce and Domenech-Rodriguez, 2002). 1.4. This study Two main trends in the literature motivate the analyses presented in this paper. FCC homes may represent an affordable, flexible option for families given the seemingly structural barriers to accessing care Latinx families must often overcome reviewed above. In addition, the prevalence of familismo and compadrazgo in studies of Latinx families’ child rearing beliefs may be particularly compatible with the potentially family-like organization represented in the Love and Affection cultural model identified among FCC providers. In sum, we had two aims in this qualitative research: (1) to explore alignment between the Love and Affection cultural model and values of familismo and compadrazgo; and (2) to refine and find additional evidence for a Love and Affection cultural model among FCC providers. 2. Methods The analyses presented in this paper were part of a larger, fouryear mixed-method study of licensed FCC providers (Tonyan, 2017). The study design included a brief Regional Survey of all licensed FCC providers in targeted areas with in-depth Case Studies of a smaller number of FCC providers. The purpose of the Regional Survey was twofold: (1) to survey a larger sample of providers in the regions studied, and (2) to serve as a means for selecting participants for the Case Study portion of the study. Providers were recruited from naturally occurring groups and the service areas of community agency partners. To the extent possible within the naturally occurring groups (i.e., those who were and were not in the relevant quality rating and improvement system, QRIS), we prioritized recruitment for Case Studies to include providers who varied in license capacity (small, large), number of years since their license was received (less than 10 years, 10 or more years), ethnicity (Latinx, African-American, White, other), and setting (urban, suburban, and rural). All procedures were designed in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association and the Society for Research in Child Development and approved by the relevant Institutional Review Board. Any names used in this manuscript are pseudonyms. 2.1. Participants In the first year of the project, 54 FCC providers who had been licensed for at least one year were recruited through purposive snowball sampling, including the analytic sample for this manuscript: 20 providers participating in the local QRIS and 16 providers “not in” the local QRIS. Recruitment began by creating a prioritized recruitment list from Regional Survey respondents who opted in to additional research augmented by outreach to agencies administering QRIS. The characteristics of our participants are summarized in Table 1. Just under half of our participants were Latinx, most were over 40 years old, almost half had been licensed between 5 and 19 years, and almost half had “some college” as their highest reported formal educational attainment. Almost all of the participants were women (94%), and the remaining two interviews were conducted

Table 1 Participant demographics.a

Ethnicity Latinx/Hispanic African-American/Black White Asian Mixed Armenian Age 40 or older 35–39 30–34 25–29 Under 25 N/A Years licensed More than 20 years 15–19 years 10–14 years 5–9 years Under 5 years N/A Educational attainment Master’s degree Some graduate work Bachelor’s degree Associate’s degree Some college High school or GED Did not finish HS Income Less than $15,000 $15,001–$25,000 $25,001–$35,000 $35,001–$50,000 $65,000 or more N/A

N

%

16 8

46.0 22.8

6 2 2 1 26 0 5 2 1 1

17.1 5.7 5.7 2.9 74.3 0.0 14.3 5.7 2.9 2.9

4 4 7 6 12 3

11.4 11.4 20.0 17.1 34.4 8.6

4 1 5 1 16 3 5

11.4 2.9 14.3 2.9 45.7 8.6 14.3

19 7 7 1 1 1

54.3 20.0 20.0 2.9 2.9 2.9

a The total sample is 35 for demographic information because one participant’s response was never received.

with a husband and wife (both Latinx) who operated the FCC home together and chose to be interviewed together. The sample for the analyses presented here was drawn from roughly the same geographic region as the pilot study, and a few participants from the pilot study happened to be in this analytic sample, but the samples were largely distinct. Furthermore, the sample for the larger study was selected to represent a wider range of experience, race/ethnicity, and license capacity than the smaller pilot sample of convenience. On average, the providers cared for 10 children, but the total number of children ranged from 3 to 24 (two part-time groups of 12 preschool-age children), and most cared for children of more than one ethnicity, although there were a small number of providers who cared for children of only one ethnicity (Latinx or AfricanAmerican/Black). Our interview team included three female masters-level graduate students in Clinical Psychology and one post-baccalaureate (Psychology) interviewer. All were first-generation US-born Latinas who grew up in the areas where the interviews were conducted. Although they were all bilingual, only two felt confident interviewing in Spanish. Interviewers were either trained by Thomas Weisner, author of the Ecocultural Family Interview (described more below), or by a doctoral student working with Prof. Weisner. One of the interviewers (first author) was a primary coder for the analyses presented here, and she was supported by two other coders who began by intensively training on qualitative coding and then eventually becoming interviewers themselves for follow-up interviews two years later. The number of participants who agreed to be interviewed during both waves of data collection (48 of 54)

Please cite this article in press as: Paredes, E., et al. Putting the “family” in family child care: The alignment between familismo (familism) and family child care providers’ descriptions of their work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.007

G Model EARCHI-1029; No. of Pages 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Paredes et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

indicates the quality of the rapport that interviewers established with participants. 2.2. Procedures One of a team of four paid project interviewers conducted a one-hour observation of each FCC home when the children were present. The initial visit served two purposes: the interviewer left study materials (i.e., the consent form, a digital camera, and a Case Study Survey) and began to establish rapport with the provider. As soon as possible after the initial visit, interviewers typed field notes into a semi-structured template (e.g., prompts to provide a vivid description of the provider’s home and describe the provider’s interactions with the children). All but one participant completed a Case Study Survey that included demographic questions (e.g., age, income, type of license, number of children in care, number of assistants) and their attitudes and beliefs about their work. Because we were working with a diverse population of FCC providers, the survey was available in Spanish and English and could have been completed either on paper or online (via the Qualtrics online survey platform). Providers were asked to take up to 10 photographs of daily routine activities to share as concrete prompts to discuss life in their FCC homes. The photographs were a stimulus for discussions about the activities they organized with children (Tobin, 1989). One to two weeks after the initial visit, the same interviewer returned to the FCC home to conduct a semi-structured interview. Interviews followed the Ecocultural Family Interview (EFI; Ecocultural Scale Project, 1997; Tonyan, Romack, Weisner, Ayala, & Corral, 2014) as adapted for use in FCC homes under the guidance of one of the EFI’s authors, Thomas Weisner. The EFI involves talking with providers about their daily life using a set of standard topics in a conversational style. The major topics of the interview were always prompted, but not in a set order, and included (a) daily routine activities; (b) home and materials; (c) economic situation; (d) relationships with own family and children’s families; (e) domestic workload; (f) support and information; and (g) services. Interviewers probed for providers to make comparisons (e.g., between past and present, between themselves and other providers) to provide insight into providers’ beliefs and priorities. At some point during the interview, the provider and interviewer reviewed the photos that the provider had taken. For each photo (up to 10), the interviewer probed for a title to summarize the photo, a description of what was happening in the photo, and what the provider wanted the research team to know about that photo. Our protocol included ending with a series of three questions whenever possible: we asked about the challenges of family child care, the rewards, and whether there was anything the participant wanted the principal investigator of the project to know. Interviews occurred in the language preferred by the participant (English, Spanish, or both). Following the EFI, the interviewer summarized the interview using a semi-structured template and completed a series of ratings, including a rating of the Love and Affection cultural model. Other ratings, not further discussed in this paper, included a second cultural model (School Readiness), how much the provider was engaging in quality improvement activities, the physical and material conditions of the child care setting, the providers’ knowledge of and use of services, and the extent to which the provider engaged in advocacy or leadership with a larger community of FCC providers or others working in ECE settings. Each rating required the interviewer to (a) classify a provider as high, moderate, or low and (b) type a rationale for the classification based on observations or the provider’s statements. Audio recordings were transcribed, and transcripts were verified in three steps as described in a transcribing manual (available

5

from the last author): an initial transcript was checked by a second transcriber against the audio recording and a third person ensured that the transcript was de-identified and formatted in a consistent way. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed in the language in which they were recorded by bicultural, bilingual staff. 2.3. Analyses For our planned analyses of the Love and Affection cultural model, we began with a working definition based on pilot research (Tonyan, 2013, 2015): Provider makes it a priority of displaying love and affection to children as well as building relationships and being together. This can be displayed by an effort to interact with the children through play and conversation or through an emphasis on the rewards of these strong relationships that result when children have been in their care. A primary goal is for each child to feel loved, special, and have fun. Pilot research also identified three components of cultural models: valuing (i.e., prioritizing this cultural model through statements and/or allocating scarce resources like time, money, or energy so that children experience the cultural model), enacting (i.e., providing children with opportunities to experience this cultural model as part of the daily routine in the FCC home), and seeing (i.e., noticing/assessing/documenting whether children change as a result of experiencing this cultural model in the FCC home). With the operational definition of the Love and Affection cultural model in mind, a paid research assistant reviewed all typed documentation for each participant (e.g., field notes from initial visit, transcript, interview summary), copied and pasted quotes related to the Love and Affection cultural model from the transcript into a coding sheet template, classified the provider according to one of the categories (see Table 2), and wrote a detailed rationale that included specific statements from the transcript. Each participant has been rated by at least two independent raters (i.e., interviewer and coder), and a subset of 7 transcripts (13%) were selected for a third rating (based on the typed documentation) to refine the operational defiTable 2 Final operational definitions used to classify providers into three groups. Level

Operational definition

Not valuing, enacting, There is little indication the provider believes in or or seeing enacts love, affection, and/or fun as valued aspects of their work in their own right. The provider enacts love, affection, and/or fun sporadically and as a means to another end (e.g., getting the children to learn or accomplish a task) Valuing, enacting, or There are indications that relationships, having fun, seeing and being together are part of the FCC, but we do not see evidence of ALL 3 components (valuing, enacting and seeing). However, this provider may face barriers in enacting or seeing love, affection, and/or fun as a result of being overwhelmed by other responsibilities. Additionally, this provider describes fun as a way to get the children to learn or get tasks done. Valuing, enacting, and These providers show the importance of relationships, seeing being together and/or having fun in multiple ways throughout the interview. The providers see relationships and being together as a valued goal in and of itself and NOT just as a means to another end (e.g., helping children learn). These providers enact love, affection, and/or fun by making a choice (may or may not be aware of the choice) to help children feel loved, a sense of belonging, and/or have fun. Additionally, these providers SEE whether children show signs of strong relationships, belonging, feeling love, and/or having fun

Please cite this article in press as: Paredes, E., et al. Putting the “family” in family child care: The alignment between familismo (familism) and family child care providers’ descriptions of their work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.007

G Model EARCHI-1029; No. of Pages 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Paredes et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

6

nitions. Inter-rater reliability among the two coders’ holistic ratings was high (weighted Kappa = .84; percent agreement: 86%). When raters disagreed, the team working on this analysis (the first, second, and last author) discussed the case and came to consensus for a final rating. Upon completing all ratings, we looked for themes and patterns within and across the categories. To examine themes related to familismo and compadrazgo, one team member (second author) reviewed all 36 transcripts a second time looking specifically for their presence. Since the second round of analyses was exploratory, we did not have a priori operational definitions of familismo and compadrazgo. When asked to write down the meaning of these two concepts for the FCC providers in our study, the team member who reviewed the transcripts for this purpose described familismo for FCC providers as the FCC providing them with a sense of belonging and purpose, describing “sacrificing their weekends, time with their family, and barely making ends meet to raise productive children who are academically ready (e.g., to make it out of “the jungle”) and compassionate to others (e.g., children of different ethnicities and beliefs).” He similarly described compadrazgo as “being involved in a reciprocal relationship between themselves and the children’s parents” that included working with parents “to take children on field trips or allowing parents to vent and ask questions to better raise the children in their own home.”

3. Results We first examined our preliminary operationalization of the Love and Affection cultural model and documented its salience for this second sample of providers. The final operational definitions are presented in Table 2. Our results indicate that the model was, as we expected, salient for many providers. Indeed, as indicated throughout this section of our paper, providers themselves often used the words that we use in the title for this cultural model in their descriptions of their work. For example, one of our participants stated, in response to a question about what children get from being enrolled in her FCC home, “They receive care, love, attention, motivation, inspiration, [and] togetherness” (Brittney). Her sentiment was shared by many other providers in our sample. In our analytic sample, 69% of providers were classified as demonstrating at least two of the three defining components of the Love and Affection cultural model (valuing, enacting, and seeing: 14; valuing, enacting, or seeing: 11), and 31% were classified as not valuing, enacting or seeing this cultural model (n = 11). The operational definitions for each of the three categories are listed in Table 2. Many of the same providers who were coded as demonstrating at least two of the three defining components of the cultural model of focus were also identified as having some evidence of familism and/or compadrazgo. For example, familismo alone was salient for 17 providers, compadrazgo alone was salient for 3 providers, both were salient for 7 providers, and neither was salient for 9 providers. Although our sample size was too small for quantitative analyses, we did not find an easily recognizable pattern of association between classifications on the cultural model, the presence or absence of familismo or compadrazgo, or ethnicity. However, our exploratory analyses indicate that there may be some associations between the target cultural model and ideals of importance to many Latinx families. Below, we present a more qualitative analysis of the themes we identified. As you read them, keep in mind that we were looking for themes that went beyond our operational definitions for Love and Affection (Table 2) since we had already classified providers according to our working definitions.

