Social & Economic Factors Education Employment Income Family & Social Support Community Safety Search Policies & Programs

Display All Policies & Programs Contribute Content

Comprehensive early childhood development programs

Health Factors: Education, Community Safety
Decision Makers: Community Organizations, Government - State, Government - Federal, Schools
Evidence Rating: Scientifically Supported
Population Reach: 10-19% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities: Likely to decrease disparities

Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.

Description

Comprehensive early childhood development programs (CECDPs) are programs to enhance the cognitive and social development of low income children prior to kindergarten. These intensive programs promote healthy child development, school readiness, and parental skill development. Such programs usually include high-quality preschool and often offer additional services such as home visiting, health, and family services. Examples of CECDPs include: Child-Parent Centers, High/Scope Perry Preschool, and the Carolina Abecedarian Project.

Expected Beneficial Outcomes

Improved educational outcomes
Decreased arrests
Increased cognitive development
Decreased crime
Increased employment

Evidence of Effectiveness

There is strong evidence that comprehensive early childhood development programs (CECDPs) increase low income children's educational success and decrease their likelihood of committing crimes later in life (Manning 2010).

CECDPs substantially increase participants' cognitive skills and educational success compared to non-participants (Manning 2010). Effects are strongest immediately following preschool, but can persist into adulthood (Burger 2010). CECDPs also reduce teenage delinquent behavior including drug use, law breaking, and gang involvement, and reduce juvenile arrest rates for former participants (Manning 2010).

Examples of effective programs include Chicago Child-Parent Centers (CPC) and the HighScope Perry (HSP) program, which have both been shown to improve academic achievement and adult earnings while reducing arrest rates (Reynolds 2011, PPN). Cost-benefit analyses of these programs indicate substantial societal returns for the funds taxpayers invest in them (Heckman 2010a, Reynolds 2011a).

Implementation Examples

United States

The Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge is a federal grant competition intended to increase the percentage of low income children enrolled in high-quality early learning programs, and spur the development of integrated early learning systems. California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Washington received funding in 2011 (US ED-Race to the top).

Implementation Resources

HighScope - HighScope. Inspiring educators to inspire children. Accessed on June 20, 2012
Webpage: http://www.highscope.org/
UW CPC - UW Madison Waisman Center. Chicago Longitudinal Study: Child Parent Center (CPC). Accessed on June 23, 2012
Webpage: http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/

Citations - Evidence

Burger 2010* - Burger K. How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An international review of the effects of early interventions for children from different social backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2010;25(2):140-65. Accessed on April 10, 2012
Webpage: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200609000921
Heckman 2010a* - Heckman JJ, Moon SH, Pinto R, Savelyev PA, Yavitz A. The rate of return to the HighScope Perry preschool program. Journal of Public Economics. 2010;94(1-2):114-28. Accessed on April 30, 2012
Webpage: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272709001418
Manning 2010* - Manning M, Homel R, Smith C. A meta-analysis of the effects of early developmental prevention programs in at-risk populations on non-health outcomes in adolescence. Children and Youth Services Review. 2010;32(4):506-19. Accessed on April 10, 2012
Webpage: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740909003132
PPN - Promising Practices Network (PPN). On children, families and communities. Accessed on May 7, 2012
Webpage: http://www.promisingpractices.org/programs_evidence.asp
Reynolds 2011* - Reynolds AJ, Temple JA, Ou SR, Arteaga IA, White BAB. School-based early childhood education and age-28 well-being: Effects by timing, dosage, and subgroups. Science. 2011;333(6040):360-4. Accessed on April 27, 2012
Webpage: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6040/360
Reynolds 2011a - Reynolds AJ, Temple JA, White BAB, Ou SR, Robertson DL. Age 26 cost-benefit analysis of the child-parent center early education program. Child Development. 2011;82(1):379-404. Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01563.x/pdf

Citations - Implementation Examples

US ED-Race to the top - US Department of Education (US ED). Race to the top: Early learning challenge. Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/index.html

* Journal subscription may be required for access.

Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)

No comments

X
 

Health Factors

Health Behaviors
Tobacco Use
Diet & Exercise
Alcohol Use
Sexual Activity
 Clinical Care
Access to Care
Quality of Care
 Social & Economic Factors
Education
Employment
Income
Family & Social Support
Community Safety
 Physical Environment
Environmental Quality
Built Environment

Decision Makers

Businesses & Employers
Community Organizations
Government - Local
Government - State
Government - Federal
Healthcare Organizations
Individuals
Schools

Evidence Rating

Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.

  • Scientifically Supported Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
  • Some Evidence Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
  • Expert Opinion Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
  • Insufficient Evidence Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
  • Mixed Evidence Evidence mixed; further study warranted
  • Evidence of Ineffectiveness Research consistently shows program is detrimental or has no effect

Although many policies and programs are recommended by credible groups, we apply the rating ‘expert opinion’ only when policies are recommended but limited scientific evidence of effectiveness is available.

* The American Heritage Dictionary defines credible as 'capable of being believed; plausible.' and 'worthy of confidence; reliable.' To be considered an 'expert recommendation,' policies and programs must be recommended by one or more organizations that are recognized for their impartial expertise in the area of interest and have limited evidence available.

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Impact on Health Disparities

Likely impact of a given policy or program on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other disparities in Wisconsin based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available evidence related to disparities.

  • Likely to decrease disparities
  • No impact on disparities likely
  • Likely to increase disparities