Early Childhood Research Quarterly 32 (2015) 150–159

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

Neighborhood economic disadvantage and children’s cognitive and

social-emotional development: Exploring Head Start classroom
quality as a mediating mechanism
Dana Charles McCoy a,b,∗ , Maia C. Connors a , Pamela A. Morris a , Hirokazu Yoshikawa a ,
Allison H. Friedman-Krauss a
a
New York University, United States
b
Harvard University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Past research has shown robust relationships between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and
Received 5 June 2014 children’s school achievement and social-emotional outcomes, yet the mechanisms for explaining these
Received in revised form 15 January 2015 relationships are poorly understood. The present study uses data from 1904 Head Start participants
Accepted 7 April 2015
enrolled in the Head Start Impact Study to examine the role that classroom structural and relational
Available online 21 April 2015
quality play in explaining the association between neighborhood poverty and children’s developmental
gains over the preschool year. Results suggest that neighborhood poverty is directly related to lower
Keywords:
levels of classroom quality, and lower gains in early literacy and math scores. Indirect relationships were
Head Start
Neighborhood poverty
also found between neighborhood poverty and children’s social-emotional outcomes (i.e., approaches to
Classroom quality learning and behavior problems) via differences in the physical resources and negative student–teacher
Early math relationships within classrooms. These findings highlight the need for policy initiatives to consider com-
Early literacy munity characteristics as potential predictors of disparities in classroom quality and children’s cognitive
Behavior problems and social-emotional development in Head Start.
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction embedded within high-poverty neighborhoods may account for

some of their effects on low-income children’s growth. Educational
A growing body of research has found important links between settings may convey the influence of neighborhood poverty on
neighborhood characteristics and young children’s physical, social, developmental outcomes because after a child’s home, these are
and academic development (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & the neighborhood settings within which children spend the most
Sealand, 1993; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). In particular, time.
neighborhood poverty is associated with young children’s lower The goal of the present study is to explore the role that the
academic performance and higher behavioral and emotional prob- quality of early education environments may play in the relation-
lems, with children from the most economically disadvantaged ship between young, low-income children’s exposure to economic
contexts showing the largest deficits over time (Chase-Lansdale, disadvantage in their neighborhoods and several dimensions of
Gordon, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1997; Dupéré, Leventhal, their academic, social-emotional, and behavioral functioning.
Crosnoe, & Dion, 2010). Although these empirical associations have In order to explore these relationships, we focus exclusively
been identified across multiple studies, relatively little research has on children who attend Head Start classrooms in a diverse set
explored the specific social, structural, or relational mechanisms of neighborhoods across the United States. We are particularly
that contribute to negative outcomes for low-income children interested in the structural and relational quality of the Head
living in poor communities. In particular, very little is known Start classrooms that these children attend as key mechanisms
about whether and how the quality of the educational settings in partially explaining the relationship between neighborhood
disadvantage and children’s outcomes. This study examines
these questions using data from the Head Start Impact Study, a
∗ Corresponding author at: Harvard Center on the Developing Child, 50 Church nationally representative, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the
Street Room 715, Cambridge, MA 02138, United States. Tel.: +1 617 464 5616. effectiveness of Head Start conducted in 2002 and 2003. These data
E-mail address: dana [email protected] (D.C. McCoy). allow us to address conceptual and empirical gaps in the existing

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.04.003
0885-2006/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 D.C. McCoy et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 32 (2015) 150–159 151

neighborhood and preschool literatures while capitalizing on vari- structural equation modeling approach to capture these processes
ability in levels of neighborhood poverty across more than 20 U.S. in a single, cohesive model. Third, we focus specifically on the crit-
states. ical early childhood support of preschool education in a group of
particularly vulnerable low-income children attending Head Start.
Neighborhoods as salient contexts for children’s development Given the well-established benefits of quality preschool education
for later development and unique focus of Head Start on a “whole-
Several decades of research from sociology, urban studies, child” approach, this is an especially policy-relevant setting to
education, and psychology suggests that neighborhoods play an examine.
important role in shaping the development of children and adoles-
cents. A broad collection of non-experimental studies have linked Head Start classroom quality as a mediating setting
neighborhood poverty, in particular, with a host of negative out-
comes for the children and young adults living in these contexts, There is substantial evidence that high-quality early care and
including lower academic achievement, increased criminal and vio- education can help to support young children’s cognitive and
lent behavior, and lower future earnings (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, social-emotional development (Howes, Phillips, & Whitebook,
2000). Experimental and quasi-experimental evidence supports 1992; Mashburn et al., 2008; Pianta, Barnett, Burchinal, &
these findings, with studies of programs like Moving to Opportunity Thornburg, 2009; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001; Votruba-Drzal,
and Gautreaux showing that moves out of high-poverty neighbor- Levine Coley, & Chase-Lansdale, 2004; Yoshikawa et al., 2013;
hoods and into more economically advantaged communities may Zaslow, Tout, Halle, Whittaker, & Lavelle, 2010; Zill et al., 2001).
benefit children across several domains (Katz, Kling, & Liebman, Conversely, additional work has shown a direct, negative relation-
2001; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Rosenbaum, Reynolds, & ship between children’s behavioral outcomes and the number of
DeLuca, 2002). hours that they spend in low quality programs (McCartney et al.,
In addition to this empirical work, a number of classic theories 2010). Indeed, Burchinal, Vandergrift, Pianta, and Mashburn (2010)
have helped to explain how and why these associations between find that the benefits of increments in quality for improving posi-
neighborhoods and individual development might occur (Brooks- tive child outcomes do not accrue until quality reaches a moderate
Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 1997; Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Leventhal level.
& Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Sampson, 2012; Sampson, Morenoff, & In the present study, we define classroom quality in terms of
Gannon-Rowley, 2002; Shinn & Toohey, 2003). For the most part, two distinct but complementary components that directly parallel
these theories have hypothesized two primary pathways that the neighborhood theoretical literature outlined above. Structural
explain the transfer of neighborhood processes to the individ- quality describes the physical space and materials present and used
ual level. First, structural theories focus on the institutions and to support children’s learning in the classroom. Relational quality
physical resources available within communities that may directly refers to the interactions, relationships, and day-to-day exchanges
support (or impede) individuals’ development. For example, fam- between teachers and children. Relational quality can be further
ilies living in neighborhoods with a high density of museums, categorized into high levels of emotionally positive (e.g., support-
libraries, schools, and other educational institutions may be better ive, warm, caring) student–teacher interactions, and low levels of
able to provide their children with cognitively stimulating learn- negative (e.g., harsh, punitive, dismissive) interactions. The result
ing experiences that promote academic achievement compared is three distinct yet interrelated dimensions of classroom qual-
with those living in areas devoid of such resources (Leventhal & ity: structure, positive teacher–child interactions, and negative
Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Second, relational theories highlight the role teacher–child interactions. Although both structural and relational
that social processes, norms, interactions, and behaviors play in quality have been linked to child outcomes broadly defined, there
linking neighborhood poverty with individual outcomes. Social is some evidence to suggest that different components of quality
disorganization theory, for example, suggests that lower lev- may be linked more closely with particular child outcomes than
els of positive social exchange and cohesion between neighbors others (Mashburn et al., 2008). In particular, recent evidence sug-
may mediate the relationship between neighborhood socioeco- gests that structural and instructional quality are more strongly
nomic disadvantage and individual behavior (Shaw & McKay, associated with cognitive or academic outcomes, whereas positive
1942). relational quality is more important for children’s social-emotional
Although theories supporting these neighborhood characteris- and behavioral development (Burchinal et al., 2010; Mashburn
tics as mechanisms for influencing young children’s development et al., 2008).
are well developed, there has been very little work that has The current study considers the ways that the economic
tested these suggested relationships empirically (Leventhal & resources of neighborhoods may be associated with the structural
Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Extant literature most often relies on simple and relational quality of the Head Start classrooms embedded in
counts of the number of institutions present in a neighborhood these settings. Although historically Head Start programs have tar-
and individual reports of broader social relationships, rather than geted some of the poorest counties in the United States (Ludwig &
direct, contextual-level observations of the quality of structural Miller, 2007), they currently exist within a broad range of neigh-
and relational supports. The present study aims to understand borhood contexts to better reach all low-income children. The
the early childhood classroom setting as one possible conduit level of economic disadvantage in the neighborhoods surround-
for community structural and relational resources to reach low- ing Head Start classrooms may be associated with the quality of
income children and their families. We build off of recent work by those classrooms in several ways. First, Head Start awards federal
Dupéré et al. (2010) that has found distinct, positive links between funds to local public or private organizations within the communi-
neighborhood advantage, quality of childcare, and individual ties that they serve (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
academic achievement in several ways. First, we deepen the con- Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start, n.d.).
ceptualization and measurement of classroom quality and child Consequently, Head Start programs are often under-resourced as a
outcomes through focusing on three distinct, directly observed result of being located in economically disadvantaged communi-
dimensions of classroom quality, as well as representations of ties that have a smaller tax base (for public programs) or serving
both cognitive and social-emotional skills. Second, unlike previous parents who cannot afford to pay high fees (for private programs).
work that has examined relationships between neighborhood, This lower availability of fiscal resources likely has direct and neg-
classroom, and child-level phenomena independently, we use a ative impacts on the structural quality of these classrooms through
152 D.C. McCoy et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 32 (2015) 150–159

reductions in material resources, as well as on relational quality, economic disadvantage and improved generalizability to diverse
due to lower availability of funding to support teachers’ continued geographical contexts compared to past neighborhood research
professional development. conducted primarily in single, urban areas. In addition, our use
Second, salaries for Head Start teachers vary dramatically across of structural equation modeling allows us to test and account for
not only states, but also across neighborhoods (Barnett, Carolan, multiple mediating mechanisms and child outcomes in a single,
Fitzgerald, & Squires, 2012; Phillips, Voran, Kisker, Howes, & cohesive model while also addressing methodological issues of tra-
Whitebook, 1994). For example, a Head Start teacher in the Bronx ditional multi-level modeling (Preacher, Zyphur, & Zhang, 2010).
makes an average of $17,041 per year, whereas a Head Start teacher Finally, our inclusion of pre-test measures of our child outcomes as
a few miles away in Manhattan makes an average of $38,152 per covariates in this model helps us to account for unobserved time-
year (TeachersSalary.net, n.d.). This large disparity likely makes invariant characteristics that may introduce bias to observational
it difficult to attract the most highly qualified and experienced estimates.
teachers to classrooms serving economically disadvantaged popu-
lations, leading to lower classroom quality (Phillips et al., 1994). The
Method
“flight” of talented teachers to teach older children in public school
systems where they are paid on a (higher) public school salary scale
Sample
may be even more apparent in poorer neighborhoods than better-
off neighborhoods. Finally, like all families living in a high-poverty
The analytic sample for the present study consists of 1904 Head
context, the teachers and staff of Head Start classrooms in economi-
Start participants from the treatment group of the national Head
cally disadvantaged neighborhoods are also subject to stress related
Start Impact Study. These children attended Head Start in a total of
to living in or commuting to a high-poverty (and often high-crime,
993 classrooms within 335 census tracts, across 22 states. Partici-
low-resourced) setting. Such stress may lead to lower relational
pants ranged from two through five years old upon entry into Head
quality in their classrooms by impairing their ability to provide
Start, with the average child being just over 3.5 years old. The sam-
a warm, supportive, and well-structured environment (Friedman-
ple consists of roughly equal numbers of boys and girls (49% boys),
Krauss, Raver, Morris, & Jones, 2014; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009).
and is ethnically diverse with approximately 37% Hispanic chil-
dren, 34% black children, 27% non-Hispanic white children, 2% Asian
The present study
children, and 1% Native American children. The average income-
to-needs ratio (created using 2002 U.S. Census poverty thresholds
The present study seeks to understand the relationships
based on income and family size) was 0.86 (SD = 0.57), which as
between Head Start neighborhood economic disadvantage, Head
expected given Head Start eligibility criteria places the majority
Start classroom structural and relational quality, and Head Start
of the sample below the federal poverty line of 1.00. In addition,
enrollees’ cognitive (i.e., early literacy and math) and social-
approximately 37% of mothers of sample children did not graduate
emotional (i.e., approaches to learning and behavior problems)
from high school, 34% achieved a high school degree or equivalent,
development over the course of one preschool year. This study
26% received some post-secondary training, and 4% had a bachelor’s
tests the hypothesis that three dimensions of Head Start class-
degree or higher (see Table 1 for additional descriptive statistics).
room quality may serve as partial mediators of the relationships
between neighborhood disadvantage and low-income children’s
development outcomes. In particular, the associations between Procedure
neighborhood poverty and classroom structural quality are hypoth-
esized to be especially important for children’s cognitive growth, Recruitment and random assignment
whereas the associations between neighborhood poverty and rela- The Head Start Impact Study (HSIS) was a nationally represen-
tional quality—represented in this study by separate measures of tative, randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of Head
positive and negative teacher–child interactions—may be more Start funded by the Department of Health and Human Services.
important for dimensions of children’s social-emotional devel- Children who applied to one of 378 Head Start centers under
opment. Understanding these relationships can inform current 84 grantees that had been sampled to be representative of Head
policy efforts aimed at improving the quality of preschools serv- Start nationally were eligible to participate in HSIS. Random samp-
ing low-income children as a mechanism for promoting healthy ling of children who applied to these Head Start centers was
child development. used to determine which children would participate in HSIS. In
This study addresses several critical gaps in the existing total, 4440 children who were first time applicants to Head Start
literature on neighborhoods, preschool quality, and child develop- were randomly assigned off waitlists to either receive an invita-
ment. First, we evaluate the well-known but infrequently tested tion to participate in Head Start services or to be in the control
hypothesis that characteristics of the institutions embedded in group. A total of 2644 children were randomized to receive Head
local communities serve as critical mechanisms for the influence Start services (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
of broader neighborhood characteristics on specific child out- Administration for Children and Families, 2010a), of which 1904
comes. Second, we draw from a strong body of literature to test are included in the present set of analyses. The remaining 740
three specific aspects of Head Start classroom quality—structural, children were excluded from analyses because they did not take
positive teacher–child interactions, and negative teacher–child up treatment (i.e., did not attend a Head Start center) or were
interactions—as being differentially important for various dimen- missing data on geographical location or spring outcome scores.
sions of low-income children’s development. Third, we draw from On average, these 740 excluded children were significantly older,
past research showing the particular importance of neighborhood t(2321) = 2.72, p < .01, and wealthier (based on income-to-needs
and classroom processes for low-income children’s development scores), t(2018) = 2.22, p < .05, showed significantly higher base-
and focus explicitly on a sample of children attending Head Start. line PPVT scores, t(2112) = 2.95, p < .01, and behavior problems,
This study brings several empirical innovations to these questions, t(2178) = 1.93, p < .10, and were situated in classrooms with signifi-
as well. Our use of the nationally-representative Head Start Impact cantly lower material and spatial quality, t(1937) = 4.74, p < .01. No
Study (from which we use data on 993 Head Start classrooms significant differences were found between included and excluded
located in 335 unique census tract neighborhoods across 22 states) children on gender, race/ethnicity, maternal education, baseline
provides both substantial variation in the depth of neighborhood math scores, baseline approaches to learning, positive and negative
 D.C. McCoy et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 32 (2015) 150–159 153

