Financial Challenges of Family Child Care Providers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Phenomenological Study

Abstract

The impact of COVID-19, both in quality and quantity, on the field of early childhood education, ECE is immeasurable. However, as research shows, its impact on family child care (FCC), has been worse than other sectors of ECE. FCC providers worldwide have always perceived their work as a service to families and children, yet FCC homes have not received much attention and recognition from researchers and policymakers compared to center-based ECE programs. This phenomenological inquiry with 20 FCC providers in a large urban county in California highlights the financial challenges that FCC providers faced during the early part of the pandemic before they received financial support from the state in the spring of 2021. The cost of running the program was quite high because of reduced enrollment and the regular purchase of sanitary materials. To keep their programs afloat, some participants had to lay off their staff, others kept them without salary, others had to exhaust their savings, and most incurred credit card debt. Most of them also experienced psychosocial stress. Their financial hardships during the pandemic would have been far worse without the emergency funding received from the state. However, as experts warn, the field of ECE needs a permanent solution and the situation could be even worse after the emergency funds run out in 2024. The nation has witnessed the dedicated service of FCC providers during the pandemic, especially to families of essential workers. Much work is needed at empirical and policy levels to support and celebrate the service of FCC providers.

Family Child Care, or FCC, in the United States is a type of licensed child-care arrangement where providers care for non-relative children in their own homes. States vary in their designation of FCC homes, as well as registration and licensing requirements. For example, Massachusetts does not differentiate FCC homes into small or large categories, although they specify rules for maintaining the child/adult ratio. Whereas California designates two categories of licensed FCC homes. Small FCC homes in California can provide care for up to eight children, and large family homes can provide care for up to 14 children if they meet certain requirements by the state. Both kinds of licensed homes in California must meet the state guidelines on the caregiver-child ratio. States also vary in their policy requirements for FCC homes. For example, while California only requires the licensing of FCC homes, Florida requires FCC educators to submit proof of background checks and completion of designated training hours annually to receive their certifications in addition to requiring the licensing of FCC homes (Bromer et al., 2021). FCC homes are popular among many families. Families choose home-based child care, whether licensed or license-exempt, for various reasons, such as location close to home or work, scheduling flexibility, convenience, affordability, a homelike setting, small group size, mixed-age grouping, and individual attention to children (Jessen-Howard et al., 2020). Family child care is also a popular option for families with infants and toddlers (Paschal et al., 2019). Many families with non-traditional schedules also use FCC homes frequently (Crosby & Mendez, 2016). Research suggests that FCC providers (FCCPs) come from the same cultural and linguistic background as the children they serve (Muenchow et al., 2020). Therefore, FCC homes cater to the logistical needs of diverse families, including their cultural and language needs. FCC homes benefit many families, as reflected in national-level data sets. For example, the data from the 2012 and 2019 National Survey of Early Care and Education (NSECE) in the United States showed that in 2019, a little over 4.3 million children younger than age 13 were enrolled in programs offered by one million paid or listed home-based child care (HBCC) providers (Administration of Children & Families, 2021a).

Although FCC homes remain popular among particular groups of families in the United States, they have been experiencing a decline in their enrollment numbers even before the pandemic. After the pandemic hit, children’s enrollment and participation in learning activities were reduced significantly in both public and private early childhood education (ECE) programs between March through December 2020 (Barnett & Jung, 2021), including FCC homes (National Association for the Education of Young Children, NAEYC, 2020a). In California, 14% of FCC homes, or 3,635 sites, were closed between January 2020 and January 2021 (Cal Matters, 2021). However, 61 percent of centers and 83 percent of FCC homes in Kim et al.’s (2022) survey also reported that they were open in person during the pandemic. The reliance on home-based child care, HBCC, especially by essential workers, increased dramatically across the states in the United States during the pandemic because center-based ECE programs were unable to accommodate the social distancing policy imposed during that period (Homegrown, 2020). FCCPs also "took pride in their role as essential workers who helped keep the economy running" (Porter et al., 2020, p. 1). Hence, highlighting the importance of FCC homes, Porter et al. (2020) state, "The COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting child care crisis for low-income working families, who make up most essential workers, highlight the indispensable role of family child care providers" (p. 1).

It is important to note that FCCPs have been facing many challenges over the years. From their qualitative study, Porter and Bromer (2020) reported a host of challenges faced by HBCC providers, such as long hours and role burden, isolation, work-family balance, working with families, addressing children’s health and safety, and working with a mixed-age group of children. They receive inadequate compensation for their work, lack health insurance and methods for paid family and sick leave, and lack exposure to support groups and services. They also face challenges with managing the business while serving children (Porter et al., 2020) and meeting the demands of participation in publicly funded ECE systems such as licensing, subsidy, the Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), and Head Start (Porter & Bromer, 2020). These challenges became worse during the pandemic, especially the financial challenges due to low enrollment, financial uncertainties, and additional expenses for maintaining a safe environment (Workman & Jensen-Howard, 2020). Keeping in view the important role of FCC homes before and during the pandemic and the challenges that FCCPs faced to keep their program afloat during the pandemic, this qualitative study explored the financial challenges faced by FCCPs in a large urban county in California during the pandemic.

Background

This section discusses literature relevant to the study’s purpose. The review includes topics such as how many FCC homes were closed over the years and the reasons for this decline, what are the funding sources for FCC homes and the adequacies (or inadequacies) of these funding sources, the role of FCC networks (FCCNs) in supporting FCCPs, and the challenges faced by FCCPs before and after the pandemic.

Decline of Family Child Care in the United States

Although many families prefer FCC homes, the number of these homes has been steadily declining. According to National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance (2019), between the years 2005 and 2017, over 97,000 small and large licensed FCC homes were closed in the United States, a 48% decrease in the number of licensed FCC homes. It is important to note that the decline is higher among FCC homes than among ECE centers. The results of the annual survey, conducted by the organization Child Care Aware of America (2022), showed that between 2018 and 2019, 53% of the 37 states in their survey reported a decline in the number of ECE centers, while 79% of states reported a decline in FCC homes. The qualitative study by Bromer et al. (2021) with former FCC educators in four states—California, Florida, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin—who mostly worked between the years 2004 and 2019, provides some reasons for this decline. Bromer et al. (2021) reported that in addition to personal challenges, some major professional challenges led participants to close their businesses. These factors included inequitable subsidy payment rates and policies of the state, increase in requirements, center-centric regulations that were away from the everyday realities of FCC homes, and disrespectful and distrustful licensing staff.

