3. Children's use of non-parental care
Section summary
Non-parental care is a common experience for Australian children, with one-third of infants experiencing regular formal and/or informal child care and 95 per cent of 4 to 5 year olds spending significant amounts of time in centre-based child care or early education settings. Child care/early education predictors of broad based outcomes for infants and children, after adjusting for relevant child and family demographic characteristics, were:
- Physical outcomes were poorer for infants in large group care settings, likely due to increased exposure to contagious illnesses.
- Group care was unrelated to physical outcomes at 4 to 5 years of age.
- Learning outcomes were best for children in the most educationally oriented (that is, pre-Year 1) programs.
- Child and family characteristics, particularly those related to family socioeconomic status, were stronger predictors than child care of any infant and child outcomes.
3.1 Introduction
The experience of non-parental care and its impact on children's development has been a focus of much international research over the past 20 years. With the increased participation of mothers of young children in the workforce, more and more children are experiencing non-parental care in the first few years of life and the potential impact of this care has raised both important developmental and social policy questions. The results of research to date on non-parental care have revealed a range of positive and negative findings that highlight the importance of considering the specific context in which care is provided for understanding the nature of care and its effects on children. For example, regulations governing the delivery of care which have important effects on care quality, like the minimum number of staff required to care for children of different ages, vary considerably between countries and make it difficult to generalise findings across regulatory contexts (Love et al. 2003). Data on non-parental care were included as a focus of the LSAC study for this reason.
This section begins with an overview of the characteristics of care experienced by LSAC infants and 4 to 5 year-old children and a description of how this care varies with the range of family demographic factors described in Section 2. We look specifically at four characteristics of care: type of care arrangement, number of different regular care arrangements per week, amount of time in care per week, and age of first entry into care. We then present data on the relationship between children's experience of care and their developmental competence as assessed by the LSAC Outcome Index, using regression analyses that evaluate the contribution of care, independent of key child and family characteristics. For the purpose of this report, the term non-parental care is used to refer to the range of formal centre and home-based child care settings typically provided for infants and toddlers, as well as the various informal, unregulated arrangements that include, for example, care by grandparents, friends, and nannies, but exclude care by non-resident parents. During the preschool years, formal care also includes the range of prior-to-school programs (for example, preschools) that can include a focus on the teaching of early literacy and numeracy skills. A sizeable proportion of the LSAC children (16.5 per cent) were in a pre-Year 1 school setting (for example, kindergarten, transition) at the time of the Wave 1 data collection. (The proportion of children reported as attending pre-Year 1 programs in Harrison and Ungerer (2005) was smaller (13.5 per cent), since their analyses included only children attending full-time. Also, some children were later reclassified when information on program type from teachers as well as parents was considered). These children were included in all the analyses for two reasons. First, the distinction between pre-Year 1 and preschool programs is not always clear cut, since some children attend a pre-Year 1 program part-time, and some preschool programs have strong educational components. Second, the performance of children in pre-Year 1 programs, particularly in the learning domain, provides an important benchmark for evaluating the performance of children in other formal and informal care arrangements.
3.2 Findings
The non-parental care variables
Infant cohort
- Type of care arrangement: at the time of entering the study, about one-third (35 per cent) of the 5,107 LSAC infants were experiencing some form of regular non-parental care each week (see Table 8). For the majority of these infants (21 per cent) this involved care in unregulated, informal settings, typically with a grandparent. For the 11 per cent of infants in regulated, formal care settings, most (8 per cent) were cared for in long day care centres only, while the remainder were in family day care only or in a combination of either different formal, or formal and informal, arrangements.
- Number of arrangements: most infants in care had only a single non-parental care arrangement each week, although 8 per cent experienced two or more arrangements on a regular basis.
- Amount of time in care: while the majority of infants were spending less than 20 hours per week in care, infants in formal care settings were spending on average about twice as long in care as those in informal care settings only (median value 18 hours to nine hours, respectively; see Table 9). This suggests that parents who need more child care (due to longer working hours, for example) may choose to use formal care arrangements rather than relying on informal carers like grandparents.
- Age of first entry into care: about two-thirds of the infants in care had started their first care arrangement before they were 6 months of age (‹26 weeks), and 90 per cent were in care before 9 months of age.
