






































Microsoft Word - journal commonwealth 2007 FINAL 0307.doc


 

 103 

Demographic and Family Differences in Use of Early 
Childhood Care and Education in Pennsylvania:        

A 2002 Baseline 
 
 

Marsha Weinraub 
Temple University 

 
Anne B. Shlay 

Temple University 
 

Anita T. Kochanoff 
Arizona State University 

 

Studies show that Pennsylvania ranks below the national 
average in the percentage of preschool children enrolled in center-
based programs. This is important because center-based care has 
been shown to better prepare children for entry into school. In 
2002, we examined demographic and family influences in the use of 
early childhood care and education (ECCE) in a statewide random 
sample of 1005 Pennsylvania families with children under 6 years 
of age, providing a baseline of ECCE in Pennsylvania during a time 
when the state offered no public funding specifically for preschool. 
Our findings suggest that Pennsylvania children, particularly those 
from less educated and lower income families, may not have been 
well prepared to enter school in 2002. Policy changes since 2002 
are described, and the likelihood of these policies to better prepare 
Pennsylvania’s children to enter school ready to learn are 
considered. 

 
In the era of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, when 

students’ scores on standardized tests are used to determine schools’ 
eligibility for federal support, it has become critical that children 
enter school prepared to learn. Yet, many children are not prepared 
to learn when they arrive at school. Nationally representative 
samples indicate that 20% of all kindergartners lag behind in 
cognitive skills and 31% of all kindergartners are behind in social 
and emotional development (Coley 2002; Lee and Burkham 2002). 



 

 104  

Many of the children lagging behind are from poor and minority 
families (Wertheimer, Croan, Moore, and Hair 2003). While no 
specific data are available on the school readiness of Pennsylvania 
children, there is reason to believe that they confront similar 
difficulties. 

Research shows that the best means for addressing the problem 
of differential preparedness is center-based educational intervention 
programs (Lee, Brooks-Gunn, Schnur, and Liaw 1990; Ramey and 
Campbell 1992; Ramey and Campbell 2002; Ramey and Ramey 
1992). Even common child care/preschool experiences have been 
shown to help prepare children for school (National Research 
Council 2001). In many cases, the effects of center-based care on 
school readiness measures are more important than the effects of 
child characteristics such as age and temperament (Clarke-Stewart 
and Fein 1983) and family demographics such as ethnicity or family 
income (NICHD ECCRN and Duncan 2003). More specifically, 
children who have experienced center care or preschool 
demonstrate better verbal ability and academic skills, and in some 
cases, social skills, compared with children who experience child 
care with home-based providers, sitters, or their parents (Clarke-
Stewart 1991; Magnuson, Meyers, Ruhm, and Waldfogel 2004; 
NICHD ECCRN 2004). These are the skills that contribute to 
children’s ability to begin school ready to learn.  

How prepared are Pennsylvania children to begin school ready 
to learn? In Pennsylvania, there are no public data available for 
school readiness per se, but the extent of center-based care or 
preschool use provides a barometer for the extent of school 
readiness among Pennsylvania’s young children. Kids Count 
Census data show that in 2002, Pennsylvania had 251,000 children 
between the ages of 3 and 5 enrolled in nursery school, preschool, 
or kindergarten; in 2004, there were 252,000 enrolled. In 2004, this 
was 55% of the entire population of children in this age range. The 
national rate in 2004 was 57%, putting Pennsylvania slightly below 
the national average and well behind New Jersey, which had 72% 
of its children in this age range in nursery school, preschool, or 
kindergarten in 2004 (Kids Count Census 2005). 

With only about half the population of Pennsylvania children in 
center care, it is important to examine the factors that predict which 
children are more likely to be in center care than other types of care. 
Data from the 1999 National Household Education Survey show 



 

 105 

that among children whose mothers were employed outside the 
home, children from single parent families and children with more 
educated mothers were more likely to be enrolled in preschool or 
center-based education (NHES, Pew 2005). One wonders whether 
the situation in Pennsylvania mirrors these national statistics. 
Information on the characteristics of families benefiting most from 
the use of ECCE can be useful to Pennsylvania policy makers 
debating how and to what extent state policy should support the 
needs of its youngest citizens.  

In this article, we analyze the influence of family and 
demographic characteristics on the type and amount of children’s 
ECCE in a random sample of 1005 Pennsylvania families. In 
addition, because the Pennsylvania policy debate is currently 
focusing on providing center-based ECCE to preschoolers, we pay 
particular attention to the use of center care in preschool-aged 
children. We examine ECCE not only for children with employed 
mothers but for children from all families. Understanding state-level 
patterns of ECCE usage is vital to policymakers charged with 
forming ECCE policy and examining the impact of that policy. This 
study serves as a baseline against which future changes in 
Pennsylvania can be measured. 

In the following sections, we review what is known about 
differences in the types of care provided to children, and we 
examine developmental differences in children’s experiences of 
these different types of care. 

 
Types of Early Childhood Care and Education 

 
Children can be prepared for school entrance in a variety of 

ways. Parents can help children prepare for school, but many 
parents do not have the experience or knowledge to prepare 
children for literacy, numeracy, or social relations necessary for 
academic performance. For many children, much learning occurs 
during some type of nonparental experience.  

Different ECCE settings offer distinctly different experiences. 
Children in center-based types of ECCE spend more time in 
structured, adult-directed activities and are more likely to 
experience planned, curricular-based activities than children in 
family or home based types of arrangements (Kisker, Hofferth, 
Phillips, and Farquhar 1991). Center-based settings tend to provide 



 

 106  

more space and materials for the larger groups of children than do 
other settings, but often fewer adults are available in these settings 
to attend to individual children (Huston, Chang, and Gennetian 
2002). By contrast, home-based types of ECCE, such as “family 
care” or “group home care,” provide a familiar home environment 
in which free play is the most common activity (Kisker et al. 1991). 
Although home-based settings often lack the larger variety of toys 
and activities found in center-based ECCE facilities, children in 
home-based ECCE tend to receive more individual attention from 
adults (Clarke-Stewart, Gruber, and Fitzgerald 1994).  

Relative care is a specific type of home-based ECCE. “Relative 
care” refers to care provided by grandparents, siblings, or other 
persons related to the child’s family (Huston et al. 2002). Children 
who are cared for by relatives have the benefit of experiencing their 
family’s culture and values full-time, and many parents feel more 
comfortable entrusting their children to relatives. However, 
grandmothers and other relatives are more likely to let children 
watch television and are less likely to provide them with learning 
activities, as opposed to caregivers in other ECCE types who 
consider themselves early childhood professionals (Kontos, Howes, 
Shinn, and Galinsky 1995, 1997). For this reason, relative care, 
often the least expensive nonparental care, may also be the least 
likely to prepare children for school. 

National studies have shown that most families use home-based 
ECCE when their children are less than 3 years old (Burchinal, 
Ramey, Reid, and Jaccard 1995; Huston et al. 2002) and then 
transition to center-based arrangements for preschool-aged children 
(Erdwins and Buffardi 1994; NICHD Early Child Care Research 
Network 1997a).  

 
Developmental Differences: Infants and Toddlers versus 

Preschoolers 
 

Policy makers and parents both agree that differences are 
warranted in the use of nonparental child care settings before and 
after children are 3 years old. Before age 3, most ECCE is 
perceived as supporting maternal employment; after age 3, ECCE is 
viewed as preparing children for school. During the infant and 
toddler periods, many parents and policy makers are concerned that 
children receive too much nonparental care (Chira, 1998). After 3 



 

 107 

years of age, during the preschool period, more and more parents 
and educators are eager to have children experience center-based 
types of learning settings away from their parents to help them 
develop academic and social skills in preparation for first grade. 
Hence, it is important to examine family and demographic 
differences in child care experiences as a function of child age. 

 
Infants and Toddlers 

 
The largest increase in ECCE over the last few decades in the 

U.S. has been with infants and toddlers, those children 3 years of 
age or younger. Phillips and Adams (2001) estimate that 56% of 
infants younger than 1 year with employed mothers regularly spend 
time in weekly nonparental care settings. One large nationwide 
study found that the majority of infants started using ECCE 
regularly before the age of 4 months and on average were enrolled 
for close to 30 hours per week (NICHD ECCRN 1997a). The 
increase in use of ECCE since 1975 for infants and toddlers can 
probably be attributed to increased maternal employment, changing 
economic conditions, changes in family structure, and new federal 
welfare regulations (Weinraub, Hill, and Hirsh-Pasek 2001). Across 
the country, children under 3 years of age are more likely to be in 
some type of ECCE arrangement if they have single, employed, and 
less educated mothers, and if they come from African-American 
families. Infants and toddlers are also are more likely to experience 
ECCE when there are fewer siblings in the family and when no 
other adults live in the home (NICHD ECCRN 1997b). 

The rising incidence of nonparental care in infancy has alarmed 
some researchers and policy makers. One common concern has 
garnered support from data in the National Longitudinal Study of 
Youth, which showed that entry into any type of ECCE during 
infancy was related to increased aggressive behavior during the 
preschool period (Bayar and Brooks-Gunn 1991). Also, Hofferth 
(1999) reported elevated behavior problems for preschoolers who 
had entered an ECCE arrangement during the first year of their life, 
as well as for those who started an ECCE arrangement during their 
second year. Still, early entry into nonmaternal child care has not 
been shown to affect young children’s attachment to their mothers, 
another common concern, except when low quality or unstable care 



 

 108  

is also paired with insensitive mothering at home (NICHD ECCRN 
1997c). 

 
Preschoolers 

 
Although parents and policy makers are concerned about the 

rising numbers of infants and toddlers in nonparental care, they are 
eager to provide more center-based experiences for preschool-aged 
children, especially for those from poor families. This is because 
the evidence suggests that quality early care and education can help 
counteract the deleterious effects of poverty on children’s 
development (Caughy, DiPietro, and Strobino 1994; NICHD ECRN 
1997b; Phillips 1991).  

Compared to upper-income families, lower-income families are 
more likely to use relative care or group home care (Burchinal and 
Nelson 2000; Capizzano and Adams 2003; Kontos et al. 1997; 
NICHD ECCRN 1997a). Use of relative care is higher than use of 
other types of ECCE in families when mothers have low levels of 
education or are from ethnic minority groups (Kontos et al. 1995; 
1997). Children living in rural areas are also more likely to be cared 
for by relatives than are children in urban areas (Lehrer 1983). The 
quality of home-based settings used by low income families is often 
much lower than the quality of home-based settings used by higher-
income families (Coley, Li-Grining, and Chase-Lansdale 2003; 
Kisker et al. 1991; Kontos 1994; Kontos et al. 1997; Phillips 1995). 

Not only are center-based settings related to increased cognitive 
and social outcomes, but also the quality of center-based settings 
experienced by children in lower and higher income families is 
more similar (NICHD ECCRN 1997a). Children are more likely to 
have center based ECCE experiences before kindergarten if their 
mothers are more educated (Hofferth and Wissorker 1992; NICHD 
ECCRN 1997a; Zaslow, Oldham, Moore, and Magenheim 1998), if 
they are not from an ethnic minority family (Kontos et al. 1995), if 
they live in urban areas (Atkinson 1994; Shoffner 1986), and if they 
come from smaller families (Hofferth, Brayfield, Deich, and 
Holcomb 1991; NICHD ECCRN 1997a).  

Several states have sponsored programs to increase the 
participation of preschool aged children in center-based learning 
situations. Florida, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, and New York have 
attempted to design programs that provide quality programming for 



 

 109 

children (Fiene 2005). Gormley (2005) has documented that the 
Oklahoma program for universal preschool programming has 
produced significant increases in preschoolers’ school readiness.  

Although center-based care is desirable for children, especially 
those from poorer backgrounds, some researchers and educators are 
concerned about having preschool children in too many hours in 
center care during the preschool period. Investigators from the 
NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development 
reported that spending more time in ECCE arrangements over the 
first four years of life, particularly more time in center care, was 
related to more externalizing problems and conflict in kindergarten 
(NICHD ECCRN 2003). Thus, while some center-based 
educational experience in ECCE may be desirable for preschool 
aged children, too many hours of care during this period may be 
detrimental. 

 
Pennsylvania’s Support for Early Childhood Care and 

Education 
 

In the several years prior to 2002, many governors and state 
legislators worked to bring additional funding to early childhood 
educational services (General Accounting Office 1999). Hoping to 
bring Pennsylvania into line with most other states, then Governor 
Schweiker launched an Early Childhood Initiative in 2001 with the 
stated goal of “ensuring that Pennsylvania’s children are healthy, 
safe and ready for school.” By executive order in 2002, the 
Governor convened an Early Care and Education Task Force to 
prepare a comprehensive menu of evidence-based, cost effective 
strategies that would lay the foundation for the future of 
Pennsylvania’s early care and education system. Several statewide 
studies were commissioned to aid in the Task Force’s work, each 
focusing on different aspects of the existing early care and 
education services in the state. This article began as one of those 
commissioned studies. 

From 2002 to 2003, Pennsylvania invested $1.85 billion on 65 
programs designed to support children and families. Regulations 
allowed these funds to supplement all types of care: relative, family 
day care, in-home care, or center care. Thirty of Pennsylvania’s 501 
school districts provided K-4 (kindergarten for 4-year-olds), but the 
state did not fund any efforts beyond allowing the use of basic 



 

 110  

education allocations (Governor’s Task Force on Early Childhood 
Care and Education 2002).  

This article provides a baseline that can help policy makers to 
compare enrollment in different types of child care before and after 
2002, and to examine the extent to which those families most in 
need—low income and less educated families—are served. 

 
The Current Study 

This article describes the family and demographic predictors of 
different types of ECCE experiences in infants/toddlers and in 
preschoolers in Pennsylvania in 2002. From telephone surveys, we 
collected detailed family and demographic information that related 
to the amount of time young children spent in ECCE arrangements, 
focusing on family and demographic characteristics associated with 
ECCE usage. More specifically, we examined the family and 
demographic characteristics associated with the use of center-based 
ECCE, including center-based child care, preschool, nursery school, 
and Head Start versus home-based ECCE–care such as group home 
care and sitters. Enrollment in relative care, a type of home-based 
ECCE, was also examined because evidence suggests that children 
in relative care may be least likely to be prepared for school 
(Kontos et al. 1995, 1997; NICHD ECCRN 2001b).  

Family characteristics that we examined included family 
income, maternal education, ethnicity, family size, single parent 
status, geographic location (urban vs. rural), and parents’ 
availability at home. The variable indicating a parent’s availability 
at home (both mothers and fathers) was based largely on the 
employment status of the parent or parents living in the home. We 
wanted to know whether there might be at least one nonworking 
parent who would be available to care for the child. Examining 
parent availability, rather than simply maternal employment, 
addressed the increases in many modern families of more neutral 
gender roles for parents and increasingly shared responsibilities in 
parenting. Therefore, we focused on whether either parent was free 
from employment obligations such that he or she would be 
available to be responsible during daytime hours for the care of the 
child. We consider this an innovative approach to the more 
traditional investigation of parent employment by past researchers. 



 

 111 

In these analyses, we compare the incidence and amount of 
ECCE separately for infants and toddlers (0 to 3 years) and for 
preschool aged children (3 through 5 years) because the effects and 
desirability of ECCE may vary based on the age of the child and 
because state regulations differ for children at these different ages. 

 

Method 

The data for this study were collected in 2002 from a random 
sample of 1005 Pennsylvania households with children under 6 
years of age. Respondents completed telephone interviews 
pertaining to their youngest child. 