This trend in the supply gap became worse during the pandemic. According to Child Care Aware of America (2022), 6,957 licensed FCC homes closed in 36 states between 2019 and March 2021, which represented a 10% loss in licensed FCC homes. Many ECE professionals in the United States have also left the field, and experts predict that their exit from the field is permanent (Child Care Aware of America, 2022; Sullivan, 2022). These closures have hurt low-income and rural communities harder than other communities in the United States (Jessen-Howard et al., 2020).

Funding for FCC Homes and the Role of Family Child Care Networks

The financial challenges faced by FCC homes have contributed to a greater extent to the decline of these child care homes in the United States. Nationwide, FCC homes have always faced funding challenges. In general, funding for FCC homes comes from two different sources: families who pay for child care services out of their own pockets and subsidized child care funded by the government. There are agencies that enroll eligible families in their agency and pay the provider for child care services rendered to the family. In California, a family must earn 85% or less of the state median household income to qualify for state-subsidized child care. For families who earn less than 40% of that amount, the programs are free. However, families whose earnings fall between 40 and 85% of that amount are required to pay child care fees, referred to as "family fees," on a sliding scale. Contracts determine whether family fees are paid to the FCCPs or to the contracting agency. Acknowledging the economic hardships of low-income families during the pandemic, the state waived the "family fees" temporarily (Aguilera, 2022). In 2019, FCC homes catered for 20 percent of children receiving Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) subsidies (Administration of Children & Families, 2021b). However, Shdaimah et al. (2018) succinctly captured the challenges of subsidies in some states as voiced by center-based administrators and home-based providers in rural, urban, and suburban New York counties in their study:

Even when respondents received subsidies for certain children, they did not cover the full time those children actually spent in care. If parents of subsidized children had long commutes, which was often the case as these parents were more likely to rely on public transportation, respondents were not fully compensated for the child’s time in care.

Hourly employment subsidy calculations also meant that although the provider had to hold a subsidized child’s spot open all day for 5 days a week to retain that child, they did not get their full weekly wage when parents’ employers cut the parents’ hours in a given week. (p. 8).

Family child care providers could also avail themselves of state-funded pre-K dollars. However, not all states allow FCC homes to receive state pre-K dollars either directly from the state or through subcontracting. According to National Institute for Early Education Research, (2021), during the 2019–2020 school year, only 29 out of 62 state-funded pre-K programs in 24 states allowed FCC homes to receive pre-K dollars.

Family child care providers have always been under tremendous financial stress; however, the stress worsened during the early part of the pandemic. While the operating costs of all ECE programs rose during the pandemic, they were much higher for FCC homes than for center-based ECE programs. For example, according to Workman and Jensen-Howard (2020), between March and September 2020, the operating cost of HBCC was 70 percent higher than that of the pre-pandemic level, whereas the cost was 47 percent higher for center-based ECE programs. A major part of the cost included paying for the staff and buying sanitation supplies. To offset the rising cost, many states have used the funding from the CAREs Act to consider enrollment (rather than attendance) when providing payments for families that use subsidies. However, as per the estimate by American Progress (Workman & Jensen-Howard, 2020), the funding from the CARES Act could only cover the cost of 30% of child care slots for one month.

It is important to note that FCC homes that were part of a family child care network (FCCN) have performed better on all fronts before and during the pandemic. Family child care networks operate in many states, including California. These are well-resourced networks that have been successful in finding ways to stabilize and support the nearly 4 million HBCC caregivers in the United States (Homegrown, 2020). These networks have paid staff who offer a variety of supports, including quality improvement services and business support, to individual FCCPs in their network (National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance, 2017). The majority of participants in Bromer and Porter’s (2019) study with staffed FCCNs reported receiving funding from state sources such as acquiring contracts through child care assistance programs, QRIS, and federal Head Start. Besides helping with licensing and QRIS, these networks also help FCCPs with the child care subsidy program, which is a source of income for FCC homes. However, not all states have FCCNs. Additionally, according to Homegrown (2020), the funding sources of FCCNs are insufficient at present because "they are under-funded and/or their current policy structures don't fully enable the diverse and extensive operations of networks" (p. 13).

Challenges Faced by Family Child Care Providers

Over the years, FCCPs have faced several financial, personal, professional, and societal challenges. These challenges include years of low wages and lack of benefits (Child Care Aware of America, 2022), decreased enrollment (Gibbs & Falgot, 2022), higher operating costs (NAEYC, 2021), administrator and regulatory demands (Simpson et al., 2022), increased regulations, and aging providers (National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance Project Team, 2019); the perception of FCCPs as "babysitters"; and work-related stress such as income insecurity and constant stress to please parents (Gerstenblatt et al., 2014). FCCPs also suffer from low earnings and a lack of access to employee benefits. Based on the analysis of the 2019 National Survey of Early Care and Education, the HBCC Public-Use Data File, and the Child and Family Data Archive, Sandstrom and Dwyer (2021) maintained that "in 2019, 11 percent of all HBCC providers (licensed or not) had no health insurance coverage, and 28 percent self-reported having fair or poor health" (p. 4).

During the pandemic, these challenges also multiplied. The COVID-19 public health crisis has required FCCPs to implement new health and safety practices, deal with substantial fluctuations in child enrollment, and adjust to corresponding changes in their income (Muenchow et al, 2020). The results of the Peacetime Emergency Child Care Grant online survey conducted between July and September 2020 with 1,898 center-based and FCC providers in Minnesota showed that: (a) Due to the coronavirus outbreak, 55 percent of FCCPs experienced financial loss; (b) The operating cost of running the program increased "by a large amount" for 35 percent of FCCPs (Warner-Richter et al., 2021). The survey also reported similar results for center-based providers. Although child care providers were technically considered essential workers but they were never clearly told they belonged to the essential worker category such as nurses and other workers. So, they could not go to stores in-person to purchase materials when the stores were open only for essential workers. However, despite the challenges, during the pandemic, many FCC homes remained open (Porter et al., 2020) because of their sense of commitment to their local communities (NAEYC, 2021).

Methodology

The study intended to explore the kinds of financial challenges faced by family childcare providers during the pandemic and how providers coped with and supported themselves and their staff during the pandemic.

