early childhood policies intend to respond to this problem by helping children—especially developmentally vulnerable children who face unfair yet avoidable barriers to healthy developmen
Research evidence indicates the value of neighborhood-informed early childhood policies
Children’s neighborhoods, developmental risk, inequality and race
How is a child’s early health and development shaped by the neighborhood where they live?
Early childhood—from birth through age four—marks the fastest period of development in a person’s life A child's brain is about one-quarter the size of an adult brain at birth, growing to roughly 80% of its adult volume by age two, illustrating the remarkable pace of neural maturation during these first years (Knickmeyer).
2008) What happens during this early period of development has lasting implications into adulthood
Brain science and developmental research show that children's brains grow and wire themselves through everyday interactions with people and the objects they explore When a baby cries and an adult responds with eye contact, talking, or a hug, new neural connections form, shaping a child’s communication and social development As infants explore toys and discover cause and effect, additional neural pathways emerge to support cognitive growth These back-and-forth “serve and return” exchanges cumulatively shape the brain’s architecture over time (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).
Children experience serve-and-return interactions within their proximal settings—the everyday environments where responsive exchanges with people and objects fuel development These settings span homes and families, child care programs, preschools, caregiving arrangements, and neighborhoods, and together they form a child’s developmental ecology Over time, a child’s physical health, as well as cognitive, emotional, and social skills, are shaped by the total mix of positive and negative interactions across all these proximal settings This perspective, rooted in Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2007), highlights how daily experiences in multiple contexts collectively influence development.
Children grow and learn within interconnected settings—family, daycares, and neighborhoods—and recognizing how neighborhood contexts influence early health, growth, and development helps explain developmental outcomes A substantial body of research points to three main pathways: first, access to resources and services such as quality childcare, healthcare, nutritious food, safe housing, and educational opportunities; second, the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood—safety, pollution, noise, housing stability, and safe spaces for play—that shape health and daily routines; and third, social processes and networks—the presence of supportive relationships, strong schools, safe streets, and opportunities for positive peer interaction and community engagement—that provide emotional support, learning opportunities, and social capital Together, these interconnected factors help explain how neighborhood contexts can promote or hinder a child’s development.
Neighborhoods are more than just places to live; they are active settings where children spend time, interact with people, and engage with the built environment in ways that shape development For example, a child climbing a structure in the neighborhood park uses the playground’s physical features to build gross motor skills, while daily serve-and-return interactions with neighbors support the growth of communication and social skills.
Second, the institutions located in children’s neighborhoods (e.g businesses, child cares, preschools, libraries, parenting/play groups, health centers) can shape the interactions children experience in their daily lives
Neighborhood institutions play a pivotal role in children’s development by connecting them with people and environments that matter At a neighborhood child care center, a child builds daily relationships with caregivers and early educators, bonds with peers, and engages with a learning-rich environment through the center’s materials and spaces These interactions and experiences shape physical growth and support the development of cognitive, social, and emotional skills.
Neighborhood institutions influence a child’s experiences even when children don’t directly interact with them, by supporting or hindering parents’ capacity to care for their kids When a parent receives timely, high-quality medical care for a chronic condition at a neighborhood health center, the family avoids frequent disruptions to parenting routines and activities In turn, this local support frees up time and creates more opportunities for responsive parenting, which promotes a child’s cognitive and social development.
As Leventhal and colleagues note, the social composition, or social structure, of a child’s neighborhood forms a backdrop that frames and shapes the proximal processes through which residents interact in daily life In practice, neighborhood demographics, institutions, and social networks influence everyday interactions, access to resources, and the routines that drive development and well-being This contextual backdrop helps determine opportunities and risks for children, shaping behavior, learning, and overall engagement with their community.
2009, 2015, 2018, 2019) A neighborhood’s social composition—i.e the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of its residents—influences how children grow and develop in several different ways
The socioeconomic composition of a neighborhood shapes the physical and social environment in which children, along with their parents and caregivers, interact daily Features such as parks where young children play, learn, and grow are funded through local tax dollars or community fundraising, and the level of resources available—whether more or fewer—depends on the neighborhood's economic makeup.
1 For recent reviews see: Leventhal and Dupéré (2019), and Minh et al (2017)
Neighborhood socioeconomic composition shapes collective efficacy—the degree to which neighbors cooperate on shared goals like clean streets and keeping each other safe—and this, in turn, can strengthen or weaken the social environment in which children grow up (Sampson 2019, Sampson et al 1997) The level of economic advantage or disadvantage among residents affects trust and social connections, and when collective efficacy, trust, and social ties are low, neighborhoods face more challenges with social behaviors that can harm children, such as exposure to violence or crime (Sharkey 2010, Sharkey et al 2012) Parents are also greatly impacted by the neighborhood social environment; safety concerns or social disorder raise stress and depression, which can affect responsive parenting (Shuey & Leventhal, Blair et al 2014, Ludwig et al 2012, Molnar et al 2016) While constrained socioeconomic conditions and lower collective efficacy are, on average, associated with greater risk, they do not deterministically dictate outcomes—positive social capital can still grow in neighborhoods, through churches, child care centers, and schools, though these pathways are more challenging when risk is high.
The socioeconomic mix of a neighborhood’s residents determines which institutions exist and the quality of those institutions in ways that matter for children When schools, libraries, and recreational centers—institutions that directly influence children and parents—are funded by local economic resources, communities with more middle- and high-income residents tend to have more resources to provide high-quality experiences Additionally, many other important neighborhood institutions, such as child care centers and local businesses, are not publicly funded and rely on the purchasing power of nearby residents to operate Therefore, the level of local socioeconomic resources can profoundly shape the availability and quality of institutions that influence children’s development.
Across the three pathways, neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) is the characteristic of children’s neighborhoods that has been studied the most, with fewer (albeit still many) studies of neighborhood physical
Three ways that neighborhoods shape children’s early health and development:
1 Neighborhoods are a setting where children and parents interact with people and things in ways that matter for how children learn and grow
2 Neighborhoods are home to institutions that children interact with directly, and that parents interact with in ways that can shape their capacity for responsive parenting
3 Neighborhood socioeconomic mix of residents shapes the social environment, and the neighborhood physical features and institutions that are important for children and parents
Across 16 features and institutions analyzed by Leventhal & Dupéré (2019) and Minh et al (2017), the strongest evidence indicates that neighborhood socioeconomic status shapes the social climate in ways that matter for children and parents While social climate may be a central factor, other studies show that physical features of neighborhoods—building characteristics and upkeep, traffic, green spaces, walkability, and water sources—and local institutions also influence outcomes Although more research is needed, the available evidence demonstrates that neighborhoods shape children’s development through multiple pathways.
Children’s brains develop through serve-and-return interactions across the settings where they learn, play, and grow, and these settings are connected and embedded within their neighborhoods There are three main, related ways to view how a neighborhood shapes early childhood development: first, the neighborhood itself is a setting—comprising people and physical features—where crucial interactions influence health and brain growth; second, neighborhoods house important institutions that children may participate in directly or that support their parents, thereby shaping child health and development; and third, the social and economic makeup of a neighborhood—the residents—creates a structure that shapes its physical and social features and the institutions that matter for children and for parents’ ability to raise them Although evidence shows neighborhood SES strongly influences the neighborhood’s social climate, physical features, and institutions, it also demonstrates that neighborhoods affect child development through multiple, reinforcing pathways.
What does the research evidence tell us about children’s neighborhood contexts and their developmental risk?
U.S early childhood policies work to improve health and developmental outcomes for young children, especially those facing developmental risk Children that lack sufficient opportunities for the serve and return interactions that support their development face the highest level of developmental risk Per the Harvard Center on the Developing Child, “The persistent absence of serve and return interaction acts as a ‘double whammy’ for healthy development: not only does the brain not receive the positive stimulation it needs, but the body's stress response is activated, flooding the developing brain with potentially harmful stress hormones” (Center on the Developing Child, 2007)
Extensive research indicates that children from low-income families face elevated developmental risks because poverty limits opportunities for stimulating serve and return interactions between caregivers and children and increases exposure to recurring adverse experiences that hinder development (Shonkoff & Garner, 2012; Blair & Raver, 2016) The stress associated with growing up in poverty can produce structural changes in the developing brain, compromising cognitive skills and coping abilities while heightening anxiety, fear, and emotional distress and related disorders (JAMA, 2015; Luby et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2013; Noble et al., 2015) Consequently, U.S early childhood policy concentrates on supporting children in poor and low-income families to address these developmental risks tied to family poverty.
Children’s neighborhoods and access to early care and learning resources, services and programs
What does the research tell us about neighborhood availability and children’s ability to access early care and learning?
U.S early childhood policies aim to improve outcomes for children facing developmental risk by expanding access to affordable, high-quality early care and learning resources, services and programs Per the federal Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE), whether a family can ‘access’ high quality early care and learning for their child depends on four factors: 1) whether a family can afford it (i.e it is low cost, free, or financial assistance is available to cover tuition/costs), 2) whether a ‘reasonable’ level of effort is required to enroll and consistently use/attend a program, 3) whether the program is aligned with parents’ needs (e.g hours of operation, care for multiple children), and 4) whether a particular program or set of services supports their particular child’s developmental needs (e.g high quality, linguistic support) (U.S Office of Planning, Research & Evaluation, 2017)
Neighborhood availability of early care and education (ECE)—the mix, quantity, quality, and capacity of caregiving arrangements and early learning programs, supports, and resources in a child’s neighborhood and nearby areas—shapes what families can access with reasonable effort Nationally, families with children ages 0–5 encounter varying levels of access to high-quality ECE, influenced by local supply, affordability, and program quality, which in turn impacts early development opportunities.
According to NSECE (2012), families travel less than five miles on average to secure child care arrangements, with 55% traveling less than three miles to their providers This proximity highlights how neighborhood context shapes child care choices, as the characteristics of a family’s neighborhood can influence the distance families must travel to access quality care.
2 Statistic includes families with children ages 3 to 5
An abundance of affordable, high-quality early care and education (ECE) programs and providers makes developmentally rich experiences for children more accessible with less effort for families, especially those near high-quality ECE options By expanding neighborhood availability, communities increase the chances that vulnerable children can access high-quality early childhood education with reasonable effort, reducing barriers to quality care.
Neighborhood availability can be especially important for the most vulnerable families A study by Neidell and Waldfogel (2009) shows that immigrant children and children from families without car access are more likely to enroll in Head Start when a center is located in their immediate neighborhood, defined by their census tract Among immigrant children, having a Head Start center in the neighborhood raises participation by 10 percentage points, a 50% increase compared with those without a nearby center This matters because immigrant children have historically had low Head Start enrollment despite being among the most developmentally vulnerable groups eligible for Head Start.
Neidell and Waldfogel’s study demonstrates that neighborhood availability significantly reduces barriers and the effort required for families to participate in early childhood education (ECE), with the strongest effects seen among vulnerable children facing multiple risk factors, including those in immigrant families The findings also show that neighborhood availability becomes even more important for children in transportation-vulnerable families, underscoring how accessibility matters for kids experiencing multiple risks and heightened vulnerability.
Recent studies on ECE availability extend beyond the child’s immediate neighborhood to examine the outer radius families actually consider when seeking care By focusing on the family perspective, these studies acknowledge that households travel outside their neighborhoods to access early care and learning and are not constrained by arbitrary boundary lines They also tackle two related questions: what geographic area around the home do parents deem within reach, and within that reach, how does proximity influence parental decision-making and the effort they invest to access ECE.
New findings from Davis and Borowsky (2021, forthcoming) show that the geographic availability of subsidized child care near Minnesota neighborhoods shapes how parents choose providers On average, families select providers within 3–6 miles of home, with the distance threshold differing by urbanicity: urban families tend to pick providers about 2–3 miles away, while rural families travel farther Distance exerts a particularly strong influence: for each additional mile between a family’s home and a provider, the likelihood of choosing that provider drops by about half Among the typical considerations—quality, cost, and other attributes—distance is the strongest predictor of which child care provider families ultimately select.
A policy analysis of early childhood education (ECE) availability within the immediate neighborhood (census tract) yielded clear results: the child care arrangement parents chose—center-based care versus family child care—was largely determined by what was available locally Black families tended to select center-based care almost exclusively, while White families were more likely to use a mix of center-based and family-based options This divergence was largely explained by neighborhood supply: Black communities lived in areas where center-based care dominated, whereas White communities lived in areas offering a mix of center- and family-based care. -**Support Pollinations.AI:** -🌸 **Ad** 🌸Powered by Pollinations.AI free text APIs [Support our mission](https://pollinations.ai/redirect/kofi) to keep AI accessible for everyone.
Together, these two studies show that neighborhood availability shapes whether families access specific early childhood education (ECE) resources, supports, or programs, and it also affects the effort required to reach them Proximity to home makes families more likely to use ECE resources located nearby Moreover, neighborhood availability determines the nature and range of ECE options families encounter and the choices they make.
These studies show that access to early childhood education (ECE) is shaped not only by resources in a child’s immediate neighborhood but also by a broader geographic area beyond the neighborhood boundary However, for most families the geographic reach is limited to a few miles, making larger units such as cities, counties, or school districts less informative about a family’s actual ECE access While these broader areas may be relevant for market analyses or policy considerations, they do not reflect a family’s true level of ECE access; what matters for families is what is located within their practical geographic reach.
The availability of ECE within a child’s neighborhood and in the nearby areas is a function of a complex set of both policy and market-based factors
The socioeconomic and employment characteristics of neighborhood residents shape the buying power and level of government investment in different neighborhoods, which can shape the ECE institutions located in a neighborhood and the nearby areas
On the policy side, resource availability, and prioritization decisions (when resources are scarce), guide which families get access to financial assistance and ECE resources The families that are reached/served are spread or concentrated across different neighborhoods, and this can influence the ECE institutions in the neighborhood For example, if a neighborhood has a large concentration of families receiving child care assistance through vouchers, a child care provider located in this neighborhood may have a more stable source of income than a provider located in a neighborhood with many low-income families without child care assistance
Policy decisions directly shape where early childhood education (ECE) resources and programs are located, such as Head Start centers and the sites of providers awarded grants or contracts to offer subsidized childcare slots These decisions affect the geographic distribution of services, determine who can access care, and influence how funding and subsidies reach families, ultimately shaping the quality and equity of ECE across communities.
26 can result in some neighborhoods having more or less capacity (for example, a trained neighborhood-based workforce) for expanding neighborhood ECE availability
Neighborhood availability of early childhood education (ECE) shapes children's access to the crucial early experiences they need Root-cause analyses of gaps in ECE availability, and the development of strategies addressing the intertwined policy and market-based factors shaping supply and access, help close these gaps.
What does the research tell us about neighborhood availability, access to ECE, and inequality?
Neighborhood-informed early childhood policies
Research shows that incorporating children's neighborhood factors into assessments can enhance our understanding of both developmental risk and access to early care and learning Because early childhood policies aim to broaden and guarantee equal access to high-quality early experiences for developmentally vulnerable children, evaluating risk and access is central to shaping policy goals and to the design, implementation, and ongoing evaluation and monitoring of policy.
In this section, we describe some of the key elements of neighborhood-informed early childhood policies suggested by the research
Neighborhood-informed early childhood policies should account for children’s neighborhood characteristics tied to developmental risk, including neighborhood socioeconomic status, physical and environmental attributes, and social factors and institutions Evidence suggests focusing on children’s immediate neighborhoods—the area most proximal to home, such as census tracts or block groups—when assessing neighborhood factors that shape developmental risk, rather than more distant contexts.
Second, policies would account for the neighborhood availability of ECE when assessing ECE access
Neighborhood availability assessments consider not only ECE resources located in a child’s immediate neighborhood (census tract or block group) but also ECE availability within an outer radius of 3 to 6 miles from the child’s home, with the exact distance depending on urbanicity This broader area is defined as the family’s neighborhood ECE access zone (Figure 5).
Children develop within an ecology of multiple, interconnected settings—homes, child care, early learning programs, neighborhoods, and schools—that collectively shape their development Therefore, policies should address what we term a child’s neighborhood early childhood ecology, which comprises two main, interrelated components.
1) Neighborhood contextual characteristics of a child’s immediate neighborhood (SES, physical/environmental, social, and institutions), and
Within a child's neighborhood, the ECE network, or neighborhood ECE access zone, includes all early care and learning resources, services, and programs located within a few miles of home The neighborhood ECE system spans the prenatal through pre-K continuum, integrating childcare, early education, health, and family-support services to provide seamless developmental support close to where children live.
Figure 5 A child’s neighborhood early childhood ecology
Ecological models of early childhood development emphasize that children need consistently nurturing, developmentally rich experiences across all daily settings from birth to age four, when the brain develops rapidly Neighborhood contextual factors shape the balance of risk and protective factors that influence a child’s trajectory For children facing neighborhood risk, a robust and comprehensive neighborhood-based early care and education (ECE) system can act as a protective resource that improves developmental outcomes.
Robust, coherent, neighborhood-based systems would guarantee that every child has access to high-quality experiences in every early childhood education (ECE) setting they spend time in, from birth through age 4, including infant and toddler care and programs for 3- to 4-year-olds.
An effective early childhood education (ECE) system spans the prenatal-to-pre-K continuum, integrating accessible, high-quality infant and toddler programs with strong pre-K for four-year-olds, because all parts of the continuum must work together to support children and families It also ensures that parents have the supports they need for responsive childrearing as they raise children within the realities of family and neighborhood poverty When the system offers high-quality pre-K but lacks robust infant and toddler care, it becomes insufficient and ineffective, undermining outcomes since the continuum's parts must be aligned to achieve lasting impact.
FIGURE 6 FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING CHILDREN’S NEIGHBORHOOD EARLY CHILDHOOD ECOLOGIES
High SES High SES, Robust High SES, Weak Low SES Low SES, Robust Low SES, Weak
Figure 6 presents a simple framework for examining how the neighborhood ecologies surrounding poor and low‑income children differ in ways that simultaneously shape developmental risk and access to early childhood education (ECE) The framework emphasizes the interaction between neighborhood context and early learning opportunities, showing how disadvantaged environments increase developmental risk while limiting high‑quality ECE options By linking risk factors and access barriers in one model, it highlights the need to address both protective supports and service availability in low‑income communities This perspective clarifies why improvements in neighborhood conditions and ECE access must go hand in hand to support optimal child development.
Existing data and research indicate that poor and low-income children live in both low- and high-SES neighborhoods Low-SES neighborhoods can pose developmental risks, while higher-SES environments can be promotive for development Yet there is limited information about how many children in low-SES neighborhoods live in areas with robust versus weak neighborhood early childhood education (ECE) systems.
Evidence indicates that expanding access to robust, comprehensive neighborhood early childhood education (ECE) systems can improve children's outcomes However, we still lack a systematic picture of how strong the federally supported components of these neighborhood ECE systems are What we do know is that large numbers of developmentally vulnerable children remain unserved by federally supported ECE programs, including Head Start (36% of eligible children served), Early Head Start (11% served), and the Child Care Development Fund.
Only 14% of eligible children receive assistance under state income eligibility limits, leaving a large share unmet These high levels of unmet need mean that many children in low socioeconomic status (low-SES) neighborhoods have access only to incomplete or weak neighborhood early childhood education (ECE) systems.
To ensure that all vulnerable children have neighborhood access to the continuum of early childhood education (ECE) supports, policymakers need baseline data on how many vulnerable children live in neighborhoods with robust versus weak comprehensive ECE systems This baseline is essential for setting clear goals and for estimating and advocating the resources required to realize the objective of every child in the United States growing up in a neighborhood with a robust ECE system With this information, stakeholders can prioritize investments, track progress, and drive policy decisions toward equitable access to high-quality ECE across all communities.
Systematic information about vulnerable children living in neighborhoods with robust versus weak early childhood education (ECE) systems informs policy targeting—enabling policymakers to identify children in low‑SES neighborhoods with the weakest ECE access; helps reduce duplication and inefficiency by showing whether a neighborhood has an overabundance of 4‑year‑old programs but insufficient infant/toddler services; and supports identifying and addressing racial inequities that arise when neighborhood‑level ECE disparities exist From targeting and racial‑equity perspectives, the research base indicates that children are affected by these neighborhood‑level differences in ECE availability and quality.
This article draws on the National Head Start Association’s 2018–2019 fact sheets for Early Head Start and Head Start service rates to map program coverage and funding levels, and on ASPE’s FY2017 Child Care Subsidy Eligibility report to illuminate CCDF service rates and subsidy access Together, these sources reveal how federal investment translates into service reach for low‑income families and offer insights for policy and program planning to strengthen early childhood education access.
31 living in low SES neighborhoods with weak ECE systems should receive priority These children face the ‘triple threat’ of family poverty, neighborhood risk and weak neighborhood ECE systems
Neighborhood-informed approaches can advance comprehensive ECE systems
Policy review: Existing policy levers for neighborhood-informed approaches
Preschool Development Grant Birth through Five (PDG B-5)
Preschool Development Grant Birth through Five (PDG B-5) offers a timely and promising policy lever for adopting neighborhood-informed approaches in early childhood programs It reflects a shift toward child-centered policymaking that emphasizes comprehensive assessment and strategic planning to tailor initiatives to local needs.
34 policy/program coordination across the mixed delivery ECE system, and ensures that early education policies attend to children in infancy and toddlerhood, not just the preschool years
Preschool Development Grant Birth through Five (PDG B-5) grants represent a shift from the earlier PDG focus on simply expanding access to high-quality preschool for low- and moderate-income children to a two-part, system-wide reform effort Authorized under the U.S Department of Education’s Every Student Succeeds Act and overseen by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), these grants are awarded to states to first conduct a statewide birth-through-five needs assessment of their mixed-delivery early childhood system, and then to undertake in-depth strategic planning to improve access to high-quality care and early learning, streamline administrative structures, and create funding efficiencies The needs assessment serves as a planning document that informs proposed changes and implementation, while states also develop and track progress indicators.
In December 2018, 46 states received initial planning grants to develop their strategic plans, and in December 2019, 20 states were awarded three-year renewal grants to implement those plans, with an additional six states and territories receiving initial first-year assessment and planning grants to begin the process.
The PDG B-5 framework combines comprehensive systems thinking with neighborhood-informed strategies, resting on three core elements: factoring in children’s neighborhood factors when assessing developmental risk and vulnerability; accounting for the availability of early childhood education across the prenatal-to-Pre-K continuum within each child’s neighborhood ECE access zones (typically within a few miles of home); and understanding how neighborhoods simultaneously shape vulnerability and access By integrating these components, the framework supports more precise targeting of supports and policies that address both risk and access within communities.
Under the PDG B-5 framework, states can systematically assess the vulnerability of poor and low-income children ages 0–5 by integrating child-, family-, and neighborhood-level factors They can also identify vulnerable children living in underserved neighborhoods by evaluating early childhood education (ECE) availability across the full prenatal through pre-kindergarten continuum.
K continuum) in children’s neighborhood ECE access zones
By incorporating these two elements, policy analyses can more comprehensively account for a child’s neighborhood ECE ecology This approach encompasses neighborhood contextual factors—ranging from local services and the built environment to social supports—and assesses the robustness of the ECE system within the geographic reach of families in the area Together, these considerations enable policymakers to understand how local context shapes access to high-quality early childhood education and to design more targeted, place-based strategies that strengthen both the neighborhood environment and the ECE network.
PDG B-5’s program structure enables states to adopt comprehensive systems approaches and place neighborhood-informed strategies at the center of their work States can apply a neighborhood-informed approach across the entire PDG B-5 statewide needs assessment, planning, implementation, and progress monitoring.
During the assessment phase, states must define key terms—“quality early childhood care and education,” “availability,” “vulnerable or underserved children,” and “children in rural areas”—and assess the current quality and availability of early childhood care and education for these groups, identifying gaps in local availability according to each state’s chosen definition of local availability.
Defining vulnerable children includes considering neighborhood risk level as a dimension of vulnerability; children who live in neighborhoods with contextual risk factors—such as low socioeconomic status (SES), adverse social conditions, unsafe or unhealthy physical environments, and limited access to quality child- and parent-supporting institutions—are categorized as vulnerable In this approach, neighborhood factors are assessed within the child’s immediate surroundings, typically at the census tract or block group level, in line with established research methods.
States can define local availability of early childhood education (ECE) as access within children’s neighborhood ECE access zones—typically within 3 to 6 miles of the child’s home, with the exact distance dictated by urbanicity They can assess availability at the neighborhood level rather than using larger geographies like counties, cities, or school districts These neighborhood-based measures identify areas that are underserved and are used in assessment, planning, implementation, and progress monitoring, enabling neighborhood-informed approaches to play a central role in a state's early childhood policymaking.
PDG B-5 provides policy levers to more fully assess children's vulnerability by integrating developmental vulnerability with access to strong early childhood education (ECE) systems at a geographic level that is relevant and reachable for families From this foundation, policymakers can target or prioritize children facing double threat—family poverty and neighborhood risk—and triple threat—family poverty, neighborhood risk, and weak neighborhood ECE systems—using policy levers within individual programs such as CCDF child care assistance and Head Start These approaches align with the research principles outlined in Section 2, signaling a promising and timely opportunity for neighborhood-informed early childhood policies in PDG B-5.
PDG B-5 allows neighborhood-informed approaches but does not require them, and to date no policy reviews have documented states’ use of such approaches in PDG B-5, signaling a potential direction for future research Consequently, there is currently no evidence on whether or how neighborhood-informed approaches in early childhood policy assessment, planning, and implementation influence children’s outcomes PDG B-5 presents an opportunity to test these approaches, align policy work with the latest research, and generate evidence of their added value and effectiveness for improving children’s lives.
Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, Title V
The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program provides grants to states to administer evidence-based home visiting services for at-risk pregnant women and parents with young children through kindergarten entry Through this program, a multidisciplinary team—including nurses, early childhood educators, social workers, and other professionals—delivers support and services directly to families, helping them access resources, strengthen parenting skills, and promote healthy child development.
36 trained professionals visit parents and children in their homes to support child and parent health and wellbeing during the critical period of a child’s development
Federally, the program is administered by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in collaboration with the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, with ongoing oversight and evaluation conducted by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).
Administration (HRSA) States receive grants under Title V of the Social Security Act, Maternal and Child Health Block Grant to operate MIECHV programs in at-risk communities within their states
By law, statewide needs assessments must be conducted and updated periodically in order to receive funding The last update was due October 2020
Within the MIECHV program, there are clear opportunities to integrate neighborhood-informed early childhood policies supported by research The program targets children who are deemed at risk due to living in at-risk communities, enabling targeted interventions that reflect local neighborhood conditions and aim to improve developmental and health outcomes.
So, in this way, if states use children’s neighborhoods or neighborhood ECE access zones when defining
When defining “community” or focusing on areas within at-risk communities—if counties are used to delineate “community”—policies account for neighborhood risk factors when assessing children's vulnerability and their access to home visiting services This approach helps tailor interventions to local risk profiles and ensures home visiting programs reach families most in need.
States must establish a method to identify communities with concentrations of risk and then develop targeted, tailored service plans for those communities Although risk factors are statutorily defined, the approach emphasizes locating where risk clusters occur and delivering interventions that meet the specific needs of those areas.
(9 Social Security Act, Title V, § 511(b)(1)(A), see Figure 7), states have flexibility to determine how they define
‘community.’ States can use what is called “the simplified method,” which uses counties as the definition of
HRSA provides index data on community risk factors to states, and if a state is concerned that county-level data may not adequately capture neighborhood conditions, it can supplement the simplified method data with additional measures at smaller geographic levels.
There are several ways to embed neighborhood-informed approaches into MIECHV States can define communities by children’s neighborhood early childhood education (ECE) access zones—the area within a few miles of a child’s immediate neighborhood They can also target and prioritize children and families in identified at‑risk communities, providing another lever for assessment, targeting, and monitoring and evaluation Finally, states can also choose an
“independent method” where they design the indicators and the geographic units This approach is recommended by HRSA for states with access to a wider pool of data and epidemiologic capacity In its needs
FIGURE 7 STATUTORILY DEFINED COMMUNITY RISK FACTORS UNDER MIECHV:
• premature birth, low-birth weight infants, and infant mortality, including infant death due to neglect, or other indicators of at-risk prenatal, maternal, newborn, or child health
• high rates of high-school drop-outs
37 assessment guide, HRSA lists recommended neighborhood level data sources, encouraging and validating neighborhood approaches (Health Resources & Services Administration Maternal & Child Health, 2019)
While a comprehensive ECE systems approach is not central to the MIECHV state needs assessment like it is in PDG B-5, there is flexibility for states to use their needs assessment process to look across the mixed-delivery system when determining local capacity for providing nurse home visiting services, and for efforts to coordinate and strengthen local ECE systems holistically In its guidance to states, HRSA “anticipates MIECHV awardees may use their needs assessment updates to identify opportunities for collaboration with state and local partners to establish appropriate linkages and referral networks to other community resources and supports and strengthen early childhood systems” (Health Resources & Services Administration Maternal & Child Health,
Guidance from 2019 suggests that the MIECHV program offers opportunities to assess the robustness of neighborhood-based early childhood systems across the prenatal-to-pre-K continuum, extending beyond the traditional network of nurse home visiting services This broader evaluation can inform how communities support young children and families by strengthening the full spectrum of early childhood services, collaboration, and resources available at the neighborhood level.
