Context Most studies of the long-term effects of early childhood educational
interventions are of demonstration programs rather than large-scale public
programs. Previous studies of one of the oldest federally funded preschool
programs have reported positive effects on school performance, but effects
on educational attainment and crime are unknown.
Objective To determine the long-term effectiveness of a federal center-based preschool
and school–based intervention program for urban low-income children.
Design, Setting, and Participants Fifteen-year follow-up of a nonrandomized, matched-group cohort of 1539
low-income, mostly black children born in 1980 and enrolled in alternative
early childhood programs in 25 sites in Chicago, Ill.
Interventions The Chicago Child-Parent Center (CPC) Program (n = 989 children) provides
comprehensive education, family, and health services and includes half-day
preschool at ages 3 to 4 years, half- or full-day kindergarten, and school-age
services in linked elementary schools at ages 6 to 9 years. The comparison
group (n = 550) consisted of children who participated in alternative early
childhood programs (full-day kindergarten): 374 in the preschool comparison
group from 5 randomly selected schools plus 2 others that provided full-day
kindergarten and additional instructional resources and 176 who attended full-day
kindergartens in 6 CPCs without preschool participation.
Main Outcome Measures Rates of high school completion and school dropout by age 20 years,
juvenile arrests for violent and nonviolent offenses, and grade retention
and special education placement by age 18 years.
Results Relative to the preschool comparison group and adjusted for several
covariates, children who participated in the preschool intervention for 1
or 2 years had a higher rate of high school completion (49.7 % vs 38.5%; P = .01); more years of completed education (10.6 vs 10.2; P = .03); and lower rates of juvenile arrest (16.9% vs
25.1%; P = .003), violent arrests (9.0% vs 15.3%; P = .002), and school dropout (46.7% vs 55.0%; P = .047). Both preschool and school-age participation were significantly
associated with lower rates of grade retention and special education services.
The effects of preschool participation on educational attainment were greater
for boys than girls, especially in reducing school dropout rates (P = .03). Relative to less extensive participation, children with extended
program participation from preschool through second or third grade also experienced
lower rates of grade retention (21.9% vs 32.3%; P
= .001) and special education (13.5% vs 20.7%; P
= .004).
Conclusions Participation in an established early childhood intervention for low-income
children was associated with better educational and social outcomes up to
age 20 years. These findings are among the strongest evidence that established
programs administered through public schools can promote children's long-term
success.
Early educational interventions during the preschool years are widely
touted as an effective way to prevent learning difficulties and to promote
healthy development. Preschool programs are central to many human service
reforms. State and local expenditures for preschool exceed $15 billion annually,
and they are expected to continue to increase.1
Advances in the neuroscience of brain development have further accelerated
interest and investments in the early years of life.2,3
The main attraction of early childhood programs is their potential for
prevention and cost-effectiveness.4,5
In the past 2 decades, many studies have demonstrated the positive effects
of participation in early intervention for school readiness, health status,
academic achievement, reduced need for grade retention, and special education
services.6-8 Evidence
is emerging for delinquency prevention and higher educational attainment.9-11 Yet several limitations
remain that reduce confidence in the implications of findings for policy making.
First, most evidence for the link between preschool participation and
its long-term effects on child health and development comes from model demonstration
programs rather than established programs implemented by school districts
and human service agencies.12 Although research
on model programs provides crucial information concerning what effects are
possible under the most controlled conditions, evidence from larger-scale,
institutionalized programs can better assess the effectiveness of the existing
state and federal investments.
A second limitation of the existing research is that few studies of
program impact have been conducted in inner cities with high concentrations
of neighborhood and family poverty. Beginning with Head Start, preschool programs
were designed to benefit children at highest risk of school failure. Given
increasing concentrations of social disadvantage in many urban settings,13 corresponding evidence about the compensatory effects
of early childhood programs is warranted.
Finally, the impact of the length of participation has not been systematically
investigated. Previous studies do not have sufficient sample sizes and variation
in length of participation to investigate this issue. Knowledge about the
added value of programs that continue into the primary grades may reveal,
for example, the extent to which the fading effects of intervention on some
outcomes can be moderated or reversed.7,14
In this report, we present evidence from the Chicago Longitudinal Study
on the long-term effects of a preventive intervention called the Chicago Child-Parent
Center (CPC) program.12,15 Located
in 24 centers in high-poverty neighborhoods, this ESEA (Elementary and Secondary
Education Act) Title I program began in 1967 and is the country's second oldest
(after Head Start) federal preschool program and the oldest extended early
intervention. We investigated the link between program participation and educational
attainment by age 20 years, official juvenile arrests by age 18 years, and
need for school remedial services. Earlier studies have found that program
participation beginning in preschool is significantly associated with greater
cognitive skills at school entry, higher school achievement in elementary
school, and reduced rates of grade retention and special education by early
adolescence.12,16,17
The duration of program participation also is positively associated with school
performance.16 We expected this pattern of
results would lead to higher rates of school completion and decreased likelihood
of juvenile crime and remedial services.
Data are from the Chicago Longitudinal Study, a prospective investigation
that tracks the well-being of a same-age cohort of 1539 low-income minority
children (93% black and 7% Hispanic) born in 1980 who attended early childhood
programs in 25 sites in 1985-1986.15 Since
1985, data have been collected yearly on educational and family experiences
from school records and participant surveys. The original sample included
the entire cohort of 989 children who completed preschool and kindergarten
in all 20 CPCs with combined programs. School-age services are provided in
first to third grades in schools affiliated with the centers. The comparison
group of 550 children in this nonrandomized cohort design participated in
alternative early childhood programs (full-day kindergarten). The preschool
comparison group included 374 children comprising the entire kindergarten
class in 5 randomly selected schools plus 2 others that provided full-day
kindergarten and additional instructional resources (23% enrolled in Head
Start). An additional 176 children attended full-day kindergartens in 6 CPCs
without preschool participation. They were eligible to receive some program
services (ie, parent resources) but were located in separate classrooms. Because
these 2 groups had similar demographic profiles, they were combined for analysis.
The intervention group was matched on age of kindergarten entry, eligibility
for and participation in government-funded programs, and neighborhood and
family poverty.12,15Neighborhood poverty is defined as residence in a Title I school attendance
area. Family poverty is defined as eligibility for
the subsidized lunch program (130% of the federal poverty level). All intervention
and comparison group children were eligible and participated in the study
under informed consent. The legal and ethical requirements to serve children
most in need prevented random assignment in this established program. The
study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
The design of the study assessed the impact of 3 measures of CPC participation.
For preschool participation, children entering the program at ages 3 or 4
years (original cohort, n = 989) were compared with all other children in
the study who did not participate in CPC preschool but had the alternative
full-day kindergarten (preschool comparison group, n = 550; Table 1). The effects of school-age intervention, which was available
to any child attending a program school, were estimated by comparing children
participating for at least 1 year from first to third grade regardless of
whether they participated in preschool (n = 850) with those with no participation
in the school-age program (school-age comparison group, n = 689). The effects
of each program component were estimated while controlling for the influence
of the other. The effects of participation in extended intervention were estimated
by comparing children who entered the CPCs in preschool and continued their
participation through second or third grade (for 4-6 years, n = 553) with
all other children with less participation in either preschool or first to
third grades (nonextended intervention group, 1-4 years, n = 602). The pattern
of participation and postprogram data collection are shown in Table 1.
The validity of the estimated intervention effects is strengthened by
the following study features. First, most children in the preschool and school-age
comparison groups did not enroll in the program because they did not live
in the attendance area of the CPCs. Thus, home residency rather than parent
interest determined their participation. Second, by comparing groups that
received different intervention services, findings in this report estimate
the value added by the CPC program above and beyond participation in more
typical programs. Third, to assess the impact of extended vs nonextended participation,
results of word analysis skill tests at the end of kindergarten were used
as a control variable. Finally, previous studies of this project16,18
support the equivalence of the program groups and show no evidence of selection
bias that would alter findings. Accordingly, confidence is high that the group
differences reflect true program effects.19
Follow-up Study and Comparability of Intervention Groups
At age 20 years, 83.2% of the original sample (n = 1281) had data on
educational attainment (84.6% and 80.7%, respectively, for the preschool and
comparison groups) with no evidence of selective attrition in this study or
previously.12,17 Rates of sample
recovery were even higher for juvenile court records. As shown in Table 2, both the age 20 follow-up samples
and original sample were similar on many child and family characteristics.