Design

The study used the phenomenological inquiry method to collect and analyze data. Phenomenology allows researchers to understand social and psychological phenomena from the perspectives of people who have lived those experiences. The study aimed at capturing the essence of a phenomenon—the impact of COVID-19 on FCCPs—by exploring the commonality of the lived experiences of selected members of this group of professionals through interviews. Phenomenologists consider interviews as the ideal tool for their research because they can gather the subjective and authentic voices of research participants through interviews. Researchers mostly design semi-structured interview protocols because it allows researchers to ask follow-up questions based on participants' responses, which makes the data more contextualized and rich. Participants’ non-verbal expressions during the interview also help researchers interpret the verbal data accurately.

Participants

The study was conducted in a large urban county in California, which is home to more than 5,000 FCC homes, the highest number in the state. The sample was drawn from two densely populated and ethnically diverse cities in the state. The majority of the FCC homes in these two cities serve children from low-income ethnic minority families, especially Latinos and African-Americans. Twenty FCCPs, all females, participated in the study. Out of 20 participants, 13 were Latinas, 5 were African Americans, one was Asian, and one was white. Nine participants were in the age range of 50–59, seven were 60 or older; and three were in the age range of 35–39. Only one participant was under the age of 35. Participants’ educational backgrounds ranged from middle school to a master’s degree in ECE. All participants had contracts with at least one subsidized child care services agency holding at least one type of contract, such as an Alternative Payment Program (APP), a Family Child Care Network in Home Education Network such as FCCHEN, and/or Early Head Start. Children’s Home Society is an agency that holds different contracts. Except for one participant, all others were sponsored by a nutrition program. Out of 20, 12 participants have had their licenses for over 20 years, 6 participants have had their licenses for over 10 years, and only two participants received their licenses in 2016. Only six out of the 20 participants had 100% of the enrolled children in their program as part of an agency (for subsidized care) before COVID-19, and they continued with the same percentage after the pandemic. For other participants, the percentage of subsidized care children fluctuated before and after the pandemic. Some participants gained more subsidized care children after the pandemic, and some other participants lost about half the number of subsidized care children they had before the pandemic.

Data Collection

Recruitment

After receiving approval from the ethical board of a public university in the county, the researchers recruited participants from the database of FCC homes posted on the website of the California Department of Social Services, CDSS, which includes the name of the facility and phone number. Researchers contacted FCCPs in the selected county on the list by phone, introduced the study and briefed the responsibilities of participants in the study, and invited them to participate in the study. Researchers also used the snowball sampling method to recruit more participants through existing participants. A flyer was prepared for this purpose. Interested participants provided their emails. Participants sent their signed consent letters to the primary researcher electronically via DocuSign.

Study Tool and Data Collection

All FCCPs in the study participated in an interview session via Zoom, which was audio recorded. The semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix A) includes two parts: (a) Background information: It included participants' age range, race/ethnicity, the year when they opened their business, how many subsidized family child care agencies they at the time contracted with, what percentage of children enrolled in their program were part of an agency before and after the start of the pandemic, and the part-time or full-time status of the assistants they had at the time of the interview; (b) COVID-19-related questions: It included items (forced-choice and open-ended questions) such as whether participants were able to keep their programs open during the pandemic, the nature of financial challenges they faced, and the kinds of efforts they made to address these challenges.

Data Analysis

The researchers analyzed the data using Braun and Clarke’s (2019) method of reflexive thematic analysis. According to Braun and Clarke, this method of analysis is suitable for phenomenological studies because it allows the interpretation of data based on participants’ perspectives, perceptions, and lived experiences. The researchers conducted all six steps recommended by Barun and Clarke, such as data familiarization by reading and rereading transcripts; generating initial codes (such as declining enrollment, laying off staff, buying cleaning materials, incurring credit card debt, and the loss of savings), systematically identifying interesting features across the data set (such as the connection between low enrollment and anxiety, the loss of savings yet the desire to keep the program open); creating themes by reading and narrowing down the codes and categories into key themes and subthemes (such as Keeping the program open, Staffing challenges, Financial challenges, and Coping with financial challenges); and rereading the data set and validating the codes, and cross-checking the themes against the codes. The researchers analyzed the data using both deductive (based on the two primary research questions) and inductive coding (that emerged from the transcriptions).

Data Quality

Credibility

The data collected for the study align with the study’s primary research questions: (a) What kinds of financial challenges were faced by family child care providers, FCCPs, during the pandemic and why? (b) What efforts did FCCPs make to cope with these challenges? The purposive sampling technique used in the study matches the qualitative research paradigm. The sample size of 20 is also considered sufficient for a qualitative study to gather enough data to address the study’s research questions. The researchers recruited participants by identifying them from the list of FCC homes posted on the state ‘s website. In addition, the researchers used the snowballing sampling strategy to recruit more participants through existing participants. The sampling technique used in the study allowed a broader representation of FCCPs in the county. To gather a broad range of data to address the research questions, the semi-structured interview protocol included a few forced-choice items that were immediately followed by open-ended questions for participants to explain their responses. The study used Braun and Clarke’s (2019) method of reflexive thematic analysis, which is considered appropriate for phenomenological data analysis. Both researchers were engaged in the data analysis process, ensuring inter-rater reliability. If the study included in-person observation of FCC homes, the data could have been richer. However, it was not possible to get approval for such visits during the pandemic.

Confirmability

The researchers made efforts to show a clear link between the data and the findings. The findings section includes a detailed synthesis of data under each theme through descriptions and interpretations as well as quotes from participants’ responses that fit the discussion.

Transferability

We have described the context of the study in detail. Participants' backgrounds and the criteria for selecting participants in the study are also clearly explained. The research was conducted with FCCPs, who kept their programs open, especially for families of essential workers, amidst severe financial hardships. The data was collected mostly in the early part of the pandemic. Factors such as declining enrollment and a lack of financial support from the federal and state governments during that period shaped the findings of the study. Therefore, the findings of the study can be transferred to a similar context and group.

Findings

This section presents the major themes and their sub-themes. Each theme reflects the commonalities of participants’ experiences, as well as the unique voices of individual participants.

