Early Childhood Learning White Paper

Transcription

2 Principle 1. The early childhood phase of life is disproportionately important to the totality of an individual s cognitive development and social behavior. Pre natal, post natal, and toddler period cognitive growth occur at a rate far in excess of that seen in any other phase of human development. This growth is significantly affected by environment and events, apart from the impact of genetic and biological endowment. Adverse life events, poor nutrition, and inadequate stimulation stunt and distort growth. Family support, intellectual nurturance, and sound health care advance it. Most of a child s brain development occurs in the first 2,000 days of life and is significantly impacted by the environment. 1, 2 In The Science of Early Childhood Development, the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University identifies several factors that explain why early brain development during the first 2,000 days is linked to healthy human development, and the damage that adverse environmental circumstances have upon future learning, behavior and physical and mental health. 3 Brains are built over time. The basic architecture of the brain is constructed through an ongoing process beginning before birth and continuing into adulthood. The interactive influences of genes and experience shape the architecture of the developing brain. The brain consists of integrated neural circuits that are wired under the continuous and mutual influences of both genetics and environment. Both brain architecture and developing abilities are built from the bottom up. Simple circuits and skills provide the scaffolding for more advanced circuits and skills over time. Cognitive, emotional, and social capabilities are inextricably intertwined throughout the life course. The linkages begin early and are vital to healthy development. Emotional well being and social competence are the bricks and mortar that comprise the foundation of human development. Oral language acquisition, emotional health, and social skills that emerge in the early years are vital prerequisites for later success in school, the workplace and the community. Toxic stress in early childhood persists and can have lasting effects on development, damage developing brain architecture and lead to lifelong problems in learning, behavior, and both physical and mental health. 1 Strong Start for Children Campaign Advocacy Toolkit, 2 Barnett, W. S. Getting the Facts Right on Pre K and the President's Pre K Proposal. February 2013, National Institute for Early Education Research, 3 The Science of Early Childhood Development: Closing the Gap Between What We Know and What We Do. National Scientific Council, Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. January 2007.

3 Principle 2. The positive impact of support to young children and their families has been demonstrated past the point of argument. Numerous high level longitudinal studies 4, 5 have established that qualitative early child and family support generates positive outcomes across a broad spectrum of human activity. The more widely cited general observations 6 made regarding high quality early childhood education and family supports are summarized below. General Observations of High Quality Early Childhood Learning The research is clear. The first years of a child s life are critical for his or her development. Children who have a high quality preschool experience are more likely to do well in school and find better jobs as adults. They are also less likely to commit crimes or need public assistance later in life. The earliest years of life lay the foundation for children s learning and growth. Yet affordable, high quality infant care is hard to find or non existent in many communities across the country. Too many children are left behind before they even start kindergarten. Without the chance for a high quality early education experience, hundreds of thousands of children come to kindergarten behind their peers. Children don t get a do over when it comes to their early childhood. High quality early education is one of the best investments we can make in their futures and ours as a country, and we only get one chance to make it right for each child. All parents deserve the chance to send their children to a high quality preschool program. Parents should have access to high quality preschool for their children no matter the size of their paychecks. The earlier that education starts, the greater the gains. But most working parents can t afford high quality preschool for their children. Fewer than three in ten fouryear olds are currently enrolled in high quality preschool. Making sure children get a high quality preschool experience is a smart investment that pays off for all of us. Babies are born learning. Learning in very young children takes place through play, the active exploration of their environment, and, most importantly, through interactions with the significant adults in their lives. 4 A Randomized Trial of Healthy Families New York (HFNY): Does Home Visiting Prevent Child Maltreatment? Final Report, NIJ Grant 2006 MU MU 0002, October 31, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS), National Center for Education Statistics, 6 Strong Start for Children Campaign Advocacy Toolkit, see footnote 1.

