Child Development, July/August 2005, Volume 76, Number 4, Pages 795 810

Duration and Developmental Timing of Poverty and Childrens Cognitive and

Social Development From Birth Through Third Grade
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network

Relations of duration and developmental timing of poverty to childrens development from birth to age 9 were
examined by comparing children from families who were never poor, poor only during the childs infancy (0 3
years of age), poor only after infancy (4 9 years of age), and chronically poor. Chronically poor families pro-
vided lower quality childrearing environments, and children in these families showed lower cognitive per-
formance and more behavior problems than did other children. Any experience of poverty was associated with
less favorable family situations and child outcomes than never being poor. Being poor later tended to be more
detrimental than early poverty. Mediational analyses indicated that poverty was linked to child outcomes in
part through less positive parenting.

The developmental risks associated with poverty
and economic disadvantage have been well docu-
mented, but the processes that account for the rela-
tions between poverty and childrens development
and the role of the timing and duration of poverty
have not been thoroughly explored (Bradley & Cor-
wyn, 2002; McLoyd, 1998). In this article, the rela-
tions of duration and timing of poverty to childrens
This study was directed by a steering committee and supported
by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment (NICHD) through a cooperative agreement (U10) that calls
for scientific collaboration between the grantees and the NICHD
staff. Participating investigators, in alphabetical order, are Virginia
Allhusen, University of California, Irvine; Jay Belsky, Birkbeck
University of London; Cathryn Booth-LaForce, University of
Washington; Robert Bradley, University of Arkansas at Little Rock;
Celia A. Brownell, University of Pittsburgh; Margaret Burchinal,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Susan B. Campbell,
University of Pittsburgh; K. Alison Clarke-Stewart, University of
California, Irvine; Martha Cox, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill; Sarah L. Friedman, NICHD; Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek,
Temple University; Aletha Huston, University of Texas at Austin;
Jean F. Kelly, University of Washington; Bonnie Knoke, Research
Triangle Institute; Nancy Marshall, Wellesley College; Kathleen
McCartney, Harvard University; Fred Morrison, University of
Michigan; Phil Nader, University of California, San Diego; Marion
OBrien, University of North Carolina at Greensboro; Margaret
Tresch Owen, University of Texas at Dallas; Ross Parke, University
of California, Riverside; Chris Payne, University of North Carolina
at Greensboro; Robert Pianta, University of Virginia; Wendy
Robeson, Wellesley College; Susan Spieker, University of Wash-
ington; Deborah Lowe Vandell, University of Wisconsin Madi-
son; and Marsha Weinraub, Temple University. We thank our
study coordinators at each site who supervised the data collection,
the research assistants who collected the data, and especially the
families, teachers, and child care providers who participated in
the study.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, OEP, Office of the
Director, NICHD, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 4A01, Rock-
ville, MD 20852.
cognitive and social development are examined us-
ing the longitudinal data from birth to Grade 3 (age 9
years) collected in the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development Study of Early
Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD SEC-
CYD). The quality of the home environment, parent-
ing sensitivity, and child care experiences are
analyzed as potential mediators of poverty effects.
Previous studies have shown that children who
live in persistent or chronic poverty have less fa-
vorable cognitive and social development and
poorer physical and mental health than do those
who live in transitory poverty (Bolger, Patterson,
Thompson, & Kupersmidt, 1995; Costello, Compton,
Keeler, & Angold, 2003; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn,
1997; Korenman, Miller, & Sjaastad, 1995; McLeod &
Nonnemaker, 2000; McLeod & Shanahan, 1993).
In one recent study, concurrent poverty, defined
only from earned income, was found to be as detri-
mental to 11-year-olds as persistent poverty
throughout the school years (Ackerman, Brown, &
Izard, 2004a, 2004b).
McLoyd (1997, 1998) proposed that poverty, par-
ticularly when it is chronic, affects childrens cogni-
tive development and socioemotional well-being
because inadequate income increases parents expo-
sure to negative life events and stressors, which in
turn produce psychological distress that diminishes
the capacity to provide sensitive, responsive
parenting and increases the likelihood of punitive,
coercive parenting styles (McLoyd, 1998). It has been
shown that families living in chronic poverty have
less stimulating home environments and more pro-
longed and extensive parental stress than do families
r 2005 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2005/7604-0003
796 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network
living in transitory poverty (Linver, Brooks-Gunn, &
Kohen, 2002). The quality of the home environment
improves when families move out of poverty and
declines when they move into poverty (Garrett,
Ngandu, & Ferron, 1994; Votruba-Drzal, 2003). In a
recent review of the literature, Bradley and Corwyn
(2002) concluded that access to stimulating learning
materials and opportunities for exploration mediat-
ed the relation of socioeconomic status to both cog-
nitive skills and social behavior. There are few
analyses testing the mediators of persistent versus
transitory poverty effects, however, and their results
are inconsistent (Bolger et al., 1995; McLeod & Sha-
nahan, 1993).
Child care experiences may mediate some of the
relations of persistent poverty to childrens intellec-
tual and social development. Children in poverty
spend less time in nonmaternal care but experience
lower quality care than do those in more affluent
families. Because the quantity of care children re-
ceive is associated with relatively high levels of be-
havior problems at school entry (NICHD Early Child
Care Research Network, 2003a), experiencing fewer
hours of child care could counteract effects of pov-
erty on childrens problem behavior. Although child
care quality is associated with cognitive develop-
ment of children in poverty, there is mixed evidence
about whether child care quality matters more for
poor than for nonpoor children (Burchinal, Peisner-
Feinberg, Bryant, & Clifford, 2000; NICHD Early
Child Care Research Network, 2001a, 2002).
With regard to the timing of poverty effects, some
authors have shown that poverty in early childhood
is more deleterious to long-term behavioral and
achievement outcomes than poverty in middle child-
hood or adolescence (e.g., Duncan & Brooks-Gunn,
2000). Early poverty is also more strongly related
than later poverty to psychiatric morbidity (Lipman
& Offord, 1997; Rutter, 1989). If the effects of poverty
are conveyed to children through less sensitive and
stimulating interactions with adults and fewer re-
sources in their home and child care environments,
poverty might be most detrimental during the very
early years. The home environment is more closely
linked to the cognitive development of young pre-
school children than to that of school-age children,
who have access to more alternative sources of in-
tellectual stimulation and academic training (Brad-
ley, Corwyn, Burchinal, Pipes-McAdoo, & Garcia
Coll, 2001). Young children may also be especially
vulnerable when parental sensitivity is low because
of their dependence on caregivers and because of the
nature of early developmental tasksFachieving au-
tonomy and competent self-regulation (Campbell,
1995). Furthermore, child care for low-income in-
fants and toddlers is especially likely to be of poor
quality before they become eligible for most Head
Start and other early intervention programs (NICHD
Early Child Care Research Network, 2001a; Phillips,
Voran, Kisker, Howes, & Whitbook, 1994). There are
few if any reports, however, following the same
children from birth into later childhood with in-
depth measures of family economic resources and
childrens development; therefore, any conclusions
about developmental timing remain tentative.
One issue in studying the timing of poverty in-
volves the definition of early and late develop-
mental periods. In the present study, early is defined
as the childs first 3 years and late is defined as age 4
to third grade. These periods were chosen for two
reasons. First, infants and toddlers from low-income
families are most likely to spend their time at home
or in home-based settings that are similar to their
homes; therefore, poverty predicts the quality of
both home and child care environments (e.g.,
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1997).
By age 4, most children, including those from low-
income families, enter preschool or organized early
child care programs, and because such programs are
often subsidized for children from poverty-level
homes, there is less family income discrepancy in the
quality of care received (e.g., Phillips et al., 1994).
Second, earlier analyses of the NICHD sample
showed relations of income to developmental out-
comes in the first 3 years (Dearing, McCartney, &
Taylor, 2001; Mistry, Biesanz, Taylor, Burchinal, &
Cox, 2004).
Income effects on childrens environments and
development are not linear; variations near the bot-
tom of the income distribution have considerably
stronger relations to family processes and to cogni-
tive and social development than do variations in the
upper ranges (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). Income
differences in the lower but not the upper ranges
predict years of completed schooling (Duncan, Ye-
ung, Brooks-Gunn, & Smith, 1998) and the amount of
cognitive stimulation in the home (Garrett et al.,
1994; Votruba-Drzal, 2003). Analyses of the sample
used in the present study found links between in-
creases in income and higher cognitive and language
performance at age 3 only for children whose fami-
lies were poor at the time of the childs birth (Dea-
ring et al., 2001). A follow-up study found that
income from birth to age 3, particularly in lower
parts of the income distribution, was related to both
family processes (maternal depression and sensitiv-
ity) and child cognitive and social competence
(Mistry et al., 2004). Thus, in the present analyses,

income is categorized based on whether families
were poor or not because this is the distinction that
prior research suggests is important to family pro-
cesses and childrens outcomes. Categorizing fami-
lies into poverty groups made it possible to test ex-
plicitly whether the experience of early poverty
differed from the experience of later poverty in terms
of patterns of change over time in the quality of the
home environment and, in turn, in child outcomes.
In this study, poverty is defined by a median in-
come below 200% of the federal poverty threshold.
Although 100% of the federal poverty threshold is
often used to designate poverty, many observers
agree that this index does not represent a minimally
sufficient income (Citro & Michael, 1995). Moreover,
eligibility for some federal programs has been ex-
panded to 200% of the poverty threshold; thus, this
threshold is particularly relevant to future policy
decisions. The 200% threshold is also relevant to
large numbers of U.S. families. In 1998, when the
children in this study were 7 years old, 18% of chil-
dren in the United States lived in families with in-
comes below the federal poverty threshold, and 40%
lived in families with incomes at or below 200% of
poverty (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/00trends).
Earlier analyses of the NICHD SECC have tested
poverty and related risks during the first 3 years of
life. Children in poor families had lower scores than
did those in nonpoor families on cognitive and pre-
academic tests, lower social competence, and higher
levels of behavior problems at age 3 (Dearing et al.,
2001; Mistry et al., 2004; NICHD Early Child Care
Research Network, 2001a, 2002). This is the first re-
port from the NICHD SECC to examine the relations
of poverty to childrens cognitive and social devel-
opment beyond age 3, to analyze duration and tim-
ing of poverty, and to examine potential home and
child care mediators of poverty effects.
The analyses presented here focus on four groups
of families that differ on duration and timing of
poverty: (a) never poor, (b) poor during the childs
first 3 years but not later (early poor), (c) poor from
ages 4 to 9 but not before that (late poor), and (d)
chronically poor. We address two major sets of
questions: (a) Are duration and timing of poverty
associated with variations in home enrichment or
parenting quality over time? Are these relations ex-
plained by family and maternal characteristics? and
(b) Do duration and developmental timing of pov-
erty predict variations in childrens cognitive/lan-
guage and socioemotional development once family
characteristics are controlled? Do experiences in the
home (measured by home enrichment and maternal
sensitivity) and child care settings (quantity and
Duration and Timing of Poverty 797
quality) mediate relations of poverty to childrens
development?
Method
Participants
Families were recruited through hospital visits to
mothers shortly after the birth of a child in 1991 in 10
locations in the United States (Little Rock, AR; Or-
ange County, CA; Lawrence and Topeka, KS; Well-
esley, MA; Pittsburgh, PA; Philadelphia, PA;
Charlottesville, VA; Seattle, WA; Hickory, NC; and
Madison, WI). Recruitment and selection procedures
are described in several publications (see NICHD
Early Child Care Research Network, 2001b). Of the
initial pool of eligible mothers contacted for partici-
pation, 1,364 completed the 1-month home visit and
became study participants. These 1,364 families were
similar to the eligible hospital sample on major de-
mographic characteristics (years of maternal educa-
tion, ethnicity, and presence of partner in home). The
resulting sample was diverse, including 24% ethnic
minority children, 11% mothers who had not com-
pleted high school, and 14% single-parent mothers.
Mothers had an average of 14.4 years of education,
and 51.7% of the children were boys.
Income Groups
Family income was calculated from mothers re-
ports at each data collection point and included
earnings of the mother, earnings of her resident
husband or partner, and all other sources of house-
hold income, including public assistance. An in-
come-to-needs ratio was calculated for each family at
each data collection time point by dividing the total
family income by the poverty threshold for that
family size. For each family, the median income-to-
needs ratio was calculated for two age periods in the
childs life: The early childhood period was 6, 15, 24,
and 36 months, and the preschool middle child-
hood period was 54 months, kindergarten, first
grade, and third grade.
Complete income data were available for 803
families. A family was defined as poor if the median
income-to-needs ratio was less than 2.0 during that
period. Four income groups resulted: never poor
(687 families, 64% of the sample), poor early (100
families, 9% of sample), poor late (55 families, 5% of
sample), and chronically poor (225 families, 21%
of the sample). These sample sizes are before
imputing data. After imputation, the four income
groups consisted of 857 (63%) families who were
798 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network
never poor, 123 (9%) families who were poor early
but not late, 70 (5%) families who were poor late but
not early, and 314 (23%) families who were chroni-
cally poor.
Overview of Data Collection
Children at 10 geographic sites were followed
from birth to third grade. Mothers were interviewed
at home when infants were 1 month old. When
children were 6, 15, 24, 36, and 54 months old and in
first and third grades, we assessed the home and
family environments. At each age before school en-
try, we also observed childrens child care environ-
ments and obtained data on their hours in
nonmaternal care. Childrens cognitive and language
development was assessed at 24, 36, and 54 months
of age and during the first and third grades. Mothers
and teachers provided information about childrens
behavior problems at 6, 15, 24, 36, and 54 months and
in kindergarten, first, and third grades. Complete
descriptions of the data collection procedures used
can be found in the manuals of operation for the
NICHD Study of Early Child Care, which are avail-
able at http://public.rti.org/secc.
Child and Family Characteristics
Child gender and ethnicity were recorded at 1
month. Partner status (resident husband or partner
vs. no resident partner) was obtained by maternal
interview during telephone calls or in-person inter-
views at 6, 15, 24, 36, and 54 months and at first and
third grades, and complete data were available for
928 families. Maternal education in years was ob-
tained by interview at 1 month. Mothers were asked
about the number of children in the household
during each interview, and 919 families had data
from all eight ages. The average number of hours per
week spent in all jobs was obtained at all eight as-
sessment points for 858 mothers and 579 fathers or
partners. Reported hours employed were stable over
time, with correlations among adjacent periods
ranging from .59 to .67 for the mother and .44 to .61
for the father or partner. Maternal depressive
symptoms were measured using the Center for Ep-
idemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES D;
Radloff, 1977) at 6, 15, 24, 36, and 54 months and at
first and third grades. The CES D provides an index
of depressive symptoms and is appropriate for use in
a nonclinical population (as 5 .88 to .91 in the pres-
ent sample). Correlations across adjacent time points
ranged from .51 to .58. Data for all seven time points
were available for 837 mothers.
Quality of the Home Environment
Home enrichment. The age-appropriate version of
the Home Observation for the Measurement of the
Environment (HOME; Caldwell & Bradley, 1984)
was administered at 6, 15, 36, and 54 months and at
third grade. In the infant-toddler version of the
HOME scale, used at 6 and 15 months, factor anal-
ysis was used to identify an enrichment scale de-
scribing the availability of stimulating toys and
parental efforts to provide stimulation for the child,
which consisted of nine items at 6 months and eight
items at 15 months (a at each age 5 .66). In the pre-
school version, used at 36 and 54 months, the enrich-
ment subscale is the mean of three of the standard
subscales: learning materials, academic stimulation,
and variety (as 5 .41 to .88 at the two ages). At third
grade, the measure included an eight-item enrich-
ment subscale (a 5 .58). Correlations across adjacent
time points ranged from .44 to .65. A total of 885
families had data at all five time points and 191 had
data at four time points. All data collectors were
trained centrally, and reliability was assessed by
having each observer code videotaped home visits
every 4 months during data collection. Coding of the
videotaped visits was compared with codes gener-
ated by experts. All observers maintained a criterion
of 90% agreement with the expert codes.
Maternal sensitivity. Mother child interaction was
videotaped in semistructured 15-min observations at
6, 15, 24, 36, and 54 months and at first and third
grades (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network,
1999). At 6 months, the observation task included
7 min of free play with any toy or object available in
the home or none at all, and 8 min using a standard
set of toys. At 15, 24, 36, and 54 months, a three-
boxes task (Vandell, 1979) was used in which
mothers were asked to open and play with three
containers of age-appropriate toys in a predeter-
mined order. Videotapes were coded at a single site
by raters who were unaware of other information
about the families. Intercoder reliability was deter-
mined by independent coding of 20% of the tapes at
each assessment period. Intercoder reliability was
calculated as the intraclass correlation (Winer, 1971)
and ranged from .83 to .87 for the maternal sensi-
tivity composite ratings used in the present study.
A maternal sensitivity composite variable was
constructed at each age. At 6, 15, and 24 months,
maternal sensitivity was calculated as the sum of
4-point ratings of sensitivity to nondistress, positive
regard, and intrusiveness (reversed). At 36 and 54
months and at first and third grades, 7-point ratings
of supportive presence, respect for autonomy, and

hostility (reversed) were combined (a4.70 at every
age). Total scores were transformed into z scores for
analysis. Correlations across adjacent time points
ranged from .40 to .51. There were 800 families with
complete data at all seven time points and 198 more
with data at six time points.
Child Care Characteristics
Quantity. Mothers reported at 3- or 4-month in-
tervals on the number of hours per week children
had spent in nonmaternal care. An average weekly
hours of care was computed for each child up to each
age at which outcome assessments were obtained:
24, 36, and 54 months.
Quality. Child care settings were observed at 6, 15,
24, 36, and 54 months for children who were in child
care for 10 or more hours per week at ages 6 to 36
months or for 8 or more hours per week at 54
months. At each of two visits, observers completed
two 44-min cycles of the Observational Record of the
Caregiving Environment (ORCE; NICHD Early
Child Care Research Network, 1996, 2000) during
which time they coded the frequency of specific
caregiver behaviors and then rated the quality of the
caregiving on several scales. The ORCE was sys-
tematically adapted to be age appropriate. At 6, 15,
and 24 months, composite quality scores were cal-
culated as the mean of five 4-point subscales (sensi-
tivity to childs nondistress signals, stimulation of
childs development, positive regard toward child,
detachment [reflected], and flatness of affect [re-
flected]; as 5 .87 to .89). At 36 months, these five
scales plus two additional subscalesFfosters childs
exploration and intrusive (reflected)Fwere includ-
ed in the composite (a 5 .83). At 54 months, the
overall quality of caregiving composite was the
mean of 4-point ratings of caregivers sensitivity/
responsivity, stimulation of cognitive development,
intrusiveness (reflected), and detachment (reflected),
a 5 .72.
To ensure that observers at the 10 sites were
making comparable ratings, all observers were cer-
tified before beginning data collection and tested for
observer drift every 3 to 4 months. Agreement with
master-coded videotapes and with other observers in
live observations were evaluated using intraclass
correlations (i.e., Pearson correlations and repeated
measures analysis of variance [ANOVA]; Winer,
1971). Reliability exceeded .80 at all ages.
Exclusive maternal care. Some children were never
observed in child care because they were cared for
exclusively by their mothers at each of the data col-
lection ages. A dummy variable labeled exclusive
Duration and Timing of Poverty 799
maternal care was created at each age to identify
these children. To include them in all analyses, the
mean quality of care score was assigned to these
children. This missing value technique allows the
inclusion of all childrens data in the analysis while
ensuring that the coefficient for child care quality is
computed only from children who were in child care
(see NICHD Early Child Care Research Network &
Duncan, 2003, for complete details).
Child Developmental Outcomes
Cognitive and language development. Childrens
development of cognitive and language skills was
measured at 24, 36, and 54 months and in first and
third grades. At 24 months, the Mental Development
Index from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development,
2nd ed. (Bayley II; Bayley, 1991) was used to assess
overall developmental status. At 36 months, a com-
posite score was derived from the Bracken Scale of
Basic Concepts (Bracken, 1984) and the Reynell De-
velopmental Language Scales (Reynell, 1991). The
School Readiness subscale of the Bracken, which
assesses childrens knowledge of colors, letters,
numbers, comparisons, and shapes, was used. The
childrens percentile rank was rescaled to have a
mean of 100 (SD 5 15) and combined with the
standard scores on the Language Comprehension
and Expressive Language subscales of the Reynell to
obtain a general index of childrens cognitive and
language development (a 5 .77).
At 54 months, cognitive, language, and academic
performance was assessed with subtests from the
Woodcock Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery
Revised (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989, 1990) and the
Preschool Language Scale (PLS 3; Zimmerman,
Steiner, & Pond, 1992). A single score was created as
the mean of the standard scores on five Woodcock
Johnson subtests (applied problems, incomplete
words, letter word identification, memory for sen-
tences, and picture vocabulary) and the PLS 3
expressive and receptive subscales (a of composite
index 5 .87). At first grade, a mean of the five
cognitive and academic subscales from the Wood-
cock Johnson was used to index cognitive skill
(a 5 .79), and at third grade a mean of the two cog-
nitive subscalesFletter word and applied problems
Fwas used (a 5 .83). The measures of academic,
cognitive, and language development were highly
correlated across adjacent time points (rs 5 .70 to .87).
Complete data at all five time points were available
for 880 children.
Externalizing and internalizing behavior prob-
lems. Mothers and caregivers or teachers reports
800 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network
of the childrens externalizing and internalizing
behavior problems were obtained using the Child
Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The CBCL/2 3 (Achen-
bach, 1992), used at 24 and 36 months, lists 99
problem behaviors that are rated by the mother as
not true (0), somewhat true (1), or very true (2) of her
child over the last 2 months. For children in at least
10 hr of child care a week, the childs regular care-
giver also completed these forms at 24 and 36
months. The CBCL/4 18 (Achenbach, 1991), com-
pleted by mothers at 54 months and first and third
grades, lists 113 problem behaviors rated on the
same 3-point scale. The 100-item Teacher Report
Form (TRF; Achenbach, 1991) of the CBCL was
completed by caregivers at 54 months and teachers
at kindergarten and first and third grades. Both the
externalizing and internalizing scores, computed
using standard T scores based on normative data for
children of the same age, were used in this study.
Correlations across adjacent time points for exter-
nalizing problems ranged from .66 to .75 for mother
reports and from .30 to .54 for caregiver or teacher
reports, and for internalizing ranged from .54 to .64
for mother reports and from .13 to .32 for caregiver or
teacher reports. Correlations between maternal and
caregiver or teacher ratings ranged from .15 to .41.
Complete mother data were available for 867 chil-
dren. Complete caregiver or teacher data were
available for 260 children. (Most missing data on this
measure occurred because the child did not have a
child care caregiver at least one age.)
Analysis Plan
Missing data occurred in this longitudinal project
largely because of failure to complete all assess-
ments, although about 300 families were lost to fol-
low-up by third grade. Missing data were imputed
using multiple imputation (Rubin, 1987; Schafer,
1997; Schafer & Graham, 2002) under the assumption
that missing data were ignorably missing. That is,
given our many longitudinal measures on demo-
graphic, child, family, and child care measures, there
was sufficient information in our data to estimate
missing data accurately. Schafers (1997) recom-
mended procedure, an iterative expectation max-
imization algorithm was used. Missing values for
each variable are estimated iteratively using a lo-
gistic or multiple regression from all the other vari-
ables using the data for individuals with observed
values on that variable, and random variability is
added as the missing data are predicted. The process
is repeated for each variable until the differences in
predicted values across iterations are miniscule. Five
data sets were created in which all observed data are
represented and missing data are estimated.
Analyses were conducted five times, using each of
the five imputation data sets. Analyses were com-
bined using the recommended procedures of Schafer
(1997). The test statistics and regression coefficients
were combined by averaging them across the five
analyses, and the standard errors for the coefficients
were combined by combining within- and between-
model variability. Effect sizes (d) were computed as
the difference between the adjusted mean for the
never-poor group and the mean of the adjusted
means for the other three groups (early, late, and
chronically poor, considered together), divided by
the sample standard deviation. This comparison
between poor and not-poor groups was highlighted
to allow a clear description of the magnitude of
poverty effects and the extent to which inclusion of
hypothesized covariates appeared to mediate this
association.
There were two stages to the analyses: (a) exam-
ining poverty group differences in the quality of
parenting and (b) examining poverty group differ-
ences in child outcomes, with consideration of pos-
sible mediating effects of parenting and child care
variables. In the first stage, parenting quality over
time was examined using hierarchical linear models
(HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Two measures
were examined: (a) the measure of intellectual en-
richment in the family environment from the HOME
and (b) maternal sensitivity in interaction with the
child. The first model included only site, ethnicity,
and child gender as covariates; the second model
controlled maternal education, maternal depressive
symptoms, and partner status. All models included
the main effects of poverty group, the Child Age 
Poverty Group interaction (testing for linear change),
and the Age2  Poverty Group interaction (testing
for quadratic change).
In the second step, to address poverty group dif-
ferences in childrens cognitive and social develop-
ment longitudinally and to examine family and child
care processes as potential mediators of these effects
HLM analyses were used to examine the relations
between poverty and child outcomes and to test for
possible mediators. Poverty groups were compared
in models that included only site, ethnicity, and child
gender as covariates, and then in models that in-
cluded family characteristics, parenting quality, and
child care quality and quantity. In these models the
hypothesis that parenting quality and child care
characteristics mediated the relation between pov-
erty group and child outcomes was tested. The in-
direct path from poverty through the mediator to

child outcome was computed as the product of the
regression coefficient of the mediator on poverty and
the coefficient of the child outcome on the mediator
(MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets,
2002). Separate HLM analyses were used to examine
repeated assessments of academic, cognitive, and
language development and of externalizing and in-
ternalizing behavior problems as indexed by the
CBCL (reported by mothers and caregivers or
teachers).
In each analysis, quadratic group growth curves
were estimated. All predictors including child age
were centered at the sample mean to enhance inter-
pretation of the coefficients. In each analysis, we
crossed child age and age2 with all other predictors.
Poverty group, maternal education, ethnicity, and
gender were time-invariant predictors, whereas
child age, partner status, maternal depressive
symptoms, home enrichment, and maternal sensi-
tivity were time-varying predictors. Child care ex-
periences were treated as a time-varying covariate
for the outcomes at ages in which children experi-
enced child care and as a time-invariant predictor for
the outcomes at subsequent ages. That is, time-var-
ying covariates in the models included the concur-
rent assessment of family measures for all ages and
of child care experiences for 24-, 36-, and 54-month
outcomes. Time-invariant covariates included ma-
ternal education, ethnicity, and gender at all ages,
and cumulative, average-over-time measures of
child care amount and quality for the school-age
outcomes. A time-varying dummy variable indicat-
ing which version of the CBCL was used at each age
was included in the analyses of the mother- and
teacher-reported externalizing and internalizing
scores.
Results
All comparisons are reported using the multiply
imputed data sets. In all comparisons we conducted
five sets of analyses and combined results across
them. Descriptive data for all variables in the anal-
ysis by poverty group are available from the author.
Home Enrichment and Parenting Quality
The first set of analyses tested differences among
the four poverty groups in home enrichment and
parenting quality over time. Maternal education,
partner status, and maternal depressive symptoms
were examined as variables that might account for
any differences. Results are shown in Table 1.
Duration and Timing of Poverty 801
Home enrichment. Without the inclusion of family
characteristics (Model 1 in Table 1), poverty group
was highly related to enrichment, and the Poverty
Group  Child Age interaction was significant. The
patterns over time are shown in Figure 1. The never-
poor families provided the highest quality environ-
ments, the always-poor families provided the lowest
quality environments, and the other two fell in be-
tween. The patterns of change also differed. Home
environment quality of families in the late and
chronically poor groups dropped over time com-
pared with the never-poor group. Addition of the
family characteristics (Model 2) reduced the F value
and regression coefficients for the main effect and
reduced the interaction to a nonsignificant level. The
poverty effect size for Model 1 was .57 and for Model
2 was .22, a reduction of 61%. Education, partner
status, and depressive symptoms were all signifi-
cant. For maternal education, the child age and age2
interactions were also significant, indicating that
education has a stronger relation to home enrich-
ment as children get older.
Maternal sensitivity. There were significant pov-
erty group differences in maternal sensitivity in
Model 1 (see Table 1). The never-poor mothers
showed the highest sensitivity and the always-poor
mothers showed the lowest. The early and late
groups fell in between and were not different from
each other, and there were no differences in patterns
of change over time. In Model 2, controlling for
maternal education, partner status, and depressive
symptoms, the income group differences were sub-
stantially smaller. Although the never-poor and
always-poor groups differed significantly, the early-
and late-poor groups did not differ from the never-
poor group. The early-poor and late-poor mothers
were significantly more sensitive than the always-
poor mothers. The poverty effect size (d) was
reduced from .43 in Model 1 to .20 in Model 2, a
reduction of 53%, and differences in maternal edu-
cation seemed largely to account for this change.
Child Cognitive and Social Development
The next set of research questions involved (a) the
relations of poverty duration and timing to childrens
cognitive and social development, and (b) the extent
to which poverty group differences were accounted
for by home enrichment, parenting quality, or child
care quantity or quality. To address these questions
longitudinally, two sets of HLM analyses described
longitudinal measures of cognitive and language
development and of externalizing and internalizing
behavior problems. The first model included site,
802 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network

Table 1
Poverty Group Comparisons on Parenting Quality From 6 Months to Grade 3

Maternal sensitivity: Mother child

Home enrichment factor interactions

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Poverty group F 116.16 20.20 64.38 15.97

Never M (SE) 0.21 (0.03)a 0.06 (0.03)a 0.16 (0.02)a 0.06 (0.03)a
Late M (SE) 0.25 (0.09)b 0.08 (0.08)a 0.16 (0.06)b 0.02 (0.10)a
Early M (SE) 0.14 (0.07)b 0.02 (0.06)a 0.15 (0.09)b 0.07 (0.06)a
Always M (SE) 0.70 (0.05)c 0.36 (0.05)b 0.55 (0.04)c 0.32 (0.05)b
Poverty Group  Child Age F 6.94 0.87 1.82 1.49
Never linear slope B (SE) 0.01 (0.01)a 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01)
Late linear slope B (SE) 0.04 (0.02)b 0.02 (0.02) 0.02 (0.02) 0.02 (0.02)
Early linear slope B (SE) 0.00 (0.01)a 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01)
Always linear slope B (SE) 0.04 (0.01)b 0.01 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01)
Poverty Group  Age2 F 0.69 1.50 1.34 1.20
Never quad slope B (SE) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (.000) 0.00 (0.00)
Late quad slope B (SE) 0.01 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01)
Early quad slope B (SE) 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01)
Always quad slope B (SE) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.00) 0.01 (0.00)
Family characteristics
Maternal education 0.12 (0.01) 0.09 (0.01)
Maternal Education  Child Age 0.01 (0.00)
Maternal Education  Age2 0.00 (0.00)
Partner in household 0.25 (0.05) 0.10 (0.05)
Maternal depression 0.01 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
Maternal Depression  Child Age 0.00 (0.00)
Maternal Depression  Age2 0.00 (0.00)