The characteristics were measured from school records and family surveys up
to age 12 years. The means of the risk index, a sum of 6 dichotomous factors
associated with lower child health and with cumulative effects of child risk
factors on later outcomes in many previous studies20,21
(ie, low parent education [parents did not complete high school], neighborhood
poverty [≥60% of children in attendance area reside in low-income families],
low family income [eligibility for the subsidized lunch program], single-parent
family status, not employed full- or part-time [parent report of less than
full-time employment], and large family size [ ≥4 children in the family
as reported by parents]) were equal between groups. Extended and school-age
intervention groups showed similar patterns. Consistent with developmental
research, the risk index provides a summary measure of the cumulative effects
of child risk factors on later outcomes.20,21
It was significantly associated with all but 1 child outcome. Rates of reported
child abuse and neglect and births to teenage mothers also were similar between
groups. Among the age 20 follow-up samples, the CPC preschool group had a
higher proportion of girls and parents who had completed high school and fewer
siblings. Alternatively, the preschool group was more likely than the comparison
group to reside in higher-poverty neighborhoods and had higher unemployment
rates. The latter differences are the result of the centers being located
in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods, leading to conservative estimates
of effects.
The CPC is described fully in previous reports.12,16
It provides educational and family-support services to children ages 3 to
9 years (preschool to second or third grade). The centers serve 100 to 150
three- to five-year-olds in separate facilities or in wings of neighborhood
schools. The centers are located in the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago.
The mean rate of family poverty in 1989 for the community areas serving the
CPCs was 41% compared with 17% for other areas of the city.12
Each center is directed by a head teacher and 2 coordinators. The parent-resource
teacher coordinates the family-support component. The school-community representative
provides outreach to families. The eligibility criteria for the program are
(1) residence in a high-poverty (Title I) school area, (2) demonstration of
educational need due to poverty and associated factors as assessed by a screening
interview and community outreach by center staff, and (3) parent(s) agree
to participate. Rates of participation exceeded 80%, as the program was located
in areas not being served by other preschool programs.
The intervention emphasizes the acquisition of basic skills in language
arts and math through relatively structured but diverse learning experiences
(eg, whole class, small groups). After full-day or part-day kindergarten,
continuing services are provided in the affiliated schools under the direction
of the curriculum parent-resource teacher.12
Participation in the school-age intervention is open to any child in the school,
either in first and second grade in 14 sites or first through third grade
in 6 sites.
The following features are central to the program: (1) a structured
set of learning activities as described in the instructional guide22; (2) low child to teacher ratios in preschool (17
to 2) and kindergarten (25 to 2); (3) a multifaceted parent program that includes
participating in activities in the parent resource room with other parents
(eg, educational workshops, reading groups, and craft projects), volunteering
in the classroom, attending school events and field trips, and completing
high school; (4) outreach activities including resource mobilization, home
visitation, and enrollment of children; (5) ongoing staff development; (6)
health and nutrition services, including health screening, speech therapy,
and nursing and meal services; and (7) comprehensive school-age services to
support the school transition through reduced class sizes (25 from ≥35
children), the addition of teacher aides, parent-program activities, extra
instructional supplies, and coordinated instructional activities. The mean
per-child expenditures in 1996 for 1 year of preschool and 1 year of school-age
participation are $4350 and $15.00.12
Indicators of Educational Attainment. Three measures of educational attainment of youth by age 20 years (mean
19.7 years, January 2000) were included. These measures were extracted from
administrative records in all schools youth attended and were supplemented
by interviews with family members. High school completion measured whether
youth completed their secondary education with an official diploma or were
awarded a General Education Diploma (GED). All others, including those who
remained in high school, were coded as "noncompleters." Highest grade completed
was an ordinal indicator of educational attainment: the minimum value was
6 and the maximum value was 12 (graduation or GED). School dropout measured
whether youth left formal education in an elementary school or in a diploma-granting
high school prior to graduation for any reason other than school transfer.
Youth who enrolled in a GED or equivalent program were coded as "dropouts."
Graduates and active high school students were coded as "nondropouts."