Within the MIECHV program, states have room to integrate neighborhood-informed approaches to assess children's development risk and to access ECE resources that inform targeting, implementation and monitoring of services However, states are not required to adopt neighborhood-informed approaches Counties are the default definition of community that states are required to use.
Within HRSA's simplified method, the concept of "community" has not been documented across policy reviews as being routinely incorporated into states’ MIECHV initiatives through neighborhood-informed approaches, signaling a potential area for future research There is currently no evidence that neighborhood-informed approaches necessarily improve policy or child outcomes under MIECHV While a comprehensive systems approach is less central to MIECHV needs assessments than in some other policies (such as PDB B-5), states may still have flexibility to broaden evaluations to include a wider range of early childhood education (ECE) resources in children’s communities beyond home visiting.
With the recent completion of the needs assessment update cycle, HRSA has an opportune moment to strengthen the use of neighborhood-informed approaches in the MIECHV program, guiding the requirements and guidance for the next required state MIECHV needs assessment updates.
Child Care and Development Block Grant / Child Care Development Fund
The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) provides states with block grants to offer child care subsidies to low-income working families with children ages 0–13 and to fund quality initiatives in child care and early education Child care under CCDBG includes infant and toddler care and learning programs across center- and family-based settings, as well as private 3-K and pre-K offerings (excluding Head Start and public pre-K), kin care, and before/after school and summer care for school-age children The Child Care Development Fund (CCDF), authorized by CCDBG, is a federal child care assistance program administered by state agencies States must comply with federal rules and regulations while retaining flexibility to design and administer their own child care assistance policies and practices within their states Unlike Head Start, eligibility for CCDBG-funded child care subsidies is tied to income and other state-defined criteria.
38 parental work status and hinges upon at least 20 hours of parental employment or participation in job search or education and training activities
CCDBG was reauthorized in 2014 for the first time in 18 years, and in 2016 the U.S Department of Health and Human Services issued new comprehensive child care regulations to accompany it The four core provisions address protecting the health and safety of children in child care, helping parents make informed choices and access information about child development, ensuring equal access to stable, high-quality child care for low-income children, and strengthening the quality of the early childhood workforce Together, these requirements create opportunities for states to apply neighborhood-informed approaches in CCDF policymaking and program administration.
States administer child care assistance primarily through two modes: vouchers and contracts Vouchers give families a portable subsidy usable at any subsidy-accepting early care and education (ECE) program, while contracts involve the state CCDF agency directly contracting with specific providers to serve a set number of subsidy-supported children Vouchers enable geographic mobility to access high-quality ECE, whereas contracted slots link children to providers with available capacity The location of contracted providers is shaped by state or local policy decisions and by whether providers apply for contracts, meaning the distribution of contracted slots reflects both local child care market dynamics and policy choices In many states, programs are administered through local or regional service areas—counties or CCR&R regions—so the state allocates vouchers to regions and regional administrators decide how to distribute them.
There are several levers within CCDF that offer opportunities to use neighborhood-informed approaches, including but not limited to:
5 Priority groups; subsidy prioritization and allocation
The first three levers expand access to high-quality subsidized child care within children’s neighborhood ECE access zones by guiding expansions and supply-building toward children at the highest risk, determined by a combined assessment of child, family, and neighborhood factors The fourth lever, equal access assurance, is a cross-cutting tool states can use to weave neighborhood-informed approaches into the ongoing assurance and monitoring of equal access The fifth lever addresses the greater developmental health risks some children face in their neighborhoods and informs how these risks are considered when prioritizing and targeting children for CCDF services.
Contracts States can (under CCDF Plan Section 4.1.3) prioritize contracts with high-quality providers that serve:
1) children who live in neighborhood ECE access zones with low subsidized child care access; (2) children growing up in the highest risk neighborhoods, or, (3) children facing ‘triple threat’ (family poverty, high neighborhood risk and low subsidized ECE access)
Tiered reimbursement, or differential reimbursement, lets states implement CCDF Plan Section 4.3.2 payment models that award higher rates to subsidized child care providers based on specific criteria, such as offering care outside the traditional 8 a.m.–6 p.m hours States could target these higher rates to high-quality providers serving children who meet the criteria—residing in neighborhood ECE access zones with low ECE availability, living in high-risk neighborhoods, or both This approach aims to address the triple threat faced by some children—family poverty, limited neighborhood ECE access, and elevated neighborhood risk—by directing incentives to providers most likely to improve access and quality for these vulnerable groups.
States must systematically evaluate the need for early childhood education supply using data and implement targeted supply-building strategies to meet the needs of populations defined in the CCDF Plan Section 4.6 and 45 CFR § 98.16(y), including children in underserved areas, infants and toddlers, children with disabilities, and those who receive care during non-traditional hours Within these strategies, lead agencies are required to prioritize investments for families in areas with significant poverty and unemployment Federally supported supply-building approaches for these priority populations include vouchers or contracts, family child care networks, technical assistance, provider recruitment, tiered payment rates, and business development supports States can use children’s neighborhood ECE access zones to identify the most underserved areas and target supply-building efforts, and can account for neighborhood risk factors when prioritizing and directing investments.
Under federal requirements, CCDF state plans must demonstrate progress toward equal access (45 CFR § 98.45), defined as ensuring eligible children have the same access to child care services as children whose families are not eligible for assistance States must address eight factors related to equal access, including ensuring a full range of providers is available Importantly, evaluating access by neighborhood ECE access zones—rather than by county—more accurately reflects how families find and use care, since most families access providers within their geographic reach By focusing on neighborhood-scale access, assessments become more informative for monitoring progress toward true equal access.
States should prioritize vulnerable groups within neighborhood early childhood systems, focusing on targeted services for children facing higher developmental health risks in their communities While other levers emphasize the supply side of these systems, states have opportunities to direct resources to children experiencing homelessness, children with special needs, and children in families with very low incomes, as described in 45 CFR § 98.46.