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of analytic variables.

N % Mean SD Min Max

Individual Covariates
Boys 1802 48
Black 1799 37
Hispanic 1783 34
Income-to-needs 1619 0.86 0.57 0.00 7.46
Mother less than high school education 1792 37
Age 1813 3.57 0.59 2.00 5.00
Individual Fall Outcome Scores
Fall PPVT 1873 245.79 42.36 133.33 378.93
Fall WJIII Applied Problems 1357 376.95 27.36 318.00 432.00
Fall Approaches to Learning 1839 12.29 1.76 3.00 14.00
Fall Total Behavior Problems 1839 6.01 3.60 0.00 21.00
Individual Spring Outcomes Scores
Spring PPVT 1904 272.52 38.52 163.19 401.42
Spring WJIII Applied Problems 1890 385.88 27.25 318.00 436.00
Spring Approaches to Learning 1839 12.46 1.74 4.00 14.00
Spring Total Behavior Problems 1839 5.75 3.64 0.00 22.00
Classroom Quality
Materials and Space for Learning 922 0.66 0.16 0.05 1.00
Positive Teacher–Child Interactions 922 0.76 0.18 0.10 1.00
Negative Teacher–Child Interactions 920 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.78
Neighborhoods
% Families in poverty 304 23.56 14.74 2.05 78.61

teacher–student interactions in the classroom, or neighborhood Measures

poverty.
Child outcomes
Children’s outcomes included measures of cognitive and social-
Data collection emotional functioning. Children’s cognitive outcomes were captured
Data collection began in the fall of 2002 when the children using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT; Dunn, Dunn,
entered Head Start for the first time and continued throughout the & Dunn, 1997), a measure of receptive vocabulary, and the
school year. During the fall of 2002 and spring of 2003, trained Woodcock-Johnson Applied Problems test (WJAP; Woodcock,
data collectors visited the children at school and administered the McGrew, & Mather, 2001), a measure of early math skills. In the
cognitive outcome tests. During the spring, data collectors also PPVT, the child looks at four pictures and is instructed to point to
completed direct assessments of classroom quality. Parents com- the picture that best matched the word spoken by the assessor.
pleted questionnaires about their child and their family during Item response theory (IRT) was used to develop a shorter version
the fall of 2002 and the spring of 2003. Parents also rated their of the PPVT that was used in HSIS, and scores were rescaled to have
children’s behavior problems and approaches to learning at these a mean of 250 and a standard deviation of 50 in the base year. In
two time points (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the WJAP, the assessor presents the child with a problem orally and
Administration for Children and Families, 2010a). pictorially that requires the child to count or perform simple cal-
Prior to random assignment, parents received information about culation in order to solve (U.S. Department of Health and Human
the HSIS, including procedures, potential benefits, and study incen- Services, Administration for Children and Families, 2010a, 2010b).
tives. Following random assignment, study personnel met with WJAP scores represent W-ability scores, which were obtained using
parents in groups and individually to further explain the study. IRT based on a Rausch model.
Parents were asked to provide informed consent for the duration Children’s social-emotional functioning was captured using two
of the study, which included allowing their child to participate parent-reported measures of children’s approaches to learning
and be assessed, and permitting the researchers to contact the and behavior problems. Children’s approaches to learning were
child’s teacher (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, assessed using an adapted tool from the Head Start Family and
Administration for Children and Families, 2010b). Parents and Head Child Experiences Survey (FACES) study. The scale included seven
Start teachers received small cash incentives for their participation items rated on a scale of 0 (not true) to 2 (very true), and cap-
in the study (i.e. completion of interviews and questionnaires). Cen- tured children’s curiosity, imagination, openness to new tasks and
ter directors received a cash incentive for classroom observations challenges, and positive attitude toward learning. Items included
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for “Makes friends easily” and “Likes to try new things.” Items were
Children and Families, 2010b). summed to create the approaches to learning scale. Higher scores
reflect more positive approaches to learning. The same scale was
used in the fall and the spring. Although internal consistency for the
Geocoding approaches to learning scale was low (Cronbach’s alpha = .60 in the
In addition to the use of publicly available HSIS data, the present fall and .64 in the spring), scores on the scale were comparable to
study utilized an additional set of restricted information that was those found in previous studies and were significantly related with
provided to the Secondary Analysis of Variation in Impacts Center other measures of children’s social development (U.S. Department
as part of a broader agreement with the Administration for Children of Health & Human Services, 2010b).
and Families. In particular, random assignment center geocodes Children’s behavior problems were captured using a parent-
(i.e., latitude and longitude) were provided for use. Geocodes for reported scale that was adapted from the FACES study and original
each random assignment center were coded and linked to sur- work conducted by Rutter, Achenbach, Zill and Peterson, and others
rounding census tracts using ArcGIS software (Version 10.1; ESRI, (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
2011). for Children & Families, Administration on Children, Youth &
154 D.C. McCoy et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 32 (2015) 150–159

