EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 19(5), 702–725

Copyright © 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1040-9289 print / 1556-6935 online
DOI: 10.1080/10409280802375273
BURCHINAL,
NEIGHBORHOOD
NELSON,
ANDCARLSON,
CHILD CARE
ANDTYPE
BROOKS-GUNN
AND QUALITY

Neighborhood Characteristics
and Child Care Type and Quality
Margaret Burchinal
FPG Child Development Institute
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lauren Nelson
Psychometrics Division
Research Triangle Institute
Mary Carlson
Psychiatry Department
Harvard University
Jeanne Brooks-Gunn
Teachers College, Columbia University

Research Findings: Using data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago
Neighborhoods, this article relates neighborhood characteristics to the type of child
care used in families with toddlers and preschoolers (N = 1,121; representative of
children in Chicago in 1996–1998). Neighborhood structural disadvantage was as-
sessed via U.S. Census data, and neighborhood processes (i.e., density of social net-
works, collective efficacy, and level of participation in neighborhood organizations)
were accessed with a community survey. Child care decisions (i.e., whether they
chose care in centers; child care homes by non-relative, by relatives, and exclusively
by parents) and the quality of center child care (Early Childhood Environment Rating
Scale–Revised) were assessed in a longitudinal sample. After controlling for family
characteristics, various neighborhood characteristics were related to child care char-
acteristics. In communities with denser social networks, children were less likely to
experience care in child care homes by unrelated adults. Children were more likely to

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Margaret Burchinal, FPG Child De-
velopment Institute, CB#8185, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8185. E-mail:
burchinal@unc.edu
 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHILD CARE TYPE AND QUALITY 703

be in child care homes and less likely to cared for by parents exclusively or by rela-
tives when collective efficacy was higher. Center care quality was lower in disad-
vantaged neighborhoods and higher for publicly funded programs. Further, neigh-
borhood structural disadvantage was more negatively related to quality when
mothers had less education. Practice or Policy: These findings provide further evi-
dence that public programs such as Head Start and public pre-kindergarten programs
may be especially important to ensure that children living in poverty in disad-
vantaged neighborhoods have access to the types of child care that promote school
readiness.

Over the past three decades, dramatic increases in the number of working mothers
have resulted in increases in the number of children who experience regular
nonparental care. In 2000, 55% of children younger than 2 years of age and 75% of
children between 3 and 6 years experienced routine child care (Vandell, 2004).
Children are more likely to enter school with more advanced academic skills when
they attend child care centers and/or settings of high quality, especially if those
children are from low-income families (Barnett, Hustedt, Robin, & Schulman,
2004; Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Bryant, & Clifford, 2000; National Institute
for Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network
[NICHD ECCRN], 2000; Votruba-Drzal, Coley, & Chase-Lansdale, 2004). Recent
evidence has suggested that publicly funded center-based pre-kindergarten pro-
grams may be especially advantageous for low-income children (Gormley, Gayer,
Phillips, & Dawson, 2005; Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2004). Therefore, it is
important to understand what predicts the type and quality of child care experi-
ences.
Much is known about which families tend to use child care and the types of
care they tend to choose (for complete review, see Pungello & Kurtz-Costes,
1999; Vandell, 2004), but much less is known about the extent to which commu-
nity characteristics relate to the selection of child care. Using data from the Pro-
ject on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN), we asked
four questions: (a) Is a structural measure of neighborhood disadvantage associ-
ated with the type of child care used over and above family characteristics? (b)
Do measures of neighborhood processes mediate this anticipated link between
neighborhood disadvantage and child care type and quality? (c) For preschoolers
attending child care, is child care quality associated with neighborhood struc-
tural and process measures (three neighborhood processes were examined: so-
cial networks, collective efficacy, and participation in neighborhood organiza-
tions [measured via a community survey of 8,782 adults])? and (d) For the
subsample of preschoolers attending child care centers (n = 190), is the quality of
the center care associated with neighborhood characteristics? In the following
sections, literature relevant to these questions is reviewed with respect to neigh-
borhood effects.
704 BURCHINAL, NELSON, CARLSON, AND BROOKS-GUNN

NEIGHBORHOOD STRUCTURAL AND PROCESS

CHARACTERISTICS

Neighborhoods may affect family process and child development in several ways,
and several theoretical models have been proposed (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, &
Aber, 1997; Duncan & Raudenbush, 2001; Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Sampson,
Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997; Wilson, 1991). Much of the research has focused on
demographic characteristics of neighborhoods and has used readily available mea-
sures from U.S. Census data, such as proportion of families who are living in pov-
erty, living with unemployed heads of households, living with adults with low lev-
els of education, African American, headed by single parent, or recent immigrants.
A composite is typically formed from these census tract or block indexes. Such
measures have been negatively related to children’s cognitive and social develop-
ment during childhood and adolescence (Browning, Leventhal, & Brooks-Gunn,
2004; Brooks-Gunn et al., 1997; Sampson et al., 1997).
Although less studied, neighborhood models often emphasize neighborhood
processes as explanatory mechanisms. Three processes have been examined: the
role of neighbors, relatives, and peers (Social Networks); participation in neigh-
borhood institutions, such as schools and civic associations (Neighborhood Orga-
nizations); and the monitoring and presence of individuals within the neighbor-
hood who serve as role models (Collective Efficacy). These processes are not
assumed to be mutually exclusive; they represent different aspects of community
involvement.
The density of social networks is thought to be related to child care because
those networks can provide individuals who can provide information about child
care choices or who can serve as child care providers. The emphasis is on the ex-
tent to which individuals turn to members of the community as sources of informa-
tion and support and rely on them as they make decisions. High levels of ethnic
heterogeneity and residential instability are believed to undermine social networks
and shared values, resulting in social disorganization (Sampson & Lauritsen,
1994).
Collective efficacy emphasizes the role of neighborhood role models and moni-
toring in maintaining social cohesion and informal control (Sampson et al., 1997).
Here, communities positively influence child outcomes when neighbors trust one
another, share common values, count on one another to monitor and supervise chil-
dren and protect public order, and provide positive role models for youths. Com-
munities may negatively influence child outcomes when neighbors do not trust one
another, share common values, or protect public order. Extended to child care,
higher collective efficacy should result in greater trust that children will be safe in
child care. Collective efficacy has been shown to relate to community-level vio-
lence, personal victimization, and homicide, as well as to age of sexual onset, men-
tal health problems, and aggression over and above family characteristics and
 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHILD CARE TYPE AND QUALITY 705

neighborhood disadvantage (Browning, Leventhal, & Brooks-Gunn, 2005; Samp-

son et al., 1997; Xue, Leventhal, Brooks-Gunn, & Earls, 2005).
Neighborhood organizations focus on the role of institutions such as schools
and police. This model posits that public and private institutions within a commu-
nity have a greater influence on individuals than do neighbors. The presence of
jobs, good schools, and reliable police as well as institutions such as parks, librar-
ies, and children’s programs is viewed as an asset that benefits children (Chase-
Lansdale, Gordon, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1997) independent of either the so-
cial cohesion or informal social control within the neighborhood. Entitlement pro-
grams such as Head Start are examples of institutional organizations that are spe-
cifically designed to enhance the development of young children who live in
structurally disadvantaged neighborhoods. Sometimes the presence and the use of
organizations are distinguished by examining both whether the organizations are
present and how many individuals in the community use them (Leventhal &
Brooks-Gunn, 2000, 2003; Xue et al., 2005).

NEIGHBORHOOD STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS

AND CHILD CARE TYPE

The type of child care is hypothesized to be associated with neighborhood struc-

tural characteristics because neighborhood characteristics are thought to both im-
pact what parents value in child care and the child care options available to them,
but previous research has not examined this association in depth. Most of the ex-
tant quantitative research has considered structural characteristics, mostly eco-
nomic disadvantage, as assessed through the U.S. Census. The economic dispari-
ties across neighborhoods as well as the spatial concentration of minorities in
urban settings informed the previous work (Massey & Denton, 1993; Wilson,
1991). Neighborhoods with high concentrations of poor households came to be
seen as settings where child and family well-being were likely to be compromised
and where parents might have few child care options (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1997;
Jencks & Mayer, 1990), and evidence supported this assumption. A study in Cali-
fornia reported that the proportion of preschool children who could be enrolled in
centers was 3 times higher in communities (defined by zip code) deemed affluent
than those with lower median incomes (Fuller, Kipnis, Coonerty, & Choong,
1997). Similarly, a national study of the number of teachers working in child care
centers revealed a curvilinear association with state policies and community
wealth (Rigby, Ryan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007). The number of centers per capita
was highest in affluent and poverty-stricken communities and lowest in blue-collar
and lower middle-class communities (Loeb, Fuller, Kagan, & Carrol, 2004). In
contrast, programs such as Head Start and state pre-kindergarten programs have
focused on providing presumably good-quality center care to children who live in
706 BURCHINAL, NELSON, CARLSON, AND BROOKS-GUNN

low-income neighborhoods. Therefore, we anticipate that structural disadvantage

will be related to less frequent use of center care for infants and toddlers but may
not be so related for preschoolers.
Any consideration of community characteristics must take family characteris-
tics into account. The selection variables in this study included family income, pa-
rental education, child age, and child ethnicity because each has been linked to
both child care type and quality. Children from families with higher incomes or
who have parents with more education are more likely to experience center-based
child care as well as higher quality home-based care (NICHD ECCRN, 1997b,
1998; Phillips, McCartney, & Scarr, 1987; Pungello & Kurtz-Costes, 1999). Rela-
tively few infants attend centers, but the proportion of children in center care in-
creases dramatically between 2 and 4 years of age (Lamb, 1998; Pungello &
Kurtz-Costes, 1999; Singer, Fuller, Keiley, & Wolf, 1998). White Euro-American
and African American parents are more likely to enroll their preschool-age chil-
dren in child care centers than are Latino families (Fuller, Holloway, & Liang,
1996; NICHD ECCRN, 1997b). Children are much more likely to be cared for by
relatives if they are African American regardless of poverty status (Early &
Burchinal, 2001; NICHD ECCRN, 1997b) or when fathers, grandparents, or other
extended family members live with the child (Carneiro & Heckman, 2002; NICHD
ECCRN, 1997b).

NEIGHBORHOOD PROCESS CHARACTERISTICS

AND CHILD CARE TYPE

Although there has been speculation about the role that neighborhood processes
play in child care decisions, few quantitative studies have examined this issue.
Neighborhood processes such as social networks, collective efficacy, and neigh-
borhood organizations are hypothesized by some to explain, in part, the anticipated
association between neighborhood disadvantage and the type of care children ex-
perience (Coleman, 1993; Sampson, 1997; Wilson, 1991). In this article, we exam-
ine whether the type of child care used by the toddlers and preschoolers is associ-
ated with any of these neighborhood processes and, if so, whether the processes
serve as mediators or operate independently.
We expect the density of social networks to be associated with type of child
care. Only parents who live physically close to relatives have the opportunity for
relative care. Parents who are emotionally close to neighbors likely feel more com-
fortable asking their neighbors to provide child care and leaving their children with
those neighbors. However, parents in disadvantaged communities are likely to
have fewer friends and family to provide child care help or information about child
care options, because disadvantaged neighborhoods are characterized by networks
that are small, fluid, and unreliable (Burton, Price-Spratlen, & Spencer, 1997). In
 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHILD CARE TYPE AND QUALITY 707

those neighborhoods with lower densities of kin and friendship networks, mothers
might either use less child care or have fewer options to use either relatives or
friends as reliable care providers.
The community norms and degree of collective efficacy should influence
type of child care used. National studies have clearly demonstrated that parents
seek child care settings that are safe and that have caregivers who share their
childrearing beliefs (Early & Burchinal, 2001). The extent to which parents be-
lieve that the neighborhood is safe is likely to be linked to whether the parents
feel that formal institutions provide safe and desirable options for child care.
That is, if structural disadvantage works though collective efficacy, then we
would expect less center and non-relative care in disadvantaged neighbor-
hoods.
The extent to which community members participate in community organiza-
tions is another potential mechanism to explain hypothesized neighborhood ef-
fects on child care decisions. Neighborhoods in which individuals are less likely
to participate in organizations probably have fewer organizations. Lack of partic-
ipation is likely to lead to fewer organized child care options, because many non-
profit community child care programs are located in community organizations
such as churches and often rely on volunteers. The organizations that do exist are
probably less attached to community. As such, parents living in such communi-
ties likely have fewer resources to assist them in finding and evaluating child care
options.
Although all three of these neighborhood processes are thought to influence
child care decisions, previous research has not examined this issue empirically. If
structural disadvantage is related to type of care, then we anticipate that social net-
works and collective efficacy will mediate that association. Furthermore, we antic-
ipate that parents will opt to use either parental or relative care when collective effi-
cacy is low because they will feel less confident that their children will be safe in
child care. In contrast, use of center care is likely to be higher when collective effi-
cacy is high because most parents view center care as promoting academic skills
and prefer this type of care unless they have safety concerns (Early & Burchinal,
2001).

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS AND QUALITY

OF CENTER CARE

A few studies have examined the quality of care, typically in centers, as it is associ-
ated with neighborhood disadvantage. Quality tends to be higher for centers lo-
cated in affluent and higher income communities and lower for centers located in
lower-income communities unless the programs are publicly funded (Helburn et
al., 1995; NICHD ECCRN, 1997a; Phillips, Voran, Kisker, Howes, & Whitebook,
708 BURCHINAL, NELSON, CARLSON, AND BROOKS-GUNN

1994). State- and federally funded child care programs constitute community re-
sources that may promote child well-being in communities with low levels of both
social networks and collective efficacy. Programs such as Head Start and public
pre-kindergartens are designed to provide opportunities for low-income children
to attend high-quality child care centers. These programs are designed to provide
3- to 4-year-old children who are at risk, primarily due to low family income, with
high-quality center-based preschool experiences. Accordingly, these centers are
most likely situated in low-income communities. These programs are meant to en-
sure that low-income children have access to high-quality care regardless of family
and community resources, and evaluation studies have documented that at least
some Head Start and pre-kindergarten programs (Barnett et al., 2004; Bryant et al.,
2002; Gilliam & Zigler, 2001; Gormley et al., 2005) provide relatively high-qual-
ity care, especially when government funding is linked to program evaluation
(Fuller et al., 2003; Helburn et al., 1995).
In summary, although there is considerable information about family character-
istics related to decisions about use of child care, use of different types of care, and
quality of care, less is known about how community characteristics may influence
such decisions. Most of the neighborhood research has focused on using structural
U.S. Census-based measures of disadvantage, stability, or immigrant concentra-
tion. Much less research has investigated neighborhood processes such as social
networks, collective efficacy, or neighborhood organizations. In part this omission
is due to the necessity of obtaining measures of these neighborhood processes
from an independent sample of community residents (i.e., if these measures are
tapped by respondents in a family or cohort sample, then shared method variance
becomes a problem; see Kohen, Brooks-Gunn, Leventhal, and Hertzman, 2002,
for an example using the Canadian National Sample of Children and various
neighborhood measures based on observation and on maternal report). We exam-
ined these issues using the PHDCN because it was designed to assess neighbor-
hood processes by using a multilevel design that independently samples neighbor-
hoods, and then children within neighborhoods, to assess neighborhood, family,
and child effects in a hierarchical linear modeling framework (Raudenbush &
Bryk, 2002). In the PHDCN study, it is possible to distinguish neighborhood struc-
tural characteristics and neighborhood processes to determine whether neighbor-
hood processes serve as mediators or operate independently in terms of determin-
ing child care options and decisions. We hypothesized that communities with (a)
with more structural disadvantage may have fewer high-quality child care options
unless publicly funded; (b) with denser social networks would have parents who
are more likely to opt for care by friends and family; (c) in which there is greater
participation in neighborhood organizations would have more higher quality child
care and more child care centers; and (d) with greater collective efficacy would
have higher quality child care and parents more likely to use child care.
 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHILD CARE TYPE AND QUALITY 709

METHODS

Design
PHDCN employed a neighborhood-based design in which a cluster analysis was
performed on 1990 U.S. Census data for Chicago’s 847 census tracts to identify
343 neighborhood clusters (groups of two or three census tracts that are economi-
cally and racial/ethnically homogeneous). The goal was to identify clusters in
which there was some homogeneity on socioeconomic, housing, family structure,
and racial/ethnic characteristics. Using information on ecologically meaningful
boundaries, tracts were combined to identify the 343 neighborhood clusters with
about 8,000 individuals within each cluster.
A two-stage sampling procedure was used to obtain the sample. The first stage
involved selecting a random sample of 80 of 343 Chicago neighborhood clusters
stratified by racial/ethnic composition (seven categories) and SES (high, medium,
and low) created by forming a composite from standardized U.S. Census data re-
garding demographic characteristics such as median household income and then
dividing all of the 343 Chicago neighborhood clusters in terciles based on their
composite scores. About two thirds of the neighborhood clusters had mixed racial/
ethnic compositions.
The longitudinal sample, designed to describe families and children longitu-
dinally, was recruited in the 80 selected neighborhood clusters as the second
stage of the sampling. Within these 80 neighborhoods, children falling within
seven age cohorts (ages = 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years) were sampled from ran-
domly selected households for recruitment. This effort required screening more
than 35,000 households to obtain the desired sample for the longitudinal sample
(N = 6,234 children in 4,292 families; see Xue et al., 2005, for further details).
For this article, we focused on the families in which a target child was younger
than 6 years of age at recruitment and that responded to the child care questions
from Wave 2. There were 1,266 in Cohort 00 and 1,002 in Cohort 03 for total of
2,268. Of children in these families, 860 had already entered kindergarten by the
time the Wave 2 interview (the interview with child care questions) was con-
ducted. Therefore, 1,408 families in the sample were eligible for inclusion in
these analyses.
Of the 1,408 families with children young enough to be in child care at the
second visit, 1,121 were included in these analyses (765 from the children re-
cruited at birth and 356 from the children recruited as 3-year-olds). Families
were excluded if they were missing information on predictors (n = 287). Com-
parison of included and excluded families on all analysis variables yielded one
significant difference. There were fewer college-educated mothers in the ex-
cluded sample (4.7%) than in the included sample (7.3%), χ2(2) = 11.1, p < .05.
710 BURCHINAL, NELSON, CARLSON, AND BROOKS-GUNN

Participants
Table 1 lists demographic characteristics of the recruited sample. Overall, 29% of
the children were African American, 18% were White, and 39% were Latino
American. The median income was between $20,000 and $30,000, with 23% of
the children in a household earning less than $10,000 per year and 18% in a house-
hold earning more than $50,000 per year. Of the mothers, 57% were married; 21%
had less than a high school education, whereas 14% had some college. The mean
ages for these two cohorts of children with data on child care questions from Wave
2 (and younger than 6 years old) were 2.49 and 3.27, respectively, for Cohort 00
and Cohort 03.

Measures
Neighborhood structural characteristics. To reflect overall differences in
community-level factors across neighborhood clusters within this study, we used
one of the three linear combinations constructed from the 1990 census by Sampson
and colleagues (1997). Structural Disadvantage was constructed from an oblique
factor analysis of the 1990 U.S. census data. The first dimension of concentrated
neighborhood disadvantage comprised poverty rate, percentage on public assis-
tance, percentage with female-headed households, unemployment ratio, and per-
cent African American.

Neighborhood process characteristics. Neighborhood characteristics were

measured by using a large representative sample that was independent of the longi-
tudinal sample. The same sampling frame was employed; however, data were col-
lected on all 343 neighborhood clusters. This sample was made up of 8,782 indi-
viduals 18 years of age or older who were interviewed in their homes in 1995–
1996, with an average of 25 individuals per neighborhood cluster (average of 50
interviews conducted in 80 target neighborhood clusters and average of 20 inter-
views in nontarget neighborhood clusters). This design was used to yield a repre-
sentative sample of households within each neighborhood cluster, with sample
sizes large enough to create reliable neighborhood cluster measures (the response
rate was 78%; Sampson, 1997).
Participants rated their neighborhoods on a number of dimensions including so-
cial and physical disorder, violence and victimization, social cohesion, informal
social control, danger, and availability of resources (Sampson, 1997; Sampson et
al., 1997). Responses were aggregated to the neighborhood (tract) level. Neighbor-
hood Organizations was assessed as the composite of seven items asking about in-
volvement by residents in local organizations such as civic groups and religious or-
ganizations. To measure Social Networks, participants were asked about the
number of family and friends in the neighborhood. Finally, as a proxy for the
 TABLE 1
Description of Families and Neighborhoods Overall and by Type of Child Care Arrangement