“Priority for Services”) States are allowed to identify additional priority groups, which could include ‘children
Children facing neighborhood risk are designated as a priority group, enabling the state to support them by prioritizing enrollment, allowing them to bypass wait lists, waiving co-payments, paying higher rates for high-quality child care, and using grants or contracts to reserve slots, or pursuing other state-determined strategies.
Subsidy allocation practices vary by state: some distribute funds statewide, while others base allocations on sub-state regions such as counties or CCR&Rs according to estimated need In states that allocate subsidies regionally, a prudent approach is to boost funding in regions with larger concentrations of children facing neighborhood developmental risk, particularly where the triple threat of family poverty, high neighborhood risk, and limited access to early childhood education (ECE) is most pronounced.
CCDF state policies and program administration offer opportunities to consider children’s neighborhood risk factors, their access to subsidized child care within neighborhood early childhood education (ECE) zones, and how these elements intersect As with PDG B-5 and MIECHV, these approaches are not mandatory, and there is limited systematic information about how states use neighborhood-informed strategies or evidence of their effectiveness for improving outcomes for children and families There is also a lack of emphasis on comprehensive ECE systems development within CCDF, though CCDF is one of the main programs involved in PDG B-5 comprehensive systems development Consequently, if a state wants to more systematically integrate neighborhood-informed approaches across birth-to-five early childhood policies, CCDF lead agencies have room under existing regulations to incorporate these approaches into CCDF policy and program administration.
Head Start and Early Head Start
Head Start is a federally funded preschool program for economically disadvantaged three- and four-year-olds, while Early Head Start serves poor infants and toddlers (ages 0–2) and pregnant mothers The federal Office of Head Start awards grants directly to local Head Start grantees, which operate one or more Head Start centers within a grantee-defined service area, such as a county, school district, or city Funding for Head Start does not pass through state agencies; it goes directly from the federal agency to the local Head Start grantee In some states, state governments provide supplemental funding to expand Head Start capacity.
Under current regulations, Head Start and Early Head Start grantees have ample opportunities to prioritize children facing increased developmental risk—the 'double threat' of family poverty and neighborhood risk—and those facing the 'triple threat' of poverty, high neighborhood risk, and limited access to neighborhood ECE The primary mechanism for implementing neighborhood-informed approaches in Head Start is the communitywide strategic planning and needs assessment mandated by the program.
4 For list of states providing supplemental state Head Start funding, see: NIEER State of Preschool, https://nieer.org/state-preschool- yearbooks
Head Start Performance Standards/Communitywide strategic planning and needs assessment
Under Head Start Performance Standards, the communitywide strategic planning and needs assessment is the central mechanism by which Head Start and Early Head Start grantees set short-term objectives and long-term goals, justify where to locate centers, and demonstrate that programs are responsive to the needs of the most vulnerable children in their service areas This process yields a central roadmap that guides Head Start programs in delivering the best services and supports to families and children, supporting effective performance management Lower-performing grantees must re-apply and compete for funding at the end of their five-year grant cycles under the Head Start Designation Renewal System (45 CFR § 1304).
Community-wide needs assessments are required once per five-year grant cycle, and grantees must update the assessment annually if there are significant changes or new findings within the year.
In connection with the communitywide strategic planning and needs assessment requirements, grantees can incorporate neighborhood-informed approaches under:
• Head Start Performance Standards, 45 CFR § 1302 Subpart A, 1302.11: Determining community strengths, needs, and resources; Short term objectives and related long range goals
Head Start Performance Standards (45 CFR § 1302 Subpart J, § 1302.102: Achieving Program Goals) require grantees to set strategic long-term goals that ensure programs are and remain responsive to community needs as identified in the community assessment described in Subpart A of this part This alignment of planning, program design, and evaluation with identified community priorities guides ongoing improvement and accountability across funding cycles, helping Head Start deliver services that reflect current community conditions and priorities.
• Head Start Performance Standards, 45 CFR § 1302 Subpart A, 1302.14: Selection process
Under the Determining Community Needs and Achieving Program Goals provisions, grantees can account for neighborhood factors when assessing need and selecting Head Start center locations Grantees are required to define their own service areas, describe their approach to demonstrating need, justify Head Start locations, and establish short-term objectives alongside long-term goals Service areas typically span a county, a city or town, a school district, or one or several neighborhoods These service areas can be large and may include many neighborhoods that differ significantly even within the same area.
Grantees are only technically required to demonstrate service-area-wide need, and their center-location decisions do not require a rationale based on neighborhood data While not mandatory, many grantees analyze how Head Start need varies across neighborhoods within their service area to understand the extent of need and its neighborhood-by-neighborhood differences, and they can use these insights to request additional funding and to prioritize or tailor services in specific neighborhoods.
Head Start grantees can strategically locate services in the highest-poverty neighborhoods within their service areas to maximize impact They may also prioritize communities with acute need and limited access to Head Start and other public preschool programs, ensuring resources reach underserved populations Additionally, grantees can tailor services to neighborhoods with a large concentration of English Language Learners to support language development and early education outcomes.
Under the Selection Process provisions, grantees may account for children's neighborhood factors when justifying how to select and prioritize participants and when determining recruitment areas Head Start grantees have the authority, under existing regulations, to prescribe how the program will select and prioritize participants in a way that responds to the needs of the community This framework enables prioritizing children facing a “double threat”—family poverty and neighborhood risk—and a “triple threat” that adds limited access to early childhood education By incorporating neighborhood context into recruitment and prioritization, programs can tailor outreach and enrollment to the areas and families most at risk.
Grantees can delineate recruitment areas—smaller portions of their service areas—where targeted recruitment efforts will be concentrated They can assess neighborhood risk factors alongside the availability of early childhood education (ECE) within eligible children's neighborhood ECE access zones, defined as areas within a few miles of each neighborhood inside the service area By integrating these factors, grantees can identify and prioritize children who face double and triple threats to access, ensuring outreach targets the most at-risk populations.