Official Juvenile Arrests. Several indicators of juvenile arrests reported to the Cook County Juvenile
Court and 2 other locations were analyzed. These arrests occurred between
ages 10 and 18 years (from 1990 to 1998). They consist of formal petitions
for youth who are arrested on criminal charges and go before a judge. Some
petitions result in warnings or referrals to social service agencies. The
indicators were the incidence of juvenile arrest (≥1 arrest), the incidence
of multiple arrests (≥2 arrests), and the number of arrests. Arrests were
further divided into those involving violent offenses (eg, assault, robbery)
and nonviolent offenses (eg, property theft, drug possession). Data were collected
through record searches at the juvenile court in spring and summer of 1999
without knowledge of youths' program participation. Searches were repeated
twice for 5% random samples and verified against computer records. To be included
in the analysis, youth had to reside in Chicago at age 10 years or older.
The number of arrests ranged from 0 to 15 and included up to 38 individual
charges. Property offenses were the most common, followed by violent and drug
offenses.
School Remedial Services. Two cumulative measures of school-related competency indexed the receipt
of remedial services. Data came from school administrative records. Incidence of grade retention was defined as whether children
repeated a grade from kindergarten through the eighth grade (age 15 years)
because of failure to meet minimum levels of performance.23
Once in high school, students are no longer formally retained in grade. Special
education services were measured in 2 ways: number of years children received
special education services from ages 6 to 18 years (grades 1-12) and incidence
(any and ≥2) of special education services. Most children receiving special
education services participated in the regular school program. The most frequent
categories of placement (based in part on federal definitions) were specific
learning disability, behavioral disorder, and speech and language impairments.24
Following previous analyses in this project,17,25
intervention effects were estimated by probit and negative binomial regression
within an alternative-program design. First, the impact of CPC preschool participation
(1 or 2 years vs 0) and school-age participation (1-3 years vs 0) were assessed
by including 2 dummy variables in the model. Second, the effects of participation
in the extended intervention were assessed by estimating regressions with
a dummy variable indicating children's participation for 4 to 6 years (preschool
starting at age 3 or 4 years to second or third grade) vs nonextended participation
for 1 to 4 years (all other children with any preschool or school-age participation).
Analyses that included children with 0 years of participation or with only
preschool participation yielded similar estimates of extended participation.
Adjusted coefficients and group differences denote effects above and beyond
the influence of the covariates. The covariates were sex of child, race/ethnicity,
risk index, earlier/later program participation, and 20 dummy variables representing
the sites of the program. All have demonstrated significant associations with
child outcomes in previous studies. The program site indicators measure the
local influences associated with attendance in a particular center. Results
were unaffected by alternative covariate specifications, such as the individual
risk indicators entered separately, and the addition of other indicators of
family and neighborhood disadvantage (Table
1). To assess the effects of extended program participation, word
analysis score results at the end of kindergarten on the Iowa Tests of Basic
Skills were included.26
Probit regression analysis was used to estimate coefficients for the
dichotomous outcomes of educational attainment (high school completion and
school dropout) and the incidence of juvenile arrests, grade retention, and
special education placement. Negative binomial regression analysis was used
for the outcomes based on count data, including the number of years receiving
special education services, the number of arrests (total, violent, and nonviolent),
and the highest grade completed (with upper truncation). To enhance interpretability,
the coefficients from these analyses were transformed to marginal effects
using LIMDEP.27 Consistent with previous studies,12,17 corrections for nonrandom attrition
and clustering (random-effects model) proved unnecessary and did not affect
estimates. Similarly, no significant across-equation correlations were detected
in models estimating the presence of selection bias into or out of the program.
Following previous analyses, interaction terms were tested for program by
sex of child, neighborhood poverty, and the risk index.
Preschool Participation. Relative to the preschool comparison group and adjusting for the covariates,
including school-age participation, preschool participants had a significantly
higher rate of high school completion at age 20 years (49.7% vs 38.5%, P = .01) and a lower rate of school dropout (46.7% vs 55.0%, P = .047; Table 3).
Preschool participants also completed more years of education than the comparison
group (10.6 vs 10.2 years, P = .03).
Boys benefitted from preschool participation more than girls, but only
for school dropout was the program by sex of child interaction significant
(P = .03). Adjusted rates of school dropout between
groups were substantially lower for boys (51.0% vs 67.7%, P = .004) but not for girls (42.4% vs 41.7%, P
= .90). This finding is notable given that black males are at highest risk
of school failure. Differences in rates of high school completion between
groups also favored boys (42.6% vs 29.0%, P = .02)
over girls (56.5% vs 48.0%, P = .17).