 
 

Table 1: Sample Characteristics Compared to Pennsylvania Families 
with Children under the Age of Six Years 

 

Characteristics Number of 
Respondents/Mean 

Percent of 
Respondents/Range 

Percent of 
PA 

Population 

Child’s Age 
Up to 3 years 531 53% 48% 
3 to 5 years 474 47% 52% 

Child’s Ethnicity 

African-American 149 15% 13% 

Caucasian 736 73% 79% 

Bi-racial/Multi-racial 45 5% 3% 

Latino/Hispanic 42 4% 6% 
Other 28 3% 3% 
Refused 5 < 1% n/a 
Respondent’s Relationship with Child 
Mother 731 73% 
Father 175 17% 
Grandmother 55 6% 
Other 44 4% 

n/a 

Geographic Location 
Large Cities 520 52% 52% 
Small Cities 360 36% 38% 
Rural Areas 118 12% 10% 



 

 112  

Respondent’s Education 

Some high school 57 6% 

High school 
graduate/GED 311 31% 

Some 
college/vocational/2-
year degree 

257 26% 

College graduate 232 23% 

Post graduate 136 11% 
Other 7 < 1% 
Refused 5 < 1% 

Data not 
available 
specifically 
for families 
with children 
under the age 
of 6 years. 

Family Income 
(n=801)  

M = 53,810 
(SD = 39,908) 7,000 – 200,000  

Under 25,000 184 18% 

25,001 to 50,000 285 28% 

50,001 to 100,000 256 26% 

100,001 + 69 7% 

Refused to answer 81 8% 

Don’t know 123 12% 

16% of 
families are 
below the 
poverty level. 

 
 

Sampling Design and Procedures 

Households were selected using a list-assisted Random Digit 
Dialing (RDD) sampling procedure. Through a commercial 
database maintenance/retrieval system, 23,500 randomly selected 
telephone numbers throughout Pennsylvania were obtained.1 
Slightly fewer than 16,000 households were identified and 68% 
completed an eligibility screener (n = 10,760). Twelve percent of 
those contacted were eligible for the survey (n = 1,292) because 
they had decision-making responsibility for a child under 6 years of 
age living in their household. Seventy-eight percent of those agreed 
to be interviewed, resulting in 1,005 completed interviews. Non-
English-speaking families were contacted a second time by a 
Spanish-speaking interviewer, resulting in a total of 13 Spanish-
speaking respondents.2 

 



 

 113 

Sample Description 
 

The sampling method yielded a sample that accurately 
represented Pennsylvania’s population according to 2000 census 
data. Table 1 shows the distribution of families across ethnic 
groups, geographic location, child’s age, family size, and poverty 
level. The percentage of Pennsylvania families below the federal 
poverty level in our sample (13%) was slightly lower than the 
percentage in the census (16%). Like the state population, the 
sample included mostly Caucasian families (73%) who lived in 
large cities (52%). 

Within the sample were 531 families with children less than 3 
years old and 474 families with children older than 3 but under 6. 
Survey respondents were mostly mothers (73%); the others were 
either fathers (17%) or grandmothers (6%). Because respondents 
were often the child’s parents, the word “parent” is used in 
reporting the results.  

About three-fourths of the sample was composed of two-parent 
(or two-partner) households with an average family size of four. 
Forty percent of the sample had dual incomes, and the mean family 
income (before taxes) was $53,810 (SD =39,908). The highest level 
of education achieved by the greatest number of respondents was a 
high school degree (31%), with slightly fewer having some years of 
college (26%) or a four-year college degree (23%).  

 
Survey Measure and Procedures 

Trained, reliable interviewers contracted and supervised by the 
Institute for Survey Research at Temple University used computer-
assisted telephone interviewing techniques (CATI) to conduct the 
interviews from May through July 2002. The telephone interview 
took approximately 25 minutes, and families were offered $20 for 
participating. If more than one child younger than 6 lived in the 
household, one was randomly selected to be the target child for the 
survey. 

Families reporting any type of ECCE arrangement on a regular 
weekly basis were asked about the type of ECCE arrangement, the 
number of hours their child typically spent in this setting, the hourly 
cost, and the mode of transportation to the ECCE arrangement. If 



 

 114  

the child was in more than one type of ECCE, the survey questions 
were focused on the one in which the child spent the most time.3 

 
Family and Demographic Variables 

Measures of family composition included the number of 
siblings and a binary variable of parents’ marital/partner status 
(single = 1). “Partnered” was defined as two adults living in the 
home; single parents were separated, divorced, or widowed.  

Geographic area was coded as a dichotomous variable (urban or 
nonurban), with the nonurban category including small cities, 
suburbs, and rural areas (urban = 1). Household location was geo-
coded based on place definitions (e.g. rural, central city, suburb, 
etc.) from the U.S. Census Bureau.  

Respondents reported their level of education: having some 
high school education, graduated from a high school, having some 
college or vocational experience, graduated from a four-year 
college, and having post-graduate education. This variable is 
referred to as maternal education because almost all the 
correspondents were mothers. Parents’ minority status was 
measured as a binary variable (minority = 1). Minorities included 
all families that did not identify as white or Caucasian (see Table 1). 

Parent availability was measured using a dichotomous variable 
that indicated whether or not there was a nonworking parent in the 
family available to care for the child on a full time basis (available 
= 1). Our measure of family income was total family income before 
taxes.   

 

Definitions of Types of Early Childhood Care and Education 
 
Terms used to describe ECCE settings were selected for the 

survey because they are terms that are meaningful to parents in 
describing their child’s primary, or most used, arrangement. Based 
on the terms the parents used, children were placed into one of four 
mutually exclusive groups. Group 1 was composed of families not 
using ECCE. These children were not cared for by anyone other 
than their parents on a regular weekly basis, nor were they attending 
educational programming on a regular basis (n = 315). In Group 2 
were children cared for by a relative (n = 240) or families in which 



 

 115 

the mother was a family home care provider (n=44).4 In Group 3 
were the families using nonrelative, home-based ECCE. These 
children were cared for in their own home by someone other than a 
relative, or they were cared for in another home with or without 
other children such as a group or family home child care (n = 123). 
In Group 4 were the children in center-based ECCE (n = 283). This 
group included all arrangements for which parents provided the 
following terms: child care centers, day care, nursery school, 
preschool, Head Start, Early Head Start, pre-kindergarten, and 
kindergarten.5 

 

Results 

Analysis Plan 

The analysis was designed to describe the use of child care 
more generally and the types of child care used by Pennsylvania 
families and to examine what family and demographic 
characteristics predict child care use (type of care used and number 
of hours in care). These analyses are presented separately for each 
of the two age groups: the infant/toddler group and the preschool-
aged group.  

We employed a logistic regression model to predict child care 
use because the dependent variable is dichotomous. We estimated 
three different equations to examine the incidence of differences in 
the types of ECCE use: (1) no use of ECCE (parental care only) 
versus any use of ECCE, (2) the use of relative care versus all other 
types of ECCE, and (3) the use of center-based ECCE versus all 
other types of ECCE. The independent variables in these analyses 
were respondents’ education level, family income, number of 
siblings in the family, ethnicity, geographic area, single parent 
status, and parent availability (i.e., have a nonworking parent 
available at home). For the first equation, all subjects were included 
in the analyses. For the second two equations, only children in some 
form of ECCE were included. Thus, we are able to predict use of 
any type of ECCE, and, if any, use of relative care versus all other 
types of care, and use of center care versus all other types of care.  

We employed ordinary least squares regression techniques to 
look at the effects of family characteristics on the number of hours 
of ECCE used. We estimated four different equations to look at the 



 

 116  

effects of family characteristics on the number of hours per week 
children spent in any type of ECCE, the number of house spent in 
relative care only, the number of hours spent in any type of home-
based care (including relative care), and the number of hours spent 
in center-based care, respectively. The independent variables were 
identical to those used in the logistic analysis. 

