Cited by 7Early Childhood Education and DevelopmentSchool Choice and PerformancePoverty, Education, and Child Welfare

Childcare and Children’s Development: Features of Effective Programs

Blanden, Jo, Rabe, Birgitta·2021·Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance

Abstract

Abstract Governments around the world are increasingly investing resources for young children, and universal provision of early childhood education and care (ECEC) has become widespread. Children’s development is affected by the investments they receive both within and outside the household. A simple theoretical framework predicts that the provision of public childcare will improve children’s development if it offers more stimulation than the care it replaces. Generally, carefully designed studies show that the provision of early childcare is beneficial, especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. This is in line with expectations that the alternative care experienced by children from less affluent, less educated, and immigrant backgrounds is likely to be of lower quality. Interestingly, however, studies show that the children who would benefit the most are least likely to receive care, providing a challenge for policy makers. Some programs, such as the $5-per-day childcare in Quebec, have negative effects and therefore may be of poor quality. However, comparing results across programs that vary in several dimensions makes it difficult to separate out the ingredients that are most important for success. Studies that focus on identifying the factors in ECEC that lead to the greatest benefit indicate that some standard measures such as staff qualifications are weakly linked to children’s outcomes, whereas larger staff–child ratios and researcher-measured process quality are beneficial. Spending more time in high-quality childcare from around age 3 has proved to be beneficial, whereas the effect of an increase in childcare for younger children is particularly sensitive to each program’s features and context.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.662

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evidence on the success of universal childcare programs is more mixed than for the early targeted programs.

    “Evidence on the success of universal childcare programs is more mixed than for the early targeted programs (Blanden and Rabe 2021), though most carefully designed studies show that the provision of early childcare is beneficial, especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Havnes and Mogstad 2015, Cornelissen et al. 2018, Felfe and Lalive 2018, Gormley and Gayer 2005).”

    From Educational Inequality* (2022) · cites this paper as Blanden and Rabe 2021

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blanden, J., & Rabe, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Surrey (GB)
  • University of Essex (GB)
Venue
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance
Published
2021-11-29
OpenAlex
W4200454981
Cited by
7
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance (publishedVersion)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Keywords
early childhood education and care, child care quality, child development, public childcare, disadvantaged children, employee qualification, process quality, child care subsidies, early childhood stimulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review