Keeping the Program Open

Low-enrollment

This theme emerged from a few forced-choice questions and follow-up, open-ended questions. The forced-choice questions were designed to gather information about the operational status of participants’ programs during the pandemic. The semi-structured nature of the interview protocol helped researchers ask on-the-spot questions based on participants’ responses. When asked about whether their program remained closed or open during the pandemic, 13 out of 20 participants stated that they remained open to all children. Four participants shared that they remained open to children of essential workers only. Three participants shared that they closed their program during part of the stay-at-home order. Participants who said that thei program was closed for some part of the stay-at-home order were asked if their decision to close their program was due to the health and safety requirements of the California licensing department or their concerns for the health and safety of children, families, and staff. Participants who closed their programs during the beginning months of the pandemic stated that they were worried about the health and safety of children, families, program staff, and their family members. For example, Natalia stated, "Our parents are essential workers, so we knew they exposed themselves on a daily basis and could make their children sick, and we could also get them sick because we still had to go shopping to get the food for the program." One participant shared that she was afraid for herself and her family members because of her own advanced age and the age of her family members at home. It was a genuine concern, especially as these providers served the children of essential workers and the news of hospitalization and mortality around the nation was spreading fast.

Participants were also asked to explain their enrollment numbers. There were two forced-choice items that asked participants about what percentage of their enrollment capacity was served in the months of April and May 2020. The first months of the pandemic were a challenging time for the nation and the world, including FCC homes. So, it was necessary to gather information about enrollment issues. A program’s enrollment numbers also reflect the financial stability or instability of an ECE program, which was the focus of this study. The follow-up questions requested participants to explain their reasons for keeping their programs open (or closed) during the first two months of the pandemic. These questions were asked based on the type of responses provided by participants during the interview.

The findings showed that the FCC homes in the study suffered from low enrollment, at least during the beginning months of the pandemic. When asked if their program was open during the month of April 2020 and what percentage of their enrollment capacity attended during this month, only two participants shared that the attendance was between 75 and 100%; two participants mentioned that it was between 50 and 74%; three participants shared that the attendance was between 29 and 49%; and eleven participants shared that up to 25% of children attended their program. Two participants shared that they closed their program in April 2020. When asked if their program was open during the month of May 2020 and what percentage of their enrollment capacity attended during this month, the comparison of enrollment numbers showed that there was only a slight increase in children’s attendance in May 2020 compared to April 2020.

Participants who stated that they kept their programs open despite low enrollment justified their actions by stating that they needed income, wanted to serve families who have been with them for many years, wanted to serve the children of essential workers, or were worried about their contracts with child care network agencies and their licensing status. As mentioned before, all participants in the study had contracts with at least one or more agencies through whom they received funding for children whose families received child care subsidies. These agencies also provided other services, including professional development and resources. In her response, one participant, Sasha, explicitly referred to the contract that she had with child care network agencies and stated, "… I knew that there were going to be some consequences with the agencies and licensing. I was not afraid, but I needed to stay open to provide services for the families that needed them; the essential workers." Participants who stated that they closed their programs for some time also clarified that they did not close their programs intentionally. Like other FCC homes, they also needed the income to operate their programs. However, they could not run their program because of a host of reasons, such as parental fear of their child contracting the virus, parental loss of job, parental relocation due to loss of job, or when a child or staff tested COVID positive. For example, Alma stated, “I never closed my program. I remained open. The majority of parents decided to keep their children for a couple of months. I only had one child because the parents really needed my service, but I always remained open. Later, children started to return little by little."

When asked if closing the program disrupted children’s education, participants stated they had sent learning materials to families so that parents could help their children at home. Whether participants kept their programs open despite low enrollment or kept the programs closed for a short period, their commitment to the families that they have been serving and their understanding of the educational needs of children under their care were clearly reflected in their responses. Justifying her stand, Amelia stated, "We did not close our business. But parents decided not to bring their children for about 3 weeks to a month. …..During that period, we sent out materials to every child, so parents could have something to work on with their children at home."

Staffing Challenges

Although participants kept their programs open despite low enrollment, they faced severe challenges staffing their programs. Data for this theme came from a forced-choice question, "Was the work status of your assistants affected by COVID-19?" The choices were whether they reduced the work hours of their assistants, laid them off, gave them furlough days, or chose other methods. They were then requested to elaborate on their responses. One participant shared that the pandemic did affect her staffing situation but did not elaborate further. Three participants explained that due to low enrollment, they have been giving their assistants some days off without pay, which has helped them save money. Three participants explained that they reduced the work hours of their assistants by a few months. For example, Renee explained that she reduced work hours only between March and July 2020 because enrollment was quite low. Seven participants stated that they did not face any staffing shortages because their assistant’s work schedules remained the same, sometimes without payment. Their assistants understood the situation and accepted the arrangement. Some participants mentioned that their assistants left voluntarily. For example, Vanessa explained that she did not lay off her assistant, but her assistant decided to leave because "she was afraid of becoming sick with the virus." Three participants stated that they never had any assistants, even before the pandemic. They have single-handedly shouldered the responsibility of managing their programs because their enrollment number did not require an assistant. California’s child care licensing requires FCC homes to hire an assistant if they have more than six children under their care. The participants who had to lay off or reduced the work hours of their assistants voiced concerns over their increased work pressure, especially making efforts to ensure the health and safety of children, altering the environment constantly, monitoring young children, and completing required paperwork.

Financial Challenges and Efforts to Address These Challenges

Financial Challenges

This sub-theme emerged from an open-ended question that explored the kinds of financial challenges faced by participants during the pandemic, if any. Participants connected their stress to the loss of enrollment and consequent loss of revenue, as well as the loss of savings from buying the required health, hygiene, and program-related materials. They also discussed how financial stress had affected their mental health.

Thirteen out of twenty participants shared that they experienced financial stress because of the loss of tuition fees. Participants operated their program with low enrollment during the pandemic. Sharing her concerns, Nova stated, "Economically speaking, I am not receiving the same amount I was receiving before," and Chanel echoed, "I have 50% less income; I have been working with a lot less money." Parental loss of jobs surfaced frequently in participants’ responses as the reason for low enrollment in their programs. Because recruiting families to the program is the sole responsibility of FCCPs, each year, FCCPs try hard to publicize their programs through various informal means. However, due to COVID-19, all their efforts and hard work to recruit families to their programs were wasted, as evident in some participants’ responses. Expressing her frustrations over how COVID challenged her success in recruiting some families to her program, Amelia stated, "We also had families who were going to sign up right before the pandemic, and then they decided not to sign up at all because of COVID, because the families lost their jobs." Participants not only lost some families altogether due to various reasons but families who were regularly sending their children also reduced their child’s hours of attendance and paid less. For example, Sophia shared, "Some parents decided to go from full-time to part-time. Others dropped their care altogether. Others have decided to leave the state because of COVID." Participants who were interviewed in spring 2021 shared that although they received money for children whose fees were subsidized by the state; however, they have lost money by not having children whose parents were paying from their pockets, or “the loss of private children” (Mariana).