3.1. Fun and being together as integral to care for all All providers, regardless of the extent to which they were classified as valuing, enacting, and seeing the Love and Affection cultural model, demonstrated an interest in allowing the children to have fun in their FCC home. The ubiquitous nature of having fun and being together were neither specific to the cultural model of Love and Affection nor familismo/compadrazgo. Although mentioned by all providers in this analytic set, fun was mentioned in slightly different ways. For some, fun was embedded into their daily routines. For example, after describing varied activities, Claire said, “Sometimes I’ll empty out a cupboard in the hall [and say] ‘Do whatever you guys want to do’ and this place is a mess {{provider laughs}} . . .but the kids are having fun, so we do a lot of that.” Claire considered the children’s interests and amusement, and she followed their interests despite the mess that resulted. Many providers described spontaneous day-to-day activities that prioritized the children’s enjoyment and fun. For others, fun was described more as occasional (i.e., on special occasions) or incidental (i.e., a way to get children to do something else) than as a valued part of everyday life. We saw providers who chose to celebrate birthdays and holidays with the children and their families as demonstrating occasional fun. For example, Julieta described a Halloween party she held for the children, “We helped these two [children] who didn’t have a costume: we made them a costume . . .they had a lot of fun that day.” Since having fun and being together were mentioned by all providers as important regardless of how they were classified for the salience of the Love and Affection cultural model, “fun” does not seem to be unique to the Love and Affection cultural model. Although we originally included “fun” in our title and operational definition of the cultural model, the analyses reported here led us to remove “fun” as a defining characteristic of the model.

3.2. Affection and relationships as rewarding for all The second emergent theme reflected responses to one of our concluding questions: “what is the most rewarding part about being a FCC provider?” We noted two variations among responses. First, providers often described stories of children returning years later to visit them as evidence of the long-term relationships formed between the children and the providers. For example, Claire proudly shared how a child she cared for visited her many years later and informed her she had been accepted to Princeton University. According to the provider, the “graduate” attributed that success to the way Claire ran her FCC, and told her “I don’t think I would’ve made it without you.” Similarly, Ynez, stated her biggest reward was seeing the impact her FCC had on the children: I’ve had children who have moved away and come to visit me, they say, “Oh we wanted to see you!” The other day I found a girl who I took care of from the time she was born until the age of five. She’s now 12 years old and. . . she gave me a hug and [said] “we always look at the pictures [of] when I was in the daycare.” It’s nice to hear that. [translated from Spanish] (Ynez) Second, providers described the affection they felt for and from children as a reward of their work. For example, Alejandra described as gratifying the affectionate goodbye of a five-year-old child she had cared for since he was eight months old after a recent visit, “He came to me, and gave me a big hug, and held onto me. . .so that’s what’s gratifying about my work.” Other providers echoed this sentiment when describing the rewards they received in the form of giving the children “hugs” or “praise.”

Please cite this article in press as: Paredes, E., et al. Putting the “family” in family child care: The alignment between familismo (familism) and family child care providers’ descriptions of their work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.007

G Model EARCHI-1029; No. of Pages 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Paredes et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

3.3. Familismo and compadrazgo or “like family” I think what’s special about our family child care is that we are a family and we treat the kids like they’re family. They call my mom grandma . . .I’ve grown a relationship with them. . . It’s a very family-style sort of program. (Estefania) We found evidence of familismo and compadrazgo in transcripts from interviews with 27 of the 36 providers in our analytic sample. As illustrated in the quote above, providers like Estefania often described their FCC homes as “family-style.” Similarly, familismo was evident in the interviews even though we did not initially set out to find it and we did not prompt specifically for these concepts. We saw familismo among the FCC providers in our analytic sample in two primary ways. First, like Estefania, providers often described their own role in children’s lives as family-like, including describing their role as offering extended family/support for the children and the FCC children’s parents. One provider, Bridgette, described interconnected relationships – an attitudinal component of familismo – when she said, “My reward is that I can make the kids happy. That’s what the parents say, they tell me, ‘My child is happy. They want to come here every day. They don’t want to leave.”’ This provider goes on to share how it is rewarding for her that the parents entrust her with their children knowing she will love and care for them as much as they would. In addition to familismo, Bridgette’s quote also suggests a relationship similar to compadrazgo. Indeed, many of the quotes indicate that FCC providers in our sample saw themselves together with the families supporting the children. In the following example, Jacey described her role as “almost like” a parent in taking pride in a child’s accomplishments, “Seeing a child learn something like potty training or tying their shoe for the first time is a great experience for me. . . [and] seeing them walk for the first [time], [it’s] almost like I’m the parent.” Another provider, Haley, described how having the children be a part of her everyday life made it difficult to not have the children personally impact her. When children were upset or they upset her, she found it challenging to avoid reacting as a parent would, and she saw herself as a type of co-parent to the children. She even described attending a majority of the children’s family birthday parties and being sought out by the children’s parents for advice so that they were aligned in their approach to child rearing. Another provider, Darcy, described her whole child care as a supportive extended family. She stated, The parents come in and the parents interact, and the parents have relationships with all the kids. If I’m busy, and one of the babies cries, a parent will come in and pick up someone else’s baby – and hold ‘em and love ‘em, . . .it’s just very cohesive, and everything works very well. It hasn’t always been that way, . . .but right now I have a really, really, good group of kids, and families. And even the challenges aren’t really that difficult, because –there’s always support. (Darcy) In addition to illustrating the way that the provider and all the children’s parents together provide an extended “family” network of care for the children, Darcy’s quote illustrates an important component of familismo: closeness. Closeness is also evident with Deandra, a provider who considered closeness to be a distinguishing feature of FCC homes compared to centers. When asked to describe what she thinks children receive in a FCC home versus a center, the provider shared that she believes children receive a lot of nurturing and love. She compared children being in a FCC home to being at “their grandparents house with a little twist of learning, a little bit of something.” Another provider, Leslie, attributed this intimacy to caring for the same children over many years, from infancy to 12 years of age. When asked about the rewards of being a FCC provider, she explained, “Every now and then [one of the par-