Percentages of the infant cohort who were or were not in some form of non-parental care are presented in Table 10 according to child and family demographic characteristics. Fewer infants were in care if they were of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin, if their mothers had not completed high school, or if the main language spoken at home was a language other than English. In contrast, more infants were in care if they were from the most economically advantaged families, that is, families with the highest incomes, the highest SEIFA indices, the highest occupational class ratings, and those who were not financially stressed.
| Characteristic | n | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Time in non-parental care each week (%) | 5,106 | |
None |
65.1 | |
1–20 hours |
24.1 | |
More than 20 hours |
10.8 | |
| Number of hours in non-parental care each week—child is in care (median, [p25, p75]) | 1,820 | 15 [6, 24] |
| Number of regular non-parental care arrangements each week (%) | 5,106 | |
None |
65.0 | |
One |
26.8 | |
Two or more |
8.1 | |
| Age of entry into non-parental care (%) | 1,939 | |
0–13 weeks |
34.0 | |
14–26 weeks |
33.7 | |
27–39 weeks |
22.8 | |
40 weeks or older |
9.5 | |
| Age of entry into non-parental care in weeks—child is in care (median, [p25, p75]) | 1,939 | 22 [13, 30] |
| Type of non-parental care arrangements experienced by child each week (%) | 5,107 | |
Formal care only |
10.6 | |
Long day care only |
7.8 | |
Family day care only |
2.6 | |
Long day care plus family day care |
0.3 | |
Informal care only |
20.8 | |
Grandparent only/grandparent and other informal care |
15.4 | |
Other informal (no grandparent care) |
5.4 | |
Mixed formal and informal care |
3.5 | |
Formal care plus grandparent care |
2.5 | |
Formal care plus other informal care |
1.0 | |
No care arrangements |
65.1 |
| Care arrangement | Hours spent in care: median [p25, p75] |
|---|---|
| Formal care only | 18 [10, 28] |
| Long day care only | 18 [9, 28] |
| Family day care only | 19 [12, 29.5] |
| Long day care plus family day care | 20 [16, 32] |
| Informal care only | 9 [4, 20] |
| Grandparent only/grandparent and other informal care | 9 [5, 18] |
| Other informal (no grandparent care) | 8 [3, 20] |
| Mixed formal and informal care | 23 [16, 32] |
| Formal care plus grandparent care | 24 [17, 30] |
| Formal care plus other informal care | 22 [15, 34] |
| No care arrangements | 0 [0, 0] |
| Care category(a) | Formal care arrangements | Informal care arrangements | Mixed formal and informal care arrangements | No care arrangements |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||||
Male |
10.6 | 21.0 | 3.4 | 64.9 |
Female |
10.7 | 20.5 | 3.6 | 65.3 |
| Study child—Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander | ||||
No |
10.8 | 21.0 | 3.6 | 64.7 |
Yes |
8.2 | 15.8 | 2.3 | 73.8 |
| Maternal education | ||||
Did not complete high school |
9.0 | 16.7 | 2.1 | 72.2 |
Completed high school |
9.8 | 21.0 | 4.1 | 65.2 |
Tertiary |
13.8 | 26.2 | 4.8 | 55.2 |
| Family type | ||||
One parent |
10.2 | 17.9 | 3.8 | 68.1 |
Two parents |
10.7 | 21.1 | 3.5 | 64.7 |
| Main language spoken at home | ||||
English |
11.4 | 20.5 | 3.9 | 64.2 |
Not English |
5.6 | 22.2 | 0.9 | 71.3 |
| Combined parental income quintile | ||||
Lowest |
6.5 | 17.1 | 1.5 | 74.8 |
2nd |
8.3 | 15.0 | 2.0 | 74.7 |
3rd |
7.4 | 18.8 | 3.0 | 70.8 |
4th |
12.6 | 21.7 | 4.3 | 61.4 |
Highest |
15.7 | 27.4 | 5.5 | 51.4 |
| Financially stressed household | ||||
No |
10.4 | 21.3 | 3.6 | 64.7 |
Yes |
14.2 | 11.6 | 2.1 | 72.1 |
| SEIFA Disadvantage Index quintile | ||||
Highest disadvantage |
8.1 | 19.5 | 3.1 | 69.2 |
2nd |
12.5 | 18.5 | 3.3 | 65.6 |
3rd |
10.0 | 19.9 | 2.6 | 67.4 |
4th |
11.4 | 20.8 | 4.1 | 63.7 |
Lowest disadvantage |
10.8 | 25.3 | 4.5 | 59.5 |
| Highest occupational class | ||||
Neither parent working |
6.0 | 12.6 | 0.8 | 80.5 |
ASCO 8–9 (Unskilled labour) |
8.0 | 12.1 | 3.6 | 76.4 |
ASCO 4–7 (Skilled labour & clerical) |
8.7 | 19.2 | 3.0 | 69.0 |
ASCO 1–3 (Professional) |
13.6 | 25.4 | 4.6 | 56.5 |
Interestingly, the data suggest that the specific type of care arrangements experienced by infants varied little by child characteristic or family demographic factors. Overall, twice as many infants were in informal compared to formal care arrangements, and this was the case regardless of child gender, ATSI status, maternal education, family type, or most indices of family socioeconomic status. The only exceptions were a relatively higher use of informal care arrangements by families whose main language at home was not English, and a relatively higher use of formal care arrangements by families that were not financially stressed.