Note. Model 1 adjusted for site, child ethnicity, and child gender and interactions between those variables and both child age and age2.
Model 2 added maternal education, partner in household, and maternal depression and their interactions with child age and age2 (in-
teraction coefficients listed only when significantly different from zero to save space). Adjusted means and slope coefficients with different
subscripts are statistically significant from each other. Missing data were imputed and adjusted means and comparisons are combined
across separate analyses of the imputed data sets. The median F statistic is reported.
po.05. po.01. po.001.

child sex, and ethnicity as covariates, and the second Cognitive and language development. Table 2 shows
model added family characteristics and the hypoth- the adjusted means and their standard errors for the
esized parenting and child care mediators. four poverty groups for each model, the coefficients
for the the Income Group  Child Age and Income
1 Group  Age2 interactions, and the coefficients for
Never
Late the hypothesized mediators. None of the interactions
HOME Enrichment Scale

0.5
Early between the hypothesized mediators and child age
Always
or age2 was significant. Figure 2 shows the group
growth curves for the four income groups as esti-
0 mated with Model 1. Results of Model 1 indicate
significant poverty group differences in cognitive
0.5 status. As shown in Figure 2, children from families
who were never poor scored highest, and children
from families who were always poor scored lowest.
1
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Adding the family characteristics, parenting, and
Age in Years child care variables (Model 2) substantially reduced
the income group differences, but they remained
Figure 1. Home enrichment from 6 months to third grade in fam-
ilies from four income groups. Data represent standardized scores significant. Mediation analysis indicated that the
from the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment quality of the home environment (z 5 4.14, po.001)
(HOME) scale. and maternal sensitivity (z 5 3.34, po.01) were sig-
 Duration and Timing of Poverty 803

Table 2 115
Poverty Group Comparisons on Development of Cognitive Skills From 2 Never
110 Late
Years to Grade 3 Early

Cognitive Composite
105 Always
Model 1 Model 2
100
Poverty group F 74.66 15.12
95
Never M (SE) 102.4 (0.39)a 100.5 (0.53)a
Late M (SE) 96.3 (1.39)b 98.1 (1.33)b 90
Early M (SE) 97.7 (1.04)b 98.8 (1.06)b
Always M (SE) 91.3 (0.65)c 95.1 (0.75)c 85

Poverty Group  Child F 2.99 2.38 80

Age 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Never linear slope B (SE) 2.25 (0.07)ac 2.54 (0.19) Age in Years
Late linear slope B (SE) 1.79 (0.34)a 2.18 (0.38) Figure 2. Indexes of childrens cognitive language skill from 6
Early linear slope B (SE) 2.62 (0.17)b 2.90 (0.30) months to third grade by income group. Data represent a stand-
Always linear slope B (SE) 2.37 (0.13)bc 2.54 (0.25) ardized composite score based on age-appropriate measures at
Poverty Group  Age2 F 1.05 0.23 each time point.
Never quad slope B (SE) 0.05 (0.03) 0.11 (0.06)
Late quad slope B (SE) 0.00 (0.10) 0.12 (0.11) groups. The mothers in all four poverty groups re-
Early quad slope B (SE) 0.04 (0.08) 0.11 (0.09) ported fewer problems over time, but the patterns of
Always quad slope B (SE) 0.03 (0.04) 0.07 (0.08) change were different. Maternal ratings of external-
Family characteristics izing problems in the never-poor group declined less
Maternal education B (SE) 1.28 (0.15) during the preschool years and more during the
Partner in household B (SE) 0.51 (0.54)
school-age years; by contrast, externalizing ratings in
Maternal depression B (SE) 0.03 (0.02)
Exclusive maternal care B (SE) 0.24 (0.46)
the always-poor group accelerated as the children
Hypothesized mediators
reached school age.
Home enrichment B (SE) 1.45 (0.23) Adding family characteristics and hypothesized
Maternal sensitivity B (SE) 0.83 (0.22) mediators reduced the overall differences among the
Child care hours B (SE) 0.00 (0.01) income groups. All three covariatesFmaternal ed-
Child care quality B (SE) 0.38 (0.35) ucation, partner status, and maternal depressive
symptomsFpredicted externalizing ratings. In ad-
Note. Model 1 adjusted for site, child ethnicity, and child gender
dition, child care hours predicted declines in ma-
and interactions between those variables and both child age and
age2. Model 2 added parenting and child care variables (interac- ternal ratings of externalizing problems during the
tion coefficients listed only when significantly different from zero preschool years but became a nonsignificant pre-
to save space). Adjusted means and slope coefficients with dif- dictor after the transition to school. However, the
ferent subscripts are statistically significant from each other.
Missing data were imputed, and adjusted means and comparisons indirect paths from income group through the hy-
are combined across separate analyses of the imputed data sets. pothesized mediators to maternal report of exter-
The median F statistic is reported. nalizing problems were all nonsignificant. Overall,
po.05, po.001.
the addition of all covariates and mediators reduced
the poverty effect size from .30 to .16, a reduction of
nificant mediators, providing evidence that at least 47% from Model 1 to Model 2.
part of the poverty effect was due to indirect paths Teacher-reported externalizing problems showed
from poverty through parenting to cognitive skills. an overall effect of poverty group in Model 1 (see
The poverty effect size (d) was .52 for Model 1 and Table 3 and Figure 4). Again, the mean scores do not
.23 in Model 3, a reduction of 56%. suggest any group to be at risk for clinical levels of
Externalizing behavior problems. Significant pover- behavior problems. Children from families in the
ty group differences emerged in mother-reported always-poor group had higher scores than did chil-
externalizing T scores in Model 1 for both overall dren in the never- and early-poor groups. Adding
levels and patterns of change over time (see Table 3). the family characteristics and hypothesized media-
It is important to note, however, that none of the tors reduced the group effect to nonsignificance.
adjusted mean scores on the externalizing scale Lower ratings of externalizing problems were asso-
reached the at-risk or clinical level. As shown in ciated with higher maternal education, having a
Figure 3, mothers in the late- and always-poor partner in the household when children were older,
groups reported significantly more behavior prob- more sensitive mothers, and fewer child care hours.
lems than did mothers in the early- and never-poor In Model 2, three of the four hypothesized mediators
804 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network

Table 3
Poverty Group Comparisons on CBCL Ratings of Externalizing Problems From 2 Years to Grade 3

Caregiver and teacher ratings of

Maternal ratings of externalizing externalizing

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Poverty group F 14.06 3.94 7.71 1.29

Never M (SE) 49.78 (0.30)a 50.03 (0.37)a 49.40 (0.29)a 50.07 (0.34)
Late M (SE) 54.34 (1.11)b 53.31 (1.07)b 50.62 (1.02)ab 50.31 (0.99)
Early M (SE) 50.55 (0.80)a 50.02 (0.81)a 49.68 (0.75)a 49.49 (0.72)
Always M (SE) 52.99 (0.56)b 51.35 (0.63)ab 52.18 (0.57)b 50.96 (0.64)
Poverty Group  Child Age F 0.41 0.21 2.45 1.10
Never linear slope B (SE) 0.52 (0.08) 0.73 (0.16) 1.01 (0.16) 1.04 (0.27)
Late linear slope B (SE) 0.35 (0.26) 0.65 (0.29) 0.96 (0.50) 1.08 (0.53)
Early linear slope B (SE) 0.58 (0.21) 0.72 (0.27) 0.29 (0.39) 0.35 (0.41)
Always linear slope B (SE) 0.74 (0.13) 0.92 (0.21) 0.99 (0.26) 0.95 (0.31)
Poverty Group  Age2 F 4.72 1.44 3.88 2.75
Never quadratic slope B (SE) 0.10 (0.02)a 0.06 (0.05) 0.12 (0.04)a 0.08 (0.07)a
Late quadratic slope B (SE) 0.09 (0.07) 0.05 (0.08) 0.09 (0.12) 0.10 (0.14)
Early quadratic slope B (SE) 0.02 (0.05) 0.02 (0.06) 0.08 (0.09)b 0.10 (0.10)b
Always quadratic slope B (SE) 0.03 (0.04)b 0.03 (0.06) 0.01 (0.07) 0.04 (0.09)
Family characteristics
Maternal education B (SE) 0.29 (0.10) 0.29 (0.11)
Partner in household B (SE) 1.11 (0.38) 0.65 (0.57)
Partner  Age B (SE) 1.10 (0.35)
Partner  Age2 B (SE) 0.22 (0.09)
Maternal depression B (SE) 0.10 (0.02) 0.03 (0.03)
Exclusive maternal care B (SE) 0.26 (0.43) 1.41 (2.46)
Hypothesized Mediators
Home enrichment B (SE) 0.25 (0.16) 0.49 (0.25)
Maternal sensitivity B (SE) 0.21 (0.13) 0.83 (0.19)
Child care hours B (SE) 0.01 (0.01) 0.06 (0.01)
Child Care Hours  Child Age B (SE) 0.01 (0.01)
Child Care Hours  Age2 B (SE) 0.00 (0.00)
Child care quality B (SE) 0.53 (0.29) 0.07 (0.38)