 
Relations among Family and Demographic Variables 

 
As could be expected, family and demographic variables were 

highly intercorrelated. These correlations are presented separately 
for infants/toddlers and preschoolers in Tables 2a and 2b. For both 
age groups, ethnic minority families were more likely than other 
families to be living in urban settings, headed by a single parent, 
and earning lower total incomes. For preschoolers, being from an 
ethnic minority was also associated with having lower maternal 
education. Infants who lived in urban areas were more likely to 
have single parents, higher family incomes, and more educated 
mothers than those living in rural settings. Parent availability was 
correlated with a greater number of siblings at both ages and with 
lower family income and lower maternal education for infants and 
toddlers. For preschoolers, having a single parent was associated 
with having fewer siblings. At both ages, single parents earned 
lower incomes and had less education than other parents. Family 
income and maternal education were highly correlated for both age 
groups. 

 
Table 2a: Relations among the Characteristics of Families of Infants and Toddlers 
Characteristics Minority 

Status 
Urban 
Setting 

Parent 
Availability 

Number 
of Sibs. 

Single 
Parent 
Status 

Family 
Income 

Minority Status       
Urban Setting .291**      

Parent 
Availability 

.054 -.027     

Number of 
Siblings 

.086   .055   .163**    

Single Parent 
Status 

.353** .165** -.092   .044   

Family Income -.251** .120** -.139** -.027 -.358**  
Maternal 
Education 

-.071 .100* -.104* -.083 -.186** .416** 

Listwise Pearson Correlations (n = 419); * p < .05, two-tailed; ** p < .01, two-tailed 



 

 117 

Listwise Person Correlations (n = 374); * p < .05, two-tailed;** p < .01, two-tailed 
 

Rates of Early Childhood Care and Education Usage 

Table 3 describes the number of children under the age of 6 
who were not in ECCE, the number in ECCE overall, and the 
number of children in the three specific types of ECCE. Many 
infants (61%) were in some form of ECCE, and this care was 
primarily home-based (relative and home-based care, 45%) rather 
than center-based (17%). Almost a quarter of preschool-aged 
children (23%) were not in any type of ECCE, and only 41% of 
preschoolers were in center-based ECCE. Of the families who used 
some type of ECCE, relative care was used more for the younger 
children (168 out of 327, or 51%), but the number of preschool-
aged children in relative care was also relatively high (116 out of 
363, or 32%). 

 
Table 3: Use of Early Care and Education (ECCE) for Total Sample and by Age  

Type of ECCE: No 
ECCE 

Home-
based 

Relative 
care 

Home-
based 

nonrelative 
ECCE 

Center-
based 
ECCE 

Total 
in any 
ECCE 

Total sample          
(n = 1005) 

315 
(32%) 

284     
(28%) 

123         
(12%) 

283  
(28%) 

690    
(69%) 

Infants & Toddlers      
(n = 531) 

204 
(38%) 

168    
(32%) 

71           
(13%) 

88    
(17%) 

327    
(61%) 

Preschool-aged          
(n = 474) 

111 
(23%) 

116    
(24%) 

52          
(11%) 

195  
(41%) 

363    
(76%) 

Note: These figures represent only the ECCE arrangement in which the child spent the most 
time (i.e., “Main Arrangement”). Supplemental types of arrangements are not represented and 
are excluded from this count. All groups are mutually exclusive.  

 

Table 2b: Relations among the Characteristics of Families of Preschool-age Children 
Characteristics Minority 

Status 
Urban 
Setting 

Parent 
Availability 

Number 
of Sibs. 

Single 
Parent 
Status 

Family 
Income 

Minority Status       
Urban Setting .181**      
Parent 
Availability 

.018 -.020     

Number of 
Siblings 

.088 .011 .145**     

Single Parent 
Status 

.278** .017 -.191** -.146**   

Family Income -.226** .098 -.066 .076 -.393**  
Maternal 
Education 

-.191** .099 -.095 .022 -.174** 383** 



 

 118  

Use of Early Childhood Care and Education by Family and 
Demographic Characteristics  

Table 4 shows the percentages of ECCE usage based on family 
and demographic characteristics for each age group. For this table, 
relative and other types of home-based care are grouped together. 
Table 5 shows the percentages of ECCE usage across family and 
demographic characteristics grouping children into three groups: no 
ECCE, relative care, and all other home-based and center-based 
types of ECCE. 

 
Table 4: Types of Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Used for 
Each Age Group by Family and Demographic Characteristics (Shown are 
the percentage in each group with N’s in parentheses) 
Characteristics Infants and Toddlers Preschoolers 

 No 
ECCE 

Home
-based 
ECCE 

Center-
based 
ECCE 

No 
ECCE 

Home
-based 
ECCE 

Center
-based 
ECCE 

Geographic Location 
Urban Area 38% 

(102) 
39% 
(106) 

23% 
(62) 

25% 
(62) 

30% 
(76) 

45%   
(112) 

Rural & Small 
Cities 

39% 
(100) 

51% 
(130) 

10% 
(26) 

23% 
(51) 

40% 
(89) 

37%     
(82) 

Household Income 
Under 25,000 36% 

(35) 
50%  
(49) 

14% 
(14) 

23% 
(20) 

41% 
(35) 

36%     
(31) 

Household Income 
25,001 to 50,000 
 

37% 
(56) 

53%  
(81) 

10% 
(15) 

28% 
(37) 

40% 
(54)  

32%    
(42) 

50,001 to 
100,000 

36% 
(49) 

42%  
(57) 

22% 
(30) 

18% 
(22) 

28% 
(34) 

53%    
(64) 

100,000+ 44% 
(15) 

24%    
(8) 

32% 
(11) 

9%   
(3) 

34% 
(12) 

57%    
(20) 

Child’s Ethnicity 
Minority 
 

29% 
(44) 

44%   
(67) 

27% 
(41) 

14% 
(17) 

42% 
(49) 

44%    
(51) 

Non-Minority 43% 
(162) 

45% 
(170) 

12% 
(47) 

27% 
(96) 

33% 
(117) 

40%    
(144) 

Family Composition 
Two-parent 
family 

 

45% 
(185) 

41%  
(172) 

14%  
(58) 

26% 
(94) 

33% 
(123) 

41%   
(150) 

Single-parent 
family 

18% 
(21) 

56%    
(65) 

26% 
(30) 

18% 
(19) 

40% 
(43) 

42%    
(45) 



 

 119 

Parent Availability 
Parent available 
at home 

61% 
(151) 

33%  
(80) 

6%   
(14) 

40% 
(84) 

23% 
(48) 

37%     
(77) 

Parent not 
available 

19% 
(52) 

55% 
(155) 

26% 
(74) 

11% 
(29) 

45% 
(117) 

44%    
(116) 

Respondent’s Education 
Some high 
school 

42% 
(15) 

47% 
(17) 

11%  
(4) 

33%  
(7) 

38%  
(8) 

29%     
(6) 

High school 
grad/GED 

41% 
(65) 

47% 
(75) 

12% 
(19) 

28% 
(43) 

40% 
(61) 

32%   
(48) 

Some college 
 

31% 
(43) 

54% 
(73)  

15% 
(20) 

20% 
(24) 

41% 
(50) 

39%   
(47) 

College 
graduate 
 

41% 
(47) 

41% 
(48)  

18% 
(21) 

23% 
(27) 

22% 
(26) 

55%   
(63) 

Post graduate 42% 
(32) 

29% 
(22) 

30% 
(23) 

20% 
(12) 

31% 
(18) 

49%    
(29) 

 
 
 
 
 



 

 120  

Table 5: Use of Relative Care Compared to No Use of ECCE and All Other 
Types of ECCE by Family and Demographic Characteristics  
(Shown are the percentage in each group with N’s in parentheses) 
Characteristics Infants & Toddlers Preschoolers 
 No 