Child cohort
- Type of care arrangement: some experience of formal centre-based child care or early education was reported for all but 5 per cent of the child cohort, with the majority of children in either a pre-Year 1 (17 per cent) or preschool (55 per cent) early education setting (see Table 11). The remaining 24 per cent of children were in long day care centres.
- Number of arrangements: while for 60 per cent of the children these settings were the only non-parental care settings they attended, the remaining children in care attended multiple care settings, including a variety of other formal and/or informal arrangements.
- Amount of time in care: similar to the infant cohort, the majority of 4 to 5 year olds (52 per cent) were in care 20 hours or less per week; however, more than 20 per cent of the children experienced much longer hours of care (›30 hours per week). On average, children in pre-Year 1 education programs and those in multiple care settings had the longest hours of care (see Table 12).
- Age of first entry into care: parents' retrospective reports of the age at which their children first entered care indicated that fewer children in the child cohort than in the infant cohort entered care before 9 months of age (19 per cent compared to 35 per cent, respectively), but 58 per cent of the 4 to 5 year olds were reported to have had some non-parental care experience before the age of 3 years. However, for 40 per cent of the child cohort, their first experience of regular non-parental care or early education was not until after 3 years of age. While parents can probably remember the timing of this significant event with reasonable accuracy, there is potential for some error given the retrospective nature of these reports.
Very few children were not in an early education or day care setting in the child cohort. However, the child and family demographic factors identifying those children not in care were similar to those noted for the infant cohort (see Table 13). More children were not in a care or early education arrangement if they were from an ATSI background, had mothers who had not completed high school, were from a single parent family, or spoke a language other than English at home. In contrast, more economically advantaged families had children with high participation rates in early education and care settings. Again similar to the infant cohort, the data suggest that the specific type of care arrangements experienced by children varied little by child characteristic or family demographic factors. Most 4 to 5 year-old children were in preschool settings, followed by day care and then pre-Year 1 arrangements. The few differences noted included a slightly higher participation rate in pre-Year 1 settings for girls than boys, for children from families with the lowest SEIFA index, and for children from families whose main language at home was not English.
