HBCC Across the 50 States: Policy Scan Findings

Among the many challenges to improving access, funding, and quality of child care in America is the great variation across states. Each state sets its own regulations for child care, including everything from licensing requirements to subsidy rates. Nowhere is this variation more evident than with home-based child care, where even the definition of what it means to be a provider is inconsistent. Home Grown recently funded ChildTrends in partnership with Mary Beth Salomone Testa to conduct a 50 state policy scan of data related to home-based child care, illuminating these differences as well as some trends. 

Key finding: wide variation across states

The policy scan reviewed data across a range of policies and the most consistent finding was the wide variation across states in policies and even terminology and naming conventions. For example:

  • Naming: In different states providers may be known as family child care, child care homes, group child care, or even Type A home (Ohio). 
  • Group size: Each state sets its own threshold for the number of children at which providers must be licensed. In many states providers may be licensed as small or large, but the number of children served varies greatly. For example, a small family child care home in Michigan serves 1-6 children, while in Mississippi a small child care facility in the operator’s home serves 6-12 children. 
  • Licensure: Even the term “licensed” varies, with some states instead opting for “registered.” Other states have options for both licensed and registered with different requirements for each. Most states also recognize license-exempt or unregulated family, friend, and neighbor (FFN) providers, and FFN providers’ ability to participate in state systems varies greatly, as well. 

This wide variation creates challenges for the field in communication and creating shared understanding, not to mention advocacy and cohesive policy at a national level. 

Additional findings

While the most salient story emerging from the data is one of complexity and state incomparability, some additional findings emerge: 

  • There is no obvious causal relationship between QRIS participation and subsidy participation: States determine which providers are eligible for subsidy and whether or not providers are required to participate in their Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS). The opportunity to earn revenue through subsidy does not appear to be an incentive for home-based child care providers to participate in their state’s QRIS.  Likewise, participation in QRIS also does not appear to incentivize or encourage serving children funded through subsidy.  The average QRIS participation rate among home-based providers in states without the QRIS requirement for subsidy participation is 50.9% and that among home-based providers in states with the requirement for subsidy is less than one percentage point higher at 51.1%. 
  • State policy makers have the opportunity to increase the type and intensity of supports available to home-based providers via QRIS participation. Administrators can look to models in CO, IL, NM, NC, OK, OR, PA, TN and VT, as each of these states boasts a 100% QRIS participation rate for HBCC providers.  The regulatory language around QRIS participation, and the incentive mechanisms and their perceived value – including QRIS-related supports, grants, and/or subsidy rate add-ons – may all play a role.
  •  License-exempt providers are eligible for subsidy in most states, but must meet background checks and some training requirements. License-exempt providers are eligible to receive subsidy in the majority of states. Only nine states require a license to receive subsidy (AR, DC, LA, MN, MS, NC, ND, NM, OK).  Most states require unlicensed providers and members of their households to complete background checks to receive subsidy. In 35 states, unlicensed providers were required to have training in CPR or First Aid. Illinois requires unlicensed providers receiving subsidy to participate in the state’s QRIS, and other states, including California, allow unlicensed providers to participate in QRIS voluntarily. 
  • State administrators interested in serving more children funded through Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) through home-based child care can look to Hawaii: Eleven (11) states (AK, DC, Georgia, NC, OH, OK, TX, VT, WA, WV, and WI) have no CCDF children served in legally unregulated settings.  Among the remaining 40 states, the range of CCDF children participating starts at a low of 1% (in Alaska, CO, KY, MA, MI, NJ, TN, and VA) to 72% in Hawaii.  In the 11 states where the percent of CCDF children served in legally unregulated settings is 20% or higher (AL, CA, CT, HI, IL, IN, MI, MO, NV, NY, OR), only Nevada requires QRIS participation, thereby ensuring that training, technical assistance and other supports are readily available to this significant group of providers.
  • Licensing for HBCC providers creates costs for states: 17 states conduct licensing inspections twice per year or more, and 5 of these require inspections three times per year or more.  While the physical footprint of most HBCC sites is small, there are thousands of providers in total and in rural areas they may be spread out over hundreds of miles.  Weighing considerations of child safety and the cost and efficacy of licensing inspections, states can consider how licensing visits could be minimized or streamlined through the use of video technology and other automation.  California, where large family child care homes are inspected once every three years and Idaho, where group daycare facilities are inspected once every two years, may have relevant experience in this regard to share with the field.  

We invite readers to review the state policy scan for more detail on state policies, including: group size limits; licensing inspection frequency; relationship between licensing status, quality rating improvement system participation and subsidy eligibility; levels of Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) participation; and, percentage of children whose care is paid via CCDF served in unregulated home-based settings. 

How La Red Latina de Educación Temprana Supports the Mental Health of Children and Their Caregivers

At the start of the pandemic in 2020, community needs shifted. While the well-being of children remained a priority, the team at La Red saw the impact that COVID-19 was having on the mental health of not only the children but also on their parents and providers.
Mother teaching children at home because the coronavirus - Learning with digital tablet

Stabilizing the Economic Well-Being of Family, Friend Neighbor Providers

FFN care is one of the most used forms of child care for young children and reliance on this care increased during the pandemic. Greater attention to, inclusion of, and support for FFN caregivers is an urgent priority. 
gabe-pierce-mLqWFEtlIEs-unsplash-crop

New Report Provides Data, Illuminates Opportunities and Challenges for Home-based Pre-K Providers

A recently released report from Home Grown and the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) provides critical state and city data on the current integration of Family Child Care (FCC) providers in publicly-funded pre-K. Titled Including Family Child Care in State and City-Funded Pre-K Systems: Opportunities and Challenges, it also examines perceived opportunities and challenges with FCC participation in pre-K. Home Grown believes that Family Child Care providers contribute a vital service, often in under-served communities, and are deserving of the opportunity to access public pre-K funding to further nurture and teach the children in their care.