Transportation policies can be leveraged to support neighborhood-informed approaches within Head Start, where decisions about providing transportation are made at the local grantee level and participation is not required While Head Start grantees are not obligated to offer transportation, many use their transportation policies to better align services with the needs of families in their service areas By tying transportation decisions to local community needs, programs can become more responsive and accessible, helping families access Head Start services more effectively.
Grantees can use transportation policies to prioritize connecting children in the highest-need neighborhoods to high-quality Head Start programs This is especially true when those programs are located outside the children's immediate neighborhoods and neighborhood ECE access zones, i.e., within a few miles of their immediate neighborhood.
Under current regulations, each of the identified actions is allowed for grantees, but none are mandatory Grantees have latitude under these standards to ensure Head Start services reach the most vulnerable children and to allocate services equitably across their service areas, but they are not required to do so.
Early Head Start Opportunity Zone Priority Provisions
During the third round of the Early Head Start Expansion and Early Head Start Child Care Partnership Grants (HHS-2019-ACF-OHS-HP1386), the aim was to increase the community supply of high-quality early learning environments and infant/toddler care and education The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) reserved the right to prioritize funding for applicants proposing services in Qualified Opportunity Zones.
Opportunity Zones are economically distressed census tracts designated for public-sector investment under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act The designation aims to spur private-sector investment and job creation by offering tax incentives, with the goal of promoting sustainable economic growth and development in these communities.
Title I Preschool
Under the U.S Department of Education’s Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Title I is the primary source of federal funds for local education, delivering additional resources to districts with high numbers or shares of students living in poverty Funding is allocated through a formula based on need—specifically the number of low-income children Title I funds can be used to support students in all grade levels, including preschool.
Title I preschool programs are designed to serve low-income children, but eligibility models vary Many programs use universal eligibility, with over 60% allowing all children to enroll, while others use targeted eligibility, restricting attendance to low-income children (about 30%).
Under ESSA, state education agencies must identify underperforming districts and schools in their plans, and the responsibility then shifts to local school districts to conduct a needs assessment to develop targeted school improvement plans As part of this process, districts can incorporate neighborhood-informed approaches by evaluating the strength of existing early childhood systems and the neighborhood risks facing children served by each Title I school, using that intelligence to guide improvements This assessment can inform school improvement efforts focused on Title I preschool programs, including adding a new Title I-funded preschool program where none exists, increasing the capacity of current preschool offerings, lengthening the preschool day for existing programs, and enhancing preschool quality for schools serving children with greater developmental challenges due to neighborhood context.
Neighborhood-informed approaches help districts allocate Title I funds more effectively by considering the combined influences of family, neighborhood, and school contexts This targeted strategy ensures resources reach the district’s most vulnerable students and focuses investments on schools serving children who lack early educational opportunities in their own neighborhoods.
Policy review conclusions: Neighborhood-based approaches are possible in all policies, but not required or incentivized
We have identified numerous opportunities to apply neighborhood-informed approaches within existing federal early childhood policies However, a central finding is that neighborhood-based approaches are neither required nor incentivized by statute or regulation Consequently, states, grantees, and school districts that adopt neighborhood-informed approaches do so proactively, motivated by reasons beyond compliance with federal requirements or incentives.
Because neighborhood-informed approaches are not mandated, their use is not systematically documented within or across these programs, limiting our understanding of how extensively these policy levers can advance U.S early childhood policy goals This lack of consistent reporting makes it harder to assess impact and guide policy decisions.
Across programs and policies, openings reveal a foundation for neighborhood-informed approaches that policymakers can build on If they systematically integrate these approaches across federal policies, they can implement more place-based, community-informed strategies and improve policy outcomes This alignment offers a practical path for federal leadership to embed neighborhood perspectives into policy design and implementation.
Finally, there are two key contextual issues to consider for any effort to more systematically integrate neighborhood-informed approaches across federal early childhood policies
5 The remaining roughly 30% of Title I preschool programs are in districts that restrict preschool programs to serving children with special needs (Piazza & Frankenberg, 2019)
The persistence of racial segregation Given the prevalence of racial and economic residential segregation in the U.S., neighborhood-based early childhood systems will result in racially and economically segregated early childhood programs Segregation in our K-12 educational system has a long track record of being unequal and harming poor Black, Hispanic, Indigenous and immigrant children (i.e children of minoritized groups) 6 There is evidence that programs that serve predominantly poor children, or children of minoritized groups are high quality and highly effective when they are geographically targeted and well-resourced such as our two most touted exemplar programs, Abecedarian and Perry Preschool that served predominantly low-income African American children (Schweinhart et al., 2005; Campbell & Ramey, 1995) However, a segregated system increases the potential for an unequal system If our national ECE system remains neighborhood-based while expanding against the backdrop of neighborhood segregation, then heightened scrutiny and monitoring are required to ensure that programs are equitably resourced
Macro policy challenges limit the potential of ECE policies to advance racial equity Neighborhood-informed early childhood policies alone have limited potential to improve early childhood racial equity and need to be part of a larger effort to address macro policy challenges in the sector, including underinvestment (which results in high unmet need, low quality and an undervalued workforce), and fragmentation Without confronting these larger macro policy challenges, neighborhood-informed approaches can only incrementally increase racial equity by informing a more equitable distribution of scarce resources for vulnerable children While this does technically improve racial equity by ensuring resources are reaching the relatively most vulnerable children, it still leaves many vulnerable children unserved
U.S early childhood policy aims to ensure that every vulnerable child has access to high-quality early experiences that support healthy development While neighborhood-informed approaches can deliver incremental improvements in racial equity today, their impact grows substantially when integrated into broader reform and expanded investment in the early childhood system These assessments can more comprehensively quantify the scale of developmental vulnerability and the extent of unmet need and access gaps affecting vulnerable children, providing policymakers and advocates with powerful evidence to justify increased investment and to drive equitable expansion across programs and regions.
Smith (2016) argues that groups distinguished by race, religious creed, national origin, sexuality, or gender—cultivated through social constructs—tend to hold less power and representation in society, and thus are considered minoritized People who are minoritized endure mistreatment and prejudices imposed by circumstances beyond their control.