4 Children learn best when they are healthy physically, socially, and emotionally. Early education programs provide a child s first experience with school and also are a parent s first experience with schooling for their child. Quality pre K programs prepare parents for success by referring them to other services and giving them the tools they need to be the best possible partners in their child s growth and development. 7 These programs give parents the tools they need to be strong advocates for their children during their child s educational career, as well as providing childcare so that parents can work. We can help ensure the good health of infants, toddlers, and their families by expanding access to Early Head Start, Head Start and voluntary home visiting programs like Healthy Families NY (HFNY). The well documented positive outcomes of these programs are summarized below. Positive Outcomes of Early Head Start/Head Start and Healthy Families NY HFNY produces early impacts. A randomized controlled trial of HFNY in three sites showed that mothers who were offered the program before their 31st week of pregnancy were about half as likely to deliver a low birth weight (LBW) baby as mothers in the control group (5.1% versus 9.8%). 8 HFNY holds promise for long term social and economic benefits. For LBW children, medical, education, and other costs persist well beyond childhood. HFNY has also demonstrated positive impacts in the areas of child abuse and neglect, parenting practices, and access to health care during the first three years of life. 9, 10 The cognitive benefits of Head Start have been reported in numerous studies. For example, preliminary results from a randomly selected longitudinal study of more than 600 Head Start graduates in San Bernardino County, California, showed that the final grades of Head Start graduates in kindergarten, compared to their non Head Start peers, were higher in numeracy, language, literacy, social conduct, and physical development. This study also showed that Head Start graduates in kindergarten were absent 4.5 fewer days than their non Head Start peers. 11 Head Start children are ready to learn, as by the spring of their kindergarten year, they showed substantial increases in word knowledge, letter recognition, math skills, and writing skills in comparison to national norms Strong Start for Children Campaign Advocacy Toolkit, see footnote 1. 8 Lee, et al. (2009). Reducing low birth weight through home visitation: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36, DuMont, et al. (2008). Effects of Healthy Families New York on maternal behaviors: observational assessments of positive and negative parenting. New York State Office of Children and Family Services. 10 DuMont, et al. (2008). Healthy Families New York (HFNY) Randomized Trial: Effects on early child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, Meier, J. (2003, June 20). Kindergarten Readiness Study: Head Start Success. Interim Report. Preschool Services Department of San Bernardino County. 12 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001, January). Head Start FACES: Longitudinal Findings on Program Performance. Third Progress Report, iii.

5 The health benefits of Head Start are well documented. Children in Head Start programs receive significantly more health care screenings than their non Head Start peers. A higher proportion of Head Start children received dental care than those children who did not receive Head Start services. 13 The number of dental examinations for Head Start children was also higher than the number of those given to non Head Start children. Head Start provides health and dental services to children and families who might otherwise not have them. 14 Head Start children are at least 8 percentage points more likely to have had their immunizations than those children who did not attend preschool. 15 The social benefits of Head Start are evidenced by the fact that young women who have experienced a quality early childhood program are one third less likely to have out of wedlock births. 16 The social emotional benefits of Head Start are impressive. Studies document that Head Start children showed gains in cooperative classroom behavior, reductions in hyperactive behavior, and improvement in other problem behavior during their program year. 17 Compared to children in a control group, Head Start children are more likely to avoid serious problems in school as they are less likely to be held back a grade, have better attendance rates, and are less likely to miss standardized tests Ibid. 14 Barnett, W. S. (2002, September 13). The Battle over Head Start: What the Research Shows. Presentation at a Science and Public Policy Briefing Sponsored by the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences. 15 Head Start FACES Report, see footnote High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. Accessed at on September 3, Zill, N., G. Resnick, A. Sorongon, K. Kim, K. O Donnell, R. McKey, S. Pai Samant, R. O Brien, M. D Elio, M. Vaden Kiernan, and L. Tarullo. (2003, April 24). A Whole Child Perspective on Head Start Reform: Findings on Children s Cognitive and Socio Emotional Development from FACES Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Copple, C.E., Cline, M.G., and Smith, A.N. (1987). Path to the Future: Long Term Effects of Head Start in the Philadelphia School District. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC.