ECCE 
Relative 

Care 
Non-

relative 
ECCE 

No 
ECCE 

Relative 
Care 

Non-
relative 
ECCE 

Geographic Location 
Urban Area 38% 

(102) 
28%  
(75) 

34%   
(93) 

24% 
(62) 

21%  
(52) 

55% 
(136) 

Rural & Small 
Cities 

39% 
(100) 

36%  
(92) 

25%   
(64) 

23% 
(51) 

29%  
(63) 

49% 
(108) 

Family Income 
Under 25,000 36% 

(35) 
44%  
(43) 

20%   
(20) 

21% 
(20) 

34%  
(29) 

44% 
(37) 

25,001 to 50,000 
 

37% 
(56) 

38%  
(57) 

26%   
(39) 

28% 
(37) 

33%  
(44) 

39% 
(52) 

50,001 to 
100,000 

36% 
(49) 

26%  
(35) 

39%   
(52) 

18% 
(22) 

16%  
(19) 

66% 
(79) 

100,000+ 44% 
(15) 

6%      
(2) 

50%   
(17) 

9%  
(3) 

9%      
(3) 

83% 
(29) 

Child’s Ethnicity 
Minority 
 

29% 
(44) 

38%  
(57) 

34%   
(51) 

14% 
(17) 

33%  
(38) 

53% 
(62) 

Non-Minority 43% 
(162) 

29% 
(111) 

28% 
(106) 

27% 
(96) 

22%  
(78) 

52% 
(183) 

Family Composition 
Two-parent 
family 

44% 
(185) 

29% 
(120) 

27% 
(110) 

25% 
(94) 

22%  
(80) 

53% 
(193) 

Single-parent 
family 

18% 
(21) 

41%  
(48) 

41%   
(47) 

16% 
(19) 

34%  
(36) 

50% 
(52) 

Parent Availability 
Parent available 
at home 

62% 
(151) 

28%  
(68) 

11%   
(26) 

40% 
(84) 

18%  
(38) 

42% 
(87) 

Parent not 
available 

18% 
(52) 

35%  
(99) 

46% 
(130) 

10% 
(29) 

30%  
(77) 

60% 
(156) 

Respondent’s Education 
Some high 
school 

42% 
(15) 

44%   
(16) 

14%     
(5) 

33% 
(7) 

29%    
(6) 

38%  
(8) 

High school 
grad/GED 

41% 
(65) 

37%  
(59) 

22%   
(35) 

28% 
(43) 

33%  
(50) 

39% 
(59) 

Some college 
 

31% 
(42) 

36%  
(48) 

33%   
(45) 

20% 
(24) 

32%  
(39) 

48% 
(58) 

College graduate 
 

41% 
(47) 

27%  
(31) 

33%   
(38) 

22% 
(25) 

11%  
(13) 

67% 
(76) 

Post graduate 42% 
(32) 

16%  
(12) 

43%   
(33) 

20% 
(12) 

10%    
(6) 

70% 
(41) 



 

 121 

Child age was related to type of ECCE used. Infants/toddlers 
were more likely than preschool-aged children to be cared for by a 
relative. Preschool-aged children were more likely than 
infants/toddlers to be in ECCE in general and in center-based ECCE 
in particular.6 The remainder of the findings focuses on the use of 
ECCE for the two separate age groups.  

Table 6 displays the results of three logistic regression 
equations conducted for each of the two age groups. B coefficients 
with standard errors are presented for each of the family and 
demographic characteristics thought to predict the use of ECCE in 
general (as compared to no ECCE), the use of relative care (as 
compared to other ECCE types), and the use of center-based ECCE 
(as compared to all other ECCE), respectively. 

 
 

Table 6: The Effects of Family Characteristics on Child Care Use and Type of Child 
Care Used:  Logit Analysis  
 Infants & Toddlers Preschoolers 
Characteristics All 

types 
of 
ECCE 
vs. no 
ECCE 

Relative 
Care vs. 
all other 
types of 
care 

Center
-based 
ECCE 
vs. all 
other 
types 
of care 

All 
types 
of 
ECCE 
vs. no 
ECCE 
 

Relative 
Care vs. 
all other 
types of 
care 
 

Center
-based 
ECCE 
vs. all 
other 
types 
of care 

Family Income   
(In $10,000’s) 

-.005 
(.37) 

-.143* 
(.55) 

.096*     
(.46) 

.099* 
(.44) 

-.163** 
(.57) 

.071+ 
(.40) 

Maternal 
Education 

-.02 
(.11) 

-.19 
(.14) 

.26+     
(.15) 

.11 
(.14) 

-.42** 
(.15) 

.26* 
(.13) 

Minority Status 
Minority = 1  Non-
Minority = 0 

.73* 
(.31) 

-.02 
(.34) 

.82*     
(.36) 

1.50** 
(.42) 

-.003 
(.33) 

-.07 
(.30) 

Number of 
Siblings 

-.10 
(.11) 

-.02 
(.13) 

-.04      
(.14) 

-.27* 
(.12) 

-.07 
(.13) 

-.09 
(.11) 

Parent Availability -2.19** 
(.25) 

1.17** 
(.33) 

-.90*    
(.40) 

-1.74** 
(.31) 

-.34 
(.30) 

.61* 
(.28) 

Single Parent 
Status 

.96* 
(.38) 

-.68+ 
(.35) 

.54       
(.38) 

.38 
(.44) 

-.27 
(.36) 

.45 
(.34) 

Urban Setting 
 

-.20 
(.25) 

-.17 
(.30) 

.49       
(.33) 

-.46 
(.29) 

-.47 
(.28) 

.53* 
(.25) 

 
B coefficients are shown with corresponding standard errors in parentheses. 
  * p < .05, two-tailed; ** p < .01, two-tailed; + p < .10, two-tailed 
Note: Analyses for Relative Care and Center-based ECCE are based on the subset of children 
who are using some type of early care and education arrangement. 

 
 
 
 



 

 122  

Infants and toddlers 
 
The first column in Table 6 illustrates that infants and toddlers 

were more likely to be in ECCE if they were of minority status, if 
they did not have a parent(s) available at home, and if they were 
living with a single parent.  

The analysis for relative care included only children who were 
in some type of care (i.e., excluded the “Not using ECCE” group) 
and is shown in the second column of Table 6. For infants and 
toddlers, coming from a low-income family and having a 
nonemployed parent available at home made it more likely that they 
would be in relative care as opposed to other types of ECCE.  

The third column in Table 6 presents the results examining the 
use of center-based ECCE for infants and toddlers. During the 
infancy/toddlerhood period, children from higher income and ethnic 
minority families were more likely than other children to use 
center-based ECCE over other forms of care. In addition, working 
parents (i.e., no parent available at home) were more likely to place 
their infants and toddlers in a center-based ECCE arrangement than 
were families with a parent at home.  

 
Preschoolers 

For older children, the right side of Table 6 shows the 
characteristics relating to use of ECCE. Compared to other 
preschool-aged children, preschoolers from higher income families, 
from ethnic minority families, from families with fewer children, 
and from families with no parent available at home were more 
likely to be in some form of ECCE rather than no ECCE. 

Preschool-aged children from families with lower incomes and 
less educated mothers were more likely than other families to be in 
relative care.  

Preschoolers with more educated mothers, from families with 
an available parent at home, and from urban settings were more 
likely to be in center-based ECCE than other types of ECCE 
settings.    

 
Table 7 presents the number of hours spent in each type of 

ECCE. Infants and toddlers who were in nonparental care spent 
significantly more time in center-based ECCE than in home-based 



 

 123 

ECCE (F (1, 323) = 15.0, p< .001). They spent less time in relative 
care (M = 24.05 hours) compared with other types of ECCE (F (1, 
323) = 15.45, p < .001).  