Total Sample Center Non-Relative Relative Parent

Variable Data (N = 1,121) (n = 323) (n = 100) (n = 179) (n = 519)

Hours in care/week M (SD) 26.6 (10.9) 34.9 (12.1) 36.0 (14.4) —

ECERS-R total M (SD) 4.15 (1.2)
Child’s age M (SD) 3.3 (1.3) 4.3 (1.1) 2.7 (1.0) 2.8 (1.0) 2.9 (1.2)
Household income Median $20,000–$30,000 $30,000–$40,000 $30,000–$40,000 $20,000–$30,000 $20,000–$30,000
Maternal marital status % 57 28 10 12 50
Race
White % 18 33 8 12 47
African American % 29 37 5 21 37
Hispanic % 39 21 11 14 54
Other/mixed % 14 28 12 16 44
Maternal educationa
< High school % 21 17 8 13 62
High school % 65 29 8 19 44
BA/BS or more % 14 45 14 8 33
Maternal employment
Full time % 39 39 13 29 19
Part time % 12 31 12 19 38
Unemployed % 48 19 3 8 69
Community characteristics
Structural disadvantage M (SD) –0.08 (.09) –0.12 (.10) –0.27 (.11) –0.01 (.10) –0.05 (.09)
Neighborhood organizations M (SD) –3.21 (.04) –3.20 (.04) –3.24 (.05) –3.19 (.05) –3.22 (.05)
Social networks M (SD) 3.15 (.05) 3.12 (.04) 3.02 (.05) 3.18 (.05) 3.17 (.06)
Collective efficacy M (SD) 5.86 (.08) 5.88 (.07) 5.88 (.08) 5.89 (.09) 5.83 (.09)

Note: ECERS-R = Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised; BA/BS = bachelor’s degree.
aHighest degree obtained.

711
712 BURCHINAL, NELSON, CARLSON, AND BROOKS-GUNN

Norms and Collective Efficacy factor, a composite, referred to as Collective Effi-

cacy, created from the community survey items by Sampson and colleagues (1997)
was used. Residents were asked questions about the degree to which they could
rely on neighbors to intervene in five situations (e.g., child skips school) and about
the degree of social cohesion in five items (e.g., people around here are willing to
help their neighbors). All three neighborhood process measures have demon-
strated adequate reliability and validity (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999).
The sample distributions for all four selected community variables are shown in
Table 1.

Family characteristics. Several family characteristics were selected from

the interview of the participants in the longitudinal sample. For this study, we se-
lected children whose mothers were the respondents on the interview (93% of the
sample). In the family interview, mothers were asked about their marital status,
categorized as married or single; employment status, categorized into full time
(more than 30 hr per week), part time (1–30 hr) or not employed (48% were not
employed); education, categorized based on final degree into less than high
school, high school, or college degree; household income per year, categorized
into ten intervals (<$5,000, $5,000–$10,000, >$10,000–$20,000, >$20,000–
$30,000, … >$80,000–$90,000, >$90,000 ). Table 1 lists the sample distributions
for all of these characteristics.

Child care experiences. In the second wave of data collection for the longi-
tudinal sample, parents reported on the amount and type of child care. Parents re-
ported the total number of care arrangements and provided the names and ad-
dresses of all care providers. For each arrangement, they were asked about type of
care: whether the child was in family care in their own home, family care outside
their own home, non-relative care inside their own home, a non-relative child care
home, and/or a child care center. In addition, they listed the number of days per
week and the number of hours per week that their children were in each arrange-
ment, as well as how long the children had been in that setting. If the child was
cared for by a relative, parents reported the relation of the family member who pro-
vided care. If the child attended a center, parents reported whether the child at-
tended a program in public school, a child care center, or church and whether the
child was enrolled in a Head Start center or other preschool/pre-kindergarten cen-
ter. From this information, children were classified based on the care setting they
attended for the most hours per week into four groups: center care, child care home
with non-relative, care by relative, and exclusive parental care. The total number of
hours children spent in child care was computed across arrangements. Table 1 il-
lustrates the family and community characteristics for our sample by the type of
care selected for the study child.
 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHILD CARE TYPE AND QUALITY 713

Child care quality. The sample of children examined in analyses involving

questions of child care quality was restricted to the 3-year-old cohort who were en-
rolled in the care of a center who agreed to observation. In the first wave of data
collection, the parents of children in the 3-year-old cohort were asked about their
child’s care arrangements and the location of that care. The type of center care was
ascertained during an interview with the director. Observations were collected on
246 classrooms to assess child care quality. The centers included were 124 public
preschool programs run by the Chicago Public Schools; 77 community-based
child care centers; 34 Head Start classrooms operated by the Chicago Department
of Human Services Head Start program; and 11 Child Parent Centers, which si-
multaneously provide training and child care to parents. Of those 246 classrooms,
190 had complete information on the selected family characteristics.
The global quality of the classrooms was assessed with the revised Early Child-
hood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998). The
ECERS-R has been widely used in child development research (Burchinal, Roberts,
Nabors, & Bryant, 1996; Howes, Phillips, & Whitebook, 1992; McCartney, 1984;
Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997; Phillips et al., 1987; Zill, 1999). It examines
the sensitivity and responsiveness of the teacher, his or her use of language and en-
couragement of language and reasoning in interactions with children, and the devel-
opmental appropriateness of classroom practices by assessing routine care needs;
furnishings and display; activities and experiences related to motor, language, cogni-
tive, and social development; and adult provisions. The ECERS-R contains 37
child-oriented items rated on a 1-to-7 scale from inadequate (1) to excellent (7) and
demonstrates good reliability and validity (Harms et al., 1998). Data collectors were
trained by one of the official ECERS-R trainers, and all data collectors obtained
interrater reliability of .85 or higher as calculated by Pearson correlation coefficient.
Tables 1 and 2 describe the family and community characteristics for families
using each of the four types of child care. Table 1 shows the proportion of families
in each category using each type of care arrangement and provides descriptive sta-
tistics for the whole sample and by child care type for each of the child, family, and
community measures included in the analyses. Table 2 lists the correlations among
these family and community measures.

Data Analysis
The analysis plan involved predicting the type of child care setting and the quality
of child care. The type of care was predicted from selected family and neighbor-
hood characteristics. Child care quality, for the subset of the sample using center
care, was predicted from family, child care, and neighborhood characteristics and
from whether the child care was purchased or subsidized. All analyses were
two-level analyses that took the clustering of data into neighborhoods into account.
The 80 neighborhood clusters were included as a nested factor in all analyses to
 714 BURCHINAL, NELSON, CARLSON, AND BROOKS-GUNN

TABLE 2
Correlations Between Continuous Family and Neighborhood Predictors

Center
Family Community Quality

Child Family Structural Neighborhood Social Collective

Variable Age Income Disadvantage Organizations Networks Efficacy ECERS-R

Family
Child age —
Family income –.05 —
Community
measures
Structural .06 –.37 —
disadvantage
Neighborhood .01 .23 –.43 —
organizations
Social networks .04 .01 .14 .38 —
Collective efficacy –.02 .32 –.42 .62 .43 —
Center quality
ECERS-R .08 .09 –.20 –.01 –.07 –.06 —

Note: ECERS-R = Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised.

take into account the fact that the child care type and quality are correlated among
individuals in the same neighborhood, especially when we looked at the associa-
tion between neighborhood characteristics and child care experiences.
Three models were fit. The first model included the family covariates and struc-
tural disadvantage as the only community variable. The second model added the
three neighborhood process measures. The third model tested for interactions
among the community measures and between community and family measures. To
test the mediation question, the coefficients for structural disadvantage from the
first and second models were compared using a Sobel test (MacKinnon, Lock-
wood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). This approach tests whether the hypothe-
sized indirect path from the predictor through the mediator to the outcome is sig-
nificantly different from zero. All models included the main effects of child age
(age at assessment, continuous variable) and a block of family variables: marital
status (single or married), maternal education (less than high school; high school
diploma or GED and not a BA or BS; BA/BS or more), child ethnicity (White, Af-
rican American, Hispanic, other/mixed), and household income.
Some interactions were not possible to include due to empty cells after crossing
either non-relative care or relative care with structural disadvantage. We inter-
preted the individual variables within the block as the block of variables was added
to the model only if the block was significant and the individual parameters only if
the block was significant.
 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHILD CARE TYPE AND QUALITY 715

RESULTS

Neighborhood Characteristics and Type of Care

We classified children into their primary type of care based on hours in that setting.
Children in more than one setting were assigned to the setting in which they spent
the most hours. Children with fewer than 10 hr of care per week were considered to
be in parental care. Overall, the children were classified into mutually exclusive
categories: exclusive parental care (n = 519, 46%), center care (n = 323, 29%), care
by non-relative caregivers (n = 100, 9%), and care by relative caregivers (n = 179,
16%).
Data from children were included if there was complete information across the
predictors and type of care (n = 1,121). Multilevel analyses were conducted using
survey methodology that took into account the neighborhood clustering. The anal-
yses were multinomial regression analyses, performed hierarchically, in which we
predicted the likelihood that a child was in center care, a child care home, cared for
by a relative, or cared for exclusively by parents given the predictors in the analysis
model. Multinomial regressions are a multivariate extension of logistic regression.
The likelihood of being in each category of the nominal dependent variable is com-
pared with the likelihood of being in the reference category (parental care in our
case). There were three such comparisons created for these analyses (center vs. pa-
rental care, relative home care vs. parental care, and non-relative family home vs.
parental care), and the multinomial regression tested the extent to which each pre-
dictor distinguished between each of these pairs of groups when all predictors
were considered simultaneously. The three models were fit hierarchically to test
questions of mediation and moderation. We conducted all six pairwise compari-
sons of the four types of settings and report the significant comparisons when the
overall chi-square statistic was significantly different from zero. All continuous
predictors were centered at the mean, so interactions can be interpreted as expected
main effects at the mean of all other variables.
Table 3 reports the results from the first two of these three analyses. The second
column lists the statistical test of the contribution of that block or variable to distin-
guish among use of center, non-relative, relative, and exclusive parental care. The
next three columns of Table 3 list the estimated odds ratios. The results of compari-
sons of families not using child care with families using center care are shown in
the first odds ratio column, families using non-relative care in the second odds ratio
column, and families using relative care in the third odds ratio column. Listed in
these columns is the odds ratio associated with the predictor listed in that row. The
log-odds is the effect size index and reflects the extent to which that predictor is
more strongly predictive of membership in the group using child care than in the
group using parental care. For example, an odds ratio of 3.86 for African Ameri-
cans in the “Center vs. Parent” column implies that African American families
 716 BURCHINAL, NELSON, CARLSON, AND BROOKS-GUNN

TABLE 3
Multinomial Regression Analyses: Predicting Type of Care From Family
and Community Characteristics

Odds Ratio (Confidence Interval)

(N = 1,121)

Non-Relative
Predictor F(df = 79) Center vs. Parent vs. Parent Relative vs. Parent

Intercept 2.40* (1.2, 4.7) 0.36 (.1, 1.1) 0.39* (.2, .9)
Age 85.6 (3)*** 2.97*** (2.5, 3.5) 0.87 (0.7, 1.1) 0.93 (0.8, 1.1)
Family
Ethnicity 5.15 (9)***
African American 3.86*** (2.1, 7.3) 1.55 (.6, 4.1) 3.20** (1.5, 6.8)
vs. White
Hispanic vs. White 1.32 (0.7, 2.4) 4.60** (1.6, 13.0) 2.30* (1.2, 4.7)
Other/mixed vs. 1.57 (0.8, 3.2) 2.80** (1.4, 5.9) 2.00* (1.0, 3.8)
White
Married 7.08 (3)*** 0.64 (.4, 1.0) 0.49* (.3, 0.9) 0.37*** (0.2, .6)
Maternal education 6.75 (6)***
<12 years vs. BA+ 0.16*** (.1, .3) 0.36* (.1, .9) 0.80 (0.3, 2.0)
HS vs. BA+ 0.37*** (0.2, .6) 0.47 (0.20, 1.1) 1.40 (0.6, 3.3)
Income 4.25 (9)***
<$10K vs. >$50K 0.19*** (.1, 0.4) 0.21** (.1, 0.6) 0.32** (0.1, 0.7)
$10–30K vs. >$50K 0.28*** (0.1, .6) 0.44 (.2, 1.1) 0.52 (0.3, 1.1)
$31–50K vs. >$50K 0.43* (0.2, 0.8) 0.88 (0.4, 1.8) 0.83 (0.4, 1.6)
Community
Structural 2.09 (3) 0.63 (0.4, 0.9) 0.84 (0.5, 1.4) 0.80 (0.5, 1.3)
disadvantage
Participation in 1.62 (3) 0.66 (.4, 1.2) 0.78 (0.3, 2.1) 1.20 (0.6, 2.4)
organizations
Density of friends 3.97 (3)* 1.00 (0.5, 2.0) 0.17** (.1, .5) 1.32 (0.6, 2.8)
and relatives
Collective efficacy 2.21 (3) 0.84 (.6, 1.3) 1.9* (1.1, 3.4) 1.10 (0.7, 1.7)

Note: Overall test p values based on Satterwaite adjusted chi-square test. BA = bachelor’s degree; HS =
high school.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

were 3.86 times more likely than White families (i.e., the reference group) to use
center care compared to exclusive parental care.

