WWC review of this study

The life cycle benefits of an influential early childhood program

Garcia, J. L., Heckman, J. J., Leaf, D. E., & Prados, M. J. (December 2016). HCEO Working Paper 2016-035. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Global Working Group.

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    137
     Students
    , grade
    PK

Reviewed: April 2017

At least one finding shows promising evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards with reservations
Access and enrollment outcomes—Substantively important negative effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Attended Vocational/Technical/Community College

Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual

30 Years

Full sample;
133 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Completing school outcomes—Substantively important positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Four-year college graduation

Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual

30 Years

Full sample;
115 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
More Outcomes

High school graduation

Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual

30 Years

Full sample;
133 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Labor market outcomes outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Employment status

Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual

30 Years

Full sample;
133 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
More Outcomes

Labor income

Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual

30 Years

Full sample;
132 students

N/A

N/A

No

--

Labor income

Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual

21 Years

Full sample;
131 students

N/A

N/A

No

--

Public income

Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual

30 Years

Full sample;
133 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Other academic performance outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Ever had special education

Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual

21 Years

Full sample;
137 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
More Outcomes

Total years in special education

Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual

21 Years

Full sample;
137 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Progressing in school outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Years of education

Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual

30 Years

Full sample;
133 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
19
 
Student progression outcomes—Statistically significant negative effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Total years retained

Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual

21 Years

Full sample;
137 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
More Outcomes

Ever retained

Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual

21 Years

Full sample;
137 students

N/A

N/A

No

--


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Suburban, Urban
    • B
    • A
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • I
    • H
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • P
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • V
    • U
    • T
    • W
    • X
    • Z
    • Y
    • a
    • h
    • i
    • b
    • d
    • e
    • f
    • c
    • g
    • j
    • k
    • l
    • m
    • n
    • o
    • p
    • q
    • r
    • s
    • t
    • u
    • x
    • w
    • y

    North Carolina

Setting

The study examines the impacts of North Carolina early childhood education programs - ABC and CARE. Both programs, launched in the 1970s, started serving children at 8 weeks of age and extended to 5 years of age in the first phase of the intervention.

Intervention Group

Both ABC and CARE, launched in the 1970s, started serving children at 8 weeks of age and extended to 5 years of age in the first phase of the intervention. (The second phase of each program, consisting of home visits and support after the age of 5, is not examined in this study.) During the intervention phase examined, children attended the centers from 7:45 am to 5:30 pm, 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year. The programs targeted disadvantaged, predominantly African-American children in the Chapel Hill/Durham area with the goal of enhancing early life skills. The programs provided individualized intervention, recording progress, and adjusting learning activities every 2-3 weeks. Both programs supported language, motor, and cognitive development, as well as socio-emotional competencies. All classroom staff participated in extensive training and were closely observed by FPGC’s academic staff, as part of a broad variety of ongoing clinical and social research related to early childhood education, psychology, and health. In ABC, child-caregiver ratios varied by age: 3:1 for infants up to 13 to 15 months of age; 4:1 for toddlers up to 36 months; and 5:1 or 6:1 for children aged 3 to 5 years, depending on cohort size. Child-caregiver ratios were similar in CARE. Preschool rooms featured intentionally organized environments to promote pre-literacy and access to a rich set of learning tools. The full-day curriculum emphasized active learning experiences, dramatic play, and pre-academics. Frequent 1:1 or 2:1 child-adult interactions prioritized language development for social competence. For ages 3 through 5, as the cohorts approached public school entry, classroom experiences were increasingly structured towards the development of pre-academic skills and “socio-linguistic and communicative competence.” FPGC offered a summer program before the start of kindergarten designed to target specific skills to ensure success in a kindergarten classroom (e.g., lining up when exiting the classroom). This program was available to subjects in both the center-based childcare and family education group and the family education group. ABC’s and CARE’s learning programs were influenced by key developmental theorists. All four ABC cohorts and two CARE cohorts participated in curriculum developers Sparling and Lewis’ “LearningGames for the First Three Years.” The “LearningGames” approach was implemented daily by infant and toddler caregivers in 1:1 child-adult interactions. Each “LearningGames” activity has a developmentally-appropriate objective, the necessary materials, directions for teacher behavior, and expected child outcome. The activities were designed for use both indoors and outdoors, while dressing, eating, bathing, or during play. ABC and CARE provided comprehensive on-site medical care because it was conducted in conjunction with a longitudinal medical research study on infectious respiratory diseases in group environments. Intervention group children were monitored daily for signs of illness. All treated children received medical care while attending center-based childcare.

Comparison Group

Most students in the comparison group enrolled in alternative center-based care and alternative regulated, federally-subsidized preschool. In ABC, the families of 75% of the comparison-group subjects enrolled their children in alternative center-based childcare. In CARE, 74% of families in the comparison group and enrolled their children in alternative center-based childcare.

Support for implementation

All classroom staff participated in extensive training and were closely observed by FPGC’s academic staff, as part of a broad variety of ongoing clinical and social research related to early childhood education, psychology, and health. All classroom staff were supervised daily, received weekly mentoring, and professional development from outside consultants.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top