7

ents] will call me and tell me that their kids are doing great. They say, ‘they’re wonderful [because of] you and the foundation you gave them. . .thank you so much.”’ The second way we saw familismo among FCC providers was in descriptions of the work of the FCC as shared work with family members pitching in. This particular form of familismo is less tied with compadrazgo between the provider and the children’s parents, but still shows the centrality of family to the economic work of the FCC as opposed to the separate work of the license holder only. Sometimes biologically related family members helped out, and sometimes paid helpers were described as fictive kin using familial terms. One provider, Alejandra, described her husband looking after the children when he noticed the assistant was occupied and her adult children stepping in to watch over the kids when she needed to use the restroom or tend to a child’s need. Similarly, multiple providers described their biological children playing with the FCC children and treating them like siblings. Providers also sometimes described parents or in-laws as being like a grandparent to the FCC children. Carla, described her paid assistant, though not technically part of her family, as “more” than her family (“más que mi familia”), a sentiment shared by Darcy whose assistant had been with her for nearly two decades. Darcy referred to her assistant as her own daughter and formalized the link to her biological family through a religious relationship (i.e., compadrazgo). 3.4. Creating a family-like environment The themes previously described were noted for all providers, but some emergent themes were noted only among the fourteen providers (39%) who were classified as valuing, enacting, and seeing Love and Affection. All but two of these fourteen providers described efforts to generate a family-like, safe environment in which it was easy for children to be together. For example, Monique, a provider who cared for school-aged children during after school hours, described witnessing the children interact like siblings during lunchtime: It’s like a family, a big family sitting at a table. We talk about everything, what happens in their families. . .what did they see, what did they read, what did they watch. Everything, absolutely everything. In the beginning, I was preferring that we had lunch for 20 min, but it never happens. [For] 35, 40, [or] 45 min they just talk and talk and talk and I just decided it’s okay, they need to talk. . .plus they feel like a big family . . . Monique and fourteen other providers consciously create a family-like setting that enables the children to interact with each other and “talk about everything.” Altering her daily routine suggests that she values, enacts, and notices Love and Affection like a “big family.” 3.5. Intentionally making time for everyday togetherness, relationships, and fun When probing about daily routines, we found that planning activities and developing schedules or routines were quite common. However, only providers who were classified as Valuing, Enacting, and Seeing Love and Affection intentionally planned everyday activities that prioritized the children having fun, being together, and creating relationships. Some providers even did so outside of their FCC home or regular hours in addition to during regular hours. This emergent theme was true for half of the providers (n = 7) classified as Valuing, Enacting, and Seeing. Although few providers had the resources and funding to plan field trips for the children in their care, Haley did and described noticing the children building relationships with one another, sharing their belongings, having fun, and enjoying each other’s company. Haley went on

Please cite this article in press as: Paredes, E., et al. Putting the “family” in family child care: The alignment between familismo (familism) and family child care providers’ descriptions of their work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.007

G Model EARCHI-1029; No. of Pages 12 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Paredes et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

to explain the importance of planning activities rich in intimacy, stating “it’s important for kids to learn to connect and make relationships.” Brittney also shared a time when she decided to host a slumber party for the children beyond her regular operating hours. When asked if the children ever stay overnight, she said: Yes. [One day] all five of them stayed overnight. They didn’t want to go home, so I said, ‘Okay, we’re going to have a slumber party right here on this living room floor. Bring your sleeping bag, bring your favorite blanket, and your pillow’ . . .and the kids across the street came over and they spent the night too. [Interviewer: Do you charge more for overnight stays?] No, I don’t because . . . this has nothing to do with the child care, they just want to spend the night and hang out with [me]. (Brittney) Brittney is one of many examples of providers intentionally creating opportunities to extend from the children’s interests and for the children to experience Love and Affection. Love and Affection was also evident when providers noticed what the children enjoyed and described themselves joining in the children’s enjoyment. In the following example, Terri fondly described a time in the past when she chose to incorporate the children’s interests into the daily routine, “I had 5 boys, and they were all into dinosaurs and rockets and stuff, so we built rockets, and we studied dinosaurs, and they wrote books . . . I still have them.” Terri’s statements show the importance she placed on noticing the children. Importantly, her comment that she still had the books indicates a feeling of treasuring such knowledge and time together that goes beyond the academics and the planning involved in making activities happen. 3.6. Reasons for not valuing, enacting, or seeing love and affection Although many providers exhibited a value for togetherness and close relationships, some providers did not demonstrate all three core components of this cultural model (valuing, enacting, seeing). Thus, we identified some themes that represent potential barriers that may have inhibited providers from fully enacting a Love and Affection cultural model. 3.6.1. Fulfilling supervisory/administrative responsibilities For some providers, the many responsibilities of running a business in their homes interfered with their time to interact with the children. For eight providers in our study, we would characterize their role within the FCC as supervisory or administrative. For example, Moira described her role during the children’s time outside as a busy time when she regularly tackled paperwork and administrative tasks: I’m usually in my office doing paperwork or making sure things are stocked. . . . Or, I’m doing the cleanup. . . I call myself like a dancer. . . if I see that [an assistant] is having a challenge with a child, then I’ll step outside; and I’ll be of extra support while the other [assistants] are changing diapers, because even with three people outside sometimes it can get challenging. . .so then I step in and help. (Moira) At other points in the interview, this provider described a system that enabled her assistants to create “intimate relationships” with the children, but she described few rich examples that were a criterion for classifying providers as “seeing” Love and Affection. For Moira and other providers, building relationships with the children while managing their child care business was complex. We found that a trade-off between the demands of managing the business and constructing close relationships with children was more likely when enrollments were higher, particularly with a hierar-

