Understanding the Child Care
Decision-Making of LowIncome Working Families
Ajay Chaudry, Urban Institute
Julia R. Henly, University of Chicago
May 9, 2011 West Coast Poverty Center
Acknowledgements
Collaboration and research support from:



Marcia Meyers
Heather Sandstrom, Juan Pedroza, Alejandra Ros, Sara Rolen
Generous funding from:




2
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for
Children and Families, USDHHS
Research Development Grant for Policy Research on U.S. Poverty,
USDHHS
Center on Early Childhood Research and the Joint Center for
Poverty Research, University of Chicago
Why focus on the case of child care
decisions in particular?

Majority of parents confront child care decisions

Considerable public expenditures go toward child care

12 billion dollars, state and federal combined (Matthews, 2011)

Child care decisions are complex

Access and use remain highly stratified by family income and
other demographic characteristics.

Significant gaps in knowledge
3
Presentation draws from 3 Projects

Conceptual Frameworks for Understanding Child Care
Decision-Making (co-PIs: Ajay Chaudry, Julia Henly, Marcia
Meyers)

Urban Institute Study of Child Care Choices of Low-Income
Working Families (PI: Ajay Chaudry)

University of Chicago Study of Child Care Fit (PI: Julia Henly)
4
Overview of Presentation
Three conceptual models of decision making


applied to child care decisions
Urban Institute Study of Child Care Choices




Unpacking parental preferences and decision factors
Contexts and constraints shaping decisions
Focus on immigrant families
Study of Work Child Care Fit



Different pathways into care
Importance of Social Networks
Implications



5
For conceptual models and research
For programs and policies
Conceptual Models of Decision-Making

Consumer Choice Model

Heuristics and Biases Model

Social Network Model
6
Consumer Choice Model of Decision Making





Also known by rational choice or economic choice model
Notion that individuals relate their personal preferences to the set of alternatives
they face by considering tradeoffs among the options relative to their
preferences, and make a choice that maximizes their satisfaction.
Choice models recognize that choices are subject to budget and time constraints;
Individuals make decisions about the type, quality, and quantity of a good or
service to use subject to constrained optimization.
Provide clear, well-structured, empirically testable predictions about decision
outcomes, although less suited for understanding decision-making process
Applied across a wide body of decision-making problems, with varying degrees of
success (e.g., Michapolous & Robins, 2002; Blau, 2001; Blau & Hagy, 1998; Holloway,
Rambaud, Fuller, & Eggers-Pierola, 1995; NICHD 2000, 2002)


Choice models have shown to be empirically effective in explaining how price changes and
family income may impact child care and employment decisions
Less successful at explaining how other family factors influence choice, or how variations in
quality matter.
7
Consumer Choice Model of Decision Making

Strong assumptions in traditional economic choice model may not “fit”
child care context and have been relaxed by many researchers coming
from consumer choice perspective:




static and exogenous preferences: some choice models allow for
complex bundles of preferences (e.g., Akerlof 2005; Rabin 2000 )
good or full information: recognition of information asymmetries -Akerlof; Stiglitz),
and individual nature of decisions: recognition that child care decisions
may be made jointly with other decisions and may involve more actors
than the individual alone (e.g., Davis & Connelly, 2005; Baum, 2002;
Powell, 2002)
Other conceptual models may be better designed to understand things such as
the origin of preferences and their complexity; how information is gathered; and
the contexts, cultures, and histories that may challenge individual, rational actor
models.
8
Social Network Model


A sociological network model of decision making considers how
individual choices are mediated by social relationships (informal ties and
organizational ties)
Social networks are an important source of information, support,status,
and normative influence (e.g., Granovetter, 1974; House, Umberson & Landis, 1988,
Lin, 2001)

Network models usually assume individuals are instrumental and moreor-less rational in their approach to decision-making, however choices
are shaped by social network characteristics and processes and goals
may be group- as well as self-interested (Portes, 1998).

Network models can be useful for understanding process (mediation)
and group differences (moderating effects), providing predictions for
how decisions may be affected by characteristics and quality of networks
Networks can be opportunity enhancing or opportunity limiting depending on
their characteristics (Briggs, 1998; House, Umberson, & Landis, 1988).

9
Heuristics and Biases Framework




Decision-making as studied by psychologists and behavioral economists is
concerned with how normal psychological processes interact with socialcontextual factors to influence behavior.
According to this perspective, individuals are “satisficers” rather than
“optimizers” who rely on heuristics – cognitive short cuts – to make decisions
(i.e., Simon, 1957).
In many cases, heuristics result in good and efficient decisions.
But in other cases, heuristics result in less-optimal decisions, or in no decision
(i.e., we accept the default and don’t search).
 Decisions are highly sensitive to the environment. Relatively minor
changes in the environment can have large effects on choices. (Thaler &
Sunstein, 2008)

Suggests malleable to policy intervention
10
Overview of Presentation

Three conceptual models of decision making


Urban Institute Study of Child Care Choices




Unpacking parental preferences and decision factors
Contexts and constraints shaping decisions
Focus on immigrant families
Study of Work Child Care Fit



applied to child care decisions
Different pathways into care
Importance of Social Networks
Implications


11
For conceptual models
For programs and policies
Urban Institute Study of Child Care
Choices of Low-Income Working Families
Purpose of Study is to examine the child care decision making process
of low-income, working parents within the context of their individual
circumstances and community contexts, and to consider strategies that
better support their efforts and offer choices that can make higher
quality child care available and affordable to more families.
Study Research Questions
1.
2.
3.
What are parents’ preferences for child care and which factors
ultimately influence (facilitate or constrain) parents’ child care
choices among low-income working families?
How does the process of choosing child care interact with several
key contextual factors that can influence parents’ child care
decisions, including employment contexts and early care and
education supply, information, and related program policies in the
community?
How do some particular family characteristics influence child care
decisions, and do the choices of some key sub-groups of lowincome families differ in important ways from low-income families
overall?
1. Immigrant families
2. English language learners
3. Families whose children have health or other special needs
Research Methods and Study Sample




Two low-income communities with high immigrant concentrations in
Providence, RI and Seattle, WA
86 low-income working families (43 in each site)

below 250% poverty

parent/primary caregiver works at least 20 hours per week

child under age 5 in non-parental care
Two rounds of in-depth qualitative interviews about 1 year apart
Sample Characteristics

60% foreign-born (Dominican, Mexican, Vietnamese, Somali)

47% English language learners

48% single parent household

Average total hours worked per week = 33

Average hourly wage = $11.00

60% worked “non-standard” hours (beyond M-F 8am-6pm)

Average child age: 31 months (SD = 15) in Providence and 23 months (SD = 14) in Seattle

29 families (34%) received a child care subsidy
Type of Care Arrangements
Focal Child Informal
Age (years) Relative
Informal
Nonrelative
Child Care
Family
Center, Head
Child Care Start, Pre-K
Total
<1
10
1
3
1
15
1
13
3
8
8
32
2
11
1
8
2
22
3
8
2
9
9
28
4
3
0
3
9
15
Total
45
7
31
29
112
Analysis of Parents’ Preferences & Decision
Factors for Current Care Arrangements



Examined qualitative parent interview data for themes related
to parental preferences (i.e., what is important or ideal) and
decision factors (i.e., what made parent choose particular care
arrangement)
Identified 17 preferences and 16 decision factors
Four categories of themes: characteristics of care setting,
caregiver characteristics, availability and accessibility, and
affordability of care
Parental Preferences
Most significant preferences:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Activities and learning opportunities (61%)
Sensitive caregiving and positive relationships (52%)
Safe and trustworthy provider (49%)
Bilingual or native speaker (43%)
Relatives as caregivers (31%)
Key Decision Factors
Most significant decision factors:
1. Convenience
of location, transportation (41%)
2. Cost of care (35%)
3. Relatives as caregivers (33%)
4. Positive relationship with caregiver (29%)
5. Hours of availability (26%)
“The main thing is to find somebody with the hours that you need, the
days that you need, a place that you can call in an emergency, that
you can afford, and it’s sad that you’ve gotta choose your day care by
a place that you can afford, but that’s kinda what we went
through…You know we don’t have a car. So we figure we’re going to
have to bus it. If there was an emergency, we had to have it close to
our job…There was just so many things to take in and deal with and
to find a good one.”
Alignment of Parental Preferences &
Decision Factors

Parental preferences and decision factors do not always align

Example of Strong Alignment: Parents viewed having relatives as
caregivers as important or ideal (preference) and parents chose
to use relative care specifically because they wanted relatives to
care for their children (decision factor)

Example of Strong Misalignment: The majority of parents (61%)
expressed the importance of activities and opportunities for
learning; only 14% families explicitly stated they selected their
current care arrangement because it provided learning activities,
including opportunities to learn English.
Decision Factors by Child Age
Relatively more important for infants and toddlers:

Relationships with providers



Over 80% of families with children younger than one year
Affordability
Quality of physical environment (safety and cleanliness)
Relatively more important for preschoolers:
Activities and learning opportunities
 Nutritious meals/ethnic foods

ECE Contexts and Constraints

Availability and Affordability of Care Options




Parents often described center-based care as limited in availability, restrictive
in terms of age limits, too expensive, and not meeting their scheduling needs.
Head Start and public prekindergarten were viewed as positive options, but
many families did not qualify or were waitlisted, and the programs’ income
limits were often described as too low.
Head Start’s half-day schedule made choices more challenging for parents
needing full-day care.
Some families who did not qualify for Head Start or child care subsidies
described how they still could not afford child care; described most often by
married, dual-income parents.
ECE Contexts and Constraints

Awareness of Care Options




Most parents were aware of some child care opportunities available in their
communities but were generally not well informed of many programs.
Immigrant and ELL families were more aware of family child care than centerbased child care options. ELL families and families with children with special
needs often knew about Head Start.
Almost all of the parents in the sample—especially immigrants and ELLs—
relied primarily on their personal social networks for information about child
care and available public resources.
Fewer families used more formal information sources for child care, such as
CCR&Rs; some found these agencies to be helpful in their searches, others
found information to be outdated and unreliable.
Employment Contexts & Constraints
•
Parents faced multiple employment constraints that limited care
options:



•
Limited employment opportunities and instability of work and income
Low-wage work and lack of benefits
Non-standard hours
Hours of work and work schedules inconsistent with care
options



Many parents had non-standard schedules (beyond M-F 8am-6pm) or
regularly shifting schedules.
Centers opened too late or closed too early; weren’t open on weekends.
Head Start programs were half-day and required a second care
arrangement.
“The good child care around here that I want to put her in, they start at 8 a.m. and I
have to be at school at 7. So we don’t have very many options.”
“I wish I had a little bit more flexibility with the hours, because with daycare, I can’t
find anything open late. So, that’s the only thing. I don’t get out ‘til seven. Daycare
closes at five. It’s the one thing I wish they can do: extend daycare hours.”
“Not having a fixed schedule, especially for the past couple of months, it’s definitely
hard because I don’t know what I’m doing. If my manager hasn’t drawn up my
schedule yet, I don’t know what I’m doing. If I had a child care service, I’d be calling
them up every day saying, you know, this is my different schedule, and next week it’ll
be this different time.”
Employment Contexts & Constraints
•
Jobs were very inflexible in terms of scheduling and time off.



The majority of parents were in jobs that allowed them neither paid time
off, vacation time, or sick leave. Many of their employers were inflexible
regarding family and child care emergencies. Parents risked losing their
jobs.
Those with inflexibility with work discussed seeking more flexibility in
child care.
Transportation challenges: long distances between home and
child care and job locations; a lack of personal vehicles and
reliable public transportation.
Immigrant Families


Overall, immigrant parents were influenced by many of the same factors
as U.S.-born parents in making child care arrangements, and some
additional factors.
Preferences were shaped by unique experiences growing up in their
country of origin and the type of care they received growing up.




Less likely to have experienced non-parental care as a child themselves, and bring
some different norms and expectations for child care.
Some pointed out that the discipline and cultural practices that their children would be
taught in their native country would be ideal, and this was something they looked for
in a child care arrangement in the U.S.
Parents settlement experiences, age of emigration, and acculturation in the
U.S. influenced how much they knew about and considered child care
opportunities.
Immigrants placed a high reliance on social networks within the local
immigrant community for information and access to child care
resources.
Overview of Presentation

Three conceptual models of decision making


Urban Institute Study of Child Care Choices




Unpacking parental preferences and decision factors
Contexts and constraints shaping decisions
Focus on immigrant families
Study of Work Child Care Fit



applied to child care decisions
Different pathways into care
Importance of Social Networks
Implications


28
For conceptual models
For programs and policies
The Study of Work-Child Care Fit

Qualitative study of 54 employed mothers of young children
working in hourly jobs in the retail sector



recruited from 6 employment sites: 4 retail stores and 2 retail
distribution centers.
2 in-depth interviews per employee (~90 min. each)
Demographically diverse sample





29
61.5% African American, 17.3% Latino, 21.2 Non-Latino White
1/3 married or cohabiting, 1/3 single, 1/3 extended household
90% with at least one child 5 or under (10% with 1st or 2nd
grader)
Mean age of child = 1.65 (SD=1.28)
Avg number of kids = 1.85
Employment Characteristics of Sample

Occupation:


Job Status:


59% full time, rest are part time, flex-time, or on-call; all hourly jobs
Low Wage and Earnings:



Manual (27.8%), Customer Service/Clerical (22.2%), Cashier (16.7%),
Sales (25.9%), Other (7.4%)
$7-$14 per hour (mean= $10.06, sd=2.46)
45% have earnings below poverty line; 95% below 185% poverty line
Nonstandard Work Schedules the Norm:




30
24 % majority hours outside daytime hours
63% weekend hours and/or majority hours outside daytime hours
28% have 3+ start times a week; 37% have 3+ end times
50% receive schedule with one week or less notice (range 2 days to 4
weeks); with frequent changes
Child Care Characteristics of Sample

Primary arrangement of youngest child:




Cost of care:




Center/Pre-K 16.7%; Family Child Care 20.4%; FFN 50% (grandmother
63%); Father 5.6%; School 7.4%
83% have secondary arrangements; all center users have secondary
arrangements.
Most common strategy is to package care across multiple providers
No Expense 35.2%; $1-25 = 14.8%; $26-50= 24.1%; $51 + = 25.9% (weekly)
Mean $32.53; Median $14
27% of sample currently receives subsidy; another 16% used to be on
subsidy but lost it due to earnings increase or administrative problem
Number of hours with primary provider

31
Less than 30 = 8.5%; 30-45 = 66%; 46+ = 25.5%
Analysis of Pathways

Previous analyses with these data focused on employment and
work schedule instability and parental strategies for managing
work and caregiving (e.g., Henly, Shaefer, & Waxman, 2006; Henly
& Lambert, 2005).

This re-analysis of the data examined child care search strategies,
considering themes related to how parents found care, with
particular attention to preferences, information, resources, and
constraints
32
Pathways into Care

No Search




Family Norms/ Family Strategy
Someone else decides
Goes with past experience
More-or-less active searching



Short, serial searches the norm
Satisficing strategy
Need to accommodate multiple constraints
 About evenly split across the two groups
33
No active search:
Family Norms/Family Strategy

Several participants described a taken for granted, tacitly understood
agreement that relatives (usually grandmother) would provide care.



“it’s always kind of understood”, “an instinct” (10);” an automatic thing” (176)
“We choose to try to raise them in the home until we think they’re ready for school”
(165)
In other cases, it was less “automatic,” and more of a strategic decision to
keep child care within the family…sometimes for economic reasons


34
" so I’m like, my momma started coming around, she started watching him
and stuff and I told her about the childcare [subsidy] and what she would
be getting and so she like, that that sounds good, that help out with her
rent, so…" (45)
“[Mom] was off of work for awhile. Ah, she was diagnosed with sugar or
whatever and her blood pressure…And ah, she really didn’t have no
source of income coming in and stuff. And she was watching the kids, but
I was paying her out of my check. I didn’t have [a subsidy] then. But when
I found out that your mother can watch them…and get paid for it, that’s
when. It happened about a year ago. That’s how that came about.” (94)
No active search:
Family Norms/Family Strategy

Strong alignment between preferences and arrangement in family
norm group; more ambivalence in family strategy group


Lack of trust of non-family members, especially for infants/toddlers


Largely influenced by media and cultural histories; sometimes personal
experience but limited
Norms dictating preference for family caregivers directed primarily
at younger children, although not always


Both 45 and 94 (prior page) reported preferring “day care,” but didn’t seek it
perhaps putting collective family interest over individual interest.
Belief in family caregivers until children could talk, or until preschool
Family norm/Family strategy group lived in extended household
structures or very nearby family caregivers

35
May be an intentional caregiving strategy; or may operate the other way, i.e.,
greater availability and salience of kin increases use
No active search:
Someone else decides

No search by participant because someone else either volunteered
to take care of child or made the decision for parent; “it wasn’t my
decision”


All these arrangements are with relatives




Usually participant’s mother, sometimes baby’s father/husband decided
The result of strong preference for relative care by the person making
the decision
Respondent sometimes had additional information about
alternatives, but did not seriously consider them
Several in this group overlap with Family norm/ Family strategy
group
Alignment of arrangement with participant’s preferences varied [see
quotes next page]
36
R’s Mom Decides, Aligned with R’s Preference (190)

IW: How did you decide that your mom would be taking care of the kids?
R: Oh my mom decided it. She’s not fond of other people that are not your family
members taking care of kids. She likes to see the news a lot. At nighttime, and she sees
that caretakers kill kids, and they hit kids, and they abuse. You know, they do all these
crazy things to kids.…She says, you know, “Nobody’s going to take care of my grandkids.
They’re too small. They can’t defend themselves, they can’t tell us what happens to them.”
[I1: Right.] She says, “It’s not happening.” She says, “I’d rather take care of them. I’m going
to take care of them.”
 Although Mom decided, it was consistent with R’s preferences
Boyfriend Decides, Against R’s Preference (104)

IW: Did you…did you consider any other options? [Son is cared for by R’s mother]
R: I did. I wanted to put him in daycare…but, my boyfriend didn’t want to; he still doesn’t
want to…(IW: I see) but ah, I really do want to put him in daycare because my mother
wants to get a job, she wants to work and help my father out…(I1: I see) but, he doesn’t
want me to put my son in daycare, so…
37
No active search:
Goes with past experience







Families with older children, often reported going with an
arrangement they had already used, rather than searching
These arrangements varied in type of care (e.g., family child care;
center;YMCA; “babysitter”; relatives)
Familiarity and convenience seemed to drive decision
Knew a lot about the arrangement already; reduced need to seek out more
info
Convenient when other kids also in care
Decision did not always align with R’s preferences, but “satisficing”
Some voiced reservations about the choice, concerns about the
arrangement, or indicated plans to move child in the future.
38

IW: how you decided to send him to Kiddie Care [child care center]?
R: Because ah, Alexandra [older daughter] had been at that center since she was fifteen
months old. So he was actually on the waiting list when I was pregnant with him. ///
…so I put him on the waiting list. And I pressed the issue, and pressed the issue, and
pressed the issue for them to let him start. And they finally let him start [when he was 6
mos. old.] ///
IW: And did you have, were you considering other options or that was that the only thing
you considered?
R: That was the only thing I considered.
IW: Okay. Cause it was convenient?
R: It was convenient. Convenient. I didn’t have to go over here to drop her off, there to
drop him off. [With this arrangement I] drop off everybody here and go on about my way.
(70)
[R notes that when older daughter graduates from center, she is going to find a different center
for her son that is closer to her home or her work. She doesn’t like the distance of the
current center and she has some safety concerns as well.]
39
More-or-less active searching

The majority of respondents reported at least some
search prior to accepting an arrangement
Searches were often (not always) restricted to one child care
sector (i.e., R was looking for a pre-school for their 3 year old)
Searches varied in their deliberativeness and scrutiny of
alternatives
40
More-or-less active searching
Example of more intentional search, scrutinizing option (178)
After several years of respondent’s mother watching son, when it was
time to seek a kindergarten she describes the following search,
noting that it was hard to find a program that met her care needs:
 R: I mean, yes I did [search] and, especially when he first turned
five. I started looking into different schools and different kindergarten
programs, which was hard because most of them were ah, for just
two or three hours a day. And I’m like, “Okay, that’s really going to be
hard because I have to have someone, you know, dropping him off
and picking him up in the mornings?” And when I found the full-day
program, then I started thinking, “Okay, that’s a long time for him to
be there, but.”
IW: Right.
R: Ah, I got a lot of referrals to this one school. So, I checked it out,
I went, I did visits, ah, they gave me a tour, I met most of the staff
there, and I liked it. (178)
41
More-or-less active searching
Example of search focused primarily on cost, within type (179)
 R: I was shoppin' around for different schools, plus price range, and
Saint Paul’s was the best choice for me as far as child care.
IW: And, um, how did you find out about St. Paul’s? I mean...
R: Well [Aunt’s grandson] went to St. Paul’s, so...
IW: Okay, … did you consider other schools or...?
R: Well yeah. For one the price wasn't--it was too much as far as the
extended care. One of the problems was the tuition, it was the child
care half of the school and whatever. [I1: Right.] Yeah. 'Cause they
vary from school to school. One school may be, uh, eighty dollars a
month, one school was two-hundred dollars, one was two-eighty, I
was like, no. I can't pay that.
IW: So you settled on this partly because it was more affordable,
or...?
R: Right.
42
More-or-less active searching:
Very restricted searches the norm

Number of alternatives considered were extremely limited

Of 21 searches for which we could determine the number of
alternatives:



10 considered ONE option – (maybe non-searchers?)
2 considered TWO options
9 considered MULTIPLE options

“Short searchers” relied heavily on informal referrals

A problem with a previous arrangement was precursor for most
“short searchers,” creating significant time pressure to find new
care
43
More-or-less active searching:
Extended searches

Rather than increasing their choice set, respondents who described
conducting extended searches were often still left with one or no
choice.



Searches tended to be serial: By far the most common search strategy
was to identify one possible provider, determine if it would work, and if
not, continue to search until the next provider was found.
Alternatives not viable because: cost, child’s age, location, schedule,
full/wait list
4 of 9 “extended searchers” ended up with an arrangement that
wasn’t even found through their search.

44
In three cases, a chance encounter with someone who knew about an
opening and in one case, R’s mom found the arrangement for her.

IW: How did you find out about [Ms. Parker], how, why did you decide to…
R: My mother, she um, she found her, she told me about her.
IW: How’d she find her?
R: [CHUCKLE] I don’t even know how she found her, she just came [INAUDIBLE]
and told me she found um daycare for him and that she set up an interview.
IW: Had she been looking for you? Did you know that she’d been looking?
R: No, she didn’t tell me, and um
IW: Had you been looking for day care?
R: Yeah, I had looked before. The day cares that I was um looking at, they wanted
kids that was potty trained and my son isn’t potty trained yet, he just turned one.
IW: Ok, so she, so she found this for you, and did she know Ms. Parker? Like was it
someone she knew?
R: She didn’t know her personally but someone she knew knew her and told her
about her about . .( IW: Ok, ok.) And she called and set up an interview with her,
we went over there... and I liked her, it was nice, so she asked me when I wanted to
start and I told her the following Monday, (116)
45
Fortuitous encounter in beauty salon (174)
 Respondent met her boyfriend’s mother in the beauty parlor and was
discussing her problem finding a preschool for her daughter. By chance, a
kindergarten teacher who her boyfriend’s mother knew was in the beauty
salon and overheard the conversation:

R: She [boyfriend’s mother] hadn’t, actually she hadn’t been to the shop in almost
a year... (IW: I see.) … and it just so happened that particular day, after I’ve
been out all day and I was actually running late for my appointment, I got there
and she was there and I was talking to her about, “Oh, what am I gonna do? It’s
been so hard. Everybody’s got a waiting list. All the good schools in the area, you
gotta go through testing” and this, that, and the other, and [the kindergarten
teacher] is like, “Well, how old is she?” And I was telling her. She said, “Well we
have a Preschool Program at my school, but let me talk to the Pre-K Teacher to
see when the testing are setup. “ So she called me up the very next day, “Testing
is this week, you gotta get down here before Friday.”
46
Searches as Satisficing

Searches often reflected Simon’s notion of “satisficing.”

47
Strategies were accommodations reflecting good-enough rather
than optimal decisions, given limited information and a constrained
environment
Multiple contexts constraining or enabling
response to care needs
Work
FamilyChild CareChild care
market
Accommodati
on
Social
Network
48
School
Social Networks


Regardless of the pathway followed, social networks proved to be
instrumental in the search process
Referrals: Family and friends were by far the most frequent source
for learning about providers.



Only 4 respondents relied on formal institutions for information about
child care arrangements, with 3 obtaining information from child care
centers and 1 from both a child care center and a public program.
But referrals did not necessarily come from close network ties; often
fairly casual acquaintances (“weak ties”)
Informal networks and formal institutions were both important sources
of information about child care subsidies.

49
8 respondents reported learning about the child care subsidy program from
someone in their informal network & 9 from another public program, child care
center, or a home-based provider.
Social Networks

Family and friends often helped negotiate the arrangement


connected respondent to the provider, brought her to the arrangement
to observe and interview with the director, vouched for her, and so on.
Family and friends were providers themselves

50
50% of the sample used family, friend, or neighbor care as a primary
arrangement and almost all used these individuals as secondary
arrangements
Why are social networks so
important to the search process?

Social network members are more immediately accessible than
formal information and referral sources.



Embedded in the contexts (work, school, family, etc) that parents are
trying to negotiate and therefore may better understand what parents
need.
Alternative sources of information are often elusive
Social network members are credible sources to parents, and
parents seem to believe in the trustworthiness of an
arrangement/provider recommended by a network member.
” And ah, my aunt had her son in there [center]. So, she’s like, “It’s good! They have
patience! You can trust them.” And ah, “Okay!”
51
Overview of Presentation

Three conceptual models of decision making


Urban Institute Study of Child Care Choices




Unpacking parental preferences and decision factors
Contexts and constraints shaping decisions
Focus on immigrant families
Study of Work Child Care Fit



applied to child care decisions
Different pathways into care
Importance of Social Networks
Implications


52
For conceptual models
For programs and policies
Accommodation Perspective

Emphasizes constrained nature of decisions


Decisions “accommodate market, family, and social realities” (Meyers &
Jordan, 2006)
Attention to behavior “in context”

Preferences interact with constraints, and change over time and context
 Not necessarily stable or exogenous

Information is always partial and comes from multiple sources, but
especially social networks
 Social networks are critical to accommodation model, as they are the
link between environment and individual
 In addition to providing information, they are important sources of
influence and shape how parents interpret information and options
53
Applying the accommodation model to
child care:


In a conventional rational choice model the search process is
conceptualized as deliberative and intentional, whereby individuals consider
the various tradeoffs of a set of alternatives, and selects the ‘best’ choice.
In contrast, the accommodation model assumes that the search process
varies in intentionality and deliberativeness due to:



Cognitive limitations: Heuristic processing and short cuts are fundamental to
human decision making
Well-learned patterns of behavior: Social norms, and the social networks that
create and reinforce them, are powerful contributors to information,
preferences, and decisions, and can significantly reduce the perceived need for
deliberative searches.
Thus, when navigating the complexities of the child care search, the process
gets simplified as a result of normal psychological processes and help from
the social messages reinforced in our social environment

Shortening search efforts and lessening their reflective, deliberative quality
•
Yet, individuals are understood as having agency, not simply creatures of
habit or of their environment.

54
The extent of agency will vary with individual characteristics, context, and
circumstance
Policy Implications
Many challenges low-income families face in arranging child care are due to tight
constraints on choices related to supply, information, and access to subsidies.
This implies that it is hard to change care choices without changing these care
constraints, and expanding, integrating, and targeting ECE resources to increase the
availability of affordable care options in low-income communities.
•Expand child care subsidy funding to guaranteed child care assistance for low-income working
families with young children.
•Increase and shift more Head Start resources to lowest income communities; expand
program to require full-day and extended hours care options.



Strategically integrate early childhood resources to provide a continuum of child
care opportunities from ages birth to five that meets families’ needs and
preferences.
Support development of supply to match unmet needs with contracts with child
care centers that offer a broader array of hours.
Target these efforts where the supply and integration of services is most limited.
Policy Implications
Increase consumer awareness and access to child care services




Support information campaigns to educate parents on child care and resources
that are targeted and involve social network members and consistent with
network values and norms in the community.
Ease access to early childhood services with community-based enrollment,
simplified common applications, and streamlined eligibility.
Make preferred options defaults by coupling subsidy access with opportunities for
information and enrollment to high-quality care opportunities
Support community agencies to provide parents with easy-to-access information
about availability of local care providers, eligibility, and enrollment opportunities
for all publicly supported early care and education programs.
Ensure quality of child care options in low-income communities.

Require states to develop strong, externally validated quality rating and
improvement systems (QRIS) for all forms of subsidized child care.
Implications for Future Research
•
•
•
•
How we conceptualize child care decision-making has implications for
how we design research studies to understand care choices, how
parents consider quality in care decisions, and how public resources
may or may not support care opportunities for low-income families.
Understanding individual decisions within social contexts and the role
of social networks in child care choices.
Evaluate efforts to overcome information constraints: what is available
to families, how do they access it and use it, and how can it be
improved?
Using mixed methods approaches to develop insights on the
interactions between family, work and social processes within larger
population studies.. Use longitudinal designs to examine transitions and
timings of decisions.