6 Positive Economic Outcomes of High Quality Early Childhood Learning Environment Although most studies and public policies argue that the provision of enrichment environments for disadvantaged children should be based on issues of social justice, James J. Heckman, a Nobel Laureate in Economics, instead argues a complementary point that investing in early childhood education has a high economic return. Early interventions for disadvantaged children promote schooling, raise the quality of the work force, enhance the productivity of schools, and reduce crime, teenage pregnancy and welfare dependency. They raise earnings and promote social attachment. Focusing solely on earnings gains, Heckman indicates that returns to dollars invested are as high as 15% to 17%. 19 According to Heckman, social science research, psychology and neuroscience demonstrate: Skill begets skill; learning begets learning. There is also substantial evidence of critical or sensitive periods in the lives of young children. Environments that do not cultivate both cognitive and noncognitive abilities (such as motivation, perseverance and self restraint) place children at an early disadvantage. Once a child falls behind in these fundamental skills, he is likely to remain behind. Remediation for impoverished early environments becomes progressively more costly the later it is attempted. Early interventions can partially compensate for early disadvantage, an important benefit. Heckman contends that it is unwise public policy to evaluate the success or failure of early education programs by their effects on cognitive test scores. A good example of this is the randomized control trial performed on the Perry Preschool Program, a family environment enrichment program for disadvantaged minority children. 20 Although the Perry intervention group s IQ test scores were not higher than the control group, a follow up study of Perry children into adulthood at age 40 indicated that Perry treatment children had higher achievement test scores. Heckman reported: The Perry program's economic benefits are substantial: Rates of return are 15% to 17%. The benefit cost ratio is eight to one. Participant non cognitive skills were raised even if their IQs were not. Earlier interventions like the Carolina Abecedarian program 21 that also targeted disadvantaged children and that were administered when subjects are four months old permanently raised the IQ and noncognitive skills of the treatment group compared to the control group. The Chicago Child Parent Center program, a large scale public program run by the Chicago Public Schools, shows a return of 7.14 to Heckman, James J. (January 10, 2006). Catch em Young. Wall Street Journal, Eastern Edition, New York, NY. 20 Heckman, James J., et al. (2010). "The rate of return to the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program." Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1 2), pages , February. 21 Ramey, Craig T., et al. (1974). The Carolina Abecedarian Project: A Longitudinal and Multidisciplinary Approach to the Prevention of Developmental Retardation. North Carolina University, Chapel Hill. 22 Reynolds, Arthur J., et al. (2001). Age 21 Cost Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child Parent Center Program. Waisman Center and School of Social Work, University of Wisconsin Madison.