chical manager-assistant type structure compared with the more familial, intimate style described above as related to familism. 3.6.2. Prioritizing school readiness and/or exercise With scarce resources including time, finances, and materials, FCC providers’ choices about how to allocate those resources reflect their priorities. As we expected, the cultural model of Love and Affection is but one of many possible cultural models that may guide such choices. In our analytic sample, sixteen providers prioritized other goals, including school readiness, over Love and Affection. Several providers described their FCC home as a “school,” and referred to their assistants as “teachers.” For example, Gabriela, who used school/teacher language to describe her FCC home and staff, respectively, shared her aspirations to open up a center in the future. Another provider, Yekaterina, shared her desire to make changes to her FCC home that would resemble a “school” and ideally make her day easier. The desired changes included bringing in funding to hire more teachers and expanding her home to make her space look more like a school. Aspirations like those described by Yekaterina need not necessarily limit a provider’s capacity to value, enact, and see/document/assess Love and Affection, but we found that stating a desire to open up a center or changing the FCC home to make it more center- or school-like sometimes competed with the Love and Affection cultural model. 3.6.3. Feeling burnt-out or overwhelmed Considering the complexity of operating an FCC home, it is not surprising that some providers end up feeling tired or burnt-out. Five providers expressed feeling “burnt-out” or “overwhelmed,” because they had many other responsibilities or did not have enough help to run their FCC home. Dominique referred to her FCC as a business and described it as challenging to operate it in addition to planning her FCC schedule. When asked how she felt about her daily routine, she replied, “Tired, burnt-out . . . It’s a challenging type of business to operate, because I’m not only doing the daily routine, but I’m responsible for making sure all the paperwork is completed.” Like her, other providers described the difficulty in managing the numerous tasks involved with running a business in their own home, balancing inevitable conflicts between various stakeholders, and the many aspects of operating an FCC. Sometimes providers’ feelings about being burnt-out were stated explicitly as in Dominique’s case, or became evident throughout the interview. Often, such feelings were elicited when we asked providers what they would change, if they could. For example, when probed for changes, Shanna said first that she hoped to have a home that was not a “kid’s world,” where she could entertain. She then said she would “maybe get another job. . .probably taking care of someone that’s not too dependent on me.” 3.6.4. Means to another end All providers in our study were probed extensively about their daily routine. The purpose for this was to explore their reasoning behind their interactions with children. For six of the providers in this analytic sample, such probing questions indicated that some activities that involved fun and time together were enacted for other purposes. We named this theme a “means to another end.” For example, Dominique described taking the children outside right before nap time to hopefully “tire them out,” and reading a story to “wind them down.” Dominique’s descriptions contrast with other providers’ descriptions of outdoor play and reading as opportunities for children to interact with one another and build relationships. Another example comes from Ynez who cared for six children from infancy to age three, plus two children of her own. When asked to describe lunchtime, Ynez mentioned having lost a helper

Please cite this article in press as: Paredes, E., et al. Putting the “family” in family child care: The alignment between familismo (familism) and family child care providers’ descriptions of their work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.007

G Model EARCHI-1029; No. of Pages 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Paredes et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

recently and replied [translated from Spanish], “After they have finished eating, the children start playing. Meanwhile, I go [in the kitchen] to wash the dirty dishes really fast because I can’t leave [the children] alone for too long.” In this example, we observed a common barrier. She described not having enough help, thus having to negotiate caring for the children and completing the domestic workload. At the time of the interview, Ynez had fewer than six children enrolled in her FCC home so she wasn’t required to have an assistant. We saw signs that Ynez valued Love and Affection, but it was not clear that she enacted or saw/noticed it. Thus, all FCC providers in our analytic sample had to negotiate the challenges of managing their FCC homes and organizing daily activities for children. However, the providers negotiated those challenges and prioritized their time differently. As described above, all three components of the cultural model (valuing, enacting, seeing/documenting) were evidenced for some providers. Like Ynez, however, some providers who valued Love and Affection did not enact what mattered to them perhaps because of barriers or prioritizing other ideals.

4. Discussion This research had two main aims. The primary aim of this work was to examine the alignment between the cultural model of Love and Affection and familismo and compadrazgo. Our analyses indicate a great deal of alignment. We saw two direct links. First, without being prompted to do so, many FCC providers in our sample, whether they were Latinx or not, described their own role in familylike terms (e.g., like a parent, “we are a family”) illustrating a core component of familismo where family extends beyond the nuclear household (Chang et al., 2016; Comeau, 2012; Durand & Durand, 2011; Gonzales, Germán, & Fabrett, 2012; Jacobson, England, & Barrus, 2008; López, 1999; Luna et al., 1996; Rodriguez et al., 2007; Toro-Morin, 2012). Similarly, we found elements of compadrazgo or shared parenting similar to a god-parenting relationship in which others who share the parents’ values (i.e., religious values in the case of formal godparents, but also other values) help to ensure that children will grow to be bien educado (i.e., wellraised/socialized) (Durand & Durand, 2011; Arcia et al., 2000). Second, many FCC providers in our sample had family members who helped out in their work illustrating a second connection: that work is shared among members of that extended family, something akin to compadrazgo. Husbands, adult children, and even other children’s parents were described as helping out with the FCC home, including being involved in the care of the children. We know of no other research that has examined the relevance of these concepts for FCC providers. A second confirmatory aim was to examine whether the cultural model that had been previously proposed based on pilot research could be refined and applied with more systematic analysis to this new group of FCC providers. Our results confirmed that a Love and Affection cultural model of was useful for capturing some elements of all FCC providers’ descriptions of their work; it was also useful for differentiating providers who prioritized Love and Affection as valued aspects of their daily life with children (i.e., valued, enacted, and saw/assessed/documented) from providers for whom this cultural model was less clearly prioritized in their work (i.e., valued, enacted, or seen; not valued, enacted, or seen). In this approach, we documented a cultural model, or ideal of how to provide care, and the extent to which individuals’ ideals aligned with their descriptions of their daily routine activities. Differentiating ideals of care that are enacted from those that are articulated but not enacted and those that are not articulated or enacted is a new approach that adds to what we can know about provider “beliefs” (Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 2001; Quinn & Holland, 1987; Tonyan,