School-Age Participation. Relative to the school-age comparison group and controlling for other
model variables, including preschool participation, school-age participation
was not associated with any measure of educational attainment (Table 3).
Extended Program Participation. Although children with extended intervention for 4 to 6 years had the
highest levels of educational attainment, these higher levels were, on average,
not significantly different from children with nonextended program participation
(P = .19; Table
4). School dropout rates for program participants were significantly
lower than the nonextended group in the highest poverty neighborhoods (P = .048).
Official Juvenile Arrests
Preschool Participation. Preschool participation was associated with a significantly lower rate
and number of juvenile arrests. The adjusted rate of arrest was 16.9% for
the preschool group and 25.1% for the preschool comparison group (P = .003; Table 3). Preschool
participants also had a lower rate of multiple arrests (9.5% vs 12.8%, P = .01) and violent arrests (9.0% vs 15.3%, P = .002). No differences in effects were detected by sex of child,
risk index, and neighborhood poverty.
School-Age Participation. Unlike preschool participation, school-age participation was not associated
with lower arrest rates or with fewer arrests for any measure (Table 3).
Extended Program Participation. Relative to nonextended participation, extended participation was marginally
associated with only a lower rate of violent arrests (P = .09; Table 4). Rates
of multiple violent arrests for participants were significantly lower than
those of the nonextended group at higher levels of the risk index (P = .03).
Preschool Participation. Relative to the preschool comparison group, preschool participation
was associated with significantly lower rates of grade retention (23.0% vs
38.4%; P <.001; Table 3) and special education placement (14.4% vs 24.6%; P <.001). Moreover, the program group spent, on average,
0.7 years in special education compared with 1.4 years for comparison counterparts.
School-Age Participation. As shown in Table 3, participation
in the school-age program for at least 1 year was associated with significantly
lower rates of special education (15.4% vs 21.3%, P
= .02), multiple years of special education (13.9% vs 18.4%, P = .01), and grade retention (23.8% vs 34.3%, P = .001).
Extended Program Participation. As shown in Table 4, participation
in the extended program was associated with lower rates of grade retention
(21.9% vs 32.3%, P = .001) and 2 of the 3 measures
of special education placement, including any placement (13.5% vs 20.7%, P = .004), above and beyond less extensive participation.
Children with 5 or 6 years of participation had the lowest rates of remediation.
This study makes 3 contributions to the literature on child health and
development. First, as one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies
of a large-scale early intervention on education and crime, the finding that
preschool participation was associated with a significantly higher rate of
school completion demonstrates that established public programs can have a
positive impact through early adulthood. To date, almost all evidence for
the effects of early intervention on educational attainment comes from model
programs rather than large-scale programs.6,8,10
The largest increases in educational attainment (especially dropout rates)
occurred for boys in the program. This may be explained by the finding that
boys experienced a greater cognitive advantage at age 5 from preschool participation,12,18 culminating in larger educational
benefits.
The second major contribution was the finding that participation in
CPC preschool was associated with significantly lower rates of juvenile arrest.
This is the only study of a contemporary preschool intervention reporting
crime prevention effects. Preschool participants had lower rates of arrest
and multiple arrest for all types of offenses. Given the high costs of treatment
and incarceration,28,29 the results
of this study reinforce those of model programs10,30,31
and demonstrate the value of public programs in reducing delinquency.
Third, participation in the extended childhood intervention program
was associated with lower rates of special education and grade retention by
late adolescence. Consistent with previous studies of the project,12,17 programs that extend into the primary
grades can enhance school performance above and beyond less extensive intervention.
That extended intervention was not significantly associated with educational
attainment and official arrests suggests some limits to its long-term benefits.
This may be due to the less intensive services of the school-age intervention
as well to the conservative bias of the comparisons made. The nonextended
group had some intervention exposure and was enrolled in school full-time.
Nevertheless, participants in extended intervention consistently outperformed
their comparison counterparts and had the highest levels of performance across
outcomes.