Structural disadvantage. The first analysis examined whether the measure

of structural disadvantage differentiated the type of care families used after we ad-
justed for family characteristics. We did not find evidence indicating that structural
disadvantage was related to type of care in analyses that adjusted for family char-
acteristics, F(3, 79) = 2.25, p > .05. The analysis also included age and selected
family variables as covariates, and each was related to type of child care. Older
 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHILD CARE TYPE AND QUALITY 717

children were significantly more likely to be in center care and less likely to be in
exclusive parental care than were younger children. Type of care varied as a func-
tion of ethnicity, χ2(9) = 34.4, p < .001. White families were more likely to use ex-
clusive parental care than were other families. Compared with White children,
children were more likely to be cared for in someone else’s home if they were Afri-
can American, Hispanic, or in the other/mixed category. Single mothers were more
likely to use all types of child care than to rely on exclusive parental care. Mothers
with a college degree were significantly more likely than mothers with less educa-
tion to use center care than all other types of care—exclusive parental care, relative
care, or non-relative care. Similarly, families with more income were significantly
more likely to use center care than exclusive parental care and were more likely to
use all types of care than the poorest families.

Neighborhood process characteristics. The second analysis indicated that

adding the three neighborhood process measures significantly contributed to pre-
dicting type of child care, F(12, 79) = 31.8, p < .001. Results are shown in Table 3.
Non-relative care was favored over exclusive parental care and center care in com-
munities with higher collective efficacy. In contrast, exclusive parental care, center
care, and relative care were favored over care in the home of unrelated providers in
communities in which, on average, there were larger social networks.
The final model added interactions among the community variables and be-
tween the community and the family variables. We obtained no evidence to sug-
gest that the neighborhood characteristics interacted with one another or with fam-
ily characteristics.

Child Care Quality

Quality of care was measured for children from the 3-year-old cohort who attended
child care centers. Analyses of observed quality of care, ECERS-R total score,
sought to identify first family and community selection factors and, second,
whether community characteristics were more predictive in community child care
than in federally and state-mandated programs. Multilevel regression analyses
were performed in which the family was in the first level and the neighborhood in
the second level. The final row of Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics relating
the ECERS-R total scores with community variables.
In general, the same three models were used in these analyses as in the type of
care analyses, although one more variable was added to all models. A variable in-
dicating whether the center was a publicly funded center (i.e., in a Head Start or
pre-kindergarten program) or a community program was added to all analyses.
The first model tested the contribution of type of center and structural disadvan-
tage given child age and selected family covariates. The second model added the
three neighborhood processes, and third model tested for interactions among the
718 BURCHINAL, NELSON, CARLSON, AND BROOKS-GUNN

community variables and between the community variables and both type of child
care and family characteristics. Table 4 lists the unstandardized regression coeffi-
cients and their standard errors.

Neighborhood structural disadvantage. The first analysis suggested that,

after adjusting for family characteristics, community child care was lower quality
than the public programs, but that neighborhood structural disadvantage was not
significantly related. On average, the ECERS-R scores were 4.95 in the commu-
nity programs and 5.80 in the public programs. Interestingly, the family character-
istics were not related to quality of care when type of center and structural disad-
vantage were also considered.

Neighborhood process characteristics. The second model added the three

neighborhood process measures and indicated that structural disadvantage became
a negative predictor of quality when these structural and process measures were
considered together. The quality of child care programs was significantly lower
when communities were more disadvantaged and the three neighborhood process
measures were included in the model.
The third model tested for possible moderators of the community characteris-
tics. No evidence of moderation emerged when interactions among the four com-
munity measures or the interactions between center type and community measures
were tested. In contrast, analyses indicated that structural disadvantage interacted
with family characteristics. An interaction between structural disadvantage and
maternal education indicated that the negative association between center quality
and structural disadvantage was significantly stronger for mothers with less than
high school education (B = –.85) than for mothers with a high school degree or
more and less than a college degree (B = –.07). The interaction between structural
disadvantage and income indicated that structural disadvantage was a stronger
negative predictor of center quality when families had incomes of more than
$50,000 per year (B = –.64) than when they had incomes of between $30,000 and
$50,000 (B = .24).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study using data from the PHDCN suggest that community char-
acteristics are related to family decisions about whether to use child care, type of
setting, and quality of child care. Results suggest that parents are more likely to
choose parental or relative care over home-based child care by unrelated individu-
als when communities have a higher density of friends and relatives and when
sense of collective efficacy is lower. The quality of the community child care pro-
grams was lower when they were located in structurally disadvantaged communi-
 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHILD CARE TYPE AND QUALITY 719

TABLE 4
Hierarchical Regression Analysis: Identifying Family and Neighborhood
Predictors of Child Care Quality (n = 190)

Predictor Data Coefficient (SE)

Model 1
Intercept B (SE) 4.95 (.48)
Age B (SE) 0.07 (.11)
Family characteristics
Ethnicity F(3, 78) 2.79
African American vs. White B (SE) –0.87 (.37)*
Hispanic vs. White B (SE) –0.37 (.36)
Other/mixed vs. White B (SE) –0.65 (.36)
Married B (SE)
Maternal education F(2, 78) 1.98
<HS vs. college B (SE) –0.39 (.34)
HS vs. college B (SE) –0.43 (.26)
Income F(3, 78) 2.67
<$10K vs. >$50K B (SE) –0.41 (.37)
$10–30K vs. >$50K B (SE) –0.44 (.30)
$31–50K vs. >$50K B (SE) –0.46 (.29)
Public child care B (SE) 0.82 (.20)***
Community characteristics
Structural disadvantage B (SE) –0.32 (.13)*
Neighborhood organizations B (SE) –0.20 (.33)
Social networks B (SE) 0.40 (.31)
Model 2
Collective efficacy B (SE) –0.16 (.22)
Model 3
Structural Disadvantage × Family Characteristics F(9, 78) 2.50*
Structural Disadvantage × Maternal Education F(2, 78) 3.23*
<HS vs. college B (SE) –0.21 (.48)
HS+ vs. college B (SE) 0.57 (.30)
Structural Disadvantage × Income F(3, 78) 4.33**
<$10K vs. >$50K B (SE) 0.28 (.35)
$10–30K vs. >$50K B (SE) 0.48 (.29)
$31–50K vs. >$50K B (SE) 0.88 (.24)***
Structural Disadvantage × Married F(1, 78) 0.79
Married vs. single B (SE) –0.27 (.30)
Structural Disadvantage × Race F(3, 78) 0.12
African American vs. White B (SE) –0.24 (.72)
Hispanic vs. White B (SE) –0.42 (.72)
Other/mixed vs. White B (SE) –0.28 (.62)

Note: HS = high school.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
720 BURCHINAL, NELSON, CARLSON, AND BROOKS-GUNN

ties, and this was especially true when mothers had less education or when families
had more income.

Community Influences
This study is among the few that relates child care selection to both structural and
process neighborhood characteristics. PHDCN investigators have developed theo-
retical frameworks for understanding how neighborhoods may affect families and
children, including child care decisions. Further, attitudes and practices within the
communities were measured on a large, independent sample to provide process
measures of theoretically derived constructs of community influence. Consistent
with some of our hypotheses, we found that community indexes of resources, so-
cial networks, and collective efficacy related to child care decisions in several
ways, but not to participation in neighborhood organizations.

