Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 24, 2026

Comparing Eye-tracking Data of Children with High-functioning ASD, Comorbid ADHD, and of a Control Watching Social Videos
Published on: December 7, 2018
Quality disparities in child care for at-risk children: comparing Head Start and non-Head Start settings
Marianne M Hillemeier1, Paul L Morgan, George Farkas
1Department of Health Policy and Administration, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. mmh18@psu.edu
Insights
Center-based Head Start programs offer higher quality child care for at-risk children, especially those from low-income families. However, quality in Head Start family child care settings needs improvement.
Area of Science:
- Child Development
- Early Childhood Education
- Public Health Policy
Background:
- Developmentally at-risk children often experience varied child care settings.
- Assessing child care quality is crucial for early intervention and school readiness.
- Head Start is a key program aimed at improving outcomes for low-income children.
Purpose of the Study:
- To describe child care types and quality for at-risk children.
- To compare quality between Head Start and non-Head Start settings.
- To identify factors linked to higher-quality child care.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Birth Cohort.
- Inclusion of 7,500 children assessed at 48 months of age.
- Measurement of child care quality using standardized rating scales.
Main Results:
- Head Start centers provided higher quality care than other centers, particularly for poor, Hispanic, and white children.
- African American children experienced the lowest quality care across settings.
- Head Start family child care settings showed quality disadvantages, especially for low birthweight children.
Conclusions:
- Center-based Head Start enhances child care quality for at-risk populations, supporting school readiness.
- Expansion of center-based Head Start is recommended.
- Quality concerns in Head Start family child care settings require further investigation.
Abstract:
The study objectives are to describe child care type and quality experienced by developmentally at-risk children, examine quality differences between Head Start and non-Head Start settings, and identify factors associated with receiving higher-quality child care. Data are analyzed from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Birth Cohort, a prospective study of a nationally representative sample of US children born in 2001. The sample consisted of 7,500 children who were assessed at 48 months of age. The outcome of interest is child care quality, measured by the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale (center care) and the Family Day Care Rating Scale (family day care). Results of descriptive and multivariate regression analyses are presented. Less than one-third of poor children were in Head Start. Child care quality was higher in Head Start centers than other centers, particularly among poor children (4.75 vs. 4.28, p < 0.001), Hispanics (4.90 vs. 4.45, p < 0.001), and whites (4.89 vs. 4.51, p < 0.001). African Americans experienced the lowest quality care in both Head Start and non-Head Start centers. Quality disadvantage was associated with Head Start family care settings, especially for low birthweight children (2.04 in Head Start vs. 3.58 in non-Head Start, p < 0.001). Lower family day care quality was associated with less maternal education and African American and Hispanic ethnicity. Center-based Head Start provides higher quality child care for at-risk children, and expansion of these services will likely facilitate school readiness in these populations. Quality disadvantages in Head Start family day care settings are worrisome and warrant investigation.
Related Concept Videos
Specialized Care Centers and Settings-I
Daycare centers
They provide several functions. Some facilities care for healthy newborns and children whose parents work, while others are medically focused and care for...
Specialized Care Centers and Settings-II
Rural health centers are specialized care facilities in remote locations with very few medical personnel. The primary care providers who run the centers are mostly Registered Nurse Practitioners. Here, emergency treatment is provided to critically ill or injured patients before they are transferred to the closest hospital. Fortunately, due to advancement in technology, many rural healthcare facilities and professionals have easy access to diagnostic and treatment...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes
Different sample means can result in different values for the variance estimate: variance between samples. This is because the variance between samples is calculated as the product of the sample size and the variance between the...