Note. Model 1 adjusted for site, child ethnicity, and child gender and interactions between those variables and both child age and age2.
Model 2 added parenting and child care variables (interaction coefficients listed only when significantly different from zero to save space).
Adjusted means and slope coefficients with different subscripts are statistically significant from each other. Missing data were imputed,
and adjusted means and comparisons are combined across separate analyses of the imputed data sets. CBCL 5 Child Behavior Checklist.
The median F statistic is reported.
po.05. po.01. po.001.

showed significant indirect paths: home enrichment
(z 5 2.07, po.05), maternal sensitivity (z 5 3.25,
po.01), and hours of child care (z 5 3.73, po.001).
Thus, it appears that poverty is related to teacher
reports of externalizing problems in part through
less enriching and sensitive parenting, and that
fewer hours of child care counteract possible poverty
effects. The effect size (d) was reduced from .15 to
.02 for teacher ratings of externalizing problems, a
87% change.
Internalizing behavior problems. Significant poverty
group differences emerged in mother-reported in-
ternalizing T scores in Model 1 for both overall levels
and patterns of change over time (see Table 4 and
Figure 5). As with the externalizing scores, the mean
level of internalizing behavior problems reported
did not indicate clinical risk. Mothers in the late and
always-poor groups reported significantly more in-
ternalizing problems than did mothers in the never-
poor group. The mothers in all four groups reported
fewer problems over time, but only the never-poor
group showed a linear pattern of decline. The ratings
by mothers in the other three groups showed more
decline in internalizing problems during the pre-
school years and a leveling off during the school-age
years.

60
CBCL (Mother) Externalzing
55
50
45
2 2.5 3 3.5
Figure 3. Childrens externalizing behavior T scores reported by
mothers from the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) from 2 years to
third grade by income group.
Adding covariates reduced differences among the
income groups, eliminating significant main effects
and reducing differences in patterns of change over
time. In Model 2, fewer internalizing problem be-
haviors were reported by mothers who had more
education, a partner, and fewer depressive symp-
toms. In addition, internalizing scores were lower
when mothers were more sensitive, but this trend
was stronger when children were younger than
when they were older. However, none of the poten-
tial mediators made significant contributions. Over-
all, the addition of all covariates and hypothesized
mediators reduced the poverty effect size from .19 to
.09, a reduction of 53% from Model 1.
Teacher-reported internalizing problems showed
an overall effect of poverty group (see Table 4 and
Figure 6). Children from families in the always-poor
group had higher scores than did children in the
never- and early-poor groups. Adding the covariates
reduced the group effect to nonsignificance, with
lower ratings of internalizing problems associated
with higher HOME enrichment scores. Two of the
60
Never
TRF (Teacher) Externalzing
Late
Early
Always
55
50
45
2 2.5 3 3.5
Figure 4. Childrens externalizing behavior T score as reported by
caregivers and teachers from 2 years to third grade by income
group. TRF 5 Teacher Report Form.
Duration and Timing of Poverty 805
four hypothesized mediators showed significant in-
Never
direct paths: home enrichment (z 5 2.05, po.05)
Late
Early and hours of child care (z 5 2.21, po.05). The poverty
Always
effect size (d) was reduced from .10 to .02 for teacher
ratings of externalizing problems, an 80% change.
Discussion
This prospective longitudinal examination of dura-
tion and developmental timing of poverty confirmed
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 the previously well-documented associations of
Age in Years negative outcomes with poverty but went beyond
these findings to suggest some of the processes by
which poverty affects children. In this sample, chil-
dren in persistently poor families had the lowest
levels of performance of the four groups on tests of
language and school-readiness skill, and their scores
were significantly different from those in families
that experienced shorter term poverty. Both mothers
and teachers rated children in chronically poor and
late-poor families as having more externalizing and
internalizing behavior problems than did those in
the other groups. Analyses of externalizing and in-
ternalizing behavior problems yielded similar re-
sults, with no indication of different patterns in
different poverty groups.
It is clear that advantages and disadvantages
cluster in families; when there is economic disad-
vantage, there also tends to be psychosocial difficulty
and lowered intellectual resources both at home and
in child care. The chronically poor families were
more seriously and consistently disadvantaged than
those in transitory poverty, not only because they
had lower incomes, but on almost every indicator
measured. Unlike chronically poor families, those
that experienced transitory poverty maintained ad-
equate levels of childrearing quality even while their
incomes were limited. Mothers in the early- and late-
poor families showed similar levels of sensitivity as
those in the never-poor families, suggesting an un-
derlying resiliency or access to supportive environ-
ments that may help some families avoid chronic
poverty.
Overall, developmental timing of poverty had less
consistent relations to childrens development than
did poverty duration. For the most part, the cogni-
tive and social behavior scores of children in transi-
tory poverty fell between those in chronically poor
families and those in never-poor families. Where
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 differences between early and late poverty occurred,
Age in Years children who experienced poverty later (age 4 9
years) had less favorable developmental outcomes
than did those whose families were poor in the first 3
years of their lives. Children in early- and late-poor
806 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network

Table 4
Poverty Group Comparisons on CBCL Ratings of Internalizing Problems From 2 Years to Grade 3

Caregiver and teacher ratings of

Maternal ratings of internalizing internalizing

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Poverty group F 4.32 1.11 4.87 1.72

Never M (SE) 47.31 (0.28)a 48.10 (0.41) 48.60 (0.33)a 48.66 (0.62)
Late M (SE) 49.84 (1.06)b 49.66 (1.04) 49.80 (1.03) 49.09 (1.02)
Early M (SE) 48.70 (0.77) 49.01 (0.77) 48.25 (0.71)a 47.75 (0.83)
Always M (SE) 48.78 (0.49)b 48.17 (0.58) 50.68 (0.64)b 49.58 (0.62)
Poverty Group  Child Age F 10.47 2.86 0.76 1.77
Never linear slope B (SE) 0.37 (0.06)b 0.55 (0.12) 0.20 (0.09) .00 (0.16)
Late linear slope B (SE) 0.54 (0.24)b 0.54 (0.26) 0.07 (0.37) 0.28 (0.38)
Early linear slope B (SE) 0.38 (0.16)b 0.30 (0.19)b 0.29 (0.24) 0.19 (0.26)
Always linear slope B (SE) 1.03 (0.12)a 0.85 (0.16)a 0.17 (0.20) 0.12 (0.24)
Poverty Group  Age2 F 13.30 4.66 2.95 0.61
Never quadratic slope B (SE) 0.14 (0.02)b 0.11 (0.04)b 0.07 (0.03)a 0.13 (0.07)
Late quadratic slope B (SE) 0.26 (0.08)ab 0.21 (0.09) 0.15 (0.12) 0.18 (0.13)
Early quadratic slope B (SE) 0.19 (0.06)ac 0.11 (0.07)b 0.23 (0.11)b 0.24 (0.12)
Always quadratic slope B (SE) 0.40 (0.05)c 0.30 (0.06)a 0.21 (0.11)b 0.17 (0.09)
Family characteristics
Maternal education B (SE) 0.16 (0.11) 0.23 (0.12)
Maternal Education  Age B (SE) 0.09 (0.03)
Partner in household B (SE) 0.97 (0.45) 0.04 (0.68)
Maternal depression B (SE) 0.10 (0.02) 0.02 (0.04)
Exclusive maternal care B (SE) 0.72 (0.44) 0.45 (0.72)
Mediators
Home enrichment B (SE) 0.03 (0.18) 0.58 (0.31)
Maternal sensitivity B (SE) 0.07 (0.21) 0.01 (0.23)
Maternal Sensitivity  Age B (SE) 0.10 (0.05)
Child care hours B (SE) 0.01 (0.01) 0.03 (0.01)
Child care quality B (SE) 0.46 (0.38) 0.30 (0.68)