7 Principle 3. Expenditure of public resource on early child and family support is one of the most cost effective initiatives a community can undertake. Research quantifies the return on investment (ROI) of early childhood expenditure. The positive impact on growth, development, and family life generate substantial savings in education, child welfare, and corrections. Individual productivity also increases measurably. James J. Heckman states: It is a rare public policy initiative that promotes fairness and social justice and, at the same time, promotes productivity in the economy and in society at large. Investing in disadvantaged young children is such a policy. The traditional argument for providing enriched environments for disadvantaged young children is based on considerations of fairness and social justice. But another argument can be made that complements and strengthens the first one. It is based on economic efficiency, and it is more compelling than the equity argument, in part because the gains from such investment can be quantified and they are large. 23 Moreover, it is prudent to invest in early childhood education now. Creating the right conditions for early childhood development is likely to be more effective and less costly than addressing problems at a later age. Data from Healthy Families New York (HFNY) 24 and Head Start demonstrate the returns. HFNY generates an immediate financial return. HFNY spends about $1,000 to serve a family during pregnancy. Given HFNY s success in preventing low birth weight (LBW) newborns and the high medical costs associated with these deliveries, the program immediately recovers the state s initial investment by generating a return of about $1,050 at the time of the child s birth. The provision of HFNY services during pregnancy across the program s 39 sites is projected to yield significant savings. From June 2008 to May 2009, HFNY served 5,851 families, including 3,617 pregnant women. Assuming 65% of the women who enrolled prenatally started HFNY prior to their 31st week of pregnancy, it is estimated that the program averted the delivery of about 110 LBW newborns and saved Medicaid and state sponsored health insurance plans about $2.4 million. HFNY offers opportunities for substantial Medicaid savings through large scale reductions in LBW. In 2007, Medicaid rates covered the delivery of 107,418 babies, including 9,800 LBW deliveries at a cost of $241,429, If these pregnant women had initiated services with HFNY prior to the 31st week of pregnancy, the program would have had the opportunity to avert an additional 4,300 LBW deliveries and save Medicaid $96.8 million. 23 Heckman, Catch em Young, see footnote Healthy Families NY Delivers an Immediate Return on New York State s Investment. Healthy Families New York Program Cost Synopsis, 12 December 2009, 25 Information regarding Medicaid birth rates and associated costs from 2007 SPARCS Medicaid data.

8 By age 8, LBW children can accrue an additional $40,000 in medical expenses resulting from health problems, developmental delays, and increased rates of child maltreatment. 26 The preliminary results of a randomly selected longitudinal study of more than 600 Head Start graduates in San Bernardino County, California, showed that society receives nearly $9 in benefits for every $1 invested in Head Start children. These benefits include increased earnings, employment, and family stability, and decreased welfare dependency, crime costs, grade repetition, and special education. 27 Parental involvement contributes to positive growth and upward mobility of Head Start parents. 28 Those who attended a quality early childhood program are about three times as likely to be homeowners by age 27 compared to those who did not. Home ownership is an indicator of successful adaptation to society. 29 The Chicago Longitudinal Study reported a $7 to $1 benefit cost ratio 30 and the Perry Preschool Program study contributes important additional evidence to support positive ROI. Although not comparable to a large scale public pre K study like the Chicago study, the Perry randomized trial study helped establish the links between initial program impacts on cognitive and social development and long term outcomes like greater success in school, reduced crime/delinquency, and increased lifetime earnings. Several economists have also estimated the returns to universal pre K investment 31,32,33,34,35 which range from $3 or $4 to $1 return 36 or as high as $7 to $1 as in the Chicago study. 26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cost of Illness Handbook. Washington, DC. index.html Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Barnett, W.S. Getting the Facts Right, see footnote Barnett, W. S. (2008b). Why governments should invest in early education. CESifo DICE report, Journal for Institutional Comparisons, Early Childhood Education and Care, 6(2), Bartik, T.J. (2011). Investing in kids: Early childhood programs and local economic development. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. 33 Bartik, T. J., Gormley, W., & Adelstein, S. (2012). Earnings benefits of Tulsa's pre K program for different income groups. Economics of Education Review. 31(6),December 2012, Karoly, L.A., & Bigelow, J.H. (2005). The economics of investing in universal preschool education in California. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 35 Lynch, R.G. (2007). Enriching children, enriching the nation: Pubic investment in high quality prekindergarten. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. 36 Bartik, et al. (2012), see footnote 33.

