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
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
Most Frequently Cited Early Childhood Intervention Programs
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
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
Chicago Child-Parent Centers
Figure. Alternative Paths Leading to Social Competence
Early Childhood
Ages 3-9
Exogenous
Conditions
Gender
Socio-Environmental
Risk
Neighborhood
Attributes
Ages 5-12
Motivation
Self-efficacy
Perceived competence
Persistence in learning
MA
CA
Program
Participation
Timing
Duration
Intensity
SA
Developed Abilities
Cognitive development
Literacy skills
Pre-reading/numeracy skills
Social Adjustment
Classroom adjustment
Peer relations
Self-regulating skills
MA
Social Competence
Behaviors
CA
SA
FS
FS
MA= Motivational Advantage
CA = Cognitive Advantage
SA = Social Adjustment
FS = Family Support
SS = School Support
Adolescence
Ages 12-
SS
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
SS
School Achievement
and Performance
Retention in Grade
Receiving Special
Education Services
Delinquency and Crime
Child Maltreatment
Participation in Social
Services
Educational Attainment
Child-Parent Centers
Child-Parent Center
Preschool/Kindergarten
(Wing or Building)
Principal
Head Teacher
Outreach
Services
Parent
Component
School-Community
Representative
Resource Mobilization
Home Visitation
Parent Conferences
Parent Resource Teacher
Parent Room Activities
Classroom Volunteering
School Activities
Home Support
Age 3
Elementary School
Grades 1 to 3
Curriculum Parent-Resources Teacher
Curriculum
Component
Language Focus
Small Class Sizes
Inservice Training
Health
Services
Health Screening
Nursing Services
Free + ReducedPrice meals
To
Parent
Component
Parent Room Activities
Classroom
Volunteering
School Activities
Home Support
Curriculum
Component
School-Wide
Services
Reduced Class Size
Health Services
Teacher Aides
School-Community
Instructional Materials
Representative
Individualized instruction Free + ReducedInservices
Price meals
Resource Mobilization
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
areas
Over 80% of children enroll
Mean no. of family risks 3.6
Parent ed > than in c-group
Reside in high poverty areas
Had school-based enrichment
1 or 2 years
60% full day
69 % 1 year
56% 2-3 years
15% in Head Start
100% full day
30% 1 year
0% 2-3 years
Intervention level
Preschool
Kindergarten
School age
Mean no. of family risk 3.6
Area poverty > than in p-group
Characteristics of Preschool Group and Comparison Group (March, 2001)
CPC
Preschool
Group
(N=858)
NoPreschool
Group
(N=456)
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
Characteristics
P-value
Equivalence of Program and Comparison Groups
School Readiness Skills
ITBS National Percentile Score
90
80
66
70
60
51
47
51
39
50
40
28
30
20
10
0
Age 5 Composite
Word Analysis
Comparison Group
Preschool Group
Math
Adjusted Group Differences for Measures of Child
Well Being in the Chicago Longitudinal Study
50
Juvenile
Arrest by
Age 18
Grade
Retention by
Age 15
Special
Education by
Age 18
Child
Maltreatment
by Age 17
Percentage of Sample
38.4
40
30
25.1
23
16.9
20
24.6
14.4
14.2
6.9
10
0
Comparison Group
Preschool Group
Percent of Overall Sample
Special Education Placement by Age 18
40
35
30
25
24.6
21.3
14.4
20
15
10
20.7
15.4
13.5
5
0
Comparison
Preschool
Preschool
School-Age
Extended
Rates of High School Completion by Groups
80
Percentage of Sample
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
January
2000
September March 2001 September
2000
2001
CPC preschool
January
2002
May 2002
January
2003
Non-CPC preschool
Note. Adjusted for gender, race, family risk index, follow-on participation, and CPC sites.
High School Completion Categories by Group
60
51.7
52.3
53.6
52.3
48.3
50
44
Percentage of Sample
51.7
44.5
44.4
43.9
Graduation
40
51.7
44
30
20
9.7
10
3.8
0
4.2
11.2
GED
5.7
14.2
11.8
10.3
5.6
14.1
10.3
2.9
Sep. 2000
(N=1,286)
March 2001
(N=1,314)
Preschool Group
Sep. 2001
(N=1,315)
Comparison Group
Jan. 2002
(N=1,338)
May 2002
(N=1,334)
Preschool Group
Jan. 2003
(N=1,336)
Comparison Group
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
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 ChildParent 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 schoolcommunity 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 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.
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
100%
90%
15%
Tax revenues
28%
80%
13%
Tax revenues
Crime saving-victims
70%
60%
50%
16%
Crime savingstreatment
Crime savingvictims
10% Education savings
29%
40%
30%
25%
45%
Participants
Crime
savingstreatment
20%
19%
10%
Education
savings
0%
Society
Public
Estimated Benefits and Costs: Preschool
Child care
$1,657
$770
Sources of Savings or Costs
Abuse and neglect
$6,127
Crime victims
Justice system
College tuition
$7,130
-$557
$7,243
Taxes on earnings
$20,517
Lifetime earnings
$692
Grade retention
Special education
-$6,692
-$10,000
$4,180
Program
-$5,000
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
Present Value in Thousands (1998 $ discounted at 3 %)
$25,000
Estimated Benefits and Costs: School-Age
Sources of Savings or Costs
Child care
$0
Abuse and neglect
$204
$431
Crime victims
Justice system
$0
College tuition
-$20
Taxes on earnings
$259
$732
Lifetime earnings
Grade retention
$472
Special education
-$2,981
-$6,000
-$4,000
$2,866
Program
-$2,000
$0
$2,000
$4,000
Present Value in Thousands (1998 $ discounted at 3 %)
$6,000
Estimated Benefits and Costs: Extended
$1,646
Child care
Sources of Savings or Costs
Abuse and neglect
$480
$3,737
Crime victims
$3,025
Justice system
College tuition
-$234
Taxes on earnings
$3,040
$8,610
Lifetime earnings
$467
Grade retention
$4,001
Special education
-$4,057
-$10,000
-$5,000
Program
$0
$5,000
$10,000
Present Value in Thousands (1998 $ discounted at 3 %)
$15,000
Government and Participants Savings
Sources of Societal Savings for the CPC Preschool Program
13%
Program Participants
46%
Government Savings
Crime Victims
41%
Benefit to Cost Ratios for 3
Measures of Participation
Present Value of Benefits Per Dollar Invested ($)
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.14
6.11
7.00
6.00
5.00
3.85
3.60
4.00
3.00
1.66
2.00
1.42
1.00
0.00
Preschool
School-Age
Extended
Total Benefit
Public Benefit
Sensitivity of Estimated Total and General Public
Benefits and Cost of the Preschool program
1998 Present Value Dollars Per Child
105000
Total Benefits
90000
General Public
75000
Preschool Cost
60000
45000
30000
15000
0
0
1
2
3
4
Discount Rate
5
6
7
Sensitivity of Estimated Total and General Public
Benefits and Cost of the Extended Program
1998 Present Value Dollars Per Child
60000
Total Benefits
50000
General Public
Extended Cost
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0
1
2
3
4
Discount Rate
5
6
7
Benefit-Cost Ratios for Total Benefit of 4 Programs
Present Value of Benefits per Dollar Invested ($)
10
8.74
9
7.14
8
7
5.06
6
3.78
5
4
3
2
1
0
High/Scope Perry
Preschool Program
CPC Preschool Program Elmira PEIP (High Risk)
Abecedarian
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%.
LISREL mediation model for high school completion, coefficients
are standardized and adjusted for measurement errors
Early Childhood
Variables
Ages 5-9
Middle Childhood
Ages 9-12
Grade Retention
by Age 15
-.39
Covariates
Gender
Socio-Environmental
Risk
Black
-.29
-.20
ITBS Word analysis in
Kindergarten
Adolescence
Age 12-
.16
-.15
Attended Magnet Schools ,
Ages 10-14
.11
.16
-.24
.15
.21
.33
.32
Preschool
Participation
-.23
.12
Classroom adjustment,
Age 9
.13
High School
Completion
by Age 20
(Sep, 2000)
.13
.11
.28
Parents’ Participation
in school, Ages 8-12
-.12
Number of school moves
-.14
School Commitment,
ages 10 or 15
.10
R2 = .34
-.08
-.11
-.14
Abuse/neglect repot,
Ages 4-12
RMSEA= 0.055
AGFI= 0.95
LISREL Mediation Model for Any Arrest Petition by Age 18,
Coefficients are Standardized and Adjusted for Measurement Errors
Early Childhood
Variables
Ages 5-9
Middle Childhood
Ages 9-12
Grade Retention
by Age 15
-.38
Covariates
Gender
Socio-Environmental
Risk
Race/Ethnicity
-.20
ITBS Word Analysis in
Kindergarten
-.26
.15
Attended Magnet Schools,
Ages 10-14
.11
.16
Adolescence
Age 12-
-.26
.24
-.19
Any Arrest
petition by
age 18
.33
.30
Number of School Moves,
Ages 10-14
-.15
-.23
Preschool
Participation
Classroom Adjustment,
Age 9
.12
Parents’ Participation in
School, Ages 8-12
-.13
Abuse/neglect
Report, Ages 4-12
.12
.10
.28
School Commitment,
Ages 10 or 15
-.10
-.13
-.09
R2 = .35
RMSEA= 0.052
AGFI= 0.95
Percentage of Total Indirect Effect of Preschool
Accounted for by Mediators
60
48.1
Percentage
50
40
31.1
27.9
30
23.2
21.3
18.7
20
10
0
Cognitive Advantage
Family Support
High School Completion
School Support
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 in
A. 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. Reynolds
Waisman Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
1500 Highland Avenue
Madison, WI 53705
Telephone: 608-263-1847
Fax: 608-262-3821
E-mail: areynolds@waisman.wisc.edu
Web Site: www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/