30 research outputs found

    Policy Brief #1: Child Care Assets: What are 14 Key Assets of Child Care Providers that Support Quality?

    Get PDF
    In 2000, university researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Iowa State University, University of Kansas and the University of Missouri and state child care and early education program partners in four states (Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska) initiated the Midwest Child Care Research Consortium (MCCRC). The focus of the Consortium’s work is to conduct a multiyear study on a range of issues associated with child care quality and conditions. Across the four states, a stratified random selection of 2,022 child care providers participated in a telephone survey conducted by the Gallup Organization, representing licensed child care centers, licensed family child care homes, registered child care homes, and subsidized care license exempt family and (in one state) license exempt center care. Providers responded to questions about background and practices often associated with quality. Of the providers responding to the phone survey, 365 were randomly selected for in-depth observations to assess quality, using conventional measures of child care quality (see back of this brief). This report shows the relation between observed quality and many provider characteristics and professional improvement efforts

    Nebraska Child Care Workforce and Quality: Summary Policy Brief #7

    Get PDF
    The study showed the average child care provider in Nebraska is female, married and a parent. This provider had some training or education beyond high school but not an advanced degree, was active in child care training, had a First Aid/CPR certificate, considered child care her profession or calling, had been in the child care field for over 5 years and planned to remain a provider. The average provider was observed to provide minimal quality child care. In Nebraska, using well-established observational measures of quality, center-based preschool care averaged 4.16 on the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R); 4.49 on the Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS); and family child care averaged 4.46 on the Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS). A “5” is considered “good” quality. There was great variability across all types of care. · Family child care quality was higher in Nebraska and Missouri than in Iowa and Kansas. · In center-based care, there were no differences between providers who cared for children receiving government child care subsidies and those who did not but in family child care there were differences. Quality, training, education and professionally-oriented attitudes were lower among subsidy-receiving family child care providers than for non-subsidy receiving counterparts. · Providers in Early Head Start/Head Start partnerships offered higher quality care and received more training than other child care providers. Nebraska like two other states invested training funds to enable Early Head Start/Head Start programs to partner with programs to follow the Head Start Performance Standards and these partnerships did appear to result in higher quality than average

    A Guide To the Nation's Dietary Needs

    No full text

    The food value and uses of poultry /

    No full text
    no.467 (1916

    Involvement in Early Head Start home visiting services: Demographic predictors and relations to child and parent outcomes

    Get PDF
    One strand of home visiting research investigates effi cacy while another investigates under what conditions programs achieve outcomes. The current study follows the latter approach. Using a within-program design in a sample of 11 home-based sites in the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation study, this study found that three components of home visits (quantity of involvement including number of home visits, duration in the program, length of visits and intensity of service; quality of engagement including global ratings of engagement by staff and ratings of engagement during each home visit; and the extent to which home visits were child focused) represented distinguishable aspects of home visit services. Demographic variables predicted components of involvement, and home visit involvement components were differentially related to outcomes at 36 months, after controlling for demographic/ family factors and earlier functioning on the same measure. Only one quantity of involvement variable (duration) predicted improvements in home language and literacy environments at 36 months. Quality of involvement variables were negative predictors of maternal depressive symptoms at 36 months. Finally, the proportion of time during the visit devoted to child-focused activities predicted children’s cognitive and language development scores, parent HOME scores, and parental support for language and learning when children were 36 months of age. Implications for home visiting programs and policies are discussed
    corecore