Prevention and Cost-Effectiveness in the Chicago Child-Parent Centers

Arthur J Reynolds1, Judy A Temple2, Dylan L Robertson1, Emily A Mann1, Suh-Ruu Ou1

1. University of Wisconsin-Madison2. Northern Illinois University

Society for Research in Child DevelopmentApril 26, 2003

Some Facts about the Evaluation Literature

Cost effectiveness rarely applied to child development programs

Effect sizes as economic “returns”

Extensive longitudinal studies of social programs are ideal for testing cost effectiveness

Program Type Age at Last Follow-Up

Number of Citations

High/Scope Perry Preschool Program Model 27 15

Carolina Abecedarian Project Model 21 14

Houston Parent-Child Development Center Model 11 14

Yale Child Welfare Research Program Model 14 10

Chicago Child-Parent Centers Large Scale 20 9

Milwaukee Project Model 14 8

Syracuse Family Development Program Model 15 8

Early Training Project Model 20 6

Consortium for Longitudinal Studies Model 27 6

Philadelphia Project Model 18 6

Infant and Health Development Program Model 8 6

Educational Testing Service Head Start Study Large Scale 8 5

New Haven Follow-Through Study Large Scale 9 5

Elmira Prenatal/Early Infancy Project Model 17 5

Harlem Training Project Model 12 4

University of Rochester Nurse Home Visiting Program Model 4 4

Gordon Parent Education Program Model 10 3

New York State Experimental Prekindergarten Large Scale 8 3

PSID Head Start Longitudinal Study Large Scale 25 3

Most Frequently Cited Early Childhood Intervention Programs

MA

SS

FS

SA

CA

MA

SS

FS

SA

CA

Figure. Alternative Paths Leading to Social Competence

Early Childhood Ages 3-9

Adolescence Ages 12-

ProgramParticipation

TimingDurationIntensity

Social Competence Behaviors

School Achievement and Performance Retention in Grade Receiving Special Education Services Delinquency and Crime Child Maltreatment Participation in Social Services Educational Attainment

MA= Motivational AdvantageCA = Cognitive AdvantageSA = Social AdjustmentFS = Family SupportSS = School Support

Exogenous Conditions

Gender Socio-Environmental Risk Neighborhood Attributes

Motivation Self-efficacy Perceived competence Persistence in learning

Developed Abilities Cognitive development Literacy skills Pre-reading/numeracy skills

Social Adjustment Classroom adjustment Peer relations Self-regulating skills

Family Support Parent-child interactions Home support for learning Participation in school Parenting skills

School Support Quality of school environment Classroom environment School-level performance

Ages 5-12

Child-Parent Centers

PrincipalChild-Parent Center

Preschool/Kindergarten(Wing or Building)

Child-Parent CenterPreschool/Kindergarten

(Wing or Building)

Elementary SchoolGrades 1 to 3

Elementary SchoolGrades 1 to 3

Curriculum Parent-Resources TeacherCurriculum Parent-Resources TeacherHead TeacherHead Teacher

OutreachServices

OutreachServices

ParentComponent

ParentComponent

CurriculumComponent

CurriculumComponent

HealthServices

HealthServices

ParentComponent

ParentComponent

CurriculumComponent

CurriculumComponent

School-WideServices

School-WideServices

School-Community RepresentativeResource MobilizationHome VisitationParent Conferences

Parent Resource TeacherParent Room ActivitiesClassroom VolunteeringSchool ActivitiesHome Support

Language FocusSmall Class SizesInservice Training

Health ScreeningNursing ServicesFree + Reduced- Price meals

Parent Room ActivitiesClassroom VolunteeringSchool ActivitiesHome Support

Reduced Class SizeTeacher AidesInstructional Materials Individualized instructionInservices

Health ServicesSchool-Community RepresentativeFree + Reduced- Price mealsResource Mobilization

Age 3 To Age 9

Johnson Child-Parent Center

Chicago Longitudinal Study

989 complete cohort of children graduating from Child-Parent Centers in kindergarten; they participated from 2 to 6 years. Centers are located in the highest poverty areas of Chicago.