As preventive interventions, the Chicago CPCs and others like it have
advantages over other programs. They generally provide greater levels of intensity,
longer durations, and comprehensive services. These attributes make it more
likely that child outcomes will be improved.32
The demonstrated impact on education attainment is especially significant
given its link to health status and lower disease risk.33,34
Given that the annual cost to society of school dropout and crime is estimated
at $350 billion,4,28 study findings
suggest that the benefits to society of program participation can exceed costs.35
While the results demonstrate the long-term benefits of early intervention,
they also show the limits of intervention in meeting children's educational
needs. Like earlier studies, rates of school dropout and delinquency for program
participants are substantially higher than for children nationally. Although
early intervention can provide a stronger foundation for learning than would
otherwise be expected, it alone cannot ameliorate the effects of continuing
disadvantages children may face.
Three limitations of this study are notable. The first is that while
selection bias into the program appeared to be controlled, a randomized design
would have further strengthened inferences as would have additional preschool
baseline measures. Several study features and results, however, increase confidence
in the validity of findings. Groups were reasonably well matched at the beginning
of the study. Some of the differences that did exist (eg, neighborhood poverty)
worked against the program group; others were included in the analysis. In
addition, unlike many previous studies, comparison groups participated in
an alternative early childhood program, generating more conservative estimates.
Finally, extensive analyses of selection bias with alternative covariates
and comparison groups have been conducted and findings continue to be robust.12,17,18
Another limitation concerns measurement of 2 outcomes. Official juvenile
arrests is only 1 indicator of crime. Convictions and sentencing were not
measured. Alternative measures, such as self-reports and school reports, have
led to different estimates.36 Nevertheless,
juvenile arrests are important predictors of adult crime. Second, educational
attainment is likely to change as young adults reenter educational institutions.
This process will continue to be monitored.
The third limitation is that while the findings of the study are more
generalizable to contemporary federal and state programs than previous studies,
they should be applied cautiously outside large urban cities with high proportions
of black children. While the CPC program has a history of successful implementation
in public schools, very few programs other than Head Start have this implementation
experience.
One major question outstanding is the mechanisms that explain the link
between program participation and later outcomes. Three seem likely given
the program goals.12 One is that participation
leads to cognitive advantages at school entry that increased educational and
social success. A second is that program participation enhances family support
behaviors on behalf of children that promote well-being. The third is that
program graduates attain higher levels of success because of the school support
they experience in the years after the program, either by attending higher-quality
schools or having fewer school moves.36,37
Previous studies support the credibility of these hypotheses,10,38
and they deserve further investigation.
This study indicates that public investments in early educational programs
in the first decade of life can contribute positively to children's later
success. Replication and extension of findings to other locations and samples
will further strengthen confidence in the benefits of large-scale preventive
interventions for young children.
1.United States, General Accounting Office. Education and Care: Early Childhood Programs and
Services for Low-Income Families. Washington, DC: GAO; 1999. Report No. HEHS-00-11.
2.Nelson CA, Bloom FE. Child development and neuroscience.
Child Dev.1997;68:970-987.Google Scholar 3.Carnegie Task Force. Starting Points: Meeting the Needs of Our Youngest
Children. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York; 1994.
4.United States, National Science and Technology Council, United States,
Office of Science and Technology Policy. Investing in Our Future: A National Research Initiative
for America's Children for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, National Science
and Technology Council; 1997.
5.Council of Economic Advisors. The First Three Years: Investments That Pay. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President; April 1997.
6.Karoly LA, Greenwood PW, Everingham SS.
et al. Investing in Our Children: What We Know and Don't
Know About the Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions. Santa Monica, Calif: The RAND Corp; 1998.
7.Barnett WS. Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school
outcomes.
Future Child.1995;5:25-50.Google Scholar 8.Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. As the Twig Is Bent...Lasting Effects of Preschool
Programs. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1983.
9.Zigler E, Taussig C, Black K. Early childhood intervention: a promising preventative for juvenile
delinquency.
Am Psychol.1992;47:997-1006.Google Scholar 10.Schweinhart LJ, Barnes HV, Weikart DP. Significant Benefits the High-Scope Perry Preschool
Study Through Age 27. Ypsilanti, Mich: High/Scope Press; 1993.
11.Ramey CT, Campbell FA, Burchinal M.
et al. Persistent effects of early childhood education on high-risk children
and their mothers.
Appl Dev Sci.2000;4:2-14.Google Scholar 12.Reynolds AJ. Success in Early Intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent
Centers. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press; 2000.
13.Wilson WJ. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban
Poor. New York, NY: Knopf, distributed by Random House Inc; 1996.
