View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Understanding Family Childcare Educators' Experiences in Alberta, Canada: A Focus Group Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Understanding Family Childcare Educators' Experiences in Alberta, Canada: A Focus Group Study
Language: English
Authors: Laura Woodman (ORCID 0000-0001-9702-4938), Rhonda Breitkreuz (ORCID 0000-0003-0062-4190), Rebecca Gokiert (ORCID 0000-0002-7472-9545), Adam M. Galovan (ORCID 0000-0002-4016-4187)
Source: International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 2025 19.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Child Care, Child Caregivers, Early Childhood Teachers, Early Childhood Education, Family Environment, Teaching Experience, Teacher Qualifications, Faculty Development, Access to Information, Educational Resources, Agency Role, Teaching Conditions
Geographic Terms: Canada
DOI: 10.1186/s40723-025-00144-3
ISSN: 1976-5681
2288-6729
Abstract: Given the unique challenges of offering childcare in home-based settings, specialized support is needed to help family childcare educators offer high-quality early learning and childcare. The purpose of this study was to increase understanding of the unique needs of home-based educators and identify supports based on educator and consultant perspectives. This study addresses the current gap within the Canadian early learning and childcare system in understanding family childcare educators' experiences by asking the following questions: (1) What are the experiences of family childcare educators in Alberta? and (2) From educator and consultant perspectives, what are the factors that facilitate the ability to provide high-quality childcare in family childcare programs? A descriptive qualitative engaged research approach was used in this study. In focus groups, 26 experienced educators and consultants shared their perceptions of facilitators and barriers to high-quality family childcare. Our study highlights three areas for growth in Alberta's childcare sector: the need for professional development targeted to the family childcare field, increased access to community connections and resources, and agency support enabling educators to take breaks. Family childcare educators have unique workplace strengths and challenges and require support from families, professional support systems, and policy makers to provide high-quality early learning and childcare.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1472268
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGHVNOBiPa1nkAhhriyo1IzAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNyslmpD_8shS1ecAgIBEICBm6GdIJ9bOoSUT3FAGHv4OFkzNj8Lr2K8o0Xkbc2FGm5ITa9VVtXNakjUBgHelTVhq9rb3xPhMJHcmaOhfYHatm55z0gWF-Gp_VpjTZwqi7b0l5iFTcwMC3FsdCWsGF_Zbuv0l3S4ZwZ1R6L-hcVOeAgbqmWwP2jrfmNFt9LyHmJ9Za8hPU4n4SQ3QIHKnfqPbJ5s89KyBG1foIzg
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0185423509;[ds0u]24may.25;2025May28.05:37;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0185423509-1">Understanding family childcare educators' experiences in Alberta, Canada: a focus group study </title> <p>Given the unique challenges of offering childcare in home-based settings, specialized support is needed to help family childcare educators offer high-quality early learning and childcare. The purpose of this study was to increase understanding of the unique needs of home-based educators and identify supports based on educator and consultant perspectives. This study addresses the current gap within the Canadian early learning and childcare system in understanding family childcare educators' experiences by asking the following questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) What are the experiences of family childcare educators in Alberta? and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) From educator and consultant perspectives, what are the factors that facilitate the ability to provide high-quality childcare in family childcare programs? A descriptive qualitative engaged research approach was used in this study. In focus groups, 26 experienced educators and consultants shared their perceptions of facilitators and barriers to high-quality family childcare. Our study highlights three areas for growth in Alberta's childcare sector: the need for professional development targeted to the family childcare field, increased access to community connections and resources, and agency support enabling educators to take breaks. Family childcare educators have unique workplace strengths and challenges and require support from families, professional support systems, and policy makers to provide high-quality early learning and childcare.</p> <p>Keywords: Family childcare; Family day home; Home-based childcare; Early childhood education; Qualitative research</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Quality childcare is an integral part of a strong society. Childcare is required for parents to attend work or school, and over half of Canadian children aged six and under receive non-familial care (Statistics Canada, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref3">40</reflink>]). Despite this, there is currently a lack of licensed childcare spaces; across Canada, 48% of young children live in childcare "deserts"—places where three or more children exist for every licensed space available (Macdonald & Friendly, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref4">29</reflink>]). With limited licensed options, families struggle to meet their childcare needs (Prentice & White, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref5">35</reflink>]) and often seek alternative arrangements, which vary considerably in quality and reliability (Breitkreuz et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref6">5</reflink>]). In response, the Government of Canada recently created <emph>Early Learning and Childcare Agreements</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref7">22</reflink>]) with each province and territory, aimed at increasing access to affordable, quality early learning and childcare (ELCC) across the nation. This represents a shift in values and policy as Canada moves away from seeing childcare as a private responsibility, toward considering it a public responsibility and providing an equitable national childcare system (White, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref8">46</reflink>]). In the Province of Alberta where this study took place, the federal government has invested 5.8 billion dollars over a 5-year period, in part to add 42,000 licensed childcare spaces across the province (Government of Alberta, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref9">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Most of the new spaces being created in Alberta focus on regulated home-based ELCC, or family childcare—where one educator provides licensed childcare for a small group of children in mixed age groups in their home (Tonyan et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref10">44</reflink>]). These programs fill existing ELCC gaps in childcare deserts where families have little or no access to licensed childcare (Malik et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref11">30</reflink>]). Research on ELCC in Canada, however, does not typically include family childcare (Varmuza et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref12">45</reflink>]; Woodman, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref13">50</reflink>]), limiting knowledge about family childcare educators' experiences. As government policy emphasizes that family childcare is a key approach to addressing the shortage in childcare service, this research gap is notable, and more research is needed to inform ELCC practices and policies for family childcare in the Canadian context. This article offers a unique contribution to family childcare research by detailing the experiences of Alberta family childcare educators within an agency licensing model, documenting factors that support educators in offering high-quality childcare from educator and consultant perspectives.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-3">Family childcare in Canada</hd> <p>Early learning and childcare (ELCC) encompasses any childcare service provided for a fee. Settings of ELCC vary from large centre-based programs to preschools and include both kindergarten and family childcare programs (Beach et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]). Most ELCC settings share similar characteristics, like working with a group of children of the same age alongside other educators or support staff in a designated program space. In contrast, in family childcare, the educator works alone, cares for children of mixed ages, provides childcare out of the shared family space within their own home, and must balance many roles, sometimes simultaneously (Fernandez et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]). Rather than being a modified or watered-down version of centre-based care, family childcare is a distinctly different service model (Doherty, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref16">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>By definition, family childcare educators are self-employed as they are small business owners. In Canada, the vast majority are women, and many are immigrants (Abbes & Macdonald, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>]). While many think of family childcare programs as a temporary arrangement that allows mothers to earn an income while parenting their own young children, 51% of Canada's family childcare educators do not have children of their own under age 13 (Abbes & Macdonald, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>]). Unlicensed family childcare provides a significant proportion of Canada's childcare services, with approximately 100,000 unlicensed family childcare programs operating each year, accounting for 32.1% of all childcare revenue (Abbes & Macdonald, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]). In contrast, the number of licensed family childcare programs is much lower, ranging from 1 to 3% in areas like Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nunavut in 2023 to 17% of licensed care spaces in the Northwest Territories (Friendly et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]). In 2023, family childcare accounted for approximately 7% of licensed childcare spaces both nationally and in Alberta, though licensed spaces continue to be created since the implementation of the new childcare agreements.</p> <p>While there is a commonly held assumption that family childcare is lower in quality than centre-based care, research to support this is limited and mixed. Some publications, especially in Canada, take this assumption as a statement of fact and do not offer evidence to back it up. Other studies point out that family childcare quality is different, and that ELCC quality measurement scales were created for centre-based settings so lack the ability to accurately measure unique family childcare quality (Hooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref21">25</reflink>]). As Blasberg et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>]) states, "A growing body of research suggests that home-based child care has distinctive characteristics that are not often taken into consideration by existing measures or captured in quality rating standards" (p. 3).</p> <p>The terminology used to describe childcare programs varies depending on context and geographical location. As shown above, 'home-based childcare' is a common term used in academic literature for programs where one educator cares for a group of children in their own home (Blasberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>]; Doran et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref24">11</reflink>]), and 'family childcare' is another commonly used term (Fernandez et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>]; Hooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref26">25</reflink>]). Throughout Canada, 'family childcare' is the most frequently used term for these programs, but in Alberta, the term 'day home' is used instead (Beach et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>]). Additionally, terminology used for centre-based programs also varies; although 'daycare' is a term that most academics find outdated and inaccurate, in the ELCC field—and within this study—many practitioners still use the term 'daycare' rather than 'centre-based care'. Throughout this article, ELCC programs are referred to by the terms 'family childcare' and 'centre-based', though participant quotes include the terms 'day home' and 'daycare'. For consistency, licensed agencies described below are called 'family childcare agencies', though Alberta regulations mention 'family day home agencies' (Government of Alberta, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref28">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Family childcare programs in Canada can operate privately, without meeting licensing or regulation requirements, or as licensed, regulated programs (Government of Canada, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref29">20</reflink>]). Though most provinces and territories place limits on the number and/or ages of children in licensed care, unlicensed programs operate without external monitoring and support, and inspections are not conducted unless there is a complaint (Ferns & Friendly, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref30">14</reflink>]). Licensed family childcare programs, in contrast, have ongoing external monitoring and meet strict licensing regulations including ratios, nutrition, and child guidance (Beach et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>In Canada, licensed family childcare is offered in two models: a direct licensing model, where programs are licensed and monitored by the provincial or territorial government, or an agency model, where the agency holds the license, contracts with individual family childcare programs, and employs consultants to provide regular in-home monitoring and support. While most provinces and territories use the direct licensing model, Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Quebec, and most of Newfoundland and Labrador use an agency model (Friendly et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref32">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Alberta regulations mandate that agencies provide specific services to educators (Government of Alberta, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref33">23</reflink>]). At minimum, agencies are required to regularly monitor programs and remedy licensing non-compliance, offer training and support, and investigate any incidents or complaints. Enrolment is capped at six children aged 0–12, not including the educator's own children. A maximum of two children under 24 months, and three children under 36 months, is permitted; this includes the educator's own children.</p> <p>Importantly, while the regional licensing regulations for every agency are the same, organizations meet the requirements in diverse ways. Those differences impact continuing education quality and topics offered, relationship dynamics between educator and agency, and limits placed on educator practices and abilities. For example, an agency may choose to conduct monthly home visits rather than the minimum requirement of six per year, or offer professional development virtually in the evening, allowing more educators to attend. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the body of educators running a family childcare program with a licensed agency in Alberta receive the same amount or quality of agency support, or that they all offer the same quality of ELCC. It is important to understand the divergent experiences of those working with licensed agencies, 63% of which are currently for-profit (Friendly et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref34">17</reflink>]), as the many differences in agency practice and policy not only impact educator experience but also children's development and wellbeing.</p> <p>Given the unique configuration of family childcare, educator wellbeing is especially critical in ensuring child wellbeing. Key components of protecting children's safety and wellbeing include affectionate and supportive educators and collaborative and professional educator–parent relationships (Doherty, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref35">10</reflink>]). Educator emotional health and financial wellbeing are also critical predictors of child outcomes in family childcare settings (Forry et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref36">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>While increasing the number of licensed family childcare spaces is a critical component of the Canadian childcare agreements, the devaluing of family childcare impacts the funding that this sector receives and is evident in low educator earnings. Rates charged in centre-based settings are an average of $452 per month more than rates charged for family childcare spaces (Arrive, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>]). Government funding for licensed family childcare is also lower; in Alberta, the new ELCC agreements currently include affordability grants which are approximately 40% less for family childcare spaces than the grants offered to centre-based programs (Province of Alberta, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref38">37</reflink>]). Lower wages and limited funding result in difficulty purchasing high-quality food or materials, which impacts an educators' ability to offer high quality care and adds stress to those working in family childcare (Malik et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref39">30</reflink>]; Mimura et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref40">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-4">Facilitating factors and barriers to educators offering quality ELCC</hd> <p>There are clear connections between quality ELCC and child development, with research showing that high-quality care supports children's socioemotional competence and wellbeing, and their physical, cognitive, and academic abilities (Garon-Carrier, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref41">18</reflink>]; Government of Canada, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref42">20</reflink>]; White et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref43">47</reflink>]). Yet quality can be hard to define, as the concept is multifaceted and varies according to measurement and proximity (Garon-Carrier, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref44">18</reflink>]). Two key components of quality are structural quality and process quality. Structural quality is more distal, encompassing physical and organizational features like physical environment standards, staff qualifications, group composition, and working conditions. Process quality is proximal, encompassing the interactions and relationships between children, educators, and materials. While both structure and process can enhance learning and child development, the primary driver of child wellbeing and outcomes is process quality (Garon-Carrier, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref45">18</reflink>]). As such, positive educator–child interactions characterized by educator nurturing, warmth, and sensitivity, together with stimulating learning activities, are key indicators of high-quality ELCC.</p> <p>While research based in the United States indicates that many family childcare educators are well-positioned to offer quality care, often enjoy working with children (Hooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref46">25</reflink>]), and have strong internal motivation to provide high-quality care (Forry et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref47">15</reflink>]; Porter et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref48">34</reflink>]), others may struggle with isolation and the unique barriers associated with family childcare settings. Canadian research demonstrates that most family childcare educators actively engage in networking and collaborative problem-solving (Doherty, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref49">10</reflink>]), connecting with peers in contexts like neighborhood playgroups or social media groups (Tonyan et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref50">44</reflink>]). Existent research corroborates the need for peer support (Bromer & Weaver, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref51">7</reflink>]; Porter & Bromer, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref52">33</reflink>]), which can help educators implement and sustain quality care (Swartz et. al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref53">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Successful family childcare educators set and maintain boundaries within professional relationships (Fernandez et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref54">13</reflink>]; Mimura et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]), by making time for self-care and ensuring healthy work-life balance. Strong boundaries are important strengths that enable longevity and satisfaction in the family childcare field (Faulkner et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref56">12</reflink>]; Gerstenblatt et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref57">19</reflink>]). Using effective routines is another practice of effective educators, as solid, flexible rhythm and routines helps keep the family childcare program running well and enable educators to offer quality ELCC (Hooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref58">25</reflink>]; Sisson et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref59">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Many educators, however, struggle to create the supports needed, particularly if they do not have a network of family childcare peers and informed, experienced professional supports such as targeted continuing education opportunities (Bromer & Kormacher, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>]; Jeon et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref61">27</reflink>]; Tonyan et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref62">44</reflink>]). Targeted support systems offered by experienced, specially trained professionals enable educators to develop sustainable practices and can decrease isolation, stress, and burnout (Porter & Bromer, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref63">33</reflink>]), yet research has shown that professionals offering support often lack knowledge or training on the abilities and experiences of educators working in family childcare settings (Bromer & Weaver, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref64">7</reflink>]). Indeed, policies and programs in place to support educators, including childcare licensing and continuing education opportunities, are often designed to meet the needs of educators working in centre-based care (Swartz et. al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref65">43</reflink>]) rather than family childcare educators.</p> <p>Because family childcare is routinely excluded from childcare research in Canada, little is known about the unique needs of this distinct population (Blasberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref66">4</reflink>]; Woodman, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref67">50</reflink>]). Given the lack of Canadian family childcare research, their unique needs and configuration, and the limited availability of targeted continuing education and policies, family childcare educators may be struggling in a system geared toward the perspectives of larger childcare centres (Woodman, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref68">48</reflink>]). This study builds on existing research to contribute to the knowledge base on family childcare by increasing understanding the experiences of family childcare educators in Alberta and identifying factors that facilitate educators' ability to offer high-quality childcare. Using data from focus groups of family childcare educators and consultants, we explore two broad questions:</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>) What are Albertan family childcare educators' experiences?</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>) From educator and consultant perspectives, what are the factors that facilitate the ability to offer high-quality childcare in family childcare programs?</p> <p>Increasing knowledge on family childcare perspectives can aid policy makers as they seek to establish a high-quality Canadian child care system and increase access to licensed spaces through licensed family childcare.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-5">Methodology</hd> <p>As little is known about family childcare from the perspectives of those working within a Canadian agency model, we took a qualitative descriptive focus and employed a community-engaged approach. Before the study began, a series of key stakeholder meetings were held with prominent ELCC organizations and leaders across Alberta, including licensed family childcare agencies, post-secondary institutes, and organizations supporting ELCC educators. Community engagement oriented the research with specific community needs, allowing for the creation of evidence that can be used to inform targeted support systems for community challenges (Cacari-Stone et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref71">8</reflink>]; Levin, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref72">28</reflink>]). Qualitative description was used for naturalistic inquiry with simultaneous data collection and analysis, enabling each to shape the other (Sandelowski, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref73">38</reflink>]). A directed approach to content analysis was employed (Hsieh & Shannon, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref74">26</reflink>]); reviewing existent literature offered an entry point to the data and guided initial coding.</p> <p>To increase perspectives and the range of data collected, this study included experienced educators and consultants working with licensed family childcare agencies. While each educator holds lived experience of their own practice, consultants typically have a caseload of 20–30 educators, and over their career consultants may oversee hundreds of family childcare programs. Because turnover in the family childcare is high (Abbes & Macdonald, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>])—and because newer educators must learn to balance complex roles and newer consultants must learn how to understand and support educators—those just entering careers in the field were not included. Participants were recruited by contacting every licensed Alberta agency through email and postal mail, requesting that they forward the invitation to participate to their most experienced educators and consultants. Some information packages were returned unopened, and some agencies chose not to forward the invitation. Five focus groups with 26 experienced educators and consultants working in licensed family childcare in Alberta were conducted. Participants did not receive an incentive for participating in this research. This research was approved by the University of Alberta Research Ethics Board, and informed consent to participate was received from all participants.</p> <p>Focus groups were conducted in September and October of 2021. Thirteen educators and thirteen consultants participated, representing 18 licensed agencies, a third of all family childcare agencies in the province at the time this study was conducted (see Table 1). To allow for confidentiality and to avoid conflicts of interest or power dynamics, educators and consultants were grouped separately to allow participants to speak freely.</p> <p>Table 1 Participant demographics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Focus group</p></th><th align="left"><p>Participant type</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number (n) of participants</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Family childcare</p><p>experience (years)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Centre experience (years)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Mean</p></th><th align="left"><p>Range</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean</p></th><th align="left"><p>Range</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Consultant</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.7</p></td><td char="–" align="char"><p>3–20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.0</p></td><td char="–" align="char"><p>0–9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Consultant</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.6</p></td><td char="–" align="char"><p>6–30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.3</p></td><td char="–" align="char"><p>1–16</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Educator</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.7</p></td><td char="–" align="char"><p>9–20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.7</p></td><td char="–" align="char"><p>0–4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Educator</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.3</p></td><td char="–" align="char"><p>5–25</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.9</p></td><td char="–" align="char"><p>1–11</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Consultant</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.7</p></td><td char="–" align="char"><p>3–26</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.0</p></td><td char="–" align="char"><p>9–15</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Focus groups allowed for rich, deep descriptions of family childcare strengths and challenges, and the interactive element allowed participants to build on each other's responses (Stewart & Shamdasani, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref76">41</reflink>]). While interviews allow in-depth analysis of individual experiences, focus groups enable synergy, snowballing, and stimulation, generating more viewpoints and a wider range of information (Stokes & Bergin, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref77">42</reflink>]). Each focus group lasted between 60 and 90 min, took place online via Zoom (due to the COVID-19 pandemic), was audio and video recorded, and transcribed verbatim. The focus groups were facilitated by the first author, following a semi-structured interview guide that covered these knowledge domains: problem-solving, working with parents and consultants, work–life balance, and engaging with support. The interview questions were created based on stakeholder input and a review of the literature (Woodman, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref78">49</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-6">Data analysis</hd> <p>Focus group data were analyzed following a directed approach to content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref79">26</reflink>]). All data were transcribed verbatim, and all identifying data were removed and replaced with a participant ID number. Focus groups were transcribed and analyzed iteratively; data from each individual focus group was analyzed, then codes were further developed by comparing data grouped by participant type (consultant or educator). Finally, data from all focus groups were analyzed together to create the final codebook and themes. Rigour was adhered to throughout the data collection and analysis, including mindfulness, memoing, being aware of bias, journaling, and participant checks (Daly, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref80">9</reflink>]; Maxwell, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref81">31</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-7">Findings</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to increase understanding of the unique needs of educators working in home-based settings, and to identify factors that best meet their unique needs. The findings were organized into three areas: (a) foundational characteristics that support or create barriers within family childcare, (b) barriers to running a successful family childcare program, and (c) factors that facilitate high-quality family childcare. Each is described below with illustrative quotes from the focus group participants to highlight the experiences of family childcare educators and consultants.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-8">Foundational characteristics that support or create barriers within family childcare</hd> <p>Three key foundational characteristics were shared by educators and consultants and included relationships, community connections, and continuing education. These foundational characteristics were described by participants as either hindering or facilitating family childcare educators in providing quality ELCC.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-9">Relationships</hd> <p>Relationships between educators and parents, consultants, and agencies were described by focus group participants as supportive or detrimental. Supportive relationships with parents were mentioned by many educators in focus groups: "I've had good relationships with most of my parents," and: "I love working with my parents." Parent traits that participants noted as supporting family childcare educators included taking time to communicate about the children, enabling educators to take time off, and appreciating educators' work. Supportive relationships between educators and consultants were established when consultant turnover was low, allowing relationships to develop over time. On the other hand, high turnover resulted in short-term educator–consultant relationships and a lack of trust and support. Supportive consultants were described as those who took time to build strong relationships and offer individualized support, provided specific continuing education opportunities, and had experience running a family childcare program themselves.</p> <p>Educators in the focus groups discussed the clear division of power within the agency–educator relationship and shared beliefs that this is an area that needs more training or awareness. Some educators recalled experiences with past consultants where they were treated rudely or unkindly, causing them to switch consultants or even agencies. Other educators had more positive experiences and appreciated the agency role and telephone support. One educator stated: "I don't want to have to deal with money, nagging parents – call the agency, talk to them." Educator participants noted that agency support to deal with fee collection and parent challenges alleviated some of the stressors and challenges they faced.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-10">Community connections</hd> <p>Educator participants noted that community connections and resource accessibility impacted their ability to meet children's needs. Some said that local community resources like Parent Link, playgroups, and library programs were inclusive and supportive, while others had different experiences. One educator commented: "I've been asked not to attend the story time program at the library because my group is just too big."</p> <p>Educators in rural or remote areas found that organizing support for children's developmental needs was easy, and received high-quality support. They mentioned close connections and direct ties to local support agencies due to the dynamics of a rural community, which increased access to resources and support. Perhaps because of the travel time required for specialists to offer face-to-face support in rural settings, they noted that the services provided were high-quality, benefitting both the child and educator abilities.</p> <p>Several educators living in larger cities had different experiences, mentioning their difficulties requesting support and noting the differences in support available to children in large childcare centres versus family childcare programs. One educator's comment illustrates this experience:I really wish that there was better developmental supports for children... That they get in centers, because they do get so much more support there, and I think day homes aren't seen as needing those things, whereas those children can absolutely need those supports.</p> <p>The divergent amounts and availability of support for rural versus urban family childcare programs has not been seen in prior research and is problematic because, as one educator noted: "day home children that [need help] sometimes get left behind."</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-11">Continuing education</hd> <p>Participants noted time and work-life balance as barriers to accessing continuing education, noting that working hours and lack of backup care prevent educators from attending daytime training. Educators expressed a preference that mandatory training like first aid occur during the workweek, rather than on a weekend.</p> <p>Family childcare educators hoped for targeted continuing education that offered individualized opportunities to deepen their learning, yet many educators shared that offerings were often surface-level or introductory and largely did not increase their understanding and strengthen their practices. Educators also experienced divergent information sharing from their agencies. One educator said: "I've never been sent any webinars," while others recalled regular emails sharing continuing education opportunities.</p> <p>Agencies also varied in the quality of continuing education they offered, which is a mandated part of their contract (Government of Alberta, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref82">23</reflink>]). Some educators found agency in-services to be highly beneficial, while others found them low-quality and unsupportive. Several consultants in the focus groups were unaware of their educator's experiences with agency in-services. When asked if they sought feedback about their sessions, consultants indicated that agencies sought regular feedback through reflection forms but that these focused on what went well and how they would use the continuing education in practice. No director or consultant in the focus groups reported agencies asking what did not go well or what could be improved, though some did ask what other continuing education topics would be beneficial.</p> <p>Consultants also shared that they lacked targeted continuing education opportunities. One consultant stated: "I wouldn't say we have specific training." They recalled that while Alberta once offered targeted continuing education for consultants, lack of funding and time has resulted in the training not being updated or offered. They also noted that the lack of appropriate, accessible continuing education currently available for family childcare educators and consultants is creating a cyclic situation where neither are fully supported in their roles and abilities, which limits their options for meaningful professional development.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-12">Barriers to running a successful family childcare program</hd> <p>Participants noted two barriers to running a successful family childcare program (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>) challenges and financial concerns with taking time off and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref84">2</reflink>) misaligned education and policies.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-13">Challenges and financial concerns of taking time off</hd> <p>The challenges family childcare educators face in taking time off was perhaps the most concerning finding of this research. Many educators expressed feelings of guilt. One educator stated: "I want to help people right, so every time I take time off it's with guilt." Other educators were able to mitigate potential guilt by warning parents that they would be taking time off during the initial interview. One educator indicated that they did this to avoid guilty feelings, commenting: "I deserve those days off paid, no questions asked." The educators in this study recognized that taking time off facilitated their ability to offer high-quality care.</p> <p>While consultants agreed that vacations were important, with one stating: "You cannot work a full year with no break whatsoever," another added: "We can't force them to take vacation time." Focus group agency consultants and directors agreed that educators have the ability to take time off for vacations or doctors' appointments, but it was "tricky" because taking time off for any reason in family childcare is generally without pay. Participants also noted that agencies had divergent approaches to supporting educators' ability to take time off. Some agencies offered specific training for educators to write paid time off into their contracts, while others mentioned: "That's not an agency policy, so for the most part, our educators are unpaid." While not taking vacation is one issue caused by the impacts of guilt and worry, a more pressing concern may be the toll it takes on educator's health and well-being.</p> <p>Guilt and worry—exacerbated by lack of backup care and the consequence of lost income—were mentioned by educators as a main cause impacting their physical health and ability to seek medical care. Educators repeatedly mentioned putting the needs of children and families over their own healthcare, by working through intense back pain or rushing home after an urgent medical visit. One educator said: "I wish we can have paid vacation days or at least one day, every six months, so we can redo our prescriptions or you know just go to the doctor, right?" However, most educator participants did not have paid sick days written into their contracts, indicating they did not take days off if they could avoid it.</p> <p>A small number of participants described being supported by their agency to attend medical appointments. One director shared: "I will go and be their backup for a morning or an afternoon, so if you have doctor's office or doctor's appointments planned... I will come watch the children for them." She mentioned that educators were very appreciative, and nobody took advantage of this opportunity. An educator commented: "I've had a few doctors' appointments lately, our coordinator will come in and sit and cover those appointments for you, so you don't have to close."</p> <p>In addition to the challenges of taking time off, family childcare educators struggled with building breaks into their day. The pressure educators face in response to meeting the many demands of being contracted with a licensed agency was outlined by one consultant:They don't get a 15-minute break in the morning, a 15-minute break in the afternoon and an hour for lunch ... They have to do [program planning] on their own. They don't have a cook or catering bringing in their meals every day, they're doing that, so I think sometimes expectations of them are very high when they're on their own.</p> <p>One educator recalled a past consultant who, on the monthly support visits, would read a story or create art with the children so the educator could relax for a brief time, but said that this had not been continued. Some consultants strongly encouraged educators to build in breaks and down time, while others viewed this challenge as part of the territory, stating: "Children playing quietly may be their break." Even outside of formal operating hours, as one consultant commented: "[Educators] give a lot of their own personal time outside of their day home hours to make their business run."</p> <p>Guilt and worry negatively impacted taking time off for vacation or medical needs and were mentioned as contributing to burnout and high turnover in the field. One educator stated, "The majority of my friends have left ECE [early childhood education] and moved on, just too much work for them." In a setting where building in breaks is challenging, and taking time off is under-supported and characterized by intense feelings of worry and guilt, this barrier had a significant impact on educator health, wellness, and ability to provide high-quality care.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-14">Misaligned education and policies</hd> <p>Educators and consultants expressed frustration that family childcare was routinely seen and treated the same as centre-based care. Continuing education available to family childcare educators was frequently created for those working in centre-based care and offered at times when family childcare educators were unlikely to be able to attend. One educator mentioned: "a lot of the courses are daycare, and not necessarily day home," yet family childcare needs were unique: "what works in other situations is not gonna work in a day home." Educators also commented on the lack of knowledge and experience in those offering continuing education, stating: "Unless they are running a day home themselves, they are not really getting it."</p> <p>While educators focused on this challenge in the context of continuing education, agency consultants and directors noticed it at levels of policy and government procedures. As noted, agency consultants found that the focus of government meetings was on centre-based care, and as a result family childcare perspectives were left out. They noted that because family childcare is a unique setting with only one educator, policies aimed at educators who have the support of co-workers may miss the mark.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-15">Factors that facilitate high-quality family childcare</hd> <p>Family childcare educators and consultants indicated several factors that enabled educators to offer high-quality ELCC in family childcare settings. Participants identified three themes that were central to facilitating their ability to offer high quality childcare: job satisfaction, adequate job support, and educator capacity to advocate.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-16">Job satisfaction</hd> <p>Participants mentioned that a strong facilitator of quality childcare was job satisfaction and building relationships over time. One participant commented: "I just love working with children," and another said: "What I love about it is the long-term relationships I've been able to build." One educator mentioned choosing family childcare because, unlike many larger childcare centres, children do not switch rooms and educators as they age, enabling the development of relationships which can grow over time. As this study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, family childcare educators found that they were able to develop even closer relationships with families, because contact with the family childcare setting remained even while social distancing cut people off from other networks.</p> <p>Educators also specified enjoying the unique benefits of running a family childcare business. One commented: "I just like being at home. I like being my own boss. I like the flexibility." Job satisfaction rising from the benefits of self-employment was identified as a factor that attracts educators to this profession and increases motivation to offer quality ELCC.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-17">Adequate job supports</hd> <p>Both consultants and educators indicated that networking and problem-solving were important facilitators of quality family childcare. Educators outlined the benefits of collaborating with peers: "sometimes you just need to talk to someone who's been through whatever problem you're trying to deal with." Consultants also recognized the importance of networking and problem-solving to elevate decision-making and give educators opportunities to explore the successful practices and policies of other educators, particularly during the initial years of operation. For example, networking could help educators know how to take a break within busy family childcare days and how to best communicate with parents. Importantly, consultants and agency directors also reported benefitting from networking. One focus group participant said: "I think consultants also do really feel supported when they can be networked and they can ask each other questions."</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-18">Educator capacity to advocate</hd> <p>Advocacy was an unexpected sub-theme that was repeatedly mentioned as a facilitator to offering high-quality childcare by both educators and consultants that is not reported in extant research. An educator's ability to advocate for the needs of children in care, their own needs as educators, and the needs of the family childcare field, were identified as essential requirements to offering quality care in a family childcare setting.</p> <p>Participants noted that advocating for the needs of children was one of the most important tasks of running a family childcare program and a strong factor that enables educators to support optimal child development. One educator stated, "I frequently fight for my day home kids or advocate for my day home kids when they need support. I wish that it was more readily available, that I didn't have to advocate so much." Educators also recognized that advocating for children's needs was more likely to be successful with parental support, commenting: "If parents are not advocating, I'm getting no support." Educators contrasted the experiences and abilities of working in family childcare to working in larger, centre-based settings where support was more integrated and readily available. One educator said: "Parents in a daycare, they sign a consent form and it's done [supports are provided] for them," whereas in family childcare, parents must advocate for support for their children's needs.</p> <p>Family childcare educators also have to advocate for their own needs. As one consultant stated, "They have to advocate for their own day home." Another consultant added that unless an educator draws attention to their needs, consultants may lack awareness that a challenge even exists. Educators are advised, "Ask for things from your consultants, because they might surprise you," and if a consultant forgets, to ask again.</p> <p>Educators also shared the importance of being "willing to step forward and advocate for our profession." One educator disclosed that because family childcare programs are frequently seen as "secondary," advocacy is required to increase targeted support. For example, one educator advocated for the needs of family childcare by finding specific continuing education opportunities and suggesting the agency share them with other educators.</p> <p>Consultant participants also supported educators in advocating for the family childcare field. Consultants noted that early childhood meetings with government officials seem to be "always all about daycare," yet "we [family childcare] need to be heard, not just daycares." They noted that in a field dominated by the centre-based care perspective, advocacy from educators, consultants, and agencies was an integral factor in quality family childcare.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-19">Discussion and implications</hd> <p>This study contributes to knowledge of family childcare in Canada by sharing experiences of family childcare educators and consultants in Alberta and identifying factors that they perceive to facilitate educators' ability to offer high-quality childcare. The findings highlight critical opportunities for growth, support, and resources to offer quality care in family childcare settings and help educators overcome some of the barriers they experience. While some findings echo what has been shown in other contexts, complementary findings within the Canadian family childcare field are beneficial in guiding practice and policy, particularly in regions where an agency model is used. Based on responses from focus group participants, we identified three key opportunities for growth in Alberta's childcare sector. After discussing these, we discuss some practical implications stemming from this work.</p> <p>In line with prior research, a key finding from this study is the need for accessible, targeted professional development opportunities for both educators and consultants, including opportunities for both beginning family childcare educators and experienced educators seeking to deepen their practice (Jeon et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref85">27</reflink>]; Porter & Bromer, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref86">33</reflink>]). Offering specific professional development opportunities that target the unique needs of the family childcare field is essential to facilitate educator and consultant abilities to provide quality ELCC.</p> <p>Participants also identified family childcare educators' need for connections within the community and to community resources as a critical area for growth. Community engagement has been indicated in prior research as a key component of quality family childcare, showing benefit for both educators and the children they provide care for (Blasberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref87">4</reflink>]; Mimura et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref88">32</reflink>]). For example, increasing opportunities for developmental screening, accessing social services resources, building relationships with neighbours, librarians, and other community members, and networking with other educators are important avenues to consider in further supporting family childcare professionals and the families they serve.</p> <p>Despite this, the educator participants' experiences seeking community connections were mixed. Family childcare educators and the children they care for would benefit from children's programming offered in the community, such as library or community league programs, yet there may be a lack of awareness among organizations that offer these programs as to how best to involve groups of children from family childcare. Thus, education campaigns aimed at program planners and leaders may help those running community programming better understand the needs of family childcare educators and the role that such community supports have in enhancing quality of care (Blasberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref89">4</reflink>]; Mimura et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref90">32</reflink>]). This may increase access for family childcare educators to existing community programming or spur development of new programming to support family childcare educators and children.</p> <p>While educators indicated the value of having direct access to support for children's developmental needs, community support for individual children's needs was an area with divergent experiences among participants. It was surprising that most family childcare educators in rural or remote areas had easier access to quality support for children in care, while educators in urban locations frequently struggled to access such support. While prior research has indicated that family childcare is "the most common child care setting in rural areas" (Malik et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref91">30</reflink>], p. 8), and the challenges of offering quality care in rural areas have been well established (Friendly et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref92">16</reflink>]), the unexpected benefit of additional support for individual children's needs in rural areas has not been evidenced in existent research.</p> <p>Rural educators in this study mentioned both being more aware of what is available in the community and having established relationships with those providing the services, given the smaller and more relational nature of communities in rural and remote areas. Educators in urban areas reported lacking these direct connections and struggled to access necessary support for individual children's needs. As a result, children being cared for in urban family childcare programs may not have equitable access to community services. Valuing family childcare educator voices as an important part of identifying a developmental delay or needed support—as well as streamlining the process for accessing developmental supports—could improve the general experience of all educators and children. Furthermore, by increasing the ability of educators to access necessary support for children in care, the gap between services in rural and urban family childcare can be bridged.</p> <p>Lastly, both consultants and educators highlighted the importance of support for family childcare educators taking breaks. They noted the need for short breaks within the workday, longer breaks for medical care/appointments, and the importance of having days off, echoing prior research (Gerstenblatt et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref93">19</reflink>]; Mimura et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref94">32</reflink>]). Based on participant responses, ideally these breaks would be paid, lessening both the worry of lost income during unpaid time off and the guilt of "letting families down" when they take a break. Our findings suggest that family childcare agencies play a critical role in supporting educators' ability to have a break. High-quality agencies that strive to fully support their educators offer small breaks during monthly consultant visits; often children are entertained and supervised by the consultant while the educator has a short rest. Participants also noted that agencies can offer professional development on building breaks into the workday while offering high-quality care and on creating policies with parents that enable educators to take (paid) time off. While some agencies did offer such training, there was wide divergence in agency practices, which many attributed to policies that were vague in agency requirements (Government of Alberta, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref95">23</reflink>]). Participants noted that this has resulted in a system where family childcare educators are stressed and often feel guilt and worry about taking time off, regardless of the reason.</p> <p>Federal and provincial authorities have argued that building a strong ELCC system with more licensed spaces across Alberta requires more family childcare educators, as they may be uniquely positioned to fill this childcare need. Creating more spaces in a system not targeted to or informed by family childcare needs is at risk of policy misalignment in meeting the goal of more sustainable, quality care. As creating licensed spaces within a family childcare setting requires contracting with an agency (Province of Alberta, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref96">36</reflink>]), the clearest and most straightforward path to increasing support for family childcare educators is clarifying and tailoring government requirements of Alberta's family childcare agencies. For example, the policy could be changed to require agencies to seek out and act on feedback from educators. Current policy requires educators to complete regular individual development plans with their agency, mapping areas for growth throughout the year (Government of Alberta, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref97">23</reflink>]), yet no such requirements exist for agencies themselves. While agencies must document their activities, our findings suggest that there did not seem to be clear requirements to align those activities with educator needs. As a result, issues like the lack of appropriate continuing education or lack of educator ability to take time off may remain. Our study findings suggest that increased requirements for accountability and oversight of family childcare agencies are important areas for growth, particularly in regions where licensing for family childcare is not available directly from the governing body. It will be important for family childcare educators, consultants, and agencies to continue to advocate for their programs and the needs of the children in their care.</p> <p>Agencies play a critical role in ensuring quality care, and as such should be tasked with ensuring that the support they offer meets educator needs and is aligned with ideal outcomes. As there is no direct path for feedback from family childcare educators to licensing officers or government officials—agencies report to such parties themselves—educator voices are far removed from the process of creating policies. Indeed, lack of family childcare perspectives in the ELCC system is widely evidenced in current Canadian child care literature (Abbes & Macdonald, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>]). To create a system where policies are not created 'about us without us,' the perspectives of family childcare educators, including what is working well and what is not, need to be heard and acted upon.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-20">Limitations and future research directions</hd> <p>This project was limited by the influences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and by the targeted selection process when we were unable to recruit educators from particular agencies. COVID-19 restrictions resulted in the study being conducted entirely virtually, on Zoom. Certain stakeholders and potential participants were simply too busy to participate, as the ELCC field was required to implement additional policies and protocols during the pandemic, resulting in lack of time to participate in research. While educators and other professionals may want to participate in research, it may not be a priority given the high demands on time, as workers in the ELCC field are often overworked and underpaid. Future research recommendations include less time-consuming data collection methods, including online surveys.</p> <p>Findings from this study should be considered in light of the characteristics of the participants, who were experienced educators working with agency support. It could be that experienced educators have more motivation and enough personal and contextual resources to stay in the field. This is an area for further exploration with educators of varying qualifications, resources, and years of experience.</p> <p>Limitations also include potential bias due to language abilities; it is possible that agencies did not refer qualified educators with language barriers, and possible that such educators chose not to participate. Finally, this study was conducted within Alberta, in a context which has different rules and regulations for family childcare than other provinces. Although this study achieved depth, with 5 focus groups of 26 individuals, and its results can be meaningfully extrapolated to family childcare in different geographical regions, it is not representative of the entire family childcare field. Future research could include perspectives of both licensed and unlicensed family childcare programs, to increase participant diversity, and engage national perspectives on Canadian family childcare. To better assess quality in unique family childcare settings, further research is needed to develop measurement tools that include the home setting and environment, educator–child and educator–family relationships, working conditions, and sustainability (Doran et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref99">11</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-21">Conclusion</hd> <p>The purpose of this research was to increase understanding of Canadian family childcare educators' needs and identify required support from the perspectives of experienced educators and consultants. Using qualitative data from focus groups with Alberta participants, we have brought light to valuable insights on the factors facilitating or acting as barriers to family childcare educators' ability to offer high-quality childcare. The implications of this study can be used as guidance for practice and policy to increase support and strengthen quality within the agency model of Canadian family childcare. As Canadian childcare evolves into a publicly provided system, incorporating these findings into the licensed family childcare field can help to. establish a high-quality Canadian child care system with approaches that include family childcare needs, based on the perspectives of those working in the field.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-22">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors wish to acknowledge and thank the educators and consultants involved in this study, without whom this research would not have been possible.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-23">Author contributions</hd> <p>LW designed the study, conducted the focus groups, analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. All authors reviewed, edited, and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-24">Funding</hd> <p>LW received partial funding for this research from the Alberta Graduate Excellence Scholarship and the Louise Davies Memorial Graduate Scholarship. Neither funding body was involved in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-25">Availability of data and materials</hd> <p>Data cannot be made available to protect the confidentiality of participants. As family childcare educators in Alberta can only obtain a childcare license by contracting with a licensed agency, there are strong conflicts of power involved, where the agency holds the power to terminate an educator contract whenever they deem necessary. Not making this data available protects the educators, consultants, their careers, and the families involved.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-26">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185423509-27">Ethics approval and consent to participate</hd> <p>This study was approved by the University of Alberta's Research Ethics Board on August 6, 2021, Number Pro00110752. Informed consent to participate was received from all participants.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-28">Consent for publication</hd> <p>Not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-29">Competing interests</hd> <p>The authors have no known conflict of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0185423509-30">Abbreviation</hd> <p></p> <p>• ELCC</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Early learning and childcare</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0185423509-31">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0185423509-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abbes, C. & Macdonald, R. (2022). Exploring the business dynamics of self-employed child care service providers. Statistics Canada. https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202200800003-eng</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Arrive (2020). Child care in Canada: Types, cost, and tips for newcomers. https://arrivein.com/daily-life-in-canada/child-care-in-canada-types-cost-and-tips-for-newcomers/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Beach, J, Friendly, M, Nguyen, N.T, Borges Nogueira, P, Taylor, M, Mohamed, S, Rothman, L. & Forer, B. (2023). Early childhood education and care in Canada 2021. Childcare Resource and Research Unit. https://childcarecanada.org/publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref22" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Blasberg, A, Bromer, J, Nugent, C, Porter, T, Shivers, E. M, Tonyan, H,. & Weber, B. (2019). A conceptual model for quality in home-based child care. OPRE Report, 37. https://childcareresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/rc37066.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref6" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Breitkreuz R, Colen K, Horne R. Producing the patchwork: The hidden work of mothers in organizing child care. Journal of Family Studies. 2019; 27; 3: 436-459. 10.1080/13229400.2019.1635038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref60" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bromer J, Korfmacher J. Providing high-quality support services to home-based child care: A conceptual model and literature review. Early Education and Development. 2017; 28; 6: 745-772. 10.1080/10409289.2016.1256720</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref51" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bromer J, Weaver C. Supporting family child care and quality improvement: Findings from an exploratory survey of Illinois child care resource and referral agency staff. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 2016; 10; 1: 1-21. 10.1186/s40723-016-0020-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref71" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cacari-Stone L. The promise of community-based participatory research for health equity: A conceptual model for bridging evidence with policy. American Journal of Public Health. 2014; 104; 9: 1615-1623. 10.2105/ajph.2014.301961</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref80" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Daly JDaly J. Chapter 2: Epistemological considerations in qualitative research. Qualitative methods for family studies and human development. 2007; Sage Publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doherty G. Quality in family child care: A focus group study with Canadian providers. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2015; 43; 3: 157-167. 10.1007/s10643-014-0645-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doran, E, Li, A, Atkins-Burnett, S, Forde, J, Orland, J, Ragonese-Barnes, M, Mix, N, Reid, N, & Kopack Klein, A. (2022). Quality in home-based child care: Summary of existing measures and indicators. OPRE Report, 2022–27. https://<ulink href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/HBCCSQ%5fMeasuresSummary%5fapr2022.pdf">www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/HBCCSQ%5fMeasuresSummary%5fapr2022.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faulkner M, Gerstenblatt P, Lee A, Vallejo V, Travis D. Childcare providers: Work stress and personal well-being. Journal of Early Childhood Research. 2016; 14; 3: 280-293. 10.1177/1476718X14552871</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernandez J, Mootoo CJ, Romero S, Rasmussen A. Role conflict among family childcare providers in the Bronx. Children & Society. 2018; 32; 6: 470-480. 10.1111/chso.12282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferns, C. & Friendly, M. (2015). Background paper on unregulated child care for the Home child care: More than a home project. Childcare Resource and Research Unit. https://childcarecanada.org/sites/default/files/Occasional%20paper%2028.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forry, N, Iruka, I, Tout, K, Torquati, J, Susman-Stillman, A, Bryant, D, & Daneri, M. P. (2013). Predictors of quality and child outcomes in family child care settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(4), 893–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.05.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friendly, M, Ferns, C, Grady, B, & Rothman, L. (2016). Child care can't wait till the cows come home: Rural child care in the Canadian context. Childcare Resource and Research Unit. https://childcarecanada.org/sites/default/files/Occasional%20paper%20No.30.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friendly, M, Beach, J, Aruran, G, Cossette, A, Lillace, J, & Forer, B. (2024). Early childhood education and care in Canada 2023. Childcare Resource and Research Unit. https://childcarecanada.org/sites/default/files/ECEC-2023-Full-publication_0.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garon-Carrier, G. (2019). Defining and measuring the quality of early learning and child care: A literature review. Employment and Social Development, Statistics Canada. =https://<ulink href="http://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/early-learning-child-care/reports/2019-defining-measuring-quality.html">www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/early-learning-child-care/reports/2019-defining-measuring-quality.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerstenblatt P, Faulkner M, Lee A, Doan LT, Travis D. Not babysitting: Work stress and well-being for family child care providers. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2014; 42; 1: 67-75. 10.1007/s10643-012-0571-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Government of Canada (2019). Canada country background report - Quality in early childhood education and care. https://<ulink href="http://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/early-learning-child-care/reports/2021-canada-country-background-quality.html">www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/early-learning-child-care/reports/2021-canada-country-background-quality.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Government of Alberta (2021). Licensed family day home agencies: February 2021.https://<ulink href="http://www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/cs-licensed-family-day-home-agencies.pdf">www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/cs-licensed-family-day-home-agencies.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Government of Canada (2022). Early Learning and Childcare Agreements. https://<ulink href="http://www.canada.ca/en/early-learning-child-care-agreement/agreements-provinces-territories.html">www.canada.ca/en/early-learning-child-care-agreement/agreements-provinces-territories.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Government of Alberta (2022a). Family day home standards manual for Alberta. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/family-day-home-standards-manual-for-alberta</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Government of Alberta (2022b). Federal-provincial child care agreement. https://<ulink href="http://www.alberta.ca/federal-provincial-child-care-agreement.aspx">www.alberta.ca/federal-provincial-child-care-agreement.aspx</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hooper A, Hallam R, Skrobot C. "Our quality is a little bit different": How family childcare providers who participate in a Quality Rating and Improvement System and receive childcare subsidy define quality. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2021; 22; 1: 76-94. 10.1177/1463949119858985</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 2005; 15; 9: 1277-1288. 10.1177/1049732305276687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeon L, Kwon KA, Choi JY. Family child care providers' responsiveness toward children: The role of professional support and perceived stress. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018; 94: 500-510. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.08.023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levin B. To know is not enough: Research knowledge and its use. Review of Education. 2013; 1; 1: 2-31. 10.1002/rev3.3001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Macdonald, D. & Friendly, M. (2023). Not done yet: $10-a-day child care requires addressing Canada's child care deserts. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. https://policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2023/05/not-done-yet%20%281%29.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malik, R, Hamm, K, Schochet, L, Novoa, C, Workman, S, & Jessen-Howard, S. (2018). America's child care deserts in 2018. Center for American Progress, 3–4. https://marylandfamiliesengage.org/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxwell JA. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. 2012; Sage Publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mimura Y, Cai Y, Tonyan H, Koonce J. Resource well-being among family child care business owners. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2019; 40; 3: 408-422. 10.1007/s10834-019-09620-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porter, T. & Bromer, J. (2019). Supporting Family Child Care Quality in Philadelphia: A framework for a Philadelphia Family Child Care Collaborative. https://<ulink href="http://www.erikson.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Family-Child-Care-Collaborative-Framework-February-2019.pdf">www.erikson.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Family-Child-Care-Collaborative-Framework-February-2019.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porter T, Reiman K, Nelson C, Sager J, Wagner J. Quality in family child care networks: An evaluation of all our kin provider quality. Zero to Three. 2016; 36; 4: 19-29</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prentice S, White L. Childcare deserts and distributional disadvantages: The legacies of split childcare policies and programmes in Canada. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy. 2019; 31; 1: 59-74. 10.1080/21699763.2018.1526700</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Province of Alberta (2022a). Early learning and childcare act.https://open.alberta.ca/publications/e00p1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Province of Alberta (2022b). Affordability rates. https://<ulink href="http://www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/cs-affordability-rate-chart.pdf">www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/cs-affordability-rate-chart.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description?. Research in Nursing and Health. 2000; 23; 4: 334-340. 10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334:AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sisson, S, Williams, B, Salvatore, A, Hildebrand, D, Weber, J, & Schneider, L. A. F. (2019). NP25 Nutrition and physical activity practices and policies of family child care home providers in Oklahoma: Baseline findings from happy healthy homes. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 51(7), S21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2019.05.349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Statistics Canada (2022). Survey on early learning and childcare arrangements, 2022.https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220601/dq220601a-eng.htm</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN. Focus groups: Theory and practice. 2014; Sage publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stokes D, Bergin R. Methodology or "methodolatry"? An evaluation of focus groups and depth interviews. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. 2006; 9; 1: 26-37. 10.1108/13522750610640530</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swartz R, Wiley A, Koziol A, N, & Magerko, K. A. Psychosocial influences upon the workforce and professional development participation of family child care providers. Child & Youth Care Forum. 2016; 45; 5: 781-805. 10.1007/s10566-016-9353-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tonyan HA, Nuttall J, Torres J, Bridgewater J. Engaging with quality improvement initiatives: A descriptive study of learning in the complex and dynamic context of everyday life for family child care providers. Early Education and Development. 2017; 28; 6: 684-704. 10.1080/10409289.2017.1305152</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Varmuza P, Perlman M, White LA. Understanding early childhood education and care utilization in Canada: Implications for demand and oversight. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 2019; 13; 1: 7. 10.1186/s40723-019-0063-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White LA, Friendly M. Public funding, private delivery: States, markets, and early childhood education and care in liberal welfare states – A comparison of Australia, the UK, Quebec, and New Zealand. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. 2012; 14; 4: 292-310. 10.1080/13876988.2012.699789</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White LA, Prentice S, Perlman M. The evidence base for early childhood education and care programme investment: What we know, what we don't know. Evidence & Policy. 2015; 11; 4: 529-546. 10.1332/174426415X14210818992588</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodman, L. (2022a). Overcoming the challenges of family day home educators: A family ecological theory approach. IN Education, 28(1a), 77-93. https://doi.org/10.37119/ojs2022.v28i1a.649</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodman, L. (2022b). Supporting quality and longevity in Alberta's family day home educators: A qualitative study [Master's thesis, University of Alberta]. Education and Research Archive. https://doi.org/10.7939/r3-4ys9-v665</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodman, L. (2023). Out of the shadows: An epistemological examination of family childcare in Canada. Journal of Childhood, Education & Society, 4(2), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.37291/2717638X.202342260</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Laura Woodman; Rhonda Breitkreuz; Rebecca Gokiert and Adam M. Galovan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref96"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1472268
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Understanding Family Childcare Educators' Experiences in Alberta, Canada: A Focus Group Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Laura+Woodman%22">Laura Woodman</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9702-4938">0000-0001-9702-4938</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rhonda+Breitkreuz%22">Rhonda Breitkreuz</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0062-4190">0000-0003-0062-4190</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rebecca+Gokiert%22">Rebecca Gokiert</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7472-9545">0000-0002-7472-9545</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Adam+M%2E+Galovan%22">Adam M. Galovan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4016-4187">0000-0002-4016-4187</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Child+Care+and+Education+Policy%22"><i>International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy</i></searchLink>. 2025 19.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Care%22">Child Care</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Caregivers%22">Child Caregivers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Teachers%22">Early Childhood Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Environment%22">Family Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Experience%22">Teaching Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Qualifications%22">Teacher Qualifications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Information%22">Access to Information</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Resources%22">Educational Resources</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Agency+Role%22">Agency Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Conditions%22">Teaching Conditions</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1186/s40723-025-00144-3
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1976-5681<br />2288-6729
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Given the unique challenges of offering childcare in home-based settings, specialized support is needed to help family childcare educators offer high-quality early learning and childcare. The purpose of this study was to increase understanding of the unique needs of home-based educators and identify supports based on educator and consultant perspectives. This study addresses the current gap within the Canadian early learning and childcare system in understanding family childcare educators' experiences by asking the following questions: (1) What are the experiences of family childcare educators in Alberta? and (2) From educator and consultant perspectives, what are the factors that facilitate the ability to provide high-quality childcare in family childcare programs? A descriptive qualitative engaged research approach was used in this study. In focus groups, 26 experienced educators and consultants shared their perceptions of facilitators and barriers to high-quality family childcare. Our study highlights three areas for growth in Alberta's childcare sector: the need for professional development targeted to the family childcare field, increased access to community connections and resources, and agency support enabling educators to take breaks. Family childcare educators have unique workplace strengths and challenges and require support from families, professional support systems, and policy makers to provide high-quality early learning and childcare.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1472268
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1472268
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1186/s40723-025-00144-3
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Care
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Caregivers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Qualifications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Information
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Resources
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Agency Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Conditions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Understanding Family Childcare Educators' Experiences in Alberta, Canada: A Focus Group Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Laura Woodman
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rhonda Breitkreuz
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rebecca Gokiert
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Adam M. Galovan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1976-5681
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2288-6729
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 19
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy
              Type: main
ResultId 1