9 Principle 4. The Federal sequester has gratuitously damaged young people and poor families. It is only one of several circumstances eating away at early child and family support. Deep cuts to Head Start are limiting the future of our nation s most vulnerable children and families. In 2012, over six million children were impoverished in America. Head Start served 1,146, poor children and pregnant women. In 2013, Head Start, Early Head Start and Migrant/Seasonal Head Start lost $405M in sequestration funding cuts (5.27%). 38 Head Start programs will face even deeper cuts in 2014, and families suffer from the closure of Head Start Centers and classrooms. Nationally, 57,265 fewer children will be served next year 39 with nearly 4,000 fewer served in New York State. 40 Nationally, services will be reduced by 1,342,015 days next year and 18,000 hours of education will be lost. In New York State, almost 35,000 days of service will be lost. A closer look at these cuts reveals additional consequences. Transportation has been reduced, limiting access for the most at risk families. When at risk and vulnerable children lose their program slots, it interrupts not only their basic early learning but nutritional and medical services as well. Head Start staff have lost jobs or suffered pay cuts, a number estimated at 18,000 nationally. Working parents have lost a vital support system and must immediately start searching for alternatives to care for their children during work. A Head Start Program Director said it best: "This is going to severely impact our children s daily lives because for many days they won't have a place to go." We serve the working poor. Where are their children going to go when they are at work? Does this mean that they will leave their children with caregivers who might not be appropriate? Mostly, what does this mean to the wellbeing of that child?" For some of the families this will pull the rug from out beneath them and they may not recover from it. Head Start is the safety net and without the safety net you fall into crisis." 41 In Schenectady County, 36 slots were eliminated from the Head Start Program operated by the Schenectady Community Access Program (SCAP) and the Parsons Early Head Start program has lost 10 home visiting slots. The Parsons program has a waiting list of 110 families with annual incomes of less than $25,000 (family of four) that want good day care but cannot have it. Local governmental units have been unable to fill the gap. Schenectady County s subsidized day care resources were exhausted in August 2013, only eight months into the calendar year. 37 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2013). Head Start Programming Information Report. 38 $405M represents the cut to program budgets. The cut to Head Start overall is $427M. 39 Data from Administration for Children and Families and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 40 Ibid. 41 Bernstein, J. A Deeper Dive into Sequestration s Impact on Head Start, Jul 12, deeper dive into sequestrations impacts on head start/.

10 Recommendations Immediately restore and expand Head Start programming. Ensure that localities have adequate resources to subsidize day care for working families and for family breadwinners enrolled in higher education. Bring together currently disconnected federal, local school district, state and county early childhood and family services. Create a comprehensive plan that will give every child and family in the community access to high quality care, physical nurturance, and intellectual stimulation. Understand that in the 21 st century, attending to the growth and safety of babies and pre school children is no longer just an option for families with means but an essential component of a successful modern society.

11 Bibliography A Randomized Trial of Healthy Families New York (HFNY): Does Home Visiting Prevent Child Maltreatment? Final Report, NIJ Grant 2006 MU MU 0002, October 31, Barnett, W. S. (2002, September 13). The Battle over Head Start: What the Research Shows. Presentation at a Science and Public Policy Briefing Sponsored by the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences. Barnett, W. S. (2008b). Why governments should invest in early education. CESifo DICE report, Journal for Institutional Comparisons, Early Childhood Education and Care, 6(2), Barnett, W. Steven. Getting the Facts Right on Pre K and the President's Pre K Proposal. February 2013, National Institute for Early Education Research, Bartik, T. J., Gormley, W., & Adelstein, S. (2012). Earnings benefits of Tulsa's pre K program for different income groups. Economics of Education Review. 31(6),December 2012, Bartik, T.J. (2011). Investing in kids: Early childhood programs and local economic development. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Bernstein, J. A Deeper Dive into Sequestration s Impact on Head Start, Jul 12, deeper dive into sequestrations impacts on head start/. Copple, C.E., Cline, M.G., and Smith, A.N. (1987). Path to the Future: Long Term Effects of Head Start in the Philadelphia School District. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC. DuMont, et al. (2008). Effects of Healthy Families New York on maternal behaviors: observational assessments of positive and negative parenting. New York State Office of Children and Family Services. DuMont, et al. (2008). Healthy Families New York (HFNY) Randomized Trial: Effects on early child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS), National Center for Education Statistics, Healthy Families NY Delivers an Immediate Return on New York State s Investment. Healthy Families New York Program Cost Synopsis, 12 December 2009,

12 Heckman, James J. (January 10, 2006). Catch em Young. Wall Street Journal, Eastern Edition, New York, NY. Heckman, James J., et al. (2010). "The rate of return to the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program." Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1 2), pages , February. High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. on September 3, Karoly, L.A., & Bigelow, J.H. (2005). The economics of investing in universal preschool education in California. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Lanesey, Annmarie. Guest column: Head Start window of opportunity for many. Published: Monday, June 17, 2013, troyrecord_com. Lee, et al. (2009). Reducing low birth weight through home visitation: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36, Lynch, R.G. (2007). Enriching children, enriching the nation: Pubic investment in high quality prekindergarten. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Meier, J. (2003, June 20). Kindergarten Readiness Study: Head Start Success. Interim Report. Preschool Services Department of San Bernardino County. National Head Start Association, Promising Practices Network, Healthy Families NY (HFNY) Ramey, Craig T., et al. (1974). The Carolina Abecedarian Project: A Longitudinal and Multidisciplinary Approach to the Prevention of Developmental Retardation. North Carolina University, Chapel Hill. Reynolds, Arthur J., et al. (2001). Age 21 Cost Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child Parent Center Program. Waisman Center and School of Social Work, University of Wisconsin Madison. Strong Start for Children Campaign Advocacy Toolkit. National Women s Law Center, The Science of Early Childhood Development: Closing the Gap Between What We Know and What We Do. National Scientific Council, Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. January 2007.

13 Tough, Paul. The Poverty Clinic: Can a stressful childhood make you a sick adult? The New Yorker Digital Edition: March 21, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2013). Head Start Programming Information Report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001, January). Head Start FACES: Longitudinal Findings on Program Performance. Third Progress Report, iii. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cost of Illness Handbook. Washington, DC. index.html. Zero to Three New York State Baby Facts. community policy/baby facts/new york baby facts.pdf. Zill, N., G. Resnick, A. Sorongon, K. Kim, K. O Donnell, R. McKey, S. Pai Samant, R. O Brien, M. D Elio, M. Vaden Kiernan, and L. Tarullo. (2003, April 24). A Whole Child Perspective on Head Start Reform: Findings on Children s Cognitive and Socio Emotional Development from FACES Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,

14 Other Supporting Material National Head Start Association ( Cognitive Benefits Barnett, W. S. (2002, September 13). The Battle over Head Start: What the Research Shows. Presentation at a Science and Public Policy Briefing Sponsored by the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences. Meier, J. (2003, June 20). Kindergarten Readiness Study: Head Start Success. Interim Report. Preschool Services Department of San Bernardino County. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001, January). Head Start FACES: Longitudinal Findings on Program Performance. Third Progress Report, iii. Garces, E., D. Thomas, and J. Currie. (2002, September). Longer Term Effects of Head Start. The American Economic Review. 92, 4: Zill, N. and Sorongon, A. (2004). Children s Cognitive Gains during Head Start and Kindergarten. Presentation at the National Head Start Research Conference, Washington, DC. June 28 30, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005, June.) Executive Summary, Head Start Impact Study First Year Findings, ii. Comparison of Head Start to State Funded Preschool Programs Ripple, C., W. Gilliam, N. Chanana, and E. Zigler. (1999, May). Will Fifty Cooks Spoil the Broth? American Psychologist. 54, 5: ; Gilliam, W. and C. Ripple. (in press). What Can Be Learned from State Funded Prekindergarten Initiatives? A Data based Approach to the Head Start Devolution Debate. In E. Zigler and S. Styfco (Eds.), The Head Start Debates (Friendly and Otherwise). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2003). State Budget & Tax Actions 2003 Preliminary Report. Accessed at on August 27, Gilliam, W. and E. Zigler. (2000). A Critical Meta analysis of All Evaluations of State Funded Preschool from 1977 to 1998: Implications for Policy, Service Delivery and Program Evaluation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 15, 4: and 465. These statefunded preschools serve children aged three to five, are accessible to children from lowincome families, provide classroom based educational services, serve children with and without disabilities, are mostly state administered, and are primarily state funded.