Table 2
Correlations among primary study variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Neighborhood Poverty –
2. Materials and Space for Learning −0.19** –
3. Positive Teacher–Child Interactions −0.12** 0.64** –
4. Negative Teacher–Child Interactions 0.17** −0.49** −0.54** –
5. Spring PPVT −0.24** 0.08* 0.07* −0.08* –
6. Spring WJ Applied Problems −0.17** 0.07* 0.06+ −0.08* 0.61** –
7. Spring Approaches to Learning −0.04 −0.08* −0.04 0.01 0.12** 0.11** −
8. Spring Total Behavior Problems −0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 −0.15** −0.17** −0.25**
+
p < .05.
*
p < .01.
**
p < .001.

Families, Commissioner’s Office of Research & Evaluation, 2001). interactions consists of 19 items from the ECERS-R and CIS such as
The scale included 14 items rated on the same 0 (not true) to 2 “Using language to develop reasoning skills” and “Speaks warmly
(very true) scale, and captured both internalizing and externalizing to the children.” Negative interactions included 9 items from the
problems such as children’s aggression, disobedience, hyperac- CIS such as “Speaks with irritation or hostility to the children”
tivity, inattention, withdrawal, and depression. Items included and “Doesn’t reprimand the children when they misbehave.”
“Is unhappy, sad, or depressed” and “Hits and fights with others.” To represent each quality dimension, ECERS-R and CIS scores
Items were summed to form the behavior problems scale, with were standardized to a 0–1 scale and averaged across the items
higher scores reflecting more behavior problems (Cronbach’s that loaded onto each factor. Greater quality is indicated by
alpha = .72 in the fall and .74 in the spring). The same scale was higher scores on structural quality and positive interactions, and
used in the fall and the spring. lower scores on negative interactions. Intercorrelations on the
three classroom quality dimensions ranged from -.49 to .64 (see
Table 2). For additional details on the development of these quality
Classroom quality dimensions, please see Connors et al. (2015).
Head Start classroom quality was measured using the Early
Childhood Environment Rating Scale, Revised Edition (ECERS-R;
Neighborhood economic disadvantage
Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998) and the Arnett Caregiver Interac-
Head Start neighborhood economic disadvantage was repre-
tion Scale (CIS; Arnett, 1989). The ECERS-R is an observational tool
sented by the percent of households within the random assignment
used to measure overall classroom quality in center-based early
center’s Census tract that fell below the federal poverty line in the
childhood programs. Trained data collectors visited each classroom
year 2000 (two years prior to data collection). These data were
once during the spring of the school year and rated classrooms on
taken directly from the U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Census tracts
37 items across six domains: adequacy of space and furnishing, per-
were chosen over alternative neighborhood definitions (e.g., block
sonal care routines, language and reasoning, range of activities that
groups, zip codes) because of their prevalence in past seminal work
are used and available, interactions, and program structure. The
in the neighborhood literature, their correspondence with natu-
items and subscales assess the quality of the classroom space, mate-
ral boundaries that demarcate neighborhoods (e.g., highways, train
rials, and experiences including language interactions between
tracks), and their similarity with residents’ perceptions of the size
teachers and children. Each item was rated on seven point Likert
of their lived neighborhood (Coulton, Korbin, Chan, & Su, 2001).
scale using the following anchor points: inadequate (1), minimal
(3), good (5), and excellent (7). The CIS was completed by the same
trained data collector at the same time as the ECERS-R. The CIS Covariates
is a direct observation measure that is used to assess the quality A set of child- and family-level covariates was also included in
of interactions between the lead teacher and children. Twenty- analyses, including child gender, child age, child race (an indicator
six items were rated on a four point Likert scale from “Not at all variable for children who were Hispanic and an indicator for chil-
true” (1) to “Very much true” (4) and assess quality across four dren who were black), maternal education (an indicator for less
domains: greater teacher sensitivity, responsiveness, encourage- than high school education), and families’ income-to-needs ratio
ment of children’s independence, and lower levels of punitiveness (as calculated based on income and family size using the 2002
and detachment. Items were reverse coded when necessary so that poverty thresholds from the U.S. Census). These characteristics
higher scores reflect higher quality. were reported by the primary caregiver in the fall.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (each using a
randomly split half of the sample) was used to combine items Analytic plan
from both the ECERS-R and CIS to provide overall representations
of structural and relational quality (Connors, Friedman-Krauss, To achieve the goals of the present study, we use a multi-level
Morris, & Jones, 2015). Three factors emerged from this process, structural equation modeling (MSEM) framework to test the direct
which were labeled materials and space for learning (alpha = 0.93), and indirect relationships between study variables of interest while
positive teacher–child interactions (alpha = 0.93), and nega- accounting for children’s nesting within classrooms. Specifically,
tive teacher–child interactions (alpha = 0.85). Model fit for this we included neighborhood economic disadvantage as a predic-
three-factor solution was adequate (RMSEA = 0.063; CFI = 0.817; tor, Head Start classroom structural quality, positive teacher–child
SRMR = 0.067). Materials and space for learning, which captures interactions, and negative teacher–child interactions as media-
classrooms’ structural quality, includes 26 items from the ECERS-R tors, and children’s spring early literacy skills, early math skills,
such as, “Furniture for routine care, play, and learning,” “Space approaches to learning, and behavior problems as outcomes in a
for gross motor play,” and “Books and pictures.” Both positive single model. In predicting all child outcomes, we also include a set
teacher–child interactions and negative teacher–child interactions of covariates (child age, child gender, child race, maternal educa-
capture classrooms’ relational quality. Positive teacher–child tion, and family income-to-needs ratios), as well as each outcome’s
 D.C. McCoy et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 32 (2015) 150–159 155