The loss of savings was a recurrent theme in most participants’ responses, including those of older participants. Renee shared,

One is older, one must have something because you never know. But I was using my savings… to buy food and materials for the children. It is hard, but I believe God will always provide. It was a lot of money that was spent."

Most participants shared their frustrations over spending money from their savings to buy cleaning supplies to maintain a safe environment for children in the program. This was also a recurring expense. Gabriela shared, "Because there were many safety measures, we had to use our savings because we had to do whatever possible to be able to do the social distancing with the children—to be able to have a group outside and another group indoors. I spent a lot of money." Participants also shared that to prevent children from sharing materials among themselves, they had to buy a set of materials for each child and a separate container for each child to store the child’s toys, books, drawing materials, etc. Abigail shared, "New material had to be purchased because of the licensing guidance, like new bins for each family to be able to have everything there. And taking everything out and putt them in storage.”

Participants also shared the impact of financial challenges on their mental health. Many participants shared a sense of anxiety due to recurring financial challenges. It is to be noted that all participants, except one, had their programs for over 10 years. Some of them have had their programs for over 20 years. So, it was natural for them to experience anxiety with the uncertainties that surrounded the world and their programs during the pandemic. Sharing the anxiety that resulted from depleting financial resources, Xin stated, "….I am still going through anxiety. As you work, you depend on your enrollment, and your enrollment is part of your business income. As far as bringing materials for the children. I feel sad, thinking, how am I going to provide services to my children?" Alma echoed, In March, when the pandemic started, children were not coming, and I only had 1 to 2 children. That is when I had severe anxiety. I was worried that my savings would not last long. What was going to happen if the children were not coming back?" It is also important to note that although participants’ health insurance status was not intentionally explored during the interview, some participants shared that they did not have health insurance and were not financially stable to buy one during the pandemic, which was also a cause of their anxiety. For example, Alma explained her situation clearly, "…what will happen, if I get sick, especially since I do not have health insurance? All those thoughts would come to my head for months."

Coping with Financial Challenges

When asked how they were coping/supporting themselves and their staff during the pandemic, participants shared diverse ways that they have been trying to cope and support themselves and their staff during the pandemic. Some participants shared that the financial insecurities led them to “reduce the hours for assistants” (Ava) as a way of keeping their programs open. Amelia expanded her response, "Yes! Not enough funds to keep staff or pay bills. Everything is more expensive now." One participant, Sasha, mentioned that she used to pay her assistant from the funding that she used to receive from one of the agencies that she had a contract with, and continued, “when the agency completely told me that they were not going to pay me. That is why I had to let go of my assistant because that was her paycheck." Alma, who could not keep her assistant, did not seem overly concerned about her assistant and shared that she was “…not that worried for her because she is a young woman and is busy with her school.” She mentioned that she communicated with her assistant periodically and would hire her back once the situation improved. Participants who had to lay off their staff were worried about their assistants but kept constant communication with their assistants. They hoped that they would rehire their assistants once they received funding from the state. Some participants kept their assistants either by paying them or by requesting that they wait until they received payment from the state. Participants whose assistants left voluntarily used that money for the program’s operational purposes. Chanel stated, "My plan was to continue paying them, and when they decided to leave, I was able to use that income to continue moving forward." Some participants requested their assistants to apply for unemployment and guided them in the process.

Participants tried several ways to keep their programs afloat. The use of their own savings or money that they set aside for their program’s emergency purposes was a recurring theme. A handful of participants also shared that they used their credit cards. For example, Nova responded, “I used my emergency fund. I used my credit cards. Agencies also had some things available. My friends would let me know about things that were available too." They were also resourceful in obtaining free materials provided by different agencies. Some participants shared that once their program started enrolling students, they felt a little more normal and could pay their staff regularly.

A few participants specifically shared how they made some adjustments to cut down on expenses, both personal and programs-related, to save money. For example, Cassidy shared, “I scaled down on some of the leisure things, like cable, and made some adjustments, such as not driving as much. I also made an arrangement for my car with the bank, so no car payment." Xin reflected on her decision and stated, “I realized quickly that I must limit my spending. I used to buy materials for children in my program every weekend, but now I only spend it on what I need.”

Participants also tried to harbor a positive attitude and maintain constant communication with parents and staff. They tried to remind themselves that things would be better soon and that they were not alone. Cassidy shared, "I would convince myself to believe that things would eventually change. Knowing that other people are in the same boat as me comforted me." A few participants shared their efforts to collaborate with staff and communicate with parents so that they understand the program’s situation and future plans. Sophia shared that she collaborated with her staff "…in coming up with a plan to ensure we have a high-quality program for when parents return to our program." Expressing a similar sentiment, Romana shared, "…by communicating with staff and parents, talking about what had to be done, what steps to take to protect ourselves and the children, and how to make a plan to prepare ourselves for the situation we were facing." Participants who were interviewed in spring 2021 had already received reimbursement from the state and stated that they were able to operate their program without much stress after receiving funding. It is important to note that California and some other states decided to reimburse FCCPs based on children’s enrollment in the program, not by attendance. Gabriela stated, "Economically speaking, the union fought to get the agencies to reimburse, even if the children did not attend in person. It helped a lot." However, these participants also shared that the beginning period of the pandemic was quite stressful for them.

No Financial Stress

It is appropriate to mention that a few FCCPs in the study did not feel financially stressed during the pandemic when asked about the financial challenges that they faced, if any. Justifying her response, one participant referred to the understanding that comes with age, and stated, "Because at my age I am prepared for times like these" (Luna). Although she did not elaborate on her response, it could be that she had set aside some savings for such uncertain times or had a well-mapped disaster plan. Another participant, Valeria, mentioned that her financial stability was due to the enrollment of some private families who paid from their pockets and also to a supportive husband who was working and provided financial support to her program. It is important to mention that, in general, FCC homes charge higher fees for private children than what they receive from subsidized care. Another participant referred to her resourcefulness and having a business that is incorporated which saved her from financial stress. Generally, not many FCCPs incorporate their business. However, incorporating a business has many advantages including access to information and resources. Isabella elaborated her response:

No financial stress. You know there is tremendous access to a lot of things, I have worked with so many providers to help them through the process, not to do their work for them, but to guide them. Tell them whom to call. Because I am incorporated and most providers are not, that makes it very difficult.

Discussion

All FCCPs in the study, except a few, shared the harsh financial realities that they had faced during the early part of the pandemic. The cost of running the program, according to all participants, was quite high, with reduced enrollment and the regular purchase of sanitary materials. Some of them shared their inability to keep their assistants on the payroll, and some kept them without paying salaries. Others had to exhaust their savings to operate their program, and some others incurred credit card debt. The study’s findings align with other studies that shared the financial difficulties of all ECE programs during the early phases of COVID-19.

Early childhood experts and organizations have highlighted the importance of FCC homes, especially during the pandemic. NAEYC’s survey (2020b) reported that during the pandemic, HBCC programs were more likely to remain open compared to center-based programs (73% compared to 50%) and enrolled more children than child care centers. Yet, they also incurred a decrease in overall enrollment, and their daily enrollment dropped by as much as 60%, resulting in an extraordinary loss of revenues. The surveys also showed that about 43% of FCCPs stated that they did not charge parents during program closures, and over 75% of FCCPs reported that they incurred debt to keep their programs open. More than a year after the pandemic, NAEYC (2021) reported that the majority of FCCPs (76%) in their survey said that they incurred additional debt for their programs during the pandemic. When asked about their worst financial fears, 43% of FCCPs mentioned paying staff or themselves as sole providers as their worst financial fear. FCCPs in rural communities in the study by Williams and Karno (2022) shared that they experienced lower enrollment and income losses during the pandemic.

The findings showed that all participants in the study had contracts with at least one agency that offered subsidized child care services through contracts, such as the Alternative Payment Program (APP), Early Head Start, and the Family Child Care Home Education Network (FCCHEN). For FCCPs, there are many advantages to having a contract with an agency (Porter & Bromer, 2020). Agencies provide professional development training and coaching sessions to FCCPs for free. Once approved by the state, agencies were able to pay contracting providers retroactively to the beginning of the pandemic, even when FCC homes were closed because of COVID-19. The most popular contracts that the study participants held were with FCCHEN and APP. The Alternative Voucher Program, or APP, is an income- and need-based voucher program funded by CDSS. The APP helps eligible families arrange child care services and sends payments directly to the child care provider for the services provided to the family. There are no requirements, or minimal requirements, to sign a contract as an APP provider; so, it is a popular choice among FCCPs. Family childcare networks are comprised of a group of licensed FCCPs and offer subsidized child care for eligible families. California has been a leader in providing state-supported FCC networks for over 30 years (Muenchow et al., 2020). According to Muenchow et al. (2020), "Although many licensed FCC homes across the state have closed during the pandemic, California’s network-affiliated providers have largely remained open, initially limited to serving children of essential workers" (p. 1). Agencies also differ in their requirements. For example, compared agencies that have several contractual requirements, APPs have lower quality requirements. On the other hand, there are several requirements to have a contract with FCCHEN and to maintain a good standing in the network. It is important to note that in this study, 12 out of 20 (60%) participants had a contract with FCCHEN, which reflected their commitment to quality care and education.

During the beginning part of the pandemic, agencies associated with FCC homes in California dealt with many policy fluctuations introduced by the state. Participants had to figure things out on their own because CDSS did not provide enough financial policy-related guidance. The state introduced new policies and then later changed them. For example, agencies at first did not receive the directive to reimburse providers when they closed because of COVID. Then the directive came to reimburse for 15 days; the state then changed it to 30 days. Also, the state originally did not provide agencies with any directive to reimburse for children’s absences. Many families decided to keep their children at home, although care was still approved with a provider. This led to some FCCPs not receiving reimbursement for those children who stayed home. Similarly, this policy also changed later as the CDSS gave agencies the directive to reimburse for all absences and made this retroactive to the beginning of the pandemic. But all these uncertainties took a toll on providers.

It is important to highlight that, at the time of this study, not all agencies paid similar compensation rates per child to providers. For example, in some cases, FCCPs received higher compensation per child if they were part of the APP voucher program (Muenchow et al., 2020). The family child care networks that have access to funding from Early Head Start or Head Start may pay an additional $100 a week per child to providers in their network (Muenchow et al., 2020). In other words, participants in the study did not receive the same compensation rate per child from their contracts with various agencies during the pandemic. To correct the state’s bifurcated rate system, the 2021–22 budget agreement included a "provision to reimburse contract-based providers with either the Standard Reimbursement Rate or the rate for voucher-based providers, whichever is higher" (Saucedo & Schumacher, 2022, para. 7). Past FCCPs in Bromer et al.’s (2021) multi-state study raised similar concerns. Seven participants in their sample raised concerns over inadequate income from their states’ subsidy reimbursements, which were much below the cost of providing care for children in their programs. A participant from Wisconsin in their study stated, "I hated the subsidy program … There’s no money in it. You just slowly go backwards.”

With lobbying by ECE experts and organizations, Congress instituted various financial measures during the pandemic. In March 2020, just after the country-wide lockdown, Congress instituted the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) for small businesses to help them maintain their payroll during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, according to NAEYC’s (2020c) survey results, most of the FCC homes were unable to access and benefit from the program. Among the PPP survey respondents, 55% of those who were denied the loan were FCCPs, and qualified candidates received less than $50,000. The reasons for the denial included problems with FCCPs’ credit scores, a lack of pre-existing relationships with a bank, and a lack of a business checking account. The program officially stopped accepting applications in August 2020, and the complicated nature of the loan application process did not attract FCCPs. None of the participants in the study had received funding from this program.