15 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005, June.) Head Start Impact Study First Year Findings, Economic Benefits Meier, J. (2003, June 20). Kindergarten Readiness Study: Head Start Success. Interim Report. Preschool Services Department of San Bernardino County. Oyemade, U., V. Washington, and D. Gullo. (1989). The Relationship between Head Start Parental Involvement and the Economic and Social Self Sufficiency of Head Start Families. Journal of Negro Education. 58, 1, 13. Schweinhart, L. and D. Weikart. (1993, July 2). Success by Empowerment: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 27. Testimony before the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion, 14; High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. Accessed at on September 3, Health Benefits Hale, B., V. Seitz, and E. Zigler. (1990). Health Services and Head Start: A Forgotten Formula. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 11, Parker, F., C. Piotrkowski, and L. Peay. (1987). Head Start as a Social Support for Mothers: The Psychological Benefits of Imvolvement. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 57, 2: Currie, J. and D. Thomas. (1995, June). Does Head Start Make a Difference. The American Economic Review. 85, 3: 360. Social Benefits Garces, E., D. Thomas, and J. Currie. (2002, September). Longer Term Effects of Head Start. The American Economic Review. 92, 4: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. Accessed at on September 3, 2003.

16 Socio emotional Benefits Zill, N., G. Resnick, A. Sorongon, K. Kim, K. O Donnell, R. McKey, S. Pai Samant, R. O Brien, M. D Elio, M. Vaden Kiernan, and L. Tarullo. (2003, April 24). A Whole Child Perspective on Head Start Reform: Findings on Children s Cognitive and Socio Emotional Development from FACES Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, McKey, R., L. Condelli, H. Ganson, B. Barrett, C. McConkey, and M. Plantz. (1985, June). The Impact of Head Start on Children, Families and Communities: Final Report of the Head Start Evaluation, Synthesis and Utilization Project. Contract Number C 026. DHHS Publication Number (OHDS) , IV 11. Copple, C.E., Cline, M.G., and Smith, A.N. (1987). Path to the Future: Long Term Effects of Head Start in the Philadelphia School District. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, Malakoff, M. and Zigler, E. (1995, April 1). The Effect of Inner City Environment and Head Start Experience on Effective Motivation. Presented at the Society for Research in Child Development conference, Indianapolis. Taxpayer Satisfaction U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001, January). Head Start FACES: Longitudinal Findings on Program Performance. Third Progress Report, 68. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999, December 13). HHS News. Head Start Bests Mercedes and BMW in Customer Satisfaction. Accessed at on January 3, Early Head Start Research Citations U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002, June). Making a Difference in the Lives of Infants and Toddlers and Their Families: The Impacts of Early Head Start, Executive Summary. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). Research Practice, Talking Points: Overall Findings Presentation Long Version. Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. Slide 12. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002, June). Making a Difference in the Lives of Infants and Toddlers and Their Families: The Impacts of Early Head Start, Executive Summary. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). Research Practice, Talking Points: Overall Findings Presentation Long Version. Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. Slide 11.