| Characteristic(a) | n | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Time in non-parental care each week (%) | 4,979 | |
None |
3.7 | |
1–20 hours |
52.2 | |
21–30 hours |
22.9 | |
31–40 hours |
13.4 | |
More than 40 hours |
7.8 | |
| Number of hours in non-parental care each week—child is in care (median, [p25, p75]) | 4,811 | 18 [12, 30] |
| Number of regular non-parental care arrangements each week (%) | 4,982 | |
None |
3.8 | |
One |
60.4 | |
Two |
28.7 | |
Three or more |
7.0 | |
| Age of entry into non-parental care (%) | 4,810 | |
0–52 weeks |
29.8 | |
53–104 weeks (1–2 years) |
18.5 | |
105–156 weeks (2–3 years) |
11.4 | |
157–208 weeks (3–4 years) |
20.5 | |
209 weeks or older (›4 years) |
19.8 | |
| Age of entry into non-parental care in weeks—child is in care (median, [p25, p75]) | 4,810 | 109 [48, 187] |
| Type of non-parental care arrangements experienced by child each week (%) | 4,983 | |
Pre-Year 1 |
16.5 | |
Pre-Year 1 only |
11.0 | |
Pre-Year 1 and any other care |
5.5 | |
Preschool |
54.6 | |
Preschool only |
32.0 | |
Preschool and other formal care |
7.7 | |
Preschool and informal/mixed care |
14.9 | |
Day care |
24.1 | |
Day care only |
14.9 | |
Day care and other formal care |
3.4 | |
Day care and informal/mixed care |
5.7 | |
Informal care only |
1.2 | |
No care |
3.6 |
| Care arrangement | Hours spent in care median [p25, p75] |
|---|---|
| Pre-Year 1 | 30 [30, 36] |
Pre-Year 1 only |
30 [30, 30] |
Pre-Year 1 and any other care |
37 [33, 43] |
| Preschool | 15 [12, 20.5] |
Preschool only |
12 [10, 15] |
Preschool and other formal care |
20 [14, 25] |
Preschool and informal/mixed care |
22 [17, 30] |
| Day care | 24 [16, 35] |
Day care only |
20 [14, 30] |
Day care and other formal care |
30 [24, 39] |
Day care and informal/mixed care |
30 [24, 40] |
| Informal care only | 7.5 [2, 27] |
| No care | 0 [0, 0] |
| Education/care category(a) | Pre-Year 1 | Preschool | Day care | Informal care only | No care |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||||
Male |
14.8 | 54.2 | 26.1 | 1.0 | 3.8 |
Female |
18.3 | 55.2 | 21.7 | 1.3 | 3.4 |
| Study child—Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander | |||||
No |
16.5 | 54.7 | 24.3 | 1.1 | 3.5 |
Yes |
17.5 | 55.7 | 17.2 | 2.5 | 7.1 |
| Maternal education | |||||
Did not complete high school |
17.1 | 53.3 | 23.0 | 1.5 | 5.1 |
Completed high school |
13.9 | 58.3 | 23.6 | 1.1 | 3.1 |
Tertiary |
18.2 | 53.9 | 26.0 | 0.6 | 1.3 |
| Family type | |||||
1 parent |
18.7 | 47.6 | 26.6 | 1.8 | 5.3 |
2 parents |
16.1 | 56.0 | 23.5 | 1.1 | 3.3 |
| Main language spoken at home | |||||
English |
15.0 | 56.7 | 24.3 | 1.1 | 2.9 |
Not English |
25.5 | 42.7 | 22.1 | 1.8 | 7.8 |
| Combined parental income quintile | |||||
Lowest |
19.6 | 50.2 | 22.0 | 1.2 | 6.9 |
2nd |
18.4 | 52.7 | 21.4 | 2.1 | 5.4 |
3rd |
16.5 | 56.2 | 21.3 | 1.0 | 5.1 |
4th |
13.6 | 57.0 | 26.1 | 0.9 | 2.3 |
Highest |
16.3 | 55.2 | 26.4 | 1.0 | 1.2 |
| Financially stressed household | |||||
No |
16.5 | 55.2 | 24.2 | 1.0 | 3.1 |
Yes |
15.4 | 49.4 | 22.0 | 2.7 | 10.4 |
| SEIFA Disadvantage Index quintile | |||||
Highest disadvantage |
20.1 | 50.9 | 21.2 | 1.4 | 6.5 |
2nd |
14.7 | 55.5 | 23.7 | 1.7 | 4.4 |
3rd |
16.0 | 51.2 | 27.3 | 1.3 | 4.2 |
4th |
17.0 | 57.8 | 23.3 | 0.4 | 1.5 |
Lowest disadvantage |
15.3 | 58.2 | 24.3 | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| Highest occupational class | |||||
Neither parent working |
19.6 | 47.3 | 21.0 | 1.3 | 10.8 |
ASCO 8–9 (Unskilled) |
17.6 | 51.1 | 21.8 | 0.9 | 8.7 |
ASCO 4–7 (Skilled labour & clerical) |
16.5 | 56.9 | 22.3 | 1.6 | 2.7 |
ASCO 1–3 (Professional) |
15.5 | 55.8 | 26.3 | 0.9 | 1.6 |
Impact of non-parental care characteristics on child outcomes: multivariable analyses
In this final section we attempt to answer the question as to whether child care has an influence on child outcomes, independent of the contribution of key child and family characteristics. As noted above, children's participation in formal and informal child care and early education settings is not independent of family and child factors that are known to be important influences on children's development. For both the infant and child cohorts, fewer children were in a care/education arrangement if their families were economically disadvantaged, if they were of ATSI background, if their mothers had not completed high school, and if the main language spoken at home was other than English. These and other related indices of family socioeconomic status are all variables associated with poorer outcomes in the broader developmental literature, and so it is important to take them into account when trying to assess the relative importance for children of experience in care. We ran a series of multiple regression analyses, entering the nine key child and family demographic variables identified in Section 2, in combination with different child care variables as predictors of the children's continuous Outcome Index and domain scores. The child care variables were type of care (which included pre-Year 1 and preschool settings for the child cohort), number of hours in care each week, number of regular care arrangements each week, and age of entry into first care arrangement (see Tables 14 and 15 for the specific values of each child care variable for the infant and child cohorts).
Infant cohort
Due to the very small numbers of infants falling into some of the combinations of categories across the different child care variables (for example, very few receiving two or more types of formal care), it was not possible to separate out the independent effect of each of the four child care variables of interest upon infant outcomes. A separate regression analysis was performed for each of the four variables, so that each was adjusted for the set of child and family demographic variables, but not for the other three child care variables. This means that in assessing the effects of any child care variable we could not control for the possible confounding effects of other characteristics of the infants' care experience. We note this limitation on the interpretation of any findings. Separate models are presented for the overall Outcome Index and the three domain scores (see Table 14).
For the infant cohort, there was no evidence to suggest that any of the individual child care variables were associated with the overall Outcome Index score (all p›0.05).
Though the size of the apparent impacts were small, there was strong evidence to suggest that the following child care variables were associated with an increased physical domain score, independent of the nine child and family demographic variables in the model: infants not in any school or centre program (p‹0.001); infants in 20 hours or less care per week (p‹0.001); and infants in less than one care arrangement per week (p=0.005). Taken together, these variables identify children in larger group settings as most at risk for impaired general health and increased health care needs (the two components of the physical domain) in the first year.
The clearest predictor of the infant learning domain was the type of care arrangement (p=0.006), with higher scores for infants in informal care only compared to infants not in care, while infants in formal care or mixed formal/informal care were similar to those not in care after taking into account the influence of the nine child and family demographic factors.
Child cohort
Due to the small number of children not in any child care or early education arrangement in the child cohort, the analyses focused on children receiving care, comparing children's outcomes across the different care and early education settings. Four multiple regression analyses were run (one each for the overall Outcome Index and the three domains) that included all four child care variables as well as the nine key child and family demographic variables. Therefore, we were able to estimate the effect of each child care variable, independent of the effects of the other three child care variables and the nine child and family demographic variables. Table 15 presents the results of the four models.
There was strong evidence to suggest that children attending a pre-Year 1 school program had higher overall Outcome Index scores than children who were attending informal arrangements only (p‹0.001).
Unlike the infant cohort, there was no evidence of a relationship between physical domain scores and children's participation in large group care or early education settings (p=0.91).
Type of care/early education setting was relevant to children's learning domain scores (p‹0.001), with children attending a pre-Year 1 school program having higher learning domain scores than children who were attending informal arrangements only. Overall Outcome Index and learning domain scores were similar for children in preschool, day care, and informal care settings. These results were also reflected in the larger percentage of children in pre-Year 1 programs who had high Outcome Index scores (22 per cent) compared to those attending preschool (13 per cent), day care (13 per cent), or only informal care settings (14 per cent) (see Figure 8).
The higher competence of children in pre-Year 1 programs on the overall Outcome Index and the learning domain scores is likely to reflect the typically strong focus of these programs on the development of literacy and numeracy skills and that these programs require full-time attendance. Children in the pre-Year 1 programs were also likely to be slightly older than other children in the cohort who were attending preschools, long day care, or who had informal care arrangements. Across Australia, children have different access to pre-Year 1 programs according to the age eligibility criteria mandated in public education provisions in each state and territory. Additionally, children may be slightly older in pre-Year 1 programs because parents may choose to delay entry to a formal, full-time school program, even though their child is eligible by age to attend, so the child will be more mature and perhaps have a learning advantage over their on-time, younger classmates (Meisels 1992). There is no Australian evidence on how many parents make this choice. However, evidence from the United States from a large national study of children beginning school programs indicated that 6 per cent of parents made a choice to delay their child's entry even though the child was age-eligible to do so a year earlier (Malone et al. 2006). These children were more likely to be male and more likely to have more highly educated parents.