9

Mamikonian-Zarpas, & Chien, 2013). Because we saw evidence that the Love and Affection cultural model was valued, enacted, or seen by two-thirds of the providers in our sample, this may be an important ideal to evaluate on a larger scale alongside other previously documented ideals like “Progressive” or “Developmentally Appropriate” beliefs (e.g., Forry et al., 2013; Heisner & Lederberg, 2011; Susman-Stillman, Pleuss, & Englund, 2013). In addition to addressing our main goals, the analyses presented here also documented some common barriers to providers being able to enact or see/assess/document Love and Affection. For example, some providers found it difficult to prioritize Love and Affection when they had other priorities (e.g., school readiness) or demands (e.g., managing administrative tasks like “paperwork” or negotiating the birth of a young child). Other providers ended up feeling overwhelmed and burnt-out, perhaps because they may not have had sufficient help or the necessary resources to be able to prioritize this cultural model. These findings build from past research that has indicated that providers sometimes feel conflicts because of overlapping or conflicting roles (Gerstenblatt, Faulkner, Lee, Doan, & Travis, 2014) and lack of resources (Curbow, Spratt, Ungaretti, McDonnell, & Breckler, 2000). Our research extends that prior work by highlighting the role of competing priorities in FCC providers’ daily routines, and the role of burn-out and lack of resources in impeding some providers’ capacity to enact their values. This research demonstrates a meaningful way to document FCC providers’ beliefs about their work as associated with their practices. The model itself shows that these ideas are widely shared in this sample, and the categories we identified (Valuing, Enacting, and Seeing; Valuing, Enacting, or Seeing; Not Valuing, Enacting, or Seeing) captured variations in how salient this cultural model was for FCC providers. Traditionally, research in ECE has examined beliefs and behavior as separately measured constructs, but ecocultural and sociocultural theories indicate that beliefs and behavior are best understood in relation to each other (Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 2001; Quinn & Holland, 1987; Tonyan, Mamikonian-Zarpas, & Chien, 2013). We believe our approach holds promise for better understanding FCC providers’ and ECE professionals’ cultural models.

4.1. Limitations of the present study Several features of this research limit its applicability to other contexts. First, the results are not generalizable because we did not have a representative sample. Additional research will be necessary to examine whether the patterns we found are corroborated in other samples and cultural communities. Second, although, our research was based on an anthropological model designed specifically to examine cultural aspects of child rearing (e.g., Weisner, 2002, 2005), we did not set out to examine child care specifically for Latinx families nor did we intend to examine familismo or compadrazgo when we planned the research. Thus, we did not directly ask about extended family networks, familismo, compadrazgo, or shared child rearing. Finally, we only interviewed the license holder and we did not survey or interview additional adults who were involved in the FCC work – that limits what we can know about the consistency of children’s and families’ experiences in FCC. In particular, for the larger programs in which multiple individuals work together, we cannot differentiate between programs in which the director-like license holder leads a team who all have similar cultural models and those in which the license holder’s beliefs about what happens in a day may not be a good indication of children’s and families’ experiences.

Please cite this article in press as: Paredes, E., et al. Putting the “family” in family child care: The alignment between familismo (familism) and family child care providers’ descriptions of their work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.007

G Model EARCHI-1029; No. of Pages 12 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Paredes et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

4.2. Future research Future work will be needed to examine whether the patterns we found in the cultural context we studied can be documented in other cultural contexts. Our work took place in Los Angeles, a city with a rich Latinx heritage in a part of the U.S.A. that used to be part of Mexico. Likely, there are some features of our participants’ cultural–historical context that are unique and some that are shared with other FCC contexts. Given the importance of close relationships in the accreditation standards of the National Association for Family Child Care (2005), it seems likely that this cultural model will be relevant to other cultural contexts. Nonetheless, variations are also likely across cultural contexts. Thus, it would be helpful to have additional research to examine the prevalence and variations in the Love and Affection model across cultural contexts. Additional research is also needed to document other cultural models relevant to FCC. We are currently working to document a second cultural model that we identified in pilot research: School Readiness (Tonyan, 2013, 2015). However, these two are not the only cultural models relevant to FCC providers’ work. In our research, we have seen some providers who prioritized physical activity/exercise and/or health, while others prioritized ethnic identity/pride. One provider even prioritized emergency preparedness. A particularly promising cultural model may be to document a pattern we have seen in which FCC providers see themselves as managing a business and use language like “staff” and “management” to describe their work. Thus, additional work is needed to document other cultural models and to examine profiles of cultural models (i.e., valuing, enacting, and seeing both Love and Affection and School Readiness). Future research will be needed to examine the congruence/conflict between FCC providers’ cultural models and other aspects of Latinx parents’ cultural models. Specifically, related concepts like educación and respeto, concepts we did not explore, are also commonly indicated as important among Latinx parents. Future research into these concepts may need to focus on children’s interactions with adults – within the FCC home and in the larger community. Future research in which researchers talk with families and FCC providers within the same study would be important to extend upon these promising exploratory findings. The research conducted by Zucker and Howes (2009) focused on Latino families’ beliefs related to preschool settings. However, additional research to determine whether the patterns they found are found in relation to a wider range of settings and in other cultural contexts would be helpful. Our research suggests that additional research, whether taking a cultural models approach or not, is needed to examine links between articulated beliefs and practices, particularly as related to familismo and compadrazgo. In our approach, we took a relatively holistic view in which beliefs and practices were conceptualized broadly. The extent to which educators explicitly incorporate a wide variety of cultural beliefs into their practices is an important and fascinating area in which additional research is needed. As ECE professionals increasingly interact with children and families whose cultural background can be quite different from their own, additional work to uncover and make explicit the kinds of beliefs and practices that are tacitly and explicitly endorsed in ECE settings is tantamount. 4.3. Implications for practice We see at least two implications for practice from our research. First, given the reasons described in the introduction, we believe local communities would be well-served to (a) help FCC providers articulate and advertise what matters to them and (b) help families

find the FCC providers whose values are aligned with their own. Alignment can be conveyed through small gestures like making signs that providers could place in their homes that read “Families are supported here” to providing families with the NAFCC Accreditation Standards or other literature about the potential strengths of FCC homes, perhaps through local child care resource and referral agencies. One non-profit agency in Connecticut, All Our Kin, has recently begun an effort to showcase high-quality FCC providers in their area as a service to families and FCC providers. Such efforts need not be exclusive to FCC providers, but must be designed with the unique features of FCC homes in mind. Recent indications are that many FCC providers are closing at rates faster than centers (Office of Child Care, 2016) and communities could find ways to better support them together with center-based programs so that together they can offer complementary services and provide families with meaningful choices. Such support seems particularly important given the commitment to the profession typical among “listed” home-based care providers in the NSECE (NSECE Project Team, 2016). Second, quality improvement initiatives can examine their offerings for FCC providers and ensure that they are supporting providers to establish, maintain, and nurture close relationships with children, and the children’s families. Our findings indicate that “paperwork” and administrative burdens were a barrier to providers enacting and “seeing” Love and Affection. A growing body of literature indicates that coaching focused on caregiver–child interaction can be particularly powerful (Bromer & Korfmacher, 2017); our work suggests that such a focus may align with many providers’ cultural models. Child care in the United States is becoming increasingly culturally diverse. Child rearing beliefs vary in ways that are associated with race/ethnicity, and beliefs are related to the quality of care children receive (Forry et al., 2013; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1996), the extent to which providers engage in quality improvement or professional development (Bryant et al., 2009), and to be associated with variations in children’s development outcomes (Forry et al., 2013; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1996). Therefore, by better understanding child care providers’ cultural models as related to parents’ child rearing values and cultural models, diverse child care settings will likely better serve the increasingly diverse needs of diverse families. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the family child care providers who gave so generously of their time to participate in this research, the Early Education and Support Division at the California Department of Education, and the community agency partners whose collaboration made it possible for us to reach the family child care providers. In particular, we thank Susan Savage and the staff of the Child Care Resource Center for their leadership and collaboration. We also acknowledge the full team of staff members who made this research possible, with special thanks to the interviewers. We are particularly grateful to Thomas Weisner whose mentorship allowed us to adapt the Ecocultural Family Interview for use in family child care homes. References Arcia, E., Reyes-Blanes, M., & Vazquez-Montilla, E. (2000). Constructions and reconstructions: Latino parents’ values for children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9(3), 333–350. Ayon, C., Williams, L., Marsiglia, F., Ayers, S., & Kiehne, E. (2015). A latent profile analysis of Latino parenting: The infusion of cultural values on family conflict. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 96(3), 203–210. Barnard-Brak, L., Nuner, J., Sulak, T., & Davis, T. (2015). Costs of and satisfaction with child care arrangements for parents of children with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Family Issues, 36(14), 1887–1903.

