Why invest in ECEC? First 5 years lay foundations for language, academic abilities, habits & socio-emotional development The window for change does not close after age 5, but “catch up” is costly Worldwide more than 200 million children under 5 are failing to reach their developmental potential Preschool interventions can enhance development and yield high economic returns

1. Returns to Public Investments in ECEC
Oslo, Norway
Implementing Policies for High Quality Early
Childhood Education and Care (ECEC)
January 24, 2012
Steve Barnett, PhD

2. Why invest in ECEC?
 First 5 years lay foundations for language, academic
abilities, habits & socio-emotional development
 The window for change does not close after age 5, but
“catch up” is costly
 Worldwide more than 200 million children under 5 are
failing to reach their developmental potential
 Preschool interventions can enhance development and
yield high economic returns

3. ECEC programs 0-5 in the US produce
long-term gains: 123 studies since 1960
All Designs HQ Designs HQ Programs
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Effects (sd)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Treatment End Ages 5-10 Age >10
Age at Follow-Up

4. What determines cognitive gains?
Time of Follow-Up Negative
Research Design Quality Positive
Intentional Teaching Positive
Individualization Positive
(small groups and 1 on 1)
Comprehensive Services Negative
n= 123 Studies

5. Effects of ECD Programs for 4 Outcomes by
Type of Program: Global Research
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Cognitive Social Schooling Health
Nutrition Cash Education
Nores and Barnett, 2009.

6. Key Lessons
Immediate impact should be twice the
size of the desired long-term impact
Multiple approaches effective
Education is a key component
Comprehensive services negative in
the US, positive elsewhere—results
depend on context/need

7. Potential Gains from ECEC Investments
Educational Success and Economic Productivity
 Achievement test scores
 Special education and grade repetition
 High school graduation
 Behavior problems, delinquency, and crime
 Employment, earnings, and welfare dependency
 Smoking, drug use, depression
Decreased Costs to Government
 Schooling costs
 Social services costs
 Crime costs
 Health care costs (teen pregnancy and smoking)

8. Economic Returns to Pre-K
for Disadvantaged Children
(In 2006 dollars, 3% discount rate)
Cost Benefits B/C
 Perry Pre-K $17,599 $284,086 16
 Abecedarian $70,697 $176,284 2.5
 Chicago $ 8,224 $ 83,511 10
Barnett, W. S., & Masse, L. N. (2007). Early childhood program design and economic returns: Comparative benefit-cost analysis of the Abecedarian program and
policy implications, Economics of Education Review, 26, 113-125; Belfield, C., Nores, M., Barnett, W.S., & Schweinhart, L.J. (2006). The High/Scope Perry
Preschool Program. Journal of Human Resources, 41(1), 162-190; Temple, J. A., & Reynolds, A. J. (2007). Benefits and costs of investments in preschool
education: Evidence from the Child-Parent Centers and related programs. Economics of Education Review, 26(1), 126-144.

9. Perry Preschool Economic Effects
Program No Program
Earned >$20K at 27 29%
7%
Earned >$20K at 40 60%
40%
Employeed at 40 76%
62%
Own Home at 27 36%
13%
Own Car at 40 82%
60%
Had savings Account at 40 76%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

10. Perry Preschool Crime Effects
Program No Program
Discipline Problems 14%
ages 6-12 27%
Arrested >5X by 27 7%
29%
Arrested >5X by 40 36%
55%
Violent Crime by 40 33%
48%
Drug Crime by 40 14%
34%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

11. Key Lessons
Economic returns can be extremely high
Returns generalize across different kinds
of programs but vary with effectiveness
Soft skills matter as much as hard skills

12. Enhanced Pre-K in Mauritius:
Results of a Randomized Trial
Intervention: Nutrition, Education, &Exercise
Ages 3-5, teacher-child ratio 1:5.5 v. 1:30
Outcomes: Decreased behavior problems,
conduct disorder, crime and mental illness at
ages 17-23
Malnourished children gained more

13. ECEC Investments Around the Globe
Argentina: Preschool increased achievement & self-control
(e.g., attention and behavior) in 3rd grade
Colombia: Nutrition, preschool education & health care
increased school age cognitive ability.
Germany: Preschool increased school success of migrants.
UK: High-quality preschool increased achievement.
Uruguay: Preschool increased educational attainment and
decreased dropout.