Other financial measures, such as the March 2020 CARES Act, the Child Care Is Essential Act, the Child Care for Economic Recovery Act passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in July 2020, the December 2020 Federal COVID Relief Bill, and the March 2021 American Rescue Plan Act, have gradually helped stabilize the child care industry. There were also some recommended changes to previous policies. According to Liberman et al. (2021), the CARES Act offered important flexibility, such as paying providers based on enrollment rather than attendance. This shift from attendance to enrollment-based subsidy payment, adhered to by many agencies across the states, stabilized the market and retained providers (Administration of Children & Families, 2022). Natalia, who operated her program before the pandemic with 100% subsidized care children, shared that she could continue her program without full capacity, "…because I kept working and I kept receiving the reimbursement for all children, even when some of them did not attend in person." Additionally, CARES Act funding allowed agencies to serve the children of essential workers regardless of income. This allowed families who were not part of the CCDF program to enroll their children in ECE programs (Administration for Children and Families, 2022).

Most of the study participants shared their ways of coping with the financial challenges that they faced which included steps such as laying off or reducing their assistant’s hours, or using their personal savings to buy materials, reducing personal expenses, and incurring credit card debt, etc., to cope with the financial challenges that they faced. However, according to Mimura et al. (20,119), these kinds of financial measures are not healthy and "may, in turn, negatively impact the provider’s demand on time and cause negative feedback within the system or in the connected system of the provider’s own family" (p. 418). Moreover, because the financial stability of FCC homes directly relates to enrollment numbers, which can fluctuate for various reasons, Mimura et al. (2019) suggest that they should have a higher emergency fund, possibly for about 6–9 months, compared to what is recommended for other sectors. Some participants in the study never had an assistant, which is also typical for small FCC homes in California serving six or fewer children. According to some reports, a vast majority of FCCPs across the nation work individually. The study by the NSECE Project Team (2016) found that 60% of providers did not have a paid assistant. From their survey research with FCCPs in California, Whitebook et al. (2006) reported, "…the typical licensed family child care provider is a woman of color…She usually works without a paid assistant…" (p. 14). Although financial limitations and licensing requirements may not encourage small FCC homes to hire an assistant, having an assistant would benefit providers by sharing the workload and working together to raise the program’s quality.

It is important to note that the FCCPs in the study did not receive any state funding until spring 2021. In California, agreements between the Child Care Providers United (CCPU) Union and the state allowed supplemental payments for licensed and license-exempt family care providers who served children receiving subsidies (Child Care Providers United, n.d.). Governor Newsom signed the first COVID-19 agreement, Assembly Bill 82, with the State of California on February 23, 2021. This bill allowed a one-time stipend of $525 per child enrolled in a subsidized care program during the month of November 2020. The bill also allowed for 16 additional paid non-operational days when a provider closed her program because of COVID-19. These 16 additional days were available retroactively from September 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. FCCPs with contracts with different agencies, such as FCCHEN and APP, were eligible to receive the funding. The state distributed the funds in the spring of 2021. CCPU reached its second COVID-19 agreement with the State of California in July 2021. As per this agreement, the California Department of Education and CDSS again allocated a one-time stipend in the amount of $600 per subsidized child enrolled in an FCC home during the month of March 2021 in a state-subsidized program. This agreement also provided a $3,500 stabilization stipend for all licensed FCCPs, including those who had temporarily closed their programs. These stipends were intended to address the costs associated with decreased enrollment or site closures during the pandemic and to ensure that programs could remain open or be able to reopen. Eligible FCCPs also received one-time payments in the spring and summer of 2022, and they will also receive monthly payments during the fiscal year 2022–23 (California Department of Social Services, 2022). Although emergency funds during the pandemic have helped FCCPs, uncertainties over future funding possibilities still loom large in the minds of FCCPs and ECE organizations in the U.S. and worldwide. The Child Tax Credit (CTC) which supported families directly with monthly financial support for each child as a part of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) has already ended in 2022 (Homegrown, 2023).

Implications

The study has implications for FCCPs and ECE programs in general. Study participants shared severe financial challenges in providing services, as well as keeping their staff employed. According to Child Care Aware of America (2022), between December 2019 and March 2021, nearly 16,000 child care centers and licensed family child care programs have been permanently closed because of high operating costs, unpredictable attendance, and rising labor costs emerging from inflation. Some of these closures could have been avoided if financial measures were taken early and targeted specifically at FCCPs.

The study’s findings also have implications for rural FCCPs. There has been a shortage of ECE programs in rural areas. According to Paschall et al. (2020), 1.1 million rural families with young children faced severe child care shortages during the pandemic. Future researchers may assess the challenges that rural FCCPs faced, what factors supported their choice to keep their programs open or closed, the percentages of providers who permanently closed their businesses during the pandemic, and what strategies and support could reverse the trend.

Early childhood experts recommend that, besides federal support for early care and education, states must continue and upgrade their current investments in early care and education (Muenchow et al., 2020). Not all states have increased provider payment rates, both for voucher-based payment rates and the Standard Reimbursement Rate, in recent years to match the rising cost of wages and supplies (Saucedo & Schumacher, 2022). As per the report of the California Workforce Study on Early Educator Compensation by the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California, Berkeley (Montoya et al., 2022): (a) Providers operating small FCC homes reported a median annual income of $16,200–$30,000, which is the lowest annual income of all early educators; (b) On average, regardless of program size, FCCPs in voucher-subsidized programs or programs without public funding reported lower income compared to providers holding contracts with the state of California or federally funded Head Start; (c) Providers with a BA degree did not report higher income than that of providers with lower educational credentials. Keeping in mind the loss of FCC sites across the nation during the pandemic, increasing the provider payment rates to one that reflects the increased staff wages, and the cost of living will serve as a viable incentive to attract FCCPs to reopen their programs. Research shows that the acceptance of subsidies was the strongest predictor of ECE programs that remained open during the pandemic (The Boston Opportunity Agenda, 2021).

Uniqueness, Limitations, and Recommendations for Future Research

The study focused on a group of ECE professionals whose in-person services were critical for all families and especially for children of essential workers during the pandemic. Researchers and policymakers in the United States have vastly ignored the challenges of FCCPs during the pandemic, except for a few studies such as those by NAEYC (2020a), Shdaimah et al. (2018), Williams and Karno (2022), Porter et al. (2020), and Turner (2022). Moreover, researchers frequently combine ECE center-based workers and FCCPs in their sample. Only a few studies have examined the financial challenges of FCCPs by using the survey research method. The present study used the qualitative method to gather in-depth accounts of the financial challenges faced by FCCPs in a large county in California. Therefore, the study’s findings could very well complement the survey data gathered by other researchers on the topic.

Second, 18 out of 20 participants in the study were from minority backgrounds—13 Latinas and 5 African Americans—and taught children from predominantly Latino and African American families. Experts predict that child care supply in predominantly Black and Latino communities will continue to fall behind (Mallick et al., 2020). Therefore, the study is timely and highlights the urgency of protecting FCC homes in these communities. Moreover, various demographic reports had highlighted the high spread and mortality rate of COVID-19 among minority communities, especially Hispanic and African American communities. Despite severe financial challenges, participants in the study had taken a big risk by serving children who bore a high possibility of contracting the virus from their family members. Some participants in the study also shared that they did not have health insurance. Therefore, the study’s findings highlight the committed service provided by FCCPs, especially at a time when the country needed their service the most.

Third, this study began in the initial period of the pandemic, when FCC homes, had not received any financial support from the state. Early studies, such as this one, were conducted when there were many uncertainties over the course and treatment of the virus, the absence of clear-cut guidelines for child care programs, a continuous inflow of the latest (and sometimes contradictory) information about the virus as well as governmental initiatives. Providers were also struggling to balance the new state and federal regulations with harsh budget constraints and the needs of the program, their own family members, and the children under their care. These early studies are important for comparative purposes and for establishing a trajectory of the pandemic’s impact on ECE programs (Watts & Pattnaik, 2022).

There are some limitations of this study. The study used only 20 FCCPs from a large urban county in California. So, the small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings to other geographical settings. In addition, the study used interviews as the only data source. The collection of data from multiple sources, such as field observations and interviews with families, would have helped the researchers compare the data sets to explore convergence, complementarity, and divergence in findings. However, it was not possible to conduct field visits to FCC homes or connect with families who were facing multiple challenges, especially during the early part of the pandemic. Most of the providers in the study were from lower socio-economic backgrounds and served children mostly from low-income backgrounds. So, the study suffers from a lack of wider socio-economic representation in the sample, and the findings cannot be generalized to FCCPs in other socio-economic settings.

Future researchers may conduct a comparative study of FCC homes that cater to families from different socio-economic backgrounds. Researchers may also adopt a mixed-method design to evaluate the socio-emotional challenges faced by FCCPs in low-income urban and rural communities. Because many FCC homes were closed during the pandemic, it will be interesting to explore if these homes have reopened and what factors facilitated their reopening. A quantitative study with FCCPs to gather their suggestions on proactive measures that will protect their financial and socio-emotional health in future health pandemics will inform policymakers.

Conclusion

The financial challenges of FCCPs are not only a COVID-19 phenomenon. There had been a steady decline of FCC homes even before the pandemic. However, the financial challenges were multiplied during the pandemic because of the resulting economic fallout. The hardships during the pandemic would have been far worse without the financial interventions provided at the federal and state levels. However, as experts warn, temporary support of COVID-19 emergency funds will not solve the child care industry’s fundamental, long-term challenges (Quinton, 2022) and the situation could be even worse after the emergency funds run out in 2024 (Gibbs & Falgout, 2022). There is much work to be done at the policy level, such as increasing the total amount of funds for the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), committing additional funds by states, and mandating reimbursement to FCCPs based on enrollment, rather than attendance, by all states. Family child care providers across the country, "the unsung heroes of the COVID-19 crisis" (Porter et al., 2020), who took financial and health risks to serve the nation, deserve much better attention than what they have received from policymakers and the public until now. It is also important to acknowledge that FCCPs across the globe have always perceived their work as a service to families and children and they have served with self-pride and satisfaction (Reid et al., 2019; Turner, 2022), which may be a prominent reason why so many providers made invaluable sacrifices to serve families during a prolonged health pandemic. As Workman and Jensen-Howard (2020) put it succinctly, "While the majority of child care providers are private businesses, the service they provide is a public good" (para. 19). To conclude, the valuable contributions of FCCPs, especially during the pandemic, urges us to reimagine the ways that “we can protect the industries and systems that function as the backbone of our society” (Homegrown, 2020, p.1).

Appendix A: Interview Protocol

A: Background Questionnaire

1. Your age:

   Below 34	35–39
   40–44	45–49
   50–54	55–59
   60–64	65 or above

2. Your ethnicity:

3. Your educational qualification:

4. Your year of experiences in the field of early childhood education

5. When did you obtain your child-care license?

6. Is your program currently sponsored by a Nutrition Program?

7. Do you contract with Subsidized Family Child Care agencies?If yes, with how many agencies?

8. What types of contracts do you have with them?

9. Do you have any assistants?

   If yes, how many?

10. Please identify the status of your assistants.

    -All part-time

    All full-time

    -Some part-time and some full-time.

B: Interview Questions

1. What has been the status of your program during the State of Emergency caused by Covid-19?

   1. Closed throughout the Stay-at-Home Order
   2. Closed for some time during the Stay-at-Home Order
   3. Remained open only to children of essential workers
   4. Remained open only to children of essential workers, but with modified business hours
   5. Other: Please specify
   Examples of follow-up questions (based on participants’ responses)

   • Please explain why you decided to keep your program open when many ECC programs were closed at least for some part of the pandemic
   • Why did you enroll children of essential workers only?
2. If your program was/is closed due to Covid-19, what factors contributed to the decision?

   (a) Health and safety requirements by licensing; (b) Health and safety concerns of children, families, and/or staff; (c) Lack of staff and/or children attending the program

   -Please explain your response with some examples.

3. If your program was open during the pandemic, what percentage of your enrollment capacity was served in the month of April?

   (a) Between 0 and 25%; (b) between 26 and 49%; (c) between 50 and 74%; (d) between 75 and 100%.

4. If your program was open during the pandemic, what percentage of your enrollment capacity was served in the month of May?

   (a) Between 0 and 25%; (b) between 26 and 49%; (c) between 50 and 74%; (d) between 75 and 100%.

5. Was the work status of your assistants affected by Covid-19?

   (a) Cut work hours; (b) Laid off; (c) Given furlough days; (d) Other (please explain)

   Examples of follow-up questions:

   • How did your staff respond to your decision to lay them off?
   • How did your staff respond to your decision to reduce their hours?
   • How did it impact you and your work when you lost your assistants?

6. Did you face any financial challenges during the Covid-19 pandemic? Please explain with examples.

7. If you have faced financial challenges, how have you been coping and supporting yourself and your staff during this pandemic? Please provide some concrete examples.