14.Zigler E, Styfco SJ. Head Start and Beyond: A National Plan for Extended
Childhood Intervention. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 1993.
15.Reynolds AJ. Educational success in high-risk settings: contributions of the Chicago
Longitudinal Study.
J Sch Psychol.1999;37:345-354.Google Scholar 16.Reynolds AJ. Effects of a preschool plus follow-on intervention for children at
risk.
Dev Psychol.1994;30:787-804.Google Scholar 17.Reynolds AJ, Temple JA. Extended early childhood intervention and school achievement: age thirteen
findings from the Chicago Longitudinal Study.
Child Dev.1998;69:231-246.Google Scholar 18.Reynolds AJ, Temple JA. Quasi-experimental estimates of the effects of a preschool intervention:
psychometric and econometric comparisons.
Eval Rev.1995;19:347-373.Google Scholar 19.Rosenbaum PR. From association to causation in observational studies: the role of
tests of strongly ignorable treatment assignment.
J Am Stat Assoc.1984;79:41-48.Google Scholar 20.Bendersky M, Lewis M. Environmental risk, biological risk, and developmental outcome.
Dev Psychol.1994;30:484-494.Google Scholar 21.Rutter M. Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms.
Am J Orthopsychiatry.1987;57:316-331.Google Scholar 22.Chicago Board of Education. Chicago EARLY: Instructional Activities for Ages
3 to 6. Vernon Hills, Ill: Institute for Development of Educational Auditing
(ETA); 1988.
23.Chicago Public Schools. Elementary School-Criteria for Promotion. Chicago, Ill: Dept of Curriculum and Instruction; 1985.
24.Office of Special Education Programs. Implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act: Sixteenth Report to Congress. Washington, DC: US Dept of Education; 1994.
25.Temple JA, Reynolds AJ, Miedel WT. Can early intervention prevent high school dropout? evidence from the
Chicago Child-Parent Centers.
Urban Educ.2000;35:31-56.Google Scholar 26.Hieronymus AN, Lindquist EF, Hoover HD. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills: Early Primary Battery,
Form 7, Teacher's Guide. Chicago, Ill: Riverside Publishing Co; 1980.
27.Greene WH. LIMDEP: User's Guide, Version 7. Bellport, NY: Econometric Software, Inc; 1995.
28.Cohen MA. The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth.
J Quant Criminol.1998;14:5-33.Google Scholar 29.Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sourcebook for Criminal Justice Statistics. Washington, DC: US Dept of Justice; 1997.
30.Olds DL, Eckenrode J, Henderson CR.
et al. Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child
abuse and neglect: fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial.
JAMA.1997;278:637-643.Google Scholar 31.Lally JR, Mangione PL, Honig AS, Wittner DS. More pride, less delinquency: findings from the ten-year follow-up
study of the Syracuse University Family Development Research Program.
Zero Three.1988;8:13-18.Google Scholar 32.Ramey CT, Bryant DM, Wasik BH, Sparling JJ, Fendt KH, LaVange LM. Infant health and development program for low birth weight, premature
infants: program elements family participation and child intelligence.
Pediatrics.1992;89:454-465.Google Scholar 33.Shea S, Stein AD, Basch CE.
et al. Independent associations of educational attainment and ethnicity with
behavioral risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
Am J Epidemiol.1991;134:567-582.Google Scholar 34.Wolfe BL, Behrman JR. Women's schooling and children's health: are the effects robust with
adult sibling control for the women's childhood background.
J Health Econ.1987;6:239-254.Google Scholar 35.Reynolds AJ, Temple JA, Robertson DL, Mann EA. Long-term benefits of participation in the Title I Chicago Child-Parent
Centers. Paper presented at: The Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research
on Adolescence; March 30-April 2, 2000; Chicago, Ill.
36.Reynolds AJ, Chang H, Temple JA. Early childhood intervention and juvenile delinquency: an exploratory
analysis of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers.
Eval Rev.1998;22:341-372.Google Scholar 37.Wood D, Halfon N, Scarlata D, Newacheck P, Nessim S. Impact of family relocation on children's growth, development, school
function, and behavior.
JAMA.1993;270:1334-1338.Google Scholar 38.Currie J, Thomas D. School quality and the longer-term effects of Head Start.
J Hum Res.2000;35:755-774.Google Scholar