pre-test score from fall of the Head Start year. The inclusion of pre-
test outcome scores (known as a “residualized change” approach;
Duncan & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2003) pro-
vides a more conservative estimation of the relationship between
the study variables, as it helps to account for time invariant, unob-
served characteristics (e.g., genetics, stable household traits) that
may underlie associations between study variables. The residual-
ized change approach also allows for the interpretation of outcome
scores as “gains” in children’s cognitive and social-emotional abil-
ities across the Head Start year.
The final model was developed using procedures adapted from
Preacher et al. (2010), and allows for the inclusion of multiple medi-
ators and outcomes in a single model while also attempting to take
into account the nested nature of the data. In this study, individ-
ual children were nested within Head Start classrooms using the
TYPE = COMPLEX command in Mplus (version 7; Muthén & Muthén,
2012). Although in reality classrooms were also nested within Head
Start centers, and centers within grantees, we did not use a three-
Fig. 1. Histogram of neighborhood poverty in study sample.
or four-level model due to a number of limitations and uncertain-
ties of this approach within a SEM framework (Preacher, Zhang,
& Zyphur, 2011) and a lack of model convergence. This choice was
Head Start classroom quality. In particular, an average of 23.56%
justified by classrooms’ relatively low levels of nesting in this study
of resident families in the 304 census tract neighborhoods sur-
(an average of 2.96 classrooms per center). We did, however, test
rounding the Head Start centers in this study fell below the poverty
the robustness of our findings to two alternative nesting strate-
line, with a range 2.05–78.61% (see Fig. 1 for full distribution).
gies (i.e., nesting children in centers instead of in classrooms and
Average levels of structural quality and positive teacher–child
randomly selecting one classroom per center to eliminate class-
interactions were moderate to high at 0.66 (range = 0.05–1.00) and
rooms’ nesting in center), both of which revealed coefficients that
0.76 (range = 0.10–1.00), respectively, on a scale of 0–1. Conversely,
were highly similar in direction and magnitude to the results of the
average levels of negative teacher–child interactions were quite
chosen model.
low at 0.05, though classrooms ranged from scores of 0.00–0.78,
Our final model included correlations between the residuals of
on a scale of 0–1. Bivariate correlations between study variables
each classroom quality mediator and each child outcome. In addi-
revealed small to moderate correlations between child outcomes in
tion to testing the direct paths between each study variable, we also
the spring, with the strongest correlation emerging between early
tested the indirect relationships between neighborhood economic
math and literacy skills. Moderate correlations were also observed
disadvantage and children’s outcomes via each of the classroom
between the three classroom climate variables (see Table 2).
quality mediators using Preacher and colleagues’ (2010) strategy. In
Students also saw a range of improvements in outcomes across
particular, we used the product of the estimates of the a (predictor
the Head Start year. In particular, relatively large average gains
to mediator) and b (mediator to outcome) pathways to determine
were seen for early literacy (26.73 points, or 0.66 SDs) and mod-
each indirect pathway. Several criteria were used to gauge ade-
erate gains for applied problems (8.93 points, or 0.33 SDs) from Fall
quate model fit: (a) a root mean square error of approximation
to Spring. Children also showed very slight average improvements
(RMSEA) value of less than 0.08 (with <0.06 considered ideal); (b) a
in approaches to learning (0.17 points, or 0.10 SDs) and very small
comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.90 or above (with >0.95 considered
reductions in behavior problems (0.26 points, or 0.07 SDs) across
ideal); and (c) a standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of
the Head Start year.
less than 0.09 (with <0.08 considered ideal; Hatcher, 1994; Hu &
Bentler, 1999).
A full information maximum likelihood (FIML) approach was Results of multilevel structural equation modeling
used to account for missing data (including 3.15% of cases for neigh-
borhood poverty, an average of 8.80% of cases across classroom Results of MSEM analyses revealed adequate overall model
quality, 9.30% of cases across child outcome scores in Fall, and 5.64% fit. In particular, the RMSEA value was 0.063, the CFI value
of cases across covariates). FIML takes into account information was 0.932, and the SRMR was 0.049. Within this model, sev-
from all non-missing data to provide estimates of model param- eral significant direct pathways were found (see Fig. 2). First,
eters without imputation. Finally, several variables were re-scaled neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was significantly and
using linear transformation for analyses to allow for appropriate negatively predictive of gains (i.e., spring outcome scores net of
model convergence and to make coefficients more interpretable. fall outcome scores) in children’s early literacy, b = −0.210 (0.050),
In particular, individual children’s raw early cognitive skills on the p < .01, and early math skills, b = −0.136 (0.040), p < .01, but not
PPVT and WJAP were divided by 100, raw scores on the nega- directly related to children’s approaches to learning or behavior
tive interactions classroom quality variable were multiplied by 10, problems. Second, neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was
and neighborhood poverty scores were divided by 100 to repre- significantly related to all three dimensions of classroom qual-
sent proportions (i.e., a theoretical range from 0 to 1) rather than ity, with higher poverty associated with lower structural quality,
percentages (i.e., a theoretical range from 0 to 100). b = −0.206 (0.042), p < .01, higher levels of negative teacher–child
interactions, b = 1.138 (0.312), p < .01, and lower levels of positive
Results teacher–child interactions, b = −0.136 (0.046), p < .01. Third, struc-
tural quality and negative teacher–child interactions were related
Descriptive and bivariate results to different child outcomes. In particular, higher levels of negative
teacher–child interactions predicted higher increases in behavior
Results of descriptive analyses revealed a great deal of het- problems, b = 0.204 (0.095), p < .05, and higher levels of structural
erogeneity in the present sample for neighborhood poverty and quality predicted lower gains in approaches to learning, b = −1.134
156 D.C. McCoy et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 32 (2015) 150–159

Fig. 2. Results of SEM model predicting spring outcome scores from Head Start neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and classroom quality. Notes: Model controls for
fall outcome scores, child gender, child race, child age, maternal education, and family income-to-needs. Residual variances between classroom quality and between child
outcomes correlated but not shown. All standard errors adjusted to account for children’s nesting within classrooms.

(0.453), p < .01. No other relationships between classroom quality the socioeconomic heterogeneity of Head Start neighborhoods
and gains in child outcomes were found. serves as an important reminder of the dispersion of low-income
Results of tests for indirect pathways revealed significant families in a diversity of communities across the United States,
indirect relationships between neighborhood socioeconomic dis- and provides additional justification for the need to measure and
advantage and gains in child behavior problems via negative explore the effects of poverty at multiple ecological levels.
teacher–child interactions, b = 0.232 (0.107), p < .05, and between Results of this study revealed direct relationships between
socioeconomic disadvantage and approaches to learning via struc- neighborhoods’ levels of socioeconomic disadvantage and all three
tural quality, b = 0.234 (0.102), p < .05. No other indirect pathways dimensions of Head Start classroom quality, where a 10 percent
were found. increase in neighborhood poverty was related to a 0.13 standard
deviation decrease in the availability of structural resources for
Discussion learning, a 0.11 standard deviation increase in the levels of emo-
tionally negative interactions between children and teachers, and
The aim of the present study was to empirically evaluate a 0.08 standard deviation decrease in levels of emotionally pos-
the longstanding theory that neighborhood economic disadvan- itive, supportive teacher–child relationships. Although variation
tage has important, indirect influences on children’s cognitive in Head Start quality is well documented (Zill & Resnick, 2006;
and social-emotional growth through its effects on the structural Zill et al., 2003), these results provide new evidence to suggest
and relational qualities of neighborhood-embedded institutions. that community characteristics may be linked to this inequality
Although recent work has found that childcare quality may par- in implementation. Future research is needed to understand how
tially explain the relationships between neighborhood economic neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage translates into lower
advantage and later achievement (Dupéré et al., 2010), this is the classroom quality (e.g., through reduced availability of funding,
first study to our knowledge to examine this indirect association well-trained teachers, or professional development opportunities
as it pertains to Head Start classroom quality and to children’s in low-income contexts), as well as the best ways to ensure equal
social-emotional functioning. In particular, we evaluated the qual- provision of high-quality learning opportunities for all low-income
ity of materials and space, positive teacher–child interactions, children, regardless of community conditions.
and negative teacher–child interactions in Head Start classrooms Results of indirect pathways revealed that classrooms’ struc-
as mechanisms for explaining the overall relationship between tural quality may explain part of the relationship between
neighborhood poverty and child outcomes within the nation- neighborhood poverty and children’s social-emotional functioning.
ally representative Head Start Impact Study. Results of this study Surprisingly, however, these results showed that lower struc-
revealed significant indirect relationships between neighborhood tural quality (i.e., material and spatial resources such as furniture,
economic disadvantage and children’s approaches to learning via toys, equipment, books, and pictures in the classroom) is asso-
the quality of classroom materials and space, as well as behavior ciated with higher levels of students’ positive approaches to
problems via negative teacher–child interactions. Although there learning, net of children’s baseline approaches to learning, other
was a direct relationship between higher levels of neighborhood child- and family-level covariates, and other quality indicators.
poverty and children’s cognitive outcomes (lower literacy and math Although this finding is somewhat counterintuitive, past research
growth), this relationship was not mediated by Head Start class- has shown that children’s adoption of particular learning strategies
room quality. is highly dependent on their teachers and classroom environ-
Results of descriptive analyses showed a high degree of socioe- ment (Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999). In the context of
conomic diversity in the neighborhoods in which Head Start centers resource-poor classroom environments, it is possible that teachers
are located. Although Head Start is explicitly designed to serve low- become more creative in developing curricula that support chil-
income children, approximately half of neighborhoods surrounding dren’s adaptability, interests in learning, creativity, and problem
the centers in the present nationally representative sample showed solving independent of available materials, whereas teachers in
poverty rates of less than 25 percent. The relatively low average resource-rich contexts may rely on pre-existing curricula that do
rates of poverty seen in these neighborhoods are reflective, in not promote such flexibility. As a result, children in material-poor
part, of the significant changes seen in low-income communities contexts receiving similar levels of relational quality may actually
since the inception of Head Start in the 1960s. More generally, see improvements in their openness to new things, imagination,
 D.C. McCoy et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 32 (2015) 150–159 157