Please cite this article in press as: Paredes, E., et al. Putting the “family” in family child care: The alignment between familismo (familism) and family child care providers’ descriptions of their work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.007

G Model EARCHI-1029; No. of Pages 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Paredes et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Bernal, G., & Shapiro, E. (1996). Cuban families. In M. McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & J. K. Pearce (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (pp. 155–168). New York: Guilford Press. Beutell, N. J., & Schneer, J. A. (2014). Work-family conflict and synergy among Hispanics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(6), 705–735. Bromer, J., & Korfmacher, J. (2017). Providing high-quality support services to home-based child care: A conceptual model and literature review. Early Education and Development, 28, 745–772. Bryant, D., Wesley, P., Burchinal, M. R., Sideris, J., Taylor, K., Fenson, C., et al. (2009). The QUINCE-PFI study: An evaluation of a promising model for child care provider training. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. Calzada, E. (2010). Bringing culture into parent training with Latinos. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 17(2), 167–175. Cauce, A. M., & Domenech-Rodriguez, M. (2002). Latino families: Myths and realities. In J. M. Contreras, K. A. Kerns, & A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Latino children and families in the United States: Current research and future directions (pp. 3–26). Westport, Conn: Praeger. Chang, E., Downey, C., Hirsch, J., & Lin, N. (2016). Latina/os—drive, community, and spirituality: The strength within (SOMOS Latina/os—ganas, comunidad, y el espíritu: la fuerza que llevamos por dentro). Positive psychology in racial and ethnic groups: Theory, research, and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Comeau, J. A. (2012). Race/ethnicity and family contact: Toward a behavioral measure of familialism. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 34(2), 251–268. Contreras, J., Mangelsdorf, S., Rhodes, J., Diener, M., & Brunson, L. (1999). Parenting competence among Latina adolescent mothers: The role of family and social support. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 417–439. Contreras, J. M., Kerns, K. A., & Neal-Barnett, A. M. (2002). Latino children and families in the United States: Current research and future directions. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Crosby, D., & Mendez, J. (2016). Hispanic children’s participation in early care and education: Amount and timing of hours by household nativity status, race/ethnicity, and child age. Bethesda, MD: National Research Center on Hispanic Children and Families. Retrieved from http://www.hispanicresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/201660HispECEParentPerceptions.pdf. Crosby, D., Mendez, J., Guzman, L., & Lopez, M. (2016). Hispanic children’s participation in early care and education: Type of care by household nativity status, race/ethnicity, and child age. Bethesda, MD: National Research Center on Hispanic Children and Families. Retrieved from http://www.hispanicresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/201659HispECEType.pdf. Curbow, B., Spratt, K., Ungaretti, A., McDonnell, K., & Breckler, S. (2000). Development of the child care worker job stress inventory. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 515–536. Delgado, E. (2009). Latinos’ use, desire, and type of non-parental child care arrangements. Journal of Latinos and Education, 8, 119–140. Durand, T., & Durand, T. (2011). Latina mothers’ cultural beliefs about their children, parental roles, and education: Implications for effective and empowering home-school partnerships. The Urban Review, 43, 255. Forry, N., Iruka, I., Tout, K., Torquati, J., Susman-Stillman, A., Bryant, D., et al. (2013). Predictors of quality and child outcomes in family child care settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 893–904. Fuligni, A. J., Tseng, V., & Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes towards family obligations among American adolescents with Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 70, 1030–1044. Gerstenblatt, P., Faulkner, M., Lee, A., Doan, L. T., & Travis, D. (2014). Not babysitting: Work stress and well-being for family child care providers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 67–75. Gonzales, N. A., Germán, M., & Fabrett, F. C. (2012). U.S. Latino youth. In E. C. Chang, & C. A. Downey (Eds.), Handbook of race and development of mental health. New York, NY: Springer (pp. 259–278). Goodson, B. D., & Layzer, J. I. (2010). Defining and measuring quality in home-based care settings. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families. Guarnaccia, P. J., & Rodriguez, O. (1996). Concepts of culture and their role in the development of culturally competent mental health services. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 419–433. Guilamo-Ramos, V., Dittus, P., Jaccard, J., Johansson, M., Bouris, A., & Acosta, N. (2007). Parenting practices among Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers. Social Work, 52(1), 17–30. Guzman, L., Hickman, S., Turner, K., & Gennetian, L. (2016). Hispanic children’s participation in early care and education: Parents’ perceptions of care arrangements, and relatives’ availability to provide care. Bethesda, MD: National Research Center on Hispanic Children and Families. Retrieved from http:// www.hispanicresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/201660HispECEParentPerceptions.pdf Heisner, M. J., & Lederberg, A. R. (2011). The impact of Child Development Associate training on the beliefs and practices of preschool teachers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 227–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq. 2010.09.003 Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (1997). Cultural models in language and thought. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (2001). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11