Note: These figures represent only the arrangement in which the child spent the most time 
(i.e., “Main Arrangement”).  Supplemental types of arrangements are not represented and are 
excluded from this count. 

 
Preschoolers spent more time in some form of home-based 

ECCE compared with center-based ECCE (F (1, 359) = 10.58, p < 
.01). They spent more time in relative care (M = 29.26 hours) than 
other types of ECCE combined (F (1, 359) = 10.35, p < .01).  

 
Table 8 shows the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression 

analyses that were conducted to examine family and demographic 
characteristics associated with more time spent in ECCE for the 
subset of children who were using some type of ECCE arrangement 
(n = 558). These analyses examine the effects of family 
characteristics on time spent in ECCE in general, time spent in 
relative care only, time spent in any type of home-based ECCE 
(including relative care), and time spent in center-based ECCE 
only.7  

 

Table 7: Mean Number of Hours per Week in Each Type of Early Childhood Care 
and Education (ECCE) Arrangement by Child’s Age 

 
 Infants & Toddlers Preschoolers 

Type of 
ECCE 

N M SD Range N M SD Range 

 
Home-
based 
ECCE 
(relative 
care 
included) 
 

239 25.32 16.71 2-60 168 28.34 16.52 1-60 

 
Center-
based 
ECCE 
 

88 32.89 13.22 4-55 195 23.12 13.94 1-50 

 
Relative 
care only 
 

168 24.05 17.50 2-60 116 29.26 17.40 1-60 



 

 124  

 
 
 
 
 

C
en

te
r-

ba
se

d 
n=

15
7 

-.0
43

 

-.1
56

* 

.1
81

**
 

-.1
56

* 

-.4
86

**
 

.1
10

 

.1
24

 

16
.1

1*
* 

  
(7

,1
49

) 

.4
04

 

A
ll 

H
om

e-
ba

se
d1

 
n=

13
5 

.1
20

 

.0
51

 

.3
76

**
 

-.0
62

 

-.1
12

 

.2
07

* 

-.0
64

 

4.
57

**
   

   
(7

,1
27

) 

.1
57

 

R
el

at
iv

e 
C

ar
e 

n=
94

 

.2
05

 

.0
38

 

.3
68

**
 

-.0
41

 

-.0
07

 

.3
41

**
 

-.0
46

 

3.
93

**
   

 
(7

,8
6)

 

.1
81

 In
fa

nt
s &

 T
od

dl
er

s 

G
en

er
al

 
U

se
 

n=
29

2 

.0
3 

-.0
6 

.2
9*

* 

-.1
3*

 

-.3
1*

* 

.1
5*

 

.0
3 

14
.0

9*
* 

  
(7

,2
84

) 

.2
39

 

C
en

te
r-

ba
se

d 
n=

71
 

.2
26

 

-.2
13

 

.0
74

 

.0
43

 

-.4
46

**
 

.2
64

* 

-.0
36

 

3.
29

**
 

(7
,6

3)
 

.1
86

 

A
ll 

H
om

e-
ba

se
d1

 
n=

19
5 

-.0
27

 

-.1
38

 

.0
89

 

-.0
70

 

-.1
94

**
 

.2
09

**
 

.0
07

 

3.
94

**
 

(7
,1

87
) 

.0
96

 

R
el

at
iv

e 
C

ar
e 

O
nl

y 
n=

13
7 

-.1
02

 

-.0
87

 

.0
10

 

-.0
60

 

-.1
20

 

.2
80

**
 

.0
69

 

3.
26

**
   

   
 

(7
,1

29
) 

.1
04

 

In
fa

nt
s &

 T
od

dl
er

s 

G
en

er
al

 E
C

C
E

  
n=

26
6 

.0
7 

-.1
3*

 

.1
1 

-.0
5 

-.2
5*

* 

.2
3*

* 

.0
1 

6.
25

**
   

   
(7

,2
58

) 

.1
22

 

T
ab

le
 8

: T
he

 E
ff

ec
ts

 o
f F

am
ily

 C
ha

ra
ct

er
is

tic
s o

n 
H

ou
rs

 o
f E

C
C

E
 b

y 
T

yp
e 

of
 C

ar
e:

  O
rd

in
ar

y 
L

ea
st

 S
qu

ar
es

 A
na

ly
si

s  

C
ha

ra
ct

er
is

tic
s 

Fa
m

ily
 In

co
m

e 
(in

  
$1

0,
00

0’
s)

 

M
at

er
na

l E
du

ca
tio

n 

M
in

or
ity

 S
ta

tu
s 

N
um

be
r o

f S
ib

lin
gs

 

Pa
re

nt
 A

va
ila

bi
lit

y 

Si
ng

le
 P

ar
en

t S
ta

tu
s 

U
rb

an
 S

et
tin

g 

F 
st

at
is

tic
 

(d
f) 

A
dj

us
te

d 
R2  1.

 
A

ll 
ho

m
e 

ba
se

d 
EC

C
E 

in
cl

ud
es

 h
om

e 
ba

se
d 

EC
C

E 
of

 a
ny

 ty
pe

, i
nc

lu
di

ng
 re

la
tiv

e 
ca

re
. 

St
an

da
rd

iz
ed

 b
et

a 
co

ef
fic

ie
nt

s a
re

 sh
ow

 e
xp

ec
t w

he
re

 o
th

er
w

is
e 

no
te

d.
  *

 p
 <

 .0
5,

 tw
o-

ta
ile

d;
 *

* 
p 

< 
.0

1,
 tw

o-
ta

ile
d 

 



 

 125 

 
Infant and toddlers 

 
As shown on the left side of Table 8, infants and toddlers spent 

more time in ECCE if their mothers had lower levels of education. 
Not having a parent available predicted spending more time in any 
ECCE arrangement and more time in home-based and center-based 
ECCE specifically. Infants with single parents spent more time in 
ECCE no matter what the type. Infants and toddlers spent more 
time in center-based settings when there was no parent available at 
home and if they lived with a single parent. 

 
Preschoolers 
 

As displayed in the four columns on the right side of Table 8, 
preschoolers with less educated mothers spent more time in center-
based ECCE settings. Minority status was predictive of spending 
more time in ECCE in general, as well as the other three types of 
ECCE specifically. Preschoolers without a parent available at home 
spent more hours in ECCE in general and more hours in center-
based ECCE. Preschoolers with single parents spent more time in 
all types of ECCE, with the exception of center-based ECCE. A 
closer look at the use of center-based ECCE shows that 
preschoolers spent less time in center-based settings if their mothers 
were more educated, if they were not ethnic minority, if they had 
more siblings, and if they had a parent available at home.  

 
Conclusion 

These data provide a baseline of ECCE in Pennsylvania in 2002 
during a time when the state offered no public funding specifically 
for preschool. These data show that a substantial number of children 
under 5 years of age in Pennsylvania in 2002 were in some kind of 
nonparental care for a substantial amount of time each week: 61% 
of infants and toddlers and 75% of preschoolers were in some type 
of nonparental care on a regular weekly basis. For infants and 
toddlers, 51% of the children in care were supervised by relatives. 
For preschoolers, 32% of the children were in care with relatives. 
Only 41% of Pennsylvania preschoolers were in center-based 



 

 126  

programs, the type of early childhood education that has been 
associated with school readiness.  

This article documents geographic and social class differences 
between those children in center-based preschool programs and 
those who were not. Preschool aged children were more likely to be 
in center-based care if they were from families in urban areas with 
educated parents and one nonemployed parent at home with the 
child on a regular basis. Because they were in this type of center-
based care for substantially fewer hours than infants and toddlers, 
and because many children were children of educated parents with 
one parent at home on a regular basis, it is likely that the type of 
care that they experienced may have been mostly part-time care of 
the type often referred to as nursery school. In contrast, preschool-
aged children with less educated and low-income parents were more 
likely to experience relative care.  

Researchers have shown that Pennsylvania home-based settings 
are of lesser quality than center-based settings such as Head Start, 
preschool programs, and child care centers (Fiene et al. 2002). 
These home-based settings are also less likely to prepare children 
for school (Kontos et al. 1995; 1997). So many researchers have 
shown that center-based center care for preschool-aged children 
fosters school readiness (Lee, Brooks-Gunn, Schnur, and Liaw 
1990; Ramey and Campbell 1992; Ramey et al. 2002; Ramey and 
Ramey 1992; Head Start Report 2005; National Research Council 
2001; NICHD ECCRN and Duncan 2003; Clarke-Stewart 1991, 
Magnuson, Meyers, Ruhm, and Waldfogel 2004; NICHD ECCRN 
2004) that center-based center care for preschoolers is currently 
considered “best practice” education. Thus, more center-based 
ECCE is considered desirable because it helps prepare youngsters 
for kindergarten. 

Children from families with more educated mothers and with a 
parent at home and from families in urban settings were more likely 
to experience center-based types of ECCE considered to prepare 
children for school readiness, while children from poorer families 
with less educated mothers were more likely to be in relative care, 
which is less likely to prepare children for school. These findings 
replicate those from national reports based on administrative data 
(NHES 2005) showing that children with more educated and higher 
income employed mothers were more likely than other children to 



 

 127 

experience preschool programs aimed at increasing school 
readiness.  

According to a 2005 report from the Pennsylvania Partnerships 
for Children, Pennsylvania currently ranks below the national 
average in the percentage of preschool children enrolled in center-
based programs. In that report, which was based on state 
administrative records, the percentage of Pennsylvania children 
enrolled in nursery school, preschool, or kindergarten in 2004 was 
56%, ranking Pennsylvania 30th in the nation. The national average 
was 57%, with New Jersey leading the nation at 74% of children in 
this age range enrolled in center-based ECCE in 2004. Although 
today Pennsylvania is still below average nationally, the percentage 
of the preschool population in child care may nevertheless be higher 
today than it was in 2002 when only 41% of such children were in 
center-based programs.  

In 2004–05, the Office of Child Development was established 
to oversee Commonwealth efforts regarding ECCE. A prime goal of 
this office (Dichter 2005; OCD 2005) was to increase the 
availability and quality of ECCE to all children less than 5 years 
old. Specific initiatives in 2004–05 included (1) state investment in 
preschool through state funds to Head Start programs, (2) expansion 
of early childhood services using Education Accountability Block 
Grants to establish new or to expand existing pre-kindergarten 
services and increase full day kindergarten availability, (3) 
establishment of Early Learning Standards for pre-kindergarten 
children across all ECCE settings, (4) creation of Keystone STARS, 
a quality rating system aiming to improve the quality of ECCE 
programs, (5) introduction of reforms to increase ECCE teacher 
preparation, and (6) increases in the availability of child care 
subsidies to parents.  

Administered by the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), 
Keystone STARS worked to boost quality by identifying standards 
and providing financial and technical assistance to programs 
participating in the Keystone STARS program. DPW simplified 
eligibility requirements and procedures for low income families to 
obtain and maintain child care subsidies. More state funds were 
budgeted for licensing and inspection of child care programs, 
professional credentialing and child care provider education and 
training, quality supports for home-based programs, and 
community-based training for practitioners. With these changes, 



 

 128  

one might expect that Pennsylvania children should have greater 
access to the type of ECCE more likely to stimulate school 
readiness in 2006 than in 2002. Some administrative data suggests 
that this is the case.  

This study can serve as a benchmark for the effectiveness of the 
current administration’s efforts to increase school readiness of all 
Pennsylvania children. Is it true that the state’s children are more 
likely to be in center-based ECCE settings and less likely to be in 
relative care in 2006 than in 2002? Are more children from low 
income families and families with less educated parents or families 
from small cities and rural areas more likely to be in center-based 
types of ECCE in 2006 than in 2002? Continued monitoring of 
families, examination of differential access to ECCE as a function 
of family income, and consideration of parental education and 
geographic location are warranted to answer these questions and to 
demonstrate the effectiveness of these public policy changes in 
Pennsylvania. 

 
Notes 

 1. We were not overly concerned about biases due to telephone ownership 
because the number of families with accessible telephone numbers in Pennsylvania 
was nearly 98% according to Census figures. 

 2. During the second contact, the Spanish-speaking interviewers were able 
to identify households in which no English and no Spanish were spoken. Families 
who did not speak either English or Spanish were not able to be interviewed. The 
number of these families was less than 1% of the sub-sample contacted. 

 3. If the respondents reported that their use of ECCE for the target child 
differed in summer compared with other months, parents provided information 
about usage for the month of April, a month selected because it was part of the 
“academic” year. 

4. Forty-four mothers in the sample worked in their homes as family/group 
home providers while also caring for their own child. These children were 
classified as Relative Care (total n = 284). Because the parent is considered 
employed and at their work place as a family/group home ECCE provider, we 
believed that this situation is disparate enough from that of a child being cared for 
exclusively (or with siblings) by a parent. Thus, it was decided to classify these 
children as being in a care arrangement with a relative, rather than in the “Not 
using ECCE” group. 

5. Because the survey relied on parental report, we were unable to identify 
the extent to which a specific curriculum was utilized or if structured educational 
activities took place in any of the ECCE types. 

6. To test for the significance of age effects, analyses described were 
conducted with the two age groups combined and included a dichotomous child 
age variable as an additional predictor. 



 

 129 

7. These OLS regression analyses were also run using the two age groups 
together and included a dichotomous age variable as an additional predictor. A 
significant age difference was found only for the use of formal ECCE. Although 
preschoolers were more commonly in formal ECCE than were infants/toddlers, 
they spent less time in these formal educational settings than infants and toddlers 
did. 

 

References 

Atkinson, A. M. 1994. “Rural and Urban Families’ Use of Child Care.” Family 
Relations 43: 16–22. 

Bayar, N., and J. Brooks-Gunn. 1991. “Effects of Maternal Employment and Child 
Care Arrangements on Preschoolers’ Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes: 
Evidence from the Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.” 
Developmental Psychology 27: 932–945. 

Burchinal, M. R., and L. Nelson. 2000. “Family Selection and Child Care 
Experiences: Implications for Studies of Child Outcomes.” Early Childhood 
Research Quarterly 15: 385–411. 

Burchinal, M. R., S. L. Ramey, M. K. Reid, and J. Jaccard. 1995. “Early Child 
Care Experiences and Their Association with Family and Child 
Characteristics during Middle Childhood.” Early Childhood Research 
Quarterly 10: 33–61. 

Capizzano, J., and G. Adams. 2003. “Children in Low-income Families Are Less 
Likely to Be in Center-based Child Care.” Snapshots of America’s Families 
III, No. 16 (November). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Caughy, M. O., J. DiPietro, and M. Strobino. 1994. “Day-care Participation as a 
Protective Factor in the Cognitive Development of Low-income Children.” 
Child Development 65: 457–471. 

Chira, S. 1998. A Mother’s Place: Taking the Debate about Working Mothers 
Beyond Guilt and Blame. New York: Harper Collins.  

Clark-Stewart, K. A. 1991. “A Home Is Not a School: The Effects of Child Care 
on Children’s Development.” Journal of Social Sciences 47: 105–123. 

Clark-Stewart, K. A., and G. C. Fein. 1983. “Early Childhood Programs.” In 
Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 2. Infancy and Developmental 
Psychology, 4th ed., eds. M. M. Haith, and J. J. Campos. New York: Wiley. 

Clark-Stewart, K. A., C. P. Gruber, and L. M. Fitzgerald. 1994. Children at Home 
and in Day Care. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Coley, R. J. 2002. An Uneven Start: Indictors of Inequality in School Readiness. 
Policy Information Report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. 