550 children enrolled in an alternative early childhood program in kindergarten in five randomly selected schools and other schools serving low-income families. They matched on eligibility for Title I programs and socioeconomic status.

Characteristics of Program and Comparison Groups

CPC Intervention Comparison

Sample Complete Cohort Random sample of K sites

Recovery, age 22 869 of 989 (88%) 465 of 550 (85%)

Key attributes Reside in highest poverty Reside in high poverty areas areas Had school-based enrichmentOver 80% of children enrollMean no. of family risks 3.6 Mean no. of family risk 3.6 Parent ed > than in c-group Area poverty > than in p-group

Intervention levelPreschool 1 or 2 years 15% in Head StartKindergarten 60% full day 100% full daySchool age 69 % 1 year 30% 1 year

56% 2-3 years 0% 2-3 years

Characteristics of Preschool Group and Comparison Group (March, 2001)

 Characteristics

CPC Preschool

Group (N=858)

No-Preschool

Group (N=456)

 P-value

Percent girls 53.0 47.0 .03*

Percent Black 94.2 92.8 .32

Percent parents not completed high school at child age 8 40.6 46.2 .08

Percent single parent at age 8 57.3 58.8 .63

Percent parent were teen (<19) at child’s birth 17.7 18.2 .83

Percent parent not employed at age 8 59.7 52.8 .04*

Percent ever reported receiving free lunch at age 8 73.7 69.3 .09

Percent child/neglect report by age 3 1.2 2.6 .05*

Percent income level is 60% + poverty for school area 77.0 71.7 .03*

Percent missing data from parent education or free lunch report

15.0 18.9 .08

Family risk index (0-6) 3.1 3.0 .45

Equivalence of Program and Comparison Groups

School Readiness Skills

28

4751

66

39

51

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Age 5 Composite Word Analysis Math

Comparison Group Preschool Group

ITBS National Percentile Score

Adjusted Group Differences for Measures of Child Well Being in the Chicago Longitudinal Study

25.1

16.9

38.4

23 24.6

14.4 14.2

6.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f S

am

ple

Comparison Group Preschool Group

Juvenile Arrest by Age 18

Grade Retention by

Age 15

Special Education by

Age 18

Child Maltreatment

by Age 17

24.6

14.4

21.3

15.4

20.7

13.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Perc

ent o

f Ove

rall

Sam

ple

Preschool School-Age Extended

ComparisonPreschool

Special Education Placement by Age 18

Rates of High School Completion by Groups

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

January2000

September2000

March 2001 September2001

January2002

May 2002 January2003

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f S

am

ple

CPC preschool Non-CPC preschool

Note. Adjusted for gender, race, family risk index, follow-on participation, and CPC sites.

High School Completion Categories by Group

14.110.3

51.7

44

14.211.811.2

3.8

9.7 10.3

5.65.74.2

2.9

51.7 52.3 52.3 51.753.6

44 44.5 44.448.3

43.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Sep. 2000(N=1,286)

March 2001(N=1,314)

Sep. 2001(N=1,315)

Jan. 2002(N=1,338)

May 2002(N=1,334)

Jan. 2003(N=1,336)

Per

cent

age

of S

ampl

e

Preschool Group Comparison Group Preschool Group Comparison Group

Graduation

GED

Benefit-Cost AnalysisBenefit Categories

School Remedial Services Reduced Costs of Special Education Services Reduced Expenditures for Extra Schooling for

Retained Students

Child Welfare System Reduced Treatment and Administrative Costs Cost savings to Victims

Juvenile Court and Treatment Costs Reduced Administrative Costs Reduced Costs of Juvenile Treatment Savings to Crime Victims

Benefit Categories (cont.)