Note. Model 1 adjusted for site, child ethnicity, and child gender and interactions between those variables and both child age and age2.
Model 2 added parenting and child care variables (interaction coefficients listed only when significantly different from zero to save space).
Adjusted means and slope coefficients with different subscripts are statistically significant from each other. Missing data were imputed,
and adjusted means and comparisons are combined across separate analyses of the imputed data sets. CBCL 5 Child Behavior Checklist.
The median F statistic is reported.
po.05. po.01. po.001.

families did not differ significantly on cognitive
performance or teacher-rated behavior problems, but
mothers in late-poor families rated their children
higher on externalizing and internalizing behavior
problems than did those in early-poor families.
These findings are not consistent with the hypothesis
that early poverty is more detrimental to children
than later poverty (e.g., Duncan & Brooks-Gunn,
1997). Instead, early transitory poverty seems less
detrimental to childrens cognitive and social de-
velopment than long-term or concurrent poverty.
A striking difference between children in early-
and late-poor families was the higher maternal rat-
ings on behavior problems for children in late
poverty. The finding of higher behavior problems in
the late-poor group is consistent with studies
showing that changes in economic conditions lead to
increased behavior problems among young children
(Hofferth, Smith, McLoyd, & Finkelstein, 2000). One
possible explanation for the differences in children
from the early- versus late-poor groups may be
found in their family environments. The quality of
enrichment in the home appeared to be declining
over time in the late-poor families, especially at the
ages at which many of the child outcomes were
collected.
Parenting quality and child care quality and
quantity were examined as mediators of poverty
group effects on child outcomes. Family investment
in parenting, as indexed by home enrichment and
 Duration and Timing of Poverty 807

60 depression and a possible bias to describe children

Never
Late
Early
Always
55
50
45
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 5. Childrens internalizing behavior T score as reported by
mothers from 2 years to third grade by income group.
maternal sensitivity, appeared to mediate poverty
group effects on childrens cognitive and language
performance. This result is consistent with theories
that link economic disadvantage with poor outcomes
for children through diminished quality of parenting
(Hashima & Amato, 1994; McLoyd, 1997, 1998) and
lowered material, human, and social capital (Foster,
2002). Parenting quality less consistently mediated
poverty group effects on social outcomes, in accord
with results reported by Yeung, Linver, and Brooks-
Gunn (2002). Although mediation analyses sug-
gested that poverty effects on teacher reports of
externalizing and internalizing behavior problems
were mediated through parenting quality, the
indirect paths through parenting quality were not
significant for mother reports. Other family charac-
teristics, particularly maternal depressive symptoms,
were consistently linked to mothers ratings of their
childrens behavior, and it is likely that these asso-
ciations reflect both a negative impact of maternal
60
Never
Late
Early
Always
55
50
45
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 particular limitation to the present study, given the
Figure 6. Childrens internalizing behavior T score as reported by
caregivers and teachers from 2 years to third grade by income
group.
more negatively among depressed mothers. Others
have noted the strong relation between maternal
depressive symptoms and mother reports of child
behavior problems (Berg, Turid, Vika, & Dahl, 2003;
Friedlander, Weiss, & Traylor, 1986; Rose, Rose, &
Feldman, 1989). A link between depression and
mother reports of child behavior problems may have
masked any mediating effect of parenting quality.
Child care played a less important role in ex-
plaining differences among poverty groups. The
lower quality of nonmaternal care that poor children
received was not a significant mediator in any of the
analyses. Earlier analyses of the NICHD SECC
showed higher teacher-reported behavior problems
for children with higher cumulative amounts of child
care from birth through age 412 (NICHD Early Child
Care Research Network, 2003a). Children from poor
families had lower cumulative amounts of care than
did those from nonpoor families, and this lower
quantity of care appeared to reduce poverty effects
on teacher-reported externalizing and internalizing
behavior problems. Prior results from the NICHD
SECC have also shown that family factors predict
child outcomes in all domains better than do child
care factors (NICHD Early Child Care Research
Network, 2002, 2003b). The separation of family and
child care characteristics is never as complete in the
real world as it is in our analyses, however. Families
choose whether or not to use nonmaternal care and
select child care environments; these choices are
based at least partially on income and on factors
closely related to income, such as work hours and
family composition. Indeed, there are complex in-
terrelations among all characteristics of childrens
environments.
Although the analyses reported here provide new
information about the role of persistent and inter-
mittent poverty in the lives of young children, sev-
eral important questions remain. First, far fewer
families experienced transitory poverty (either early
or late) than either persistent poverty or no poverty.
Accordingly, there was much less power to distin-
guish the early- and late-poor groups from each
other or from the always- or never-poor groups.
Differences involving these groups could be identi-
fied if effect sizes were moderate or large, but not
small. Second, the NICHD SECC sample, although
drawn from 10 locations around the United States,
was not selected to be nationally representative. A
ethnic disparity in income in the United States, is
that representation of ethnic minority groups is not
adequate to allow analyses of ethnic differences
808 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network
within groups. Further research into the duration
and timing of poverty for families from different
ethnic and cultural groups is clearly needed if we are
to understand how childrens development is af-
fected by poverty. Because the present sample was
not selected specifically to examine poverty, the four
poverty groups differ substantially in size, limiting
the generality of the conclusions that can be made
from these results. The proportion of families in our
sample who experienced poverty at some point
mirrors national trends, however. Recent statistics
indicate that approximately 40% of U.S. families
have incomes under 200% of poverty; in our sample,
37% of the families fell into one of the three poverty
groups.
Third, whenever family processes and childrens
development are examined over extended periods,
as was done in the present study, measurement is-
sues are of concern. Certain indicator variables that
could be measured repeatedly were used in this
study, but these do not necessarily capture the in-
tended constructs in as much detail as would be
ideal. The CES-D was used as an indicator of overall
maternal psychological well-being. This measure can
be used repeatedly and gives an indication of de-
pressive symptoms, but it does not yield a valid
measure of clinical depression and it does not cap-
ture other aspects of maternal psychological func-
tioning. Similarly, the CBCL was the index of child
social development; this measure has been validated
for use with children from toddlerhood through
adolescence and is therefore especially useful in
longitudinal analyses. Although widely used in
similar studies, the CBCL provides only a limited
picture of childrens overall social development, as
its intended use is to identify behavior problems
calling for clinical intervention. Within a normative
sample such as the present one, relatively few chil-
dren fall in the clinical or even at-risk range. The goal
of this study was not to identify such children but to
index overall social development. As interest in
long-term longitudinal research grows, the need for
additional measures that provide a multidimen-
sional look at important family processes and child
developmental outcomes across a wide range of
child ages becomes more crucial.
The present study was designed to address spe-
cific questions about differences among groups de-
fined by poverty status at particular points in
childrens lives. Further research is needed to iden-
tify the underlying causes for family poverty and for
gains and losses of income over time and to examine
more closely the mechanisms of influence that link
poverty to deleterious outcomes for children. Factors
other than those examined in this report, such as
poor nutrition or inadequate health care, may ac-
count for some of the findings. The results reported
here provide only a broad overview of the relation
between poverty and family processes and resources
but suggest some important questions for future in-
vestigation using selected samples of families.
Clearly, families who live close to the poverty line
face many challenges that are interconnected and
that affect childrens experiences in complex ways.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior
Checklist/4 18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of
Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M. (1992). Manual for the Child Behavior
Checklist/2 3 and 1992 Profile. Burlington: University of
Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Ackerman, B., Brown, E., & Izard, C. (2004a). The relations
between contextual risk, earned income, and the school
adjustment of children from economically disadvan-
taged families. Developmental Psychology, 40, 204 216.
Ackerman, B., Brown, E., & Izard, C. (2004b). The relations
between persistent poverty and contextual risk and
childrens behavior in elementary school. Developmental
Psychology, 40, 367 377.
Bayley, N. (1991). Bayley Scales of Infant Development (2nd
ed.). New York: Psychological Corporation.
Berg, N., Turid, S., Vika, A., & Dahl, A. A. (2003). When
adolescents disagree with their mothers: CBCL YSR
discrepancies related to maternal depression and
adolescent self-esteem. Child: Care, Health, and Develop-
ment, 29, 207 213.
Bolger, K., Patterson, C., Thompson, W., & Kupersmidt,
J. (1995). Psychosocial adjustment among children ex-
periencing persistent and intermittent family economic
hardship. Child Development, 66, 1107 1129.
Bracken, B. A. (1984). Bracken Basic Concept Scale. San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic
status and child development. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 53, 377 399.
Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., Burchinal, M., Pipes-McA-
doo, H., & Garcia Coll, C. (2001). The home environ-
ments of children in the United States Part II: Relations
with behavioral development through age thirteen.
Child Development, 72, 1868 1886.
Burchinal, M., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Bryant, D., & Clifford,
R. (2000). Childrens social and cognitive development
and child care quality: Testing for differential associa-
tions related to poverty, gender, or ethnicity. Applied
Developmental Science, 4, 149 165.
Caldwell, B., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home Observation for
Measurement of the Environment. Little Rock: University
of Arkansas, Center for Research on Teaching and
Learning.

