We use observations from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD) to compare structural and process characteristics of child care centers, family child care homes (nonrelative care in a home setting) and care by relatives for 2, 3-and 4 ½-year-old children. Type of care differences in structural and caregiver characteristics were consistent across ages: centers had higher child-to-adult ratios and bigger groups; centers had caregivers with better education, more training in early childhood, and less traditional beliefs about child rearing. Children in centers experienced more cognitive stimulation, less frequent language interactions with adults, less frequent negative interactions with adults, and less television viewing than did those in other types of care. In centers and family child care homes compared to relative settings, children engaged in more positive and negative interactions with peers and spent more time in transition and unoccupied. Curvilinear associations were found between structural features of care and family income, particularly for caregiver education and training. In contrast, process measures of caregiving rose monotonically with family income. Children from high-income families experienced more sensitive care, more cognitive stimulation, and fewer negative interactions with adults than did those from low-income families. We interpret the findings by linking the structural features and caregiver training to the cognitive and social processes observed in different types of care. Future research designed to understand the influences of child care on children's behavior might benefit from using this more nuanced description of child care experiences.Child care quality is a well-documented predictor of children's intellectual and social development, but recent evidence indicates that type of care may be important independently of "global" ratings of quality. A recurrent finding in the literature is that children who participate in center-based arrangements-including Head Start-during their infant and preschool years perform better on cognitive and language development and show better preacademic skills than children who spend an equivalent amount of time in child care homes or relative care of comparable quality (Garces, Thomas, & Currie, 2002; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network [ECCRN], 2000a; NICHD ECCRN & Duncan, 2003).The relations of type of care to children's social behavior are more uncertain. Two longitudinal studies of large, national samples have shown that children with more center care experience were rated by caregivers and elementary school teachers as having more behavior problems and less self control than those who had not experienced center care (Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2007; NICHD 2002;2003a). Most longitudinal investigations of children from Contact author Chantelle Dowsett, Human Development & Family Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station/A2700, Austin, TX 78712; 512-471-3141; E-mail: dowsettcj@mail.utexa...

This study examines how welfare and employment policies affect subpopulations of low-income families that have different levels of initial disadvantage. Education, prior earnings, and welfare receipt are used to measure disadvantage. The analysis of data from experiments suggests that employment-based programs have no effects on economic well-being among the least-disadvantaged low-income, single-parent families, but they have positive effects on employment and income for the most-disadvantaged and moderately disadvantaged families. These programs increase school achievement and enrollment in center-based child care of children only in moderately disadvantaged families. The most-disadvantaged families are found to increase use of child care that is not center based. Parents in these families experience depressive symptoms and aggravation. The findings raise questions about how to support families at the lowest end of the economic spectrum.

New Hope, an employment-based poverty-reduction intervention for adults evaluated in a random-assignment experimental design, had positive impacts on children’s achievement and social behavior two and five years after random assignment. The question addressed in this paper was the following: Did the positive effects of New Hope on younger children diminish or even reverse when children reached the challenges of adolescence (eight years after random assignment)? Small positive impacts on school progress, school motivation, positive social behavior, child well-being, and parent control endured, but impacts on school achievement and problem behavior were no longer evident. The most likely reasons for lasting impacts were that New Hope families were slightly less likely to be poor, and children had spent more time in center-based child care and structured activities. New Hope represents a model policy that could produce modest improvements in the lives of low-income adults and children.