14. Economic Returns Globally
 Estimated returns for middle- and low-income
countries are 6:1 to 18:1 from increased earnings
alone.
 A 25% increase in preschool education would
yield an estimated return of US $10.6 billion
globally.
The Lancet, Volume 378 (9799), p. 1276, 8 October 2011

15. Why Universal Public ECEC?
All children gain from better ECEC
Disadvantaged gain more
Peer effects for disadvantaged substantial
Best coverage of disadvantaged
Higher cost, but a larger net benefit

16. Effects of Universal ECEC
OECD test scores higher and more equal as
access approaches 100%
France: Ecole Maternelle increased income
Norway: universal child care increased earnings
and employment
Arg. Uru. and UK: universal preschool raised
long-term achievement
US states: universal Pre-K improved test scores
and executive function for all children
Denmark, Quebec: universal child care null or
negative effects on children--quality matters

17. Universal ECEC Returns Depend on
Policy and Practice
Returns to public ECEC investments depend on
intensity and quality
Quality depends on teachers, class size, and
classroom composition (peers)
Quality depends on leadership and a continuous
improvement cycle with reflection & planning
Proven designs, high standards, adequate funding,
and evaluation all help

18. NJ Raised Quality in Public and Private
60
Percentage of Classrooms
50 47.4
40 34.6
32.2
30 27.7
19.9
20 16.0
12.1
10 3.9 4.2
0.0 0.2 1.7
0
1.00-1.99 2.00-2.99 3.00-3.99 4.00-4.99 5.00-5.99 6.00-7.00
00 Total (N = 232) 08 Total (N = 407)
ECERS-R Score (1=minimal, 3=poor 5= good 7=excellent)

19. Conclusions
 ECEC can be a strong public investment
 Increased achievement
 Job and GDP growth
 Decreased economic and educational inequality and
fewer social problems
 Universal ECEC can yield a higher return and
greater equality than targeted ECEC
 Intensity and quality are the keys to high returns
 Continuous improvement cycles can assure quality

20. References
1. Barnett, W. S. (2011). Effectiveness of early educational intervention. Science, 333, 975-978.
2. Barnett, W. S., & Masse, L. N. (2007). Early childhood program design and economic returns: Comparative benefit-cost analysis of
the Abecedarian program and policy implications, Economics of Education Review, 26, 113-125.
3. Behrman, J. R., Cheng, Y., & Todd, P. E. (2004). Evaluating preschool programs when length of exposure to the program varies: A
nonparametric approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 108-132
4. Berlinski, S., Galiani, S., & Gertler, P. (2009). The effect of pre-primary education on primary school performance. Journal of
Public Economics, 93, 219–234.
5. Berlinski, S. Galiani, S., & Manacorda, M. (2008). Giving children a better start: preschool attendance and schoolage profiles.
Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1416-1440.
6. Burger, K. (2010). How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An international review of the
effects of early interventions for children from different social backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 140-165.
7. Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive
and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 579-620.
8. Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science,
333, 959-964.
9. Dumas C. & Lefranc, A. (2010). Early schooling and later outcomes: Evidence from preschool extension in France. THEMA
Working Paper 2010-07. Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
10. Engle, P. L., Black, M. M., Behrman, J. R., Cabral de Mello, M., Gertler, P. J., Kapiriri, L., et al. (2007). Strategies to avoid the loss
of developmental potential in more than 200 million children in the developing world. The Lancet, 369, 229-242.
11. Engle P.L., Fernald L., Alderman, H., et al, and the Global Child Development Steering Group. (2011). Strategies for reducing
inequalities and improving developmental outcomes for young children in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet,
378, 1339-53.
12. Fernald, L. C. H., Gertler, P. J., & Neufeld, L. M. (2008). Role of cash in conditional cash transfer programmes for child health,
growth, and development: An analysis of Mexico's Oportunidades. The Lancet, 371, 828-837.
13. Havnes, T. & Mogstad, M. (2011). No Child Left Behind: Subsidized Child Care and Children's Long-Run Outcomes. American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(2): 97–129.

21. 14. McKay, H., Sinisterra, L., McKay, A., Gomez, H., & Lloreda, P. (1978). Improving cognitive ability in chronically deprived
children. Science, 200(4339), 270-278.
15. Naudeau, S., Kataoka, N., Valerio, A., Neuman, M., and Elder, L. (2010). Investing in Young Children: An ECD Guide for Policy
Dialogