1. 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-Madison 2. Northern Illinois University Society for Research in Child Development April 26, 2003

2. 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

3. Most Frequently Cited Early Childhood Intervention Programs
Type
Age at Last Follow-Up
Number of Citations
High/Scope Perry Preschool Program
Model 27 15
Carolina Abecedarian Project 21 14
Houston Parent-Child Development Center 11
Yale Child Welfare Research Program 10
Chicago Child-Parent Centers
Large Scale 20 9
Milwaukee Project 8
Syracuse Family Development Program
Early Training Project 6
Consortium for Longitudinal Studies
Philadelphia Project 18
Infant and Health Development Program
Educational Testing Service Head Start Study 5
New Haven Follow-Through Study
Elmira Prenatal/Early Infancy Project 17
Harlem Training Project 12 4
University of Rochester Nurse Home Visiting Program
Gordon Parent Education Program 3
New York State Experimental Prekindergarten
PSID Head Start Longitudinal Study 25

4. Figure. Alternative Paths Leading to Social Competence
Adolescence Ages 12-
Early Childhood
Ages 3-9
Ages 5-12
Motivation
Self-efficacy
Perceived competence
Persistence in learning
Exogenous Conditions
Gender
Socio-Environmental
Risk
Neighborhood
Attributes MA MA
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
Developed Abilities
Cognitive development
Literacy skills
Pre-reading/numeracy skills CA CA
Program
Participation
Timing
Duration
Intensity
Social Adjustment
Classroom adjustment
Peer relations
Self-regulating skills SA SA FS FS
Family Support
Parent-child interactions
Home support for learning
Participation in school
Parenting skills SS
MA= Motivational Advantage
CA = Cognitive Advantage
SA = Social Adjustment
FS = Family Support
SS = School Support SS
School Support
Quality of school environment
Classroom environment
School-level performance

5. Child-Parent Centers Principal Child-Parent Center
Preschool/Kindergarten
(Wing or Building)
Elementary School
Grades 1 to 3
Curriculum Parent-Resources Teacher
Head Teacher
Outreach
Services
Parent
Component
Curriculum
Health
School-Wide
School-Community
Representative
Resource Mobilization
Home Visitation
Parent Conferences
Parent Resource Teacher
Parent Room Activities
Classroom Volunteering
School Activities
Home Support
Language Focus
Small Class Sizes
Inservice Training
Health Screening
Nursing Services
Free + Reduced-
Price meals
Reduced Class Size
Teacher Aides
Instructional Materials
Individualized instruction
Inservices
Health Services
Age 3 To
Age 9

6. Johnson Child-Parent Center

7. 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.

8. Characteristics of Program and Comparison Groups

9. 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
Percent missing data from parent education or free lunch report
15.0
18.9
Family risk index (0-6)
3.1
3.0
.45

10. Equivalence of Program and Comparison Groups

11. School Readiness Skills

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

13. Special Education Placement by Age 18

14. Rates of High School Completion by Groups
Note. Adjusted for gender, race, family risk index, follow-on participation, and CPC sites.

15. High School Completion Categories by Group
Graduation
GED

16. Benefit-Cost Analysis Benefit 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Procedures and Examples
1. 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.

21. 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%

22. Benefits of CPC Preschool by Category

23. Estimated Benefits and Costs: Preschool

24. Estimated Benefits and Costs: School-Age

25. Estimated Benefits and Costs: Extended

26. Government and Participants Savings

27. Benefit to Cost Ratios for 3 Measures of Participation

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

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

30. 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%.

31. High School Completion by Age 20
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
-.12
.10
-.14
.12
.32
-.23
-.39
.33
.15
-.20
Early Childhood
Variables
Preschool
Participation
High School Completion by Age 20
(Sep, 2000)
RMSEA= 0.055
AGFI= 0.95
Covariates
Gender
Socio-Environmental
Risk
Black
School Commitment, ages 10 or 15
Parents’ 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 Childhood
Ages 9-12
Adolescence
Age 12-
Classroom adjustment, Age 9
ITBS Word analysis in Kindergarten

32. Any Arrest petition by age 18
LISREL Mediation Model for Any Arrest Petition by Age 18, Coefficients are Standardized and Adjusted for Measurement Errors
-.13
-.26
.15
-.19
-.09
.12
-.15
.30
-.23
.11
-.38
.33
.16
.24
-.10
.28
-.20
Early Childhood
Variables
Any Arrest petition by age 18
Covariates
Gender
Socio-Environmental
Risk
Race/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
Ages 5-9
Middle Childhood
Ages 9-12
Adolescence
Age 12-
Abuse/neglect Report, Ages 4-12
R2 = .35
.10
Preschool
Participation
RMSEA= 0.052
AGFI= 0.95

33. Percentage of Total Indirect Effect of Preschool Accounted for by Mediators

34. 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.

35. 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 in
A. Coordinating services
B. Recruiting and keeping well-trained staff
C. Tailoring services to the needs of families.

36. For more information about the Chicago Longitudinal Study, contact:
Arthur J. Reynolds
Waisman Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
1500 Highland Avenue
Madison, WI 53705
Telephone:
Fax:
Web Site: