Child care for children in poverty: opportunity or inequity?

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.

Thresholds of quality: implications for the social development of children in center-based child care.

We assessed the quality of center child care relationships with adults and peers for 414 children (ages 14 to 54 months). Classrooms were classified by ratio and group size provisions of the Federal Interagency Day Care Requirements (FIDCR) and by the Early Childhood and Infant and Toddler Environmental Rating Scales. Children cared for in classrooms meeting FIDCR ratios were more likely to be in classrooms rated as good or very good in caregiving and activities. Children in classrooms rated as good or very good in caregiving were more likely to be securely attached to teachers. Securely attached children were more competent with peers. Children cared for in classrooms meeting FIDCR group size were more likely to be in classrooms rated higher in activities. Children in classrooms rated high in activities were likely to orient to both adults and peers. Children with social orientations to adults and peers were more competent with peers.

The social policy context of child care: effects on quality.

Examined effects on the quality of children's child care environments of (a) the stringency of state child care regulations, (b) voluntary compliance with proposed federal child care standards, and (c) the legal auspice of the center. Quality of care was assessed in 227 child care centers in five metropolitan areas. Centers in states with more stringent child care regulations tended to have better staff-child ratios, staff with more child-related training, and lower staff turnover rates. Similarly, centers that more fully complied with the ratio, group size, and training provisions of a set of proposed federal child care standards had significantly lower staff turnover rates, more age-appropriate classroom activities, less harsh and more sensitive teachers, and more teachers with specialized training. For-profit centers offered children less optimal care than did nonprofit centers. These findings are placed in the context of ecological models of research and of contemporary policy debates about child care.