Campbell, S. B. (1995). Behavior problems in preschool
children: A review of recent research. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 36,
113 149.
Citro, C. F., & Michael, R. T. (1995). Measuring poverty: A
new approach. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Costello, E. J., Compton, S., Keeler, G., & Angold, A. (2003).
Relationships between poverty and psychopathology: A
natural experiment. Journal of the American Medical As-
sociation, 290, 2023 2029.
Dearing, E., McCartney, K., & Taylor, B. A. (2001). Change
in family income-to-needs matters more for children
with less. Child Development, 72, 1779 1793.
Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Consequences of
growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). Family poverty,
welfare reform, and child development. Child Develop-
ment, 71, 188 196.
Duncan, G., Yeung, W. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Smith, J.
(1998). How much does childhood poverty affect the life
chances of children? American Sociological Review, 63,
406 423.
Foster, E. M. (2002). How economists think about family
resources and child development. Child Development, 73,
1904 1914.
Friedlander, S., Weiss, D., & Traylor, J. (1986). Assessing the
influence of maternal depression on the validity of the
Child Behavior Checklist. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 14, 123 133.
Garrett, P., Ngandu, N., & Ferron, J. (1994). Poverty ex-
periences of young children and the quality of their
home environments. Child Development, 65, 331 345.
Hashima, P. Y., & Amato, P. R. (1994). Poverty, social sup-
port, and parental behavior. Child Development, 65,
394 403.
Hofferth, S. L., Smith, J., McLoyd, V. C., & Finkelstein, J.
(2000). Achievement and behavior among children of welfare
recipients, welfare leavers, and low income single mothers.
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Korenman, S., Miller, J., & Sjaastad, J. (1995). Long-term
poverty and child development in the United States:
Results from the NLSY. Children and Youth Services Re-
view, 17, 127 155.
Linver, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Kohen, D. (2002). Family
processes as pathways from income to young childrens
development. Developmental Psychology, 38, 719 734.
Lipman, E. L., & Offord, D. R. (1997). Psychosocial mor-
bidity among poor children in Ontario. In G. J. Duncan
& J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor
(pp. 239 297). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West,
S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to
test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological Methods, 7, 83 104.
McLeod, J., & Nonnemaker, J. (2000). Poverty and child
emotional and behavioral problems: Racial-ethnic
differences in processes and effects. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 41, 137 161.
Duration and Timing of Poverty 809
McLeod, J., & Shanahan, M. (1993). Poverty, parenting, and
childrens mental health. American Sociological Review, 58,
351 366.
McLoyd, V. C. (1997). The impact of poverty and low so-
cioeconomic status on the socioemotional functioning of
African-American children and adolescents: Mediating
effects. In R. W. Taylor & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Social and
emotional adjustment and family relations in ethnic minority
families (pp. 7 34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and
child development. American Psychologist, 53, 185 204.
Mistry, R., Biesanz, J., Taylor, L., Burchinal, M., & Cox, M.
(2004). Family income and its relation to preschool
childrens adjustment for families in the NICHD
Study of Early Child Care. Developmental Psychology, 40,
727 745.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment Early Child Care Research Network. (1996).
Characteristics of infant child care: Factors contributing
to positive caregiving. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
11, 269 306.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment Early Child Care Research Network. (1997).
Familial factors associated with the characteristics of
nonmaternal care for infants. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 59, 389 408.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment Early Child Care Research Network. (1999). Child
care and mother child interaction in the first three
years of life. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1399 1413.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment Early Child Care Research Network. (2000).
Characteristics and quality of child care for toddlers and
preschoolers. Journal of Applied Developmental Science, 4,
116 135.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment Early Child Care Research Network. (2001a).
Before Head Start: Income and ethnicity, family charac-
teristics, child care experiences, and child development.
Early Education and Development, 12, 545 576.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment Early Child Care Research Network. (2001b).
Nonmaternal care and family factors in early develop-
ment: An overview of the NICHD Study of Early Child
Care. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22,
457 492.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). The
interaction of child care and family risk in relation to
child development at 24 and 36 months. Applied Devel-
opmental Science, 6, 144 156.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment Early Child Care Research Network. (2003a). Does
amount of time spent in child care predict socioemo-
tional adjustment during the transition to kindergarten?
Child Development, 74, 1454 1475.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment Early Child Care Research Network. (2003b).
810 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network
Families matterFeven for kids in child care. Journal of
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 24, 58 62.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment Early Child Care Research Network & Duncan, G.
(2003). Modeling the impacts of child care quality on
childrens preschool cognitive development. Child De-
velopment, 74, 1454 1475.
Phillips, D., Voran, M., Kisker, E., Howes, C., & Whitbook,
M. (1994). Child care for children in poverty: Opportu-
nity or inequity? Child Development, 65, 472 492.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES D Scale: A self-report de-
pression scale for research in the general population.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385 401.
Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear mod-
els: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reynell, J. (1991). Reynell Developmental Language Scale (U.S.
ed.). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Rose, S. L., Rose, S. A., & Feldman, J. (1989). Stability of
behavior problems in very young children. Development
and Psychopathology, 1, 5 19.
Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in
surveys. New York: Wiley.
Rutter, M. (1989). Pathways from childhood to adult life.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Dis-
ciplines, 30, 23 51.
Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data.
London: Capman & Hall.
Schafer, J., & Graham, J. (2002). Missing data: Our view
of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147 177.
Vandell, D. L. (1979). Effects of a playgroup experience on
mother son and father son interaction. Developmental
Psychology, 15, 379 385.
Votruba-Drzal, E. (2003). Income changes and cognitive
stimulation in young childrens home learning envi-
ronments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 341 355.
Winer, B. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design
(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock
Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery Revised. Itasca, IL:
Riverside.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1990). Woodcock
Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery Revised. Allen, TX:
DLM Teaching Resources.
Yeung, W. J., Linver, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). How
money matters for young childrens development: Pa-
rental investment and family processes. Child Develop-
ment, 73, 1861 1879.
Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (1992).
Preschool Language Scale 3. San Antonio, TX: Psycho-
logical Corporation.