www.childmindingbabies.blog

We are delighted to announce the publication of our rapid evidence review, titled Childminding Babies: A Review of the Global Evidence on Conceptualising, Measuring and Supporting Quality in Childminding Provision for 0-2 Year Olds, which you can read here.

As part of our rapid evidence review, we read several studies that offer useful insights into how quality is conceptualised, measured, and supported for babies in childminding provision. Today, we are launching a series of blogs where we explore some of these articles in more depth, beginning with Eckhardt and Egert’s (2020) study, Process quality for children under three years in early child care and family child care in Germany.

Throughout the international literature, a range of terms are used to describe childminding. Eckhardt and Egert use the phrase ‘family child care’, and we adopt their terminology in this blog. Their study focuses on provision for children aged 0–3 in Germany, where around 33% of children under three attend early years provision, and of those attending, 14.4% attend family child care. The researchers examined quality across 138 family child care homes, 113 infant/toddler classrooms, and 105 mixed age classrooms in center-based care to understand how structural characteristics, educational beliefs, and practitioner characteristics relate to quality.

In the sections that follow, we explore two key ideas from the study: how quality is understood and what the findings tell us about quality across different types of provision. Along the way, we consider what these insights might mean for childminding in England.

Defining quality

Eckhardt and Egert (2020:288) share that one definition of quality is ‘a set of measurable characteristics that focus on observed educational and care processes but also account for structural characteristics (Anders, Roßbach, and Kuger 2016; Sylva 2010).’ However, they also grapple with the fact that individuals’ perceptions of quality are more complicated than this definition suggests. They point out that while policymakers may understand quality in terms of outcomes, for many stakeholders quality is understood in terms of how it meets the day-to-day needs of children and families. When we consider the latter view, it makes sense to engage far more with the experiences and perspectives of children, families and educators in conceptualising what quality is and how it can be supported. 

In England, this challenges us to broaden our understanding of quality. Eckhardt and Egert (2020) would suggest that while outcomes and inspection measures are important, these ways of framing quality should sit alongside consideration of babies’ experiences, families’ needs, and educators’ wellbeing. A richer understanding of quality may come from holding both perspectives together rather than prioritising one over the other.

Understanding process quality across provider types

Having explored what quality might mean, Eckhardt and Egert (2020) go on to examine the factors that influence process quality. Process quality refers to the quality of the interactions between educators and children, both in terms of emotional support and learning support. Structural characteristics, such as group size, ratios, and educator qualifications shape these interactions. Eckhardt and Egert also point out that personal characteristics and educational beliefs influence process quality. 

In their study, Eckhardt and Egert (2020) found slightly higher levels of process quality in family childcare as compared with nurseries. While this is an exciting finding, the wider evidence base remains inconclusive about whether one type of provision consistently offers higher quality than another. Some studies report higher process quality scores in centre-based settings, while others found greater caregiver sensitivity and child wellbeing within family child care, and other studies found these items to be similar across provider types (OECD, 2026; Bleses et al., 2024; Groeneveld et al., 2012). In short, there is a mixed picture of how process quality relates to provider type. 

For our research team, this suggests that a more useful question is around the inputs of quality and support for quality, not which type of provision is ‘best’. In our project, we have made an intentional decision to avoid pitting types of providers against one another and instead attune to the things that make each type of provision unique and useful as well as the challenges and supports needed.

We hope this exploration of family child care in Germany has offered some useful insights into how quality can be understood for babies in childminding provision in England. For us, one of the key messages from this study is that improving quality is less about identifying the ‘best’ type of provision and more about understanding the conditions that support responsive, sensitive relationships with babies.

References

Bleses, D. et al. (2024) “Examining the effects of an infant-toddler school readiness intervention in center- and family-based programs: Are results generalizable?,” Early childhood research quarterly, 67, pp. 252–264. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.01.001.

Eckhardt, A.G. and Egert, F. (2020) “Process quality for children under three years in early child care and family child care in Germany,” Early years (London, England), 40(3), pp. 287–305. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2018.1438373.

Groeneveld, M.G. et al. (2012) “Caregivers’ cortisol levels and perceived stress in home-based and center-based childcare,” Early childhood research quarterly, 27(1), pp. 166–175. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.05.003.

OECD. (2026). Building quality education and care for children under three: Further results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024. OECD Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/5d960dfd-en (Accessed July 3, 2026).