Adult Courts and Treatments Reduced Administrative Costs

Reduced Costs of Treatment

Savings to Crime Victims

Life Time Earnings Capacity (Projected from HS Completion) Increased Earnings Through Age 65

Increased Tax Revenues to Governments

Program Costs Per Participant vs. Selected Yearly Costs (1998)

Preschool ($6,692) vs. Special education, $7,791

School-age ($2,981) vs. Juvenile institution, $32,237

Extended ($10,000) vs. Child welfare services, $9,492

Major Categories of Costs in the Chicago Child-Parent Centers: Preschool and School-Age Components (1998 dollars)

Budget Category Preschool Program School-Age Program

Instructional staff (%) $7,864,225 (43.4%) $7,849,856 (73.5%)

Family and school-community staff/parent program

1,744,945 (9.6%) 25,634 (0.2%)

Administration 2,288,153 (12.6%) 1,481,416 (13.9%)

Parent program participation

1,421,695 (7.9%) 897,300 (8.4%)

Total cost in 1998 dollars

18,100,194 10,674,231

Number of children in 25 centers/schools

4,114 6,757

Present value of weighted average cost per child

6,692 2,981

Procedures and Examples1. Estimate the program effect

(Example: .70 fewer years in special ed)2. Convert to 1998 dollars

(Example: $7,791 (i.e., adjust for inflation))3. Estimate benefit at the time of program entry

(age 3) using an annual discount rate of 3% (Example: $5,971)

This is the Present Value of Benefits in 1998 dollars.

The Program Economic Benefit Per Participant is .7 (5,971) = $4,180.

Summary of CBA Findings Per Participant

CPC component

Cost Societal Benefit

Public Benefit

Preschool $6,692 $47,759 $25,771

School-Age $2,981 $4,944 $4,219

Extended $4,057 $24,772 $14,594

Note. Present value in 1998 dollars discounted at 3%

Benefits of CPC Preschool by Category

45%

10%

19%

16%

29%

13%

25%

15%

28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Society Public

Tax revenues

Tax revenues

Crime saving-victims

Crime saving-victims

Crime savings-treatment

Crime savings-

treatment

Education savings

Education savings

Participants

Estimated Benefits and Costs:

Preschool

$692

$20,517

$7,243

$7,130

$6,127

$770

$1,657

$4,180

-$6,692

-$557

-$10,000 -$5,000 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000

Program

Special education

Grade retention

Lifetime earnings

Taxes on earnings

College tuition

Justice system

Crime victims

Abuse and neglect

Child care

So

urc

es o

f S

avin

gs

or

Co

sts

Present Value in Thousands (1998 $ discounted at 3 %)

$2,866

$472

$259

$431

$204

$732

-$2,981

-$20

-$6,000 -$4,000 -$2,000 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000

Program

Special education

Grade retention

Lifetime earnings

Taxes on earnings

College tuition

Justice system

Crime victims

Abuse and neglect

Child care

Sou

rces

of S

avin

gs o

r C

osts

Present Value in Thousands (1998 $ discounted at 3 %)

$0

$0

Estimated Benefits and Costs: School-Age

$467

$8,610

$3,040

$3,025

$3,737

$480

$1,646

$4,001

-$234

-$4,057

-$10,000 -$5,000 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000

Program

Special education

Grade retention

Lifetime earnings

Taxes on earnings

College tuition

Justice system

Crime victims

Abuse and neglect

Child care

So

urc

es

of

Sa

vin

gs

or

Co

sts

Present Value in Thousands (1998 $ discounted at 3 %)

Estimated Benefits and Costs: Extended

Government and Participants Savings

Sources of Societal Savings for the CPC Preschool Program

46%

41%

13%

Program Participants

Government Savings

Crime Victims

Benefit to Cost Ratios for 3 Measures of Participation

7.14

3.85

1.66 1.42

6.11

3.60

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

Pre

sen

t V

alu

e o

f B

enef

its

Per

Do

llar

Inve

sted

($)

Preschool School-Age Extended

Total BenefitPublic Benefit

Sensitivity of Estimated Total and General Public Benefits and Cost of the Preschool program

0

15000

30000

45000

60000

75000

90000

105000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Discount Rate

1998

Pre

sen

t V

alu

e D

olla

rs P

er C

hild

Total Benefits

General Public

Preschool Cost

Sensitivity of Estimated Total and General Public Benefits and Cost of the Extended Program

