Search

Three studies examined associations between early child care and child outcomes among families different from those in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network study. Results suggest that quality is an important influence on children's development and may be an important moderator of the amount of time in care. Thus, the generalizability of the NICHD findings may hinge on the context in which those results were obtained. These studies, conducted in three national contexts, with different regulatory climates, ranges of child care quality, and a diversity of family characteristics, suggest a need for more complete estimates of how both quality and quantity of child care may influence a range of young children's developmental outcomes.

Data from a nationally representative survey of child care centers and a 5-site, observational study of centers were used to examine the quality of care provided to children from low-income families. Comparisons were made to a national sample of centers; among Head Start, public school-sponsored, and other community-based subsidized centers; and among centers that served families from differing socioeconomic groups. The quality of care in centers that served predominantly low-income children was adequate, but highly variable, with structural indices exhibiting higher quality than observations of global quality and of staff-child interactions. When compared to Head Start and public school-sponsored centers, the community-based centers had smaller groups and fewer children per teacher for preschoolers, but also had less well educated and compensated staff. Centers that predominantly served children from upper-income families provided the highest quality of care across multiple indices, and those that predominantly served children from middle-income families almost uniformly provided the poorest quality of care. The centers that served children from low-income families did not differ significantly in quality from the upper-income centers on most indices. However, the teachers in these programs were observed to be less sensitive and more harsh than teachers in the centers that served more advantaged families. The implications of the findings for research and policy are discussed.