Jacobson, C., England, J., & Barrus, R. (2008). Familism. In R. T. Schaefer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and society (Vol. 1) (pp. 479–518). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jung, S., Fuller, B., & Galindo, C. (2012). Family functioning and early learning practices in immigrant homes. Child Development, 83, 1510–1526. Keefe, S. E. (1984). Real and ideal extended familism among Mexican Americans and Anglo Americans: On the meaning of close family ties. Human Organization, 43, 65–70. Kim, J., & Fram, M. S. (2009). Profiles of choice: Parents’ patterns of priority in child care decision-making. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(1), 77–91. Leidy, M., Guerra, N., Toro, R., & Santiago Rivera, Azara. (2012). Positive parenting, family cohesion, and child social competence among immigrant Latino families. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 1, 3–13. López, R. (1999). Las comadres as a social support system. Affilia, 14(1), 24–41. Lugo Steidel, A. G., & Contreras, J. M. (2003). A new familism scale for use with Latino populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 312–330. Luna, I., De Ardon, E., Lim, Y., & Cromwell, S. (1996). The relevance of familism in cross-cultural studies of family caregiving. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 18, 267. Martinez, E. A. (1999). Mexican American/Chicano families: Parenting as diverse as the families themselves. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Family ethnicity: Strength in diversity (pp. 121–134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Molina, K., Alcántara, C., & Kaslow Nadine, J. (2013). Household structure, family ties, and psychological distress among U.S.-born and immigrant Latino women. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(1), 147–158. National Survey of Early Care and Education Project Team. (2015). Prices charged in early care and education: Initial findings from the National Survey of Early Care and Education (NSECE). OPRE Report #2015-45. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1996). Characteristics of infant child care: Factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 269–306. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2000). Characteristics and quality of child care for toddlers and preschoolers. Applied Developmental Science, 4(3), 116–135. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2006). Child care effect sizes for the NICHD study of early child care and youth development. American Psychologist, 61, 99–116. Office of Child Care. (2016). Family child care brief. Washington, DC: Office of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families. Quinn, N., & Holland, D. (1987). Culture and cognition. In D. Holland, & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 3–40). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Raikes, H., Torquati, J., Wang, C., & Shjegstad, B. (2012). Parent experiences with state child care subsidy systems and their perceptions of choice and quality in care selected. Early Education & Development, 23(4), 558–582. Rodriguez, N., Mira, C. B., Paez, N. D., & Myers, H. F. (2007). Exploring the complexities of familism and acculturation: Central constructs for people of Mexican origin. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 61–77. Roosa, M. W., Morgan-Lopez, A. A., Cree, W. K., & Spencer, M. M. (2002). Ethnic culture, poverty, and context: sources of influence on Latino families and children. In J. M. Contreras, K. A. Kerns, & A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Latino children and families in the United States: Current research and future directions (pp. 27–44). Westport, CT: Praeger. Sabogal, F., Marín, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Marín, B. V., & Perez Stable, E. J. (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 397–412. Solís-Cámara, P. R., & Fox, R. A. (1996). Parenting practices and expectations among Mexican mothers with young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 157, 465–476. Sotomayor-Peterson, M., Figueredo, A. J., Christensen, D. H., & Taylor, A. R. (2012). Couples’ cultural values, shared parenting, and family emotional climate within Mexican American families. Family Process, 51, 218–233. Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2003). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Susman-Stillman, A., Pleuss, J., & Englund, M. M. (2013). Attitudes and beliefs of family – and center-based child care providers predict differences in caregiving behavior over time. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1–13. Tatum, C. M. (2013). Encyclopedia of Latino Culture : From Calaveras to Quinceaneras. CA: Greenwood: Santa Barbara. The Ecocultural Scale Project. (1997). The ecocultural family interview manual. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Sociobehavioral Group. Tobin, J. J. (1989). Visual anthropology and multivocal ethnography: A dialogical approach to Japanese preschool size. Dialectical Anthropology, 13, 173–187. Tonyan H. A. (2013, April). Cultural models as mediators of what is possible in a day. In: J. Nuttall (Chair), Getting beyond the zone of proximal development: Further possibilities for strengthening early childhood education through cultural–historical analyses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Tonyan, H. A. (2015). Everyday routines: A window into the cultural organization of family child care. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13, 311–327. Tonyan, H. A. (2017). Opportunities to practice what is locally valued: An ecocultural perspective on quality in family child care homes. Early Education and Development, 28(6), 727–744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017. 1303304

Please cite this article in press as: Paredes, E., et al. Putting the “family” in family child care: The alignment between familismo (familism) and family child care providers’ descriptions of their work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.007

G Model EARCHI-1029; No. of Pages 12 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Paredes et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Tonyan, H. A., Mamikonian-Zarpas, A., & Chien, D. (2013). Do they practice what they preach? An ecocultural, multidimensional, group-based examination of the relationship between beliefs and behaviours among child care providers. Early Child Development and Care, 183(12), 1853–1877. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/03004430.2012.759949 Tonyan, H. A., Romack, J., Weisner, T. S., Ayala, I., & Corral, L. (2014). The ecocultural family interview for family child care homes. Northridge, CA: California State University, Northridge. Toro-Morin, M. I. (2012). Familismo. In S. Loue, & M. Sajatovic (Eds.), Encyclopedia of immigrant health. New York, NY: Springer. Weisner, T. S. (2002). Ecocultural understanding of children’s developmental pathways. Human Development, 45, 275–281. Weisner, T. S. (2005). Introduction. In T. S. Weisner (Ed.), Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (pp. 1–18). Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M. R., Espinosa, L. M., Gormley, W. T., et al. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence base on preschool. Washington, DC: Society for Research on Child Development.

Zea, M. C., Quezada, T., & Belgrave, F. Z. (1997). Limitations of an acultural health psychology for Latinos: Reconstructing the African influence on Latino culture and health-related behaviors. In J. G. Garcia, & M. C. Zea (Eds.), Psychological interventions and research with Latino populations (pp. 255–266). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. ˜ Zeiders, K., Updegraff, K., Umana-Taylor, A., Mchale, S., & Padilla, J. (2016). Familism values, family time, and Mexican-origin young adults’ depressive symptoms. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 78(1), 91–106. Zucker, E., Howes, C., & Garza-Mourino, R. (2007). Early childhood care and education preferences among Latino families in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Improving Child Care Quality. Zucker, E., & Howes, C. (2009). Respectful relationships: Socialization goals and practices among Mexican mothers. Infant Mental Health Journal, 30, 501–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20226

Please cite this article in press as: Paredes, E., et al. Putting the “family” in family child care: The alignment between familismo (familism) and family child care providers’ descriptions of their work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.007