and flexibility. In addition to work that replicates these find- build a broader knowledge base around the direction of these rela-
ings using more reliable measures of these skills, further research tionships.
is needed to understand the origins of children’s approaches to Second, a major limitation of the present study is that it does
learning, how they relate specifically to different instructional not explicitly include information on classrooms’ instructional
approaches, as well as how teachers can best promote their devel- quality or use of specific curricula. As mentioned previously, it
opment regardless of physical resources. is possible that different instructional practices relating to the
In addition, a significant mediating pathway between neigh- broader socioeconomic context could confer different advantages
borhood poverty and developmental outcomes for children was and disadvantages for children’s cognitive, social-emotional, and
observed via levels of negative—but not positive—teacher–child behavioral development. Furthermore, although the present study
interactions in the classroom, such that higher levels of negativ- focuses on the quality of the early educational environments in
ity were associated with greater increases in behavior problems which three- and four-year-old children spend a great amount of
over the year. This finding is in line with a large body of past their time, it is likely that additional family and community char-
research showing that caregivers’ harsh and critical interactions acteristics affected by neighborhood poverty (e.g., neighborhood
with their children and their provision of unsupportive or punitive resource availability, family emotional climate) also impact chil-
environments may undermine children’s adaptive behavioral and dren’s developmental outcomes in this age range. Finally, although
emotional development (Bates, Maslin, & Frankel, 1985). Previous we use a MSEM approach that nests children in classrooms, we
work suggests that students with higher levels of baseline behavior were unable to fully account for the ways that higher-order char-
problems may evoke greater negative reactions from their tea- acteristics of centers or Head Start grantees might influence the
chers than peers with minimal behavior disturbances (Henricsson structure and interactions taking place within classrooms. Future
& Rydell, 2004). Additional research is needed in order to bet- research using methodologically advanced models that better
ter understand the specific individual and dyadic/interactional account for multiple layers of nesting is needed to explore how
qualities that contribute to children’s behavioral difficulties, the additional facets of the classroom, Head Start center, grantee,
temporality of these relationships, as well as the most effective family, and neighborhood may further explain the relationship
ways to reduce emotionally negative interactions in the classroom. between neighborhood poverty and child development.
Unlike in past research showing small associations (effect sizes Third, although our use of the Head Start Impact Study allowed
up to 0.20) between quality and children’s cognitive develop- us to include a large number of children from Head Start class-
ment using residualized change approaches (Burchinal et al., 2008; rooms across many contexts, we cannot fully generalize these
Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001), neither relational nor structural findings to the population of Head Start children in the United
dimensions of quality were related to children’s gains in literacy States due to several reasons, including our focus exclusively on
or math in the present analyses. We did, however, find a direct those who were both offered and accepted the opportunity to
relationship between neighborhood poverty and reduced gains in attend Head Start, non-random missing data, study attrition, and
early literacy and math scores. These results could suggest either our inability to use the sampling weights in our analyses. Simi-
that (1) the processes through which neighborhood characteris- larly, because geocodes were only provided for Head Start center
tics are associated with cognitive outcomes are outside of the Head addresses, we are unable to draw conclusions about whether and
Start classroom context (e.g., through changes in family function- how children’s residential neighborhoods may predict similar or
ing, direct impacts on biological functioning or stress responses, different gains in their outcomes over time. As children grow and
etc.), or (2) that the present study did not appropriately capture develop, they spend increasing amounts of time in both their res-
the dimensions of classroom quality that may serve as mediators idential and school neighborhoods, as well as traveling between
of these specific processes. In particular, past research has found these contexts. Understanding how these contexts independently
instructional quality—a dimension not explicitly captured in this and additively contribute to children’s wellbeing is a critical area
study—to be a key predictor of children’s early literacy and math of needed research. Finally, it is important to note that we were
skills (Mashburn et al., 2008; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001). Future only able to access neighborhood poverty information for children’s
research is needed that includes more comprehensive dimensions Head Start center of random assignment, and classroom quality
of classroom processes, as well as additional contextual and indi- information for the centers they actually attended, with no way of
vidual mechanisms for explaining this relationship. knowing whether these centers were the same. There is a small but
non-negligible chance that children attended a Head Start center
other than the one to which they were randomly assigned, which
Limitations and future directions may have introduce bias to our estimates, but is not something we
can determine from our data.
Although this study has numerous strengths—including its
measures of multiple dimensions of Head Start structural and rela- Conclusions
tional quality, large sample across the United States, and multiple
measures of child outcomes—it is limited in several important The present study provides important evidence to suggest
ways. First, although our model included a core set of family- that neighborhood economic disadvantage is critical for shaping
level covariates and a statistically conservative residualized change several dimensions of low-income children’s cognitive and social-
approach, we are unable to establish causality of the relationships emotional development, as well as the structural and relational
between neighborhood poverty, classroom quality, and children’s quality of classrooms in Head Start centers embedded within them.
outcomes. Given the lack of children’s random assignment to neigh- Importantly, the ways that neighborhoods and Head Start centers
borhood and classroom contexts, it is possible that omitted variable are associated with each other and together are associated with
bias lead to an overestimate of the strength of the relationships children’s developmental outcomes is highly complex. Although
between study variables, or, as mentioned above, that some of the the present data suggest that the impact of neighborhood poverty
associations that were identified in this study were bidirectional on children’s cognitive development may operate in ways other
(rather than unidirectional) in nature. This issue is of particular con- than through the Head Start classroom, classroom structural and
cern given that classroom quality was measured in the spring only, negative relational quality appear to be important mediating mech-
and may have been affected by children’s skills over time. Addi- anisms for explaining neighborhood poverty’s relationship with
tional quasi-experimental and experimental research is needed to approaches to learning and behavior problems, respectively. As
158 D.C. McCoy et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 32 (2015) 150–159

