Search

A large body of research demonstrates a positive association between maternal education and child development. What is not yet known, however, is whether and to what extent the association between mothers’ education levels and their young children’s outcomes varies across developmental stage (infancy, toddlerhood, or preschool) and child outcome domain (cognitive, social-emotional, and health) prior to school entry. Using a national sample of low-income mothers (n ≈ 3,200), the present study finds that maternal education increases during children’s earliest developmental stages are more strongly associated with children’s outcomes than education increases later on. The directions of those associations vary, however, across domains, such that earlier increases in maternal education level are associated with increased child language and literacy scores and healthier child BMI, but also with elevated hyperactivity and conduct problems relative to no increases at all. These diverging associations by developmental domain are observable as early as preschool and heighten in magnitude by kindergarten entry. We discuss results to inform the targeting and design of two-generation education programs aimed at jointly improving the lives of low-income children and their parents.

Although the federal child care subsidy program is the nation’s largest public investment in the early care and education (ECE) of low-income children, few studies have attempted to identify the ECE workforce and classroom features that characterize subsidized center-based settings and differentiate them from other alternatives. To address this gap in the literature, the current study uses data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) to describe subsidized center-based classrooms on an expansive range of workforce and classroom variables. Notably, we compare these classrooms to classrooms in the other center-based settings that primarily serve low-income children – both those that receive public funds from other sources (Head Start or school-based pre-k) and those that do not (non-publicly funded center-based settings). In the vast majority of comparisons, differences between subsidized settings and others were not statistically significant. However, when differences were detected they were in the direction consistent with prior literature: subsidized settings are lower in quality than Head Start or public pre-k settings – for instance, offering fewer activities and materials – but higher in quality than non-publicly funded settings – for example, offering more referrals to ancillary services and screenings. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.

A recent but growing literature has explored the implications of federally-funded child care subsidies for child well-being. While subsidies have been shown to move children into child care settings of higher observed quality, and high quality care has been associated with improved school readiness, some evidence suggests that subsidy use is associated with neutral or negative child outcomes. These findings may be explained by patterns of care choice among subsidy receiving mothers. This study investigates whether household structure moderates the association between subsidy receipt and choice of child care arrangement using samples drawn from two demographically distinct data sources: the exclusively urban Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS) and the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Birth Cohort (ECLS-B). Results indicate that household structure alters the association between subsidy use and care arrangement, but the moderating role of household structure differs across the two samples. In the FFCWS, living with extended family increased the likelihood that mothers use subsidies for informal family, friend, and neighbor (FFN) care rather than center based care; in the ECLS-B, living with extended family decreased the likelihood of mothers using subsidies for informal FFN care versus center-based care. Findings suggest that household structure is an important moderator of subsidy use, but that its impact may depend on contextual and demographic factors.

The federally funded, state-administered child care subsidy program provides subsidies to low-income families. Despite being among the government's most significant investments in early care and education, recent national estimates suggest that fewer than 30% of eligible families receive subsidies and the predictors of subsidy receipt remain poorly understood. This study investigates the predictors of subsidy receipt among eligible families, with data drawn from the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study — Birth Cohort (ECLS-B). Using logit regression models, we compare subsidy recipients to the eligible non-recipients of subsidies as a group, and then classified by the type of care the non-recipients do use: Head Start, public pre-kindergarten, or unsubsidized care. Results indicate that subsidy recipients are generally more advantaged than the eligible non-recipients of subsidies. In particular, subsidy recipients have more resources and fewer hassles than eligible non-recipients. These findings can aid state subsidy administrators in more effectively targeting their outreach and enrollment efforts and ultimately in increasing the use of this important program.

In recent years, research examining determinants and consequences of the means-tested child care subsidy program (the Child Care and Development Fund [CCDF]) has grown dramatically. To measure subsidy utilization, existing studies typically rely on parent-reported measures of subsidy receipt drawn from large surveys. As the research literature on child care subsidies has grown, however, so have concerns about the trustworthiness of parent-reported subsidy use. One way to assess the quality of parent-reported subsidy use is to examine its overlap with another subsidy receipt measure, drawn from a different source. The current paper uses the Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study (FFCWS), the only existing survey data source that contains an alternate measure of subsidy receipt — based on child care provider report — which permits a comparison to parent-reported measures. We find evidence that increases our confidence in the trustworthiness of parents as accurate reporters of subsidy receipt. In recognition that neither data source reflects “true” subsidy receipt, however, we conclude with a discussion of limitations and steps for future research.