Search

Despite emerging evidence of the contributors to high-quality family day care, a comprehensive comparison of international family day care systems has not been undertaken. The aim of this paper is to compare regulated family day care (FDC) in Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, and the USA, using standard information about FDC usage and each country's structural characteristics, regulatory approach, quality assurance indicators, supervision and support, and sector challenges. A template was developed by representatives of the International Family Day Care Organisation, including academics, FDC providers, and FDC educators and management staff. The paper demonstrates that, although the existing body of published research is sufficient to provide clear guidance for developing and maintaining quality FDC, this knowledge is not always being applied in current practices. Three practices, each pertaining to several countries, are of concern: (a) minimal requirements for being a regulated FDC provider, (b) minimal quality assurance guidelines, and (c) minimal provider supports. There is great potential to learn from countries that have a high level of success in providing high-quality FDC and strong support for providers and families. (Contains 6 tables.)

This study aimed to explore family day care (FDC) educators' knowledge of child social and emotional wellbeing and mental health problems, the strategies used to promote children's wellbeing, and barriers and opportunities for promoting children's social and emotional wellbeing. Thirteen FDC educators participated in individual semi-structured interviews. FDC educators were more comfortable defining children's social and emotional wellbeing than they were in identifying causes and early signs of mental health problems. Strategies used to promote children's mental health were largely informal and dependent on educator skills and capacities rather than a systematic scheme-wide approach. Common barriers to mental health promotion were limited financial resources, a need for more training and hesitance raising child mental health issues with parents. There is a need to build FDC educators' knowledge of child social and emotional wellbeing and for tailored mental health promotion strategies in FDC.

Introduction: Although the family day care workforce has changed over the past decade in response to evolving childcare regulations and accreditation requirements, there is little research on family day care educators in Australia. The aim of this study was to describe characteristics of Australian family day care educators, including their qualifications, professional training, characteristics of the children they care for, and connections to their family day care scheme and community organisations. Methods: Secondary data analysis was conducted using cross-sectional data from Wave Two of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) Birth Cohort. Data from family day care (FDC) educators were extracted from the mail-out Home-Based Carer (HBC) survey completed by 207 FDC educators (56% response rate). Descriptive statistics were used to profile demographics and qualifications of FDC educators, their scheme and community connections, and the characteristics of children in their care. Results: More than half of the FDC educators did not have qualifications specific to early childhood; 28 per cent of educators were currently studying in the area; and a quarter were qualified. One-third of educators were caring for at least one child with a disability or developmental delay, 27 per cent were looking after children from non-English speaking backgrounds, and 16 per cent were looking after children from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander backgrounds. Most FDC educators reported a high level of connection with their coordinating scheme (89%) but that assistance from other organisations such as schools, preschools or childcare centres was rare. Discussion: The results from this study reflect the movement in FDC towards gaining formal qualifications. Given that many educators were caring for children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and had special needs, tailored support is needed to build their knowledge, skills and confidence to ensure inclusive care provision. Isolation of FDC educators from the wider community and other child-centred organisations highlights potential to develop connections outside of FDC to facilitate professional development and support. (Contains 4 tables.)