Structural disadvantage. After adjusting for family and other community

factors, we found that quality of care was related to community resources as indi-
cated by our structural disadvantage composite created from census indicators.
This index included the percent below poverty, on public assistance, with fe-
male-headed households, unemployed, with children younger than 18 years of
age, and African American at the census tract level. As indicted in previous studies
(Fuller et al., 1997; Loeb et al., 2004; Phillips et al., 1994), results from this large
representative sample of Chicago indicate that families have access to higher qual-
ity center care when communities are less disadvantaged. Interestingly, unlike in
the previous studies (Fuller et al., 2003; Phillips et al., 1994), no evidence emerged
suggesting that more center care and higher quality was used in the most as well as
the least disadvantaged families or communities. Perhaps the biggest contribution
of this study involves further demonstration that the degree to which community
disadvantage is negatively related to center quality is moderated by family charac-
teristics. It appeared that families with the most income were placing their children
in higher quality care when they lived in less disadvantaged neighborhoods and in
lower quality care when they lived in more disadvantaged neighborhoods. Simi-
larly, mothers with less education were most likely to access lower quality care
when they lived in more disadvantaged neighborhoods and higher quality care
when they lived in less disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Social networks within community. This study provides some evidence that
the density of social networks within the community is also related to decisions
about type of care and quality of center care. Theoretically, it makes sense that par-
ents would feel easier about using child care (especially care by non-relatives), and
that care providers may strive to provide higher quality care, in communities where
people report more friends and relatives in the community. Results suggest that
 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHILD CARE TYPE AND QUALITY 721

parents in communities in which people feel emotionally close to their neighbors

are more likely to feel safe leaving their children with unrelated care providers. In
fact, density of friends and relations at the community level was the only commu-
nity-level factor that independently differentiated among the four types of care in
analyses after adjusting for the family selection factors. It also independently posi-
tively predicted quality of care when community and family factors were simulta-
neously considered. Accordingly, our results provide evidence that community-
level relationships may have an important, albeit modest, influence even after con-
sidering family demographic characteristics.

Community norms and collective efficacy. The level of collective effi-

cacy was the final community-level factor that we thought should influence child
care decisions through the extent that child care options are available in the neigh-
borhood and the extent to which parents feel that formal institutions provide safe
and desirable options for child care. The index created by PHDCN investigators
(Sampson et al., 1997) reflected the extent to which people felt they could rely on
their neighbors to monitor their children, shared values and trust with their neigh-
bors, and thought their neighbors would be willing to help them. We hypothesized
that parents would be more willing to use child care, especially formal center care,
and would have access to higher quality care when communities had higher collec-
tive efficacy. Analyses provided support for the first, but not the second, hypothe-
sis. They suggested that parents were more willing to use center care than exclu-
sive parental care when community-level collective efficacy was higher.

Type of Centers
Consistent with models of community influence that focus on institutions with-
in the community and with other large studies (Helburn et al., 1995; NICHD
ECCRN, 2002; Rigby et al., 2007; Zill, 1999), we also saw considerably higher
quality care in general among Head Start and pre-kindergarten programs than
among community care programs. Thus, these results provide further evidence
that programs such as Head Start and pre-kindergarten that have enforced quality
standards may be needed to ensure that high-quality care is available in disadvan-
taged communities (Fuller et al., 2003; Helburn et al., 1995, Rigby et al., 2007), es-
pecially for children from low-income families or families whose mothers have
low educational levels.
Several limitations must be acknowledged. First, data were collected about 10
years ago, and child care choices may have changed during the past 10 years.
Low-income mothers are now expected to work. Child care subsidies and pre-kin-
dergarten programs are more readily available. Second, families were not asked
about all child care arrangements the child had ever experienced—only about cur-
rent arrangements. Third, the quality assessments were collected about a year after
722 BURCHINAL, NELSON, CARLSON, AND BROOKS-GUNN

the family characteristics were measured. It is possible that the quality of the class-
room that a given child attended was not adequately represented by the randomly
selected classroom from that center a year later. Fourth, the direction of the associ-
ation between neighborhood characteristics and parental decisions about child
care cannot be ascertained. We hypothesize that neighborhood characteristics in-
fluence parental decisions, but parents make decisions both about their child’s
child care and about the neighborhood in which they reside. Nevertheless, we be-
lieve that this study contributes to our understanding of the role of neighborhood
characteristics as child care selection factors due to the careful measurement of
neighborhood characteristics by the PHDCN research team.
In summary, community characteristics appear to contribute to parental deci-
sions about child care even after adjusting for family characteristics. Although as-
sociations between community characteristics and child care type and quality are
modest, they should be considered as child care policies are discussed because
children, especially children from low-income families, are more likely to enter
school with the prerequisite academic skills when they attend child care centers
and/or settings of high quality, especially if those children are from low-income
families (Burchinal & Nelson, 2000; Gormley et al., 2005; Magnuson et al., 2004;
NICHD ECCRN, 2000; Rouse, Brooks-Gunn, & Mclanahan, 2005; Votruba-Drzal
et al., 2004). Findings from this study suggest that parents appear to be more likely
to use center and relative child care when neighbors trust and share values with one
another and, correspondingly, when neighborhoods include more friends and fam-
ilies. Quality of center-based programs appears to be lower in structurally disad-
vantaged communities. Perhaps most relevant for policy is the finding that the
quality of center-based programs was lower when classrooms were in private sec-
tor or nonprofit community centers than in federally or state-mandated programs,
especially because these programs are especially likely to serve children in struc-
turally disadvantaged communities where quality of care is lower in general. To
the extent that policies are designed to prepare children for school, then these re-
sults suggest that the use of programs such as Head Start and public pre-kindergar-
ten may be necessary to ensure that children from the most at-risk neighborhoods
have access to center-based care that is of sufficient quality to enhance school
readiness.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to express our appreciation to the study coordinators who supervised the
data collection, to the research assistants who collected the data, and especially to
the families and child care providers who welcomed us into their homes and
workplaces with good grace and who cooperated willingly with our repeated re-
quests for information. This work is part of a collaborative effort that is directed by
 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHILD CARE TYPE AND QUALITY 723

Robert Sampson, Steve Raudenbush, Felton Earls, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and
was funded specifically by the Child Care Bureau (Award 90YE0007). The Project
on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods was funded by the MacArthur
Foundation, the National Institute of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Educa-
tion.