Age of entry to public pre-Year 1 programs differs across Australian states and territories. Only older children in the child cohort could have accessed a pre-Year 1 program, including those children whose parents had exercised a choice to delay their child's entry from the previous year even if the child had been age-eligible to attend. For example, in New South Wales, children are eligible to begin the pre-Year 1 program if they have their 5th birthday by 31 July, while in Victoria children are eligible to begin the pre-Year 1 program if they are 5 years old before 30 April. In most states, children with their 5th birthday early in the year were more likely to be attending a pre-Year 1 program than children with birthdays in the latter half of 2004. Additionally, in 2004, there was no universal public education pre-Year 1 program in Queensland. In that state few children, except for those in independent schools, would have been able to access a full-time pre-Year 1 program. Thus, children in the pre-Year 1 program, aside from those living in Queensland, were likely to be older than children attending preschool or child care programs. The age distribution of the child cohort for 2004 was normally distributed and the mean age was 4.7 years.
There was little or no evidence to suggest that number of hours in care each week, number of regular care arrangements each week, and age of entry into first care arrangement were independently associated with any of the child outcomes (all p›0.04).
Over and above the nine child and family demographic factors included in the analyses, the four child care/early education variables accounted for 3.8 per cent of the variability in learning domain scores for the child cohort, while accounting for 1 per cent or less of the variability in the other two domain scores and the overall Outcome Index scores. The above results suggest that the majority of the effect of the child care/early education variables on learning domain scores is accounted for by the influence of enrolment in pre-Year 1 programs. As noted above, however, these results may be influenced not only by the focus on teaching early literacy and numeracy skills typically found in these programs which are full-time formal programs in a school setting. We would expect, however, that the impact of any child factors would be mitigated by the inclusion of the nine child and family demographic variables in these analyses.
| Characteristic(b) | Outcome Index score |
Physical domain score |
Social–emotional domain score |
Learning domain score | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient (95% CI) |
p-value(c) | Coefficient (95% CI) |
p-value(c) | Coefficient (95% CI) |
p-value(c) | Coefficient (95% CI) |
p-value(c) | |
| Main type of school or centre program | n=3,591 R2=1.6% |
0.05 | n=4,800 R2=1.9% |
‹0.001 | n=4,091 R2=1.9% |
0.11 | n=4,211 R2=1.9% |
0.006 |
None |
0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | ||||
Formal care only |
–1.4 (–2.5, –0.4) | 0.008 | –2.4 (–3.6, –1.2) | ‹0.001 | –0.1 (–1.1, 0.9) | 0.86 | –0.2 (–1.2, 0.9) | 0.73 |
Informal care only |
0.2 (–0.6, 1.1) | 0.60 | –0.4 (–1.3, 0.4) | 0.28 | –0.1 (–0.9, 0.7) | 0.80 | 1.3 (0.5, 2.1) | 0.002 |
Mixed formal & informal care |
–0.1 (–1.7, 1.5) | 0.91 | –2.3 (–3.7, –0.9) | 0.002 | 1.6 (0.3, 2.9) | 0.02 | 1.0 (–0.6, 2.5) | 0.21 |
| Time per week in non-parental care | n=3,591 R2=1.4% |
0.64 | n=4,800 R2=1.8% |
‹0.001 | n=4,090 R2=1.8% |
0.89 | n=4,211 R2=1.7% |
0.07 |
None |
0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | ||||
1–20 hours |
–0.3 (–1.0, 0.5) | 0.47 | –0.7 (–1.5, 0.0) | 0.05 | 0.0 (–0.7, 0.7) | 1.0 | 0.6 (–0.1, 1.4) | 0.11 |
‹20 hours |
–0.5 (–1.7, 0.7) | 0.43 | –2.4 (–3.5, –1.2) | ‹0.001 | 0.3 (–0.8, 1.2) | 0.6 | 1.3 (0.1, 2.4) | 0.03 |
| Number per week of regular non-parental care arrangements | n=3,591 R2=1.5% |
0.33 | n=4,800 R2=1.6% |
0.005 | n=4,090 R2=1.8% |
0.21 | n=4,211 R2=1.7% |
0.04 |
None |
0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | ||||
One |
–0.6 (–1.3, 0.3) | 0.20 | –1.2 (–2.0, –0.4) | 0.003 | –0.2 (–0.9, 0.5) | 0.63 | 0.7 (–0.1, 1.4) | 0.09 |
≥Two |
0.2 (–0.9, 1.4) | 0.70 | –1.2 (–2.3, –0.1) | 0.04 | 0.9 (–0.2, 1.9) | 0.11 | 1.3 (0.2, 2.4) | 0.02 |
| Age of entry into care | n=1,472 R2=4.2% |
0.45 | n=1,842 R2=4.1% |
0.01 | n=1,559 R2=3.2% |
0.74 | n=1,728 R2=1.9% |
0.45 |
0–13 weeks |
0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | ||||
14–26 weeks |
–0.4 (–1.7, 1.1) | 0.66 | –0.7 (–2.0, 0.7) | 0.33 | –0.4 (–1.6, 0.9) | 0.56 | 0.1 (–1.1, 1.3) | 0.87 |
27–39 weeks |
–0.8 (–2.2, 0.6) | 0.25 | –0.6 (–1.9, 0.7) | 0.35 | –0.6 (–1.8, 0.6) | 0.35 | –0.9 (–2.2, 0.4) | 0.19 |
≥40 weeks |
0.6 (–1.1, 2.4) | 0.50 | 1.5 (0.1, 3.0) | 0.04 | –0.6 (–2.3, 1.0) | 0.47 | –0.4 (–2.0, 1,2) | 0.61 |
| Characteristic(a) | Outcome Index score |
Physical domain score |
Social–emotional domain score |
Learning domain score | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient (95% CI) |
p-value(b) | Coefficient (95% CI) |
p-value(b) | Coefficient (95% CI) |
p-value(b) | Coefficient (95% CI) |
p-value(b) | |
| Education/care type | ‹0.001 | 0.91 | 0.89 | ‹0.001 | ||||
Informal care only |
0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | ||||
Pre-Year 1 |
2.9 (0.0, 5.8) | 0.05 | 0.4 (–3.7, 4.5) | 0.86 | –0.0 (–3.3, 3.3) | 0.98 | 5.8 (2.6, 8.9) | ‹0.001 |
Preschool |
0.7 (–2.2, 3.6) | 0.64 | 0.4 (–3.7, 4.4) | 0.86 | 0.0 (–3.2, 3.3) | 1.0 | 1.0 (–1.9, 4.0) | 0.49 |
Day care |
1.0 (–1.9, 3.8) | 0.50 | 0.6 (–3.5, 4.8) | 0.76 | 0.3 (–2.9, 3.5) | 0.87 | 1.1 (–1.8, 4.0) | 0.45 |
| Number of care arrangements | 0.07 | 0.30 | 0.32 | 0.06 | ||||
1 |
0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | ||||
2 |
–0.9 (–1.6, -0.1) | 0.03 | –0.6 (–1.3, 0.2) | 0.12 | –0.6 (–1.3, 0.2) | 0.16 | –0.7 (–1.4, 0.0) | 0.06 |
≥3 |
–0.9 (–2.2, 0.3) | 0.14 | –0.4 (–1.7, 0.9) | 0.56 | –0.6 (–1.9, 0.7) | 0.34 | –1.2 (–2.4, 0.0) | 0.04 |
| Time spent in care | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.77 | 0.74 | ||||
1–20 hours |
0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | ||||
21–30 |
0.0 (–0.8, 0.9) | 0.95 | –0.2 (–1.1, 0.6) | 0.58 | –0.2 (–1.0, 0.7) | 0.72 | 0.5 (–0.4, 1.3) | 0.28 |
31–40 |
0.3 (–0.8, 1.4) | 0.59 | 0.1 (–1.1, 1.3) | 0.91 | 0.2 (–0.9, 1.2) | 0.76 | 0.2 (–0.9, 1.3) | 0.68 |
40+ |
–0.3 (–1.7, 1.1) | 0.64 | –0.5 (–2.1, 1.0) | 0.50 | –0.5 (–2.0, 0.9) | 0.47 | 0.3 (–0.9, 1.6) | 0.57 |
| Age of entry into care | 0.83 | 0.33 | 0.40 | 0.04 | ||||
‹1 year |
0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | 0 (–,–) | ||||
1–‹2 years |
0.2 (–0.6, 1.0) | 0.67 | 0.1 (–0.8, 1.1) | 0.80 | 0.7 (–0.1, 1.5) | 0.08 | –0.5 (–1.3, 0.3) | 0.25 |
2–‹3 years |
–0.3 (–1.4, 0.8) | 0.57 | –0.9 (–2.0, 0.3) | 0.13 | 0.6 (–0.5, 1.6) | 0.31 | –0.4 (–1.4, 0.6) | 0.44 |
3–‹4 years |
–0.3 (–1.1, 0.5) | 0.40 | –0.4 (–1.3, 0.5) | 0.38 | 0.4 (–0.4, 1.2) | 0.32 | –0.9 (–1.7, 0.0) | 0.05 |
4+ years |
–0.1 (–1.1, 0.8) | 0.77 | 0.4 (–0.6, 1.3) | 0.46 | 0.7 (–0.3, 1.7) | 0.15 | –1.5 (–2.4, –0.6) | 0.002 |
Figure 7: Low Outcome Index: percentage of child cohort by care characteristics
Figure 8: High Outcome Index: percentage of child cohort by care characteristics
3.3 Discussion
Participation in formal and informal non-parental child care and early education settings is a significant component of the life experience of LSAC infants and children. For the LSAC infants who are enrolled in group care settings, exposure to large numbers of children appears to be associated with lower physical domain scores (that is, poorer general health and greater health care needs). These findings are consistent with those reported by the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (ed. 2005c), where they were attributed to the greater exposure to contagious illnesses experienced by children cared for in large groups (›6 children). The longer-term consequences of such exposures for the LSAC infants are yet to be determined. If the physical domain scores for the child cohort can be taken as a guide, we would expect this association to decrease over the pre-school years, consistent with previous literature.