such, enhancing the classroom environment through improved Child Development, 74(5), 1454–1475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.
professional development and resource allocation may be one 00617
Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L. L., & Dunn, D. M. (1997). Peabody picture and vocabulary test,
method of improving the social-emotional development of children third edition (PPVT). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
from low-income communities. Dupéré, V., Leventhal, T., Crosnoe, R., & Dion, E. (2010). Understanding the positive
Beyond the classroom, these data suggest that future interven- role of neighborhood socioeconomic advantage in achievement: The contribu-
tion of the home, child care, and school environments. Developmental Psychology,
tions and policies aimed at improving children’s developmental 46(5), 1227–1244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020211
outcomes should also take into account the broader neighborhood ESRI. (2011). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems
context. This study provides new evidence that Head Start class- Research Institute.
Friedman-Krauss, A. H., Raver, C. C., Morris, P., & Jones, S. (2014). The role of
room quality varies significantly based on location in high versus
classroom-level child behavior problems in predicting preschool teacher stress
low poverty neighborhoods. Given that Head Start is designed to and classroom emotional climate. Early Education and Development, 25, 530–552.
be a “great equalizer” in reducing educational inequities associated http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.817030
Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale
with poverty, these findings reinforce the need for additional efforts
(Revised Edition). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
to improve equity in the quality of services provided to young chil- Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis
dren from different contexts. Future research is also needed in order and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
to better understand the specific sources of this inequality (e.g., Henricsson, L., & Rydell, A. M. (2004). Elementary school children with behavior
problems: Teacher–child relations and self-perception: A prospective study.
differential funding practices, teacher retention, teacher qualifica- Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(2), 111–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2004.
tions), as well as methods for reducing neighborhood poverty and 0012
improving classroom quality for all children. Howes, C., Phillips, D. A., & Whitebook, M. (1992). Thresholds of quality: Implica-
tions for the social development of children in center-based child care. Child
Development, 63(2), 449–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131491
Acknowledgments Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-
ture analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. E. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant neighborhood. In L. Lynn, & M. G. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner-City Poverty in the
United States. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
R305B080019 to New York University, as well by the Eunice Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher
Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Devel- social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom out-
opment of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number comes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3102/0034654308325693
F32HD078034. The opinions expressed are those of the authors Katz, L. F., Kling, J. R., & Liebman, J. B. (2001). Moving to opportunity in Boston: Early
and do not represent views of the Institute, the U.S. Department results of a randomized mobility experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics,
of Education, or the National Institutes of Health. 116(2), 607–654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/00335530151144113
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects
The Secondary Analysis of Variation in Impacts of Head Start
of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bul-
Center (SAVI) is a collaboration between researchers at Harvard letin, 126, 309–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.309
University, New York University, and MDRC with support from Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Moving to opportunity: An experimen-
cooperative agreement #90YR0049/02 with the Administration for tal study of neighborhood effects on mental health. American Journal of Public
Health, 93(9), 1576–1582. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1576
Children and Families (ACF) of the U.S. Department of Health and Ludwig, J., & Miller, D. L. (2007). Does Head Start improve children’s life chances?
Human Services. Evidence from a regression discontinuity design. Quarterly Journal of Economics,
12, 159–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.1.159
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D.,
References et al. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s
development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79(3),
Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day-care centers: Does training matter? Journal of 732–749. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01154.x
Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 541–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0193- McCartney, K., Burchinal, M., Clarke-Stewart, A., Bub, K. L., Owen, M. T., Belsky, J.,
3973(89)90026-9 et al. (2010). Testing a series of causal propositions relating time in child care to
Barnett, W. S., Carolan, M. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Squires, J. H. (2012). The state of preschool children’s externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 1–17. http://
2012: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute of Early dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017886
Education Research. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus version 7. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén &
Bates, J. E., Maslin, C. A., & Frankel, K. A. (1985). Attachment security, mother–child Muthén.
interaction, and temperament as predictors of behavior-problem ratings at age Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M. L., Howes, C.,
three years. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, Kagan, S. L., et al. (2001). The relation of preschool child-care quality to chil-
167–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3333832 dren’s cognitive and social developmental trajectories through second grade.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov, P. K., & Sealand, N. (1993). Do neighborhoods Child Development, 72, 1534–1553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00364
influence child and adolescent development? American Journal of Sociology, 99, Phillips, D. A., Voran, M., Kisker, E., Howes, C., & Whitebook, M. (1994). Child care
353–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/230268 for children in poverty: Opportunity or inequity? Child Development, 65(2),
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G., & Aber, J. L. (Eds.). (1997). Neighborhood poverty. 1. 472–492. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131397
Context and consequences for children (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Sage. Pianta, R. C., Barnett, W. S., Burchinal, M., & Thornburg, K. R. (2009). The effects of
Burchinal, M., Howes, C., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., et al. (2008). preschool education: What we know, how public policy is or is not aligned with
Predicting child outcomes at the end of kindergarten from the quality of pre- the evidence base, and what we need to know. Psychological Science in the Public
kindergarten teacher–child interactions and instruction. Applied Development Interest, 10(2), 49–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100610381908
Science, 12(3), 140–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888690802199418 Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. (2011). Alternative methods for assessing
Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R., & Mashburn, A. (2010). Threshold analysis of mediation in multilevel data: The advantages of multilevel SEM. Structural
association between child care quality and child outcomes for low-income chil- Equation Modeling, 18(2), 161–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.
dren in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 557329
166–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.10.004 Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM frame-
Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Gordon, R. A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1997). Neigh- work for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233.
borhood and family influences on the intellectual and behavioral competence http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020141
of preschool and early school-age children. In J. Brooks-Gunn, J. G. Duncan, & J. Rosenbaum, J. E., Reynolds, L., & DeLuca, S. (2002). How do places matter? The
L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for children. New geography of opportunity, self-efficacy and a look inside the black box of
York: Russell Sage Foundation. residential mobility. Housing Studies, 17(1), 71–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
Connors, M. C., Friedman-Krauss, A. H., Morris, P. A., & Jones, S. (2015). From measure 02673030120105901
to construct: Refining early measures of early childhood classroom quality (in Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood
preparation). effect. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J., Chan, T., & Su, M. (2001). Mapping residents’ perceptions of Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing “neighborhood
neighborhood boundaries: A methodological note. American Journal of Commu- effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Soci-
nity Psychology, 29(2), 371–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010303419034 ology, 28, 443–478. http://dx.doi.org/10.11.46/annurev.soc.28.110601.141114
Duncan, G., & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2003). Modeling the Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL:
impacts of child care quality on children’s preschool cognitive development. University of Chicago Press.
 D.C. McCoy et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 32 (2015) 150–159 159

Shinn, M., & Toohey, S. M. (2003). Community contexts of human welfare. Annual Development, 75(1), 296–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.
Review of Psychology, 54(1), 427–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych. 00670.x
54.101601.145052 Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of
TeachersSalary.net. (n.d.). Head Start teacher salary information. Retrieved from achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
http://teacherssalary.net/1/1/salary/Head-Start-Teacher-Salary Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M., Gormley, W., Ludwig, J.,
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ et al. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence base on preschool education. Ann
approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development and New York: Foundation
37(1), 57–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1003548313194 for Child Development.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Census 2000. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census. Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Whittaker, J. V., & Lavelle, B. (2010). Toward the
gov/ identification of features of effective professional development for early childhood
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Fam- educators. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
ilies, Administration on Children, Youth & Families, & Commissioner’s Office of Zill, N., Resnick, G., Kim, K., McKey, R. H., Clark, C., Pai-Samant, S., et al. (2001).
Research & Evaluation. (2001). Head Start FACES: Longitudinal findings on program Head Start FACES: Longitudinal findings on program performance (Third progress
performance (Third progress report). Washington, DC. report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, & Administration for Children and Administration for Children and Families.
Families. (2010a). Head Start Impact Study (Final report). Washington, DC. Zill, N., Resnick, G., Kim, K., O’Donnell, K., Sorongon, A., McKey, R. H., et al. (2003).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, & Administration for Children and Head Start FACES 2000: A whole-child perspective on program performance (Fourth
Families. (2010b). Head Start Impact Study (Technical report). Washington, DC. progress report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and vices, Administration for Children and Families.
Families, Office of Head Start. (n.d.). Funding opportunities. Retrieved from Zill, N., & Resnick, G. (2006). Emergent literacy of low-income children in Head Start:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/funding Relationships with child and family characteristics, program factors, and class-
Votruba-Drzal, E., Levine Coley, R., & Chase-Lansdale, L. P. (2004). Child care and room quality. In D. K. Dickinson, & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy
low-income children’s development: Direct and moderated effects. Child research (Vol. II). New York: Guilford Publications.