Coley, R. L., C.P. Li-Grining, and P. L. Chase-Lansdale. 2003. Low-income 
Families’ Child Care Experiences: Meeting the Needs of Children and 
Families. Manuscript under review. 

Dichter, H. 2005. Early Learning for Pennsylvania’s Young Children: Challenges 
and Prospects. Greater Philadelphia Regional Review, Pennsylvania 
Economy League (Winter). 

Fiene, R. L., M. Greenberg, M. Bergsten, B. Carl, C. Fegley, and E. Gibbons. 
2002. The Pennsylvania Early Childhood Quality Settings Study. Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania: Governor’s Task Force on Early Care and Education. 



 

 130  

 
General Accounting Office. 1999. Report to Congressional Requesters: Education 

and Care–Early Childhood Programs and Services for Low-income Families. 
(GAO/HEHS-00-11 Low-Income Childhood Care). (November).Washington, 
D.C.: GAO. 

Gormley, W., Jr. 2005. “The Universal Pre-K Bandwagon.” Phi Delta Kappan 87 
(3): 246-249. 

Governor’s Task Force on Early Childhood Care and Education, Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania. 2002. Early Care and Education: The Keystone of 
Pennsylvania’s Future–Preparing Our Children for Success (September). 
Lemoyne, PA: Center for Schools and Communities. 

Hofferth, S. 1999, Child Care in the First Three Years of Life and Preschoolers’ 
Language and Behavior. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the 
Society for Research in Child Development (April). Albuquerque, NM. 

Hofferth, S. L., A. Brayfield, S. Deich, and P. Holcomb. 1991. National Child 
Care Survey, 1990. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. 

Hofferth, S. L., and D. A. Wissoker. 1992. “Price, Quality, and Income in Child 
Care Choice.” The Journal of Human Resources 27: 70–111. 

Huston, A. C., Y. E. Chang, and L. Gennetian. 2002. “Family and Individual 
Predictors of Child Care Use by Low-income Families in Different Policy 
Contexts.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 17: 441–469. 

Johansen, A. S., A. Leibovitz, and L. J. Waite. 1996. “The Importance of Child 
Care Characteristics to Choice of Care.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 
58: 759–772. 

Johnson, D. J., E. Jaeger, S. M. Randolph, A. M. Cauce, J. Ward, and NICHD 
Early Child Care Research Network. 2003. “Studying the Effects of Early 
Child Care Experiences on the Development of Children of Color in the 
United States: Toward a More Inclusive Research Agenda.” Child 
Development 74 (5): 1227–1244. 

Kisker, E., S. Hofferth, D. Phillips, and E. Farquhar. 1991. A Profile of Child Care 
Settings. Early Education and Care in 1990. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Education. 

Kontos, S. 1994. “The Ecology of Family Day Care.” Early Childhood Research 
Quarterly 6: 249–262. 

Kontos, S., C. Howes, M. Shinn, and E. Galinsky. 1995. Quality in Family Child 
Care and Relative Care. New York: Teachers College Press. 

Kontos, S., C. Howes, M. Shinn, and E. Galinsky. 1997. “Children’s Experiences 
in Family Child Care and Relative Care as a Function of Family Income and 
Ethnicity” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 43 (3): 386–403.  

Lee, V. E., J. Brooks-Gunn, E. Schnur, and F. R. Liaw. 1990. “Are Head Start 
Effects Sustained? A Longitudinal Follow-up Comparison of Disadvantaged 
Children Attending Head Start, No Preschool, and Other Preschool 
Programs.” Child Development 61: 495–507. 

Lee, V. E., and D. T. Burkam. 2002. Inequality at the Starting Gate: Social 
Background Differences in Achievement as Children Begin School. 
Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. 

Lehrer, E. 1983. “Determinants of Child Care Mode Choice: An Economic 
Perspective.” Social Science Research 12: 69–80. 



 

 131 

Magnuson, K. A., M. K. Meyers, C. J. Ruhm, and J. Waldfogel. 2004. “Inequality 
in Preschool Education and School Readiness.” American Educational 
Research Journal 41: 115–157. 

National Research Council. 2001. Eager to Learn: Educating our Preschoolers. 
Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, eds. B. T. Bowman, M. S. 
Donovan, and M. S. Burns. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences 
and Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 1997a. “Familial Factors Associated 
With the Characteristics of Nonmaternal Care for Infants.” Journal of 
Marriage and the Family 59: 389–408. 

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 1997b. “Poverty and Patterns of 
Child Care,” ed. J. Brook-Gunn, and G. Duncan. Consequences of Growing 
Up Poor. New York: Russell-Sage. 

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 1997c. “The effects of infant child 
care on infant-mother attachment security: Results of the NICHD Study of 
Early Child Care”. Child Development 68: 860–879. 

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 2001a. “Nonmaternal Care and 
Family Factors in Early Development: An Overview of the NICHD Study of 
Early Child Care.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 22: 457–
492. 

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 2001b. “Before Head Start: Income 
and Ethnicity, Family Characteristics, Child Care Experiences and Child 
Development.” Early Education and Development 12: 545–576. 

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 2003. “Does Amount of Time Spent 
in Child Care Predict Socioemotional Adjustment During the Transition to 
Kindergarten?” Child Development 74: 976–1005. 

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, and G. Duncan. 2003. “Modeling the 
Impacts of Child Care Quality on Children’s Preschool Cognitive 
Development.” Child Development 74: 1454–1475. 

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2004. “Type of child care and 
children’s development at 54 months.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 
19: 203–230. 

Office of Child Development. 2005. Building Futures 2004–2005. Annual Report: 
Pennsylvania Office of Child Development. Harrisburg, PA. 

Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children. 2005. “Special Report: School Readiness 
in Children. http://www.papartnerships.org/news_pr2005.asp. 

Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., M. R. Burchinal, and R. M. Clifford. 2001. “The Relation 
of Preschool Child Care Quality to Children’s Cognitive and Social 
Developmental Trajectories Through Second Grade.” Child Development 72: 
1534–1553. 

Phillips, D. A. 1995. Child Care for Low-income Families: A Summary of Two 
Workshops. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 

Phillips, D., and G. Adams. 2001. “Child Care and Our Youngest Children.” The 
Future of Children 11 (1): 35–51. 

Ramey, C. T., and F. A. Campbell. 1992. “Poverty, Early Childhood Education, 
and Academic Competence: The Abecedarian Experiment.” In Children in 
Poverty, ed. A. Huston. New York: Cambridge University Press. 



 

 132  

Ramey, C. T., F. A. Campbell, M. Burchinal, M. L. Skinner, D. M. Gardner, and 
S. L. Ramey. 2002. “Persistent Effects of Early Intervention on High-risk 
Children and Their Mothers.” Applied Developmental Science 4: 2–14. 

Ramey, C. T., and S. L. Ramey. 1992. “Effective Early Intervention.” Mental 
Retardation 30: 337–345. 

Shoffner, S. M. 1986. “Child Care in Rural Areas: Needs, Attitudes, and 
Preferences.” American Journal of Community Psychology 14: 521–537. 

Weinraub, M., C. Hill, and K. Hirsh-Pasek. 2001. “Child Care: Options and 
Outcomes.” In Encyclopedia of Women and Gender: Sex Similarities and 
Differences and the Impact of Society on Gender, vol. 1, ed. J. Worell. San 
Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

Wertheimer, R., T. Croan, K. A. Moore, and E. C. Hair. 2003. Attending 
Kindergarten and Already Behind: A Statistical Portrait of Vulnerable Young 
Children. Research Brief Number 2003-20. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends. 

Zaslow, M. J., E. Oldham, K. A. Moore, and E. Magenheim. 1998. Welfare 
Families’ Use of Early Childhood Care and Education Programs, and 
Implications for Their Children’s Development. Early Childhood Research 
Quarterly 13: 535–563 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