Analysis of the social–emotional domain scores indicated a remarkable lack of robust effects once the influence of child and family factors was taken into account. We did not replicate North American findings of more negative social–emotional outcomes in children with longer hours of care (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2006). However, the cross-sectional nature of the LSAC Wave 1 data did not allow a clear test of this effect, which typically has been linked to the cumulative effect of time in care over the first four years.
Different child care or early education experiences appeared to enhance learning outcomes for the infant and child cohorts. Infants in informal care had higher learning domain scores than infants not in care. These results point to the beneficial effects of informal care, even for at-risk groups. Given that most infants in informal care only were being cared for by grandparents, it will be important to explore in further analyses the influences that extended family may have for the development of young infants. For the child cohort, educationally oriented pre-Year 1 school programs appeared effective in promoting literacy and numeracy skills to a level above that seen in children with no experience in formal care settings. However, despite the effect of these child care and early education experiences, child and family factors were still stronger determinants of learning outcomes for the infant and child cohorts.
The findings with respect to the learning domain highlight the possible beneficial effects of children's attendance at pre-Year 1 school programs and are consistent with findings of other longitudinal research. For example, the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2005b) reported better cognitive outcomes for children at 4 years, 6 months of age in high quality, centre-based programs, where quality of care specifically included an evaluation of the cognitive stimulation provided in the program. Similarly, the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education Project (Sylva et al. 2004) found that children with no or only minimal preschool centre experience had poorer cognitive attainment prior to school entry than children with more extended preschool experience. While the analyses conducted here did not replicate these findings of specific advantage for children in non-school centre-based programs, two points should be noted. First, only 1.2 per cent of the LSAC children attended non-centre based care only, and thus the power of the Wave 1 data to detect possible small differences in outcomes between children in centre-based care and children in other care settings is limited. Second, unadjusted analyses indicated an association between attendance at formal centre-based programs (for example, preschool, day care) and enhanced overall Outcome Index and learning domain scores, but the multivariable analyses reported above suggest that this relationship is confounded by child and family characteristics. Further analyses that attempt to disentangle these combined influences are needed.
Overall, these results are consistent with international studies that have specifically evaluated the relative effects of child care and family context variables on children's outcomes across the infant and preschool years (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2006). They highlight the importance of understanding the influence of child care for both infants and 4 to 5 year-old children within the broader family context that guides their development in the early years.