REFERENCES

Barnett, S., Hustedt, J., Robin, K., & Schulman, K. (2004). The state of preschool: 2004 state preschool
yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G., & Aber, L. (1997). Neighborhood poverty. In J. Brooks-Gunn,
G. Duncan, & L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for children
(pp. 279–298). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Browning, C., Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2004). Neighborhood context and racial differences
in early adolescent sexual activity. Demography, 41, 697–720.
Browning, C., Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2005). Sexual initiation in early adolescence: The
nexus of parental and community control. American Sociological Review, 70, 758–778.
Bryant, D., Clifford, R. M., Saluja, G., Pianta, R., Early, D., Barbarin, O., et al. (2002, December). Di-
versity and directions in state pre-kindergarten programs. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina,
FPG Child Development Institute, National Center for Early Development and Learning. Available
online at www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/PDFs/diversity_direct.pdf
Burchinal, M. R., & Nelson, L. (2000). Family selection and child care experiences: Implications for
studies of child outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 385–412.
Burchinal, M. R., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Bryant, D. M., & Clifford, R. (2000). Children’s social and cog-
nitive development and child care quality: Testing for differential associations related to poverty,
gender, or ethnicity. Journal of Applied Developmental Sciences, 4, 149–165.
Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Nabors, L., & Bryant, D. M. (1996). Quality of center infant care and
infant cognitive and language development. Child Development, 67, 606–620.
Burton, L. M., Price-Spratlen, T., & Spencer, M. (1997). On ways of thinking about and measuring
neighborhoods: Implications for studying context and developmental outcomes for children. In G.
Duncan, J. Brooks-Gunn, & L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for
children (pp. 200–218). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Carneiro, P., & Heckman, J. J. (2002, April). Human capital policy. Paper presented at the Alvin
Hansen Seminar, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Chase-Lansdale, L., Gordon, R., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. (1997). Neighborhood and family in-
fluences on the intellectual and behavioral competence of preschooler and early school-age children.
In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. Duncan, & L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences
for children (pp. 79–118). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Coleman, J. (1993). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Duncan, G. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhoods and adolescent development: How can we de-
termine the links? In A. Booth & N. Crouter (Eds.), Does it take a village? Community effects on children,
adolescents, and families (pp. 105–136). State College: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Early, D. M., & Burchinal, M. R. (2001). Early childhood care: Relations with family characteristics
and preferred care characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 475–497.
Fuller, B., Holloway, S. D., Bozzi, L., Burr, E., Cohen, N., & Suzuki, S. (2003). Explaining local vari-
ability in child care quality: State funding and regulation in California. Early Education and Devel-
opment, 14, 47–66.
724 BURCHINAL, NELSON, CARLSON, AND BROOKS-GUNN

Fuller, B., Holloway, S. D., & Liang, X. (1996). Family selection of child-care centers: The influence of
household support, ethnicity, and parental practices. Child Development, 67, 3320–3337.
Fuller, B., Kipnis, F., Coonerty, C., & Choong, Y. (1997). An unfair head start: California families face
gaps in preschool and child-care availability (PACE Working paper). Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia.
Gilliam, W., & Zigler, E. (2001). A critical meta-analysis of all evaluations of state-funded preschool
from 1997 to 1998: Implications of policy, service delivery and program evaluations. Early Child-
hood Research Quarterly, 15, 441–473.
Gormley, W. T., Jr., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal pre-K on cog-
nitive development. Developmental Psychology, 41, 872–884.
Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale: Revised
edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
Helburn, S., Culkin, M., Burchinal, M., Clifford, R., Howes, C., Kagen, S., et al. (1995). Cost, quality,
and child outcomes in child care centers. Denver: University of Colorado, Department of Econom-
ics.
Howes, C., Phillips, D. A., & Whitebook, M. (1992). Thresholds of quality: Implications for the social
development of children in center-based child care. Child Development, 53, 449–460.
Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In L. E.
Lynn & M. G. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner-city poverty in the United States (pp. 111–186). Washing-
ton, DC: National Academy Press.
Kohen, D. E., Brooks-Gunn, J., Leventhal, T., & Hertzman, C. (2002). Neighborhood income and phys-
ical and social disorder in Canada: Associations with young children’s competencies. Child Devel-
opment, 73, 1844–1860.
Lamb, M. E. (1998). Nonparental child care: Context, quality, correlates, and consequences. In I. E.
Sigel & K. A. Renniger (Vol. Eds.) & W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4.
Child psychology in practice (5th ed., pp. 73–134). New York: Wiley.
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood
residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309–337.
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Children and youth in neighborhood context. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 12, 27–31.
Loeb, S., Fuller, B., Kagan, S. L., & Carrol, B. (2004). Child care in poor communities: Early learning
effects of type, quality and stability. Child Development, 75, 47–65.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. S. (2002). A comparison
of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1),
83–104.
Magnuson, K., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2004). Does prekindergarten improve school preparation
and performance? (NBER Working Paper No. 10452). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Eco-
nomic Research.
Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McCartney, K. (1984). The effect of quality of day care environment upon children’s language develop-
ment. Developmental Psychology, 20, 244–260.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1997a). Child care during the first year of life.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 340–360.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1997b). Family factors associated with infant child care
characteristics. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 389–408.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1998). Early child care and self-control, compliance and
problem behavior at 24 and 36 months. Child Development, 69, 1145–1170.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2000). The relation of child care to cognitive and lan-
guage development. Child Development, 71, 958–978.
 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHILD CARE TYPE AND QUALITY 725

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). Early child care and children’s development prior
to school entry: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. American Educational Re-
search Journal, 39, 133–164.
Peisner-Feinberg, E., & Burchinal, M. (1997). Concurrent relations between child care quality and
child outcomes: The study of cost, quality, and outcomes in child care centers. Merrill-Palmer Quar-
terly, 43, 451–477.
Phillips, D., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S. (1987). Child care quality and children’s social development.
Developmental Psychology, 23, 537–543.
Phillips, D., Voran, M., Kisker, E., Howes, C., & Whitebook, M. (1994). Child care for children in pov-
erty: Opportunity or inequity? Child Development, 65, 472–492.
Pungello, E. P., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (1999). Why and how working women choose child care: A review
with a focus on infancy. Developmental Review, 19, 31–96.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis
methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rigby, E., Ryan, R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). Childcare quality in different state policy contexts.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26, 887–907.
Rouse, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Mclanahan, S. (2005). School readiness: Closing racial and ethnic gaps.
Future of Children, 15, 5–13.
Sampson, R. J. (1997). Collective regulation of adolescent misbehavior: Validation results from eighty
Chicago neighborhoods. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 227–244.
Sampson, R., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1994). Violent victimization and offending: Individual situational and
community-level risk factors. In A. J. Reiss & J. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing vio-
lence: Social influences (Vol. 3, pp. 1–114). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new
look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 603–651.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997, August 15). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A
multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.
Singer, J. D., Fuller, B., Keiley, M. K., & Wolf, A. (1998). Early child-care selection: Variation by geo-
graphic location, maternal characteristics, and family structure. Developmental Psychology, 34,
1129–1144.
Vandell, D. (2004). Early child care: The known and the unknown. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50,
387–414.
Votruba-Drzal, E., Coley, R. L., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2004). Child care and low-income children’s
development: Direct and moderated effects. Child Development, 75, 296–312.
Wilson, W. (1991). The truly disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Xue, Y., Leventhal, T., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Earls, F. J. (2005). Neighborhood residence and mental
health problems of 5- to 11-year-olds. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 554–564.
Zill, N. (1999, April). Enhancing school readiness for low-income children: A national study of Head
Start quality and outcomes. Symposium presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Re-
search in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.