17 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). Research Practice, Talking Points: Overall Findings Presentation Long Version. Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. Slide 12. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002, June). Making a Difference in the Lives of Infants and Toddlers and Their Families: The Impacts of Early Head Start, Executive Summary. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002). Early Head Start Benefits Children and Families. Accessed on January 5, 2003 at U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002, June). Making a Difference in the Lives of Infants and Toddlers and Their Families: The Impacts of Early Head Start, Executive Summary. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). Research Practice, Talking Points: Overall Findings Presentation Long Version. Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. The Federal Research Bank of Minneapolis ( Early Childhood Education Fade Out in Context, Presentation Slides and Video, Presentation by Rob Grunewald, Achievement Gap Committee, Wilder Center, St. Paul, February 8, Early Childhood Education, Speech by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, July 24, Stop Investing in Stadiums...Start Investing in Kids, An interview with Art Rolnick from the Fall 2010 issue of Forefront, the Cleveland Fed s showcase of policy ideas. Forefront, Vol. 1, No. 3. Presentation Slides: The Economic Case for Investments in Young Children [PPT] Video: Arthur J. Rolnick at the Milken Institute, Excerpt from a panel discussion on Early Childhood Development, Milken Institute Global Conference 2008, Los Angeles, CA, April Hardly child's play, Times have been even tougher than usual for district child care providers, Phil Davies and Rob Grunewald, fedgazette, July Critical Issues in Cost Effectiveness in Children s First Decade, Human Capital Conference Series on Early Childhood Development, December 7 8, The Economics of Early Childhood Development: Lessons for Economic Policy, 2003 ECD Conference.

18 Getting kids kindergarten ready: A profile of the Minnesota Early Learning Foundation, Community Dividend, 2007, Issue No. 4. The Level and Distribution of Economic Well Being, speech by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, February 6, Early Intervention on a Large Scale, The economic benefits of ensuring good earlychildhood development are clear. Now it's time to design and implement a system to do it. Arthur J. Rolnick and Rob Grunewald, Education Week, Quality Counts, January 4, Rural Minnesota County Invests Early To Help Kids Succeed, Community Dividend, Issue No. 5, Building the Economic Case for Investments in Preschool Conference, Convened by the Committee for Economic Development, The Pew Charitable Trusts and PNC Financial Services Group. January 10, Session 1 Why Care The Evidence: (Video file: W. Steve Barnett first, then Art Rolnick at 15:44, Isabel Sawhill at 28:40 and James Heckman at 47:21.) A Proposal for Achieving High Returns on Early Childhood Development, Rob Grunewald and Arthur J. Rolnick, March 2006 [PDF]. Early Childhood Development on a Large Scale, Rob Grunewald and Arthur J. Rolnick, The Region, June Lessons Learned: A Review of Early Childhood Development Studies, Jean Barr and Rob Grunewald, April 2006 [PDF]. James Heckman on Early Childhood Education, The Region Interview, June Early Childhood Development: Economic Development with a High Public Return, Rob Grunewald and Arthur J. Rolnick, fedgazette. Early Childhood Development: Economic Development with a High Public Return/ Early childhood development = economic development, fedgazette, March Government's role in early childhood development, Tobias Madden and Naomi Cytron, fedgazette, September 2003.

19 The Economics of Early Childhood Development: Lessons for Economic Policy Conference co hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the McKnight Foundation and in cooperation with the University of Minnesota October 17, 2003 Other Federal Reserve Banks The Economics of Early Childhood Development as Seen by Two Fed Economists, Community Investments, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Fall [PDF] Early Childhood Development and Economic Growth, President Jeffrey Lacker, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, July 27, Mind Matter, Region Focus, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Fall Early Childhood Development Web Sites Child Care & Early Education Research Connections, Child Development Center, Wilder Foundation, Early Childhood Coalition, Blandin Foundation, Education and Early Learning, Committee for Economic Development, Education and the Workforce, The Business Roundtable, Foundation for Child Development, us.org Human Capital Research Collaborative, Minnesota Early Learning Foundation (MELF), National Child Care Information Center (NCCIC) Online Library, National Education Association, National Institute for Early Education Research, National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Ready 4 K, Minnesota's School Readiness Campaign, Strategies for Children: Early Education for All Campaign, The Trust for Early Education, Zero to Three,