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Discount Rate

1998

Pre

sen

t V

alu

e D

olla

rs P

er C

hild Total Benefits

General Public

Extended Cost

Benefit-Cost Ratios for Total Benefit of 4 Programs

Notes: 1) High/Scope Perry Preschool cost benefit amounts are in 1992 dollars; discounted at 3%. Benefits include averted intangible crime victim costs. 2) Chicago Child Parent Center (CPC) cost benefit amounts are in 1998 dollars; discounted at 3%. 3) Elmira PEIP cost benefit amounts are in 1996 dollars; discounted at 4%.

8.74

7.14

5.06

3.78

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Pre

sen

t V

alu

e o

f B

enef

its

per

Do

llar

Inve

sted

($)

High/Scope PerryPreschool Program

CPC Preschool Program Elmira PEIP (High Risk) Abecedarian

LISREL mediation model for high school completion, coefficients are standardized and adjusted for measurement errors

-.08 R2 = .34

-.24

.28

.21

.11

-.11

.13

-.29

.16 -.15

.16

-.12

.10

.13

-.14

.12

.32

-.23

-.14

.11

-.39

.33

.15

-.20

Early Childhood Variables

PreschoolParticipation

High School Completion by Age 20

(Sep, 2000)

RMSEA= 0.055AGFI= 0.95

Covariates Gender Socio-Environmental RiskBlack

School Commitment, ages 10 or 15Parents’ Participation

in school, Ages 8-12

Number of school moves

Attended Magnet Schools , Ages 10-14

Abuse/neglect repot, Ages 4-12

Grade Retention by Age 15

Ages 5-9 Middle ChildhoodAges 9-12

AdolescenceAge 12-

Classroom adjustment, Age 9

ITBS Word analysis in Kindergarten

LISREL Mediation Model for Any Arrest Petition by Age 18, Coefficients are Standardized and Adjusted for Measurement Errors

RMSEA= 0.052AGFI= 0.95

-.13

-.26

.15

-.19

-.09.12

-.15

.12

.30

-.23

-.13

.11

-.38

.33

.16 .24

-.10

.28

-.20

Early Childhood Variables

Any Arrest petition by

age 18

Covariates Gender Socio-Environmental RiskRace/Ethnicity

School Commitment, Ages 10 or 15

Classroom Adjustment, Age 9

Parents’ Participation in School, Ages 8-12

ITBS Word Analysis in Kindergarten

Number of School Moves, Ages 10-14

Attended Magnet Schools, Ages 10-14

Grade Retention by Age 15

-.26

Ages 5-9 Middle ChildhoodAges 9-12

AdolescenceAge 12-

Abuse/neglect Report, Ages 4-12

R2 = .35

.10

PreschoolParticipation

Percentage of Total Indirect Effect of Preschool Accounted for by Mediators

23.218.7

27.9

21.3

31.1

48.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Cognitive Advantage Family Support School Support

High School Completion Juvenile Arrest

Implications of Chicago Study

Early childhood programs are among the most effective preventive interventions. Evidence of benefit-cost analysis suggests the long-term payoff of such approaches.

 Length of program participation can matter as much as timing. Services should better reflect this principle.

 Implement intensive parent programs through staffed parent-resource rooms and emphasis on personal development and school participation.

Implications of Chicago Study (cont.)

Focus enrichment on school readiness, especially language and literacy skills through relatively structured, activity-based approaches.Focus school-age programs on school organization and instructional resources through such elements as reduced class sizes and child-teacher ratios, and instructional coordination.Study the strengths and limitations of universal access to early care and education programs. Quality and effectiveness will depend on success inA. Coordinating services B. Recruiting and keeping well-trained staff C. Tailoring services to the needs of families.

For more information about the Chicago Longitudinal Study, contact:

Arthur J. ReynoldsWaisman Center

University of Wisconsin-Madison1500 Highland AvenueMadison, WI 53705Telephone: 608-263-1847Fax: 608-262-3821

E-mail: areynolds@waisman.wisc.eduWeb Site: www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/