Search

OBJECTIVE: We examined associations between neighborhood built environment features and early childhood development (ECD), and tested the contribution of the built environment to associations between neighborhood disadvantage and ECD. METHODS: Spatial neighborhood built environment measures were linked to participant addresses in the 2015 Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) for children ~5 years old living in Australia's 21 most populous cities. The 2015 AEDC contains teacher-reported national data on five key child development domains for children in their first year of formal full-time schooling (approximately 5 years old). AEDC scores were classified as 'developmentally vulnerable' (≤10th centile). Using multilevel modeling, 44 built environment measures were tested with developmental vulnerability on at least one domain of the AEDC, adjusting for socioeconomic factors and neighborhood disadvantage. RESULTS: The dataset consisted of 205,030 children; 89.2% living in major cities. In major cities, children with more early childhood education and care services (OR 0.997) and pre school services (OR 0.991) exceeding Australian standards, and access to healthier food outlets within 3200 m of their home (OR 0.999) had decreased odds of developmental vulnerability, controlling for socioeconomic factors and neighborhood disadvantage. Neighborhood disadvantage remained significantly associated with developmental vulnerability after adjustment for child/family variables and neighborhood built environment characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The neighborhood built environment had small effects on the neighborhood disadvantage--ECD relationship at the national level. Few built environment measures were associated with ECD. Small effects at the population level may have wide-ranging impacts; modifying the built environment at scale are promising levers for supporting good child outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first 5 years of a child's life are crucial in laying the foundation for their health and developmental trajectory into adulthood. These early years are especially influenced by the surrounding environments in which children live and grow. A large international body of evidence demonstrates that children who experience disadvantage tend to fall increasingly behind over time. At the societal level, these inequities can cause substantial social burdens and significant costs across health, education, and welfare budgets. A contributing factor is that children experiencing adversity are less likely to have access to the environmental conditions that support them to thrive. Many of these factors are modifiable at the community or place level. We argue for three key—though not exhaustive—ideas that collectively could achieve more equitable outcomes for children facing disadvantage and experiencing adversity: 1. Adopt a social determinants approach to conceptualizing disadvantage; 2. Stack existing, evidence-based government and nongovernment service interventions/programs that operate at the local or community level; and 3. Use data and evidence to focus improvements for more equitable and adaptive systems. We conclude that if adopted, these 3 ideas could contribute to the ability of local communities and networks to identify and respond to factors that address early childhood inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing body of evidence suggests that engagement with quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) programs such as preschool can enhance children’s early development. The Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) provides a unique opportunity to explore the relationship between ECEC and children’s developmental outcomes in a full population cohort of Australian school entrants. The AEDC is a teacher-rated checklist that provides data on ECEC experiences in the year before starting school, as well as five important domains of child development at school entry: physical health and wellbeing, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive skills, and communication skills and general knowledge. In 2009, the AEDC was completed for 97.5% of Australian children in their first year of formal schooling ( N = 261,147; M = 5 years, 7 months of age). Logistic regression analyses revealed that attendance at preschool was associated with reduced odds (OR = 0.69, p < 0.001 to OR = 0.40, p < 0.001) of being in the vulnerable range (<10th percentile) on four of the five AEDC domains (with the exception of emotional maturity; OR = 0.89, p = 0.002), compared to other ECEC experiences, or care exclusively by parents. Subsequent analyses revealed that this effect was evident for children living in both advantaged and disadvantaged communities. Together, the results suggest that engagement with preschool programs in Australia may present a plausible, equitable, and modifiable approach to improving children's developmental outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Participation in a preschool program in the year before starting school can promote children’s healthy development, and has the potential to reduce inequities in developmental outcomes for at-risk subpopulations. In Australia, boosting preschool attendance has emerged as a national policy priority. In this paper, we draw on data from the Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) to describe preschool attendance in two sequential population cohorts, with preschool experiences in 2008 and 2011 reported retrospectively by teachers of children in their first year of school. Overall, findings show that the proportion of children attending preschool remained relatively stable between the two AEDC cohorts (in 2008, preschool attendance ranged from 57.0% to 85.8% across the states and territories, while in 2011, attendance ranged from 49.2% to 93.7%). At a subpopulation level, children from non-English speaking and Indigenous backgrounds and children living in disadvantaged communities all had substantially higher odds of not attending preschool in both 2008 and 2011. These findings highlight the need to maintain policy attention on efforts to further reduce barriers to preschool access for at-risk subpopulations, and the value of monitoring population trends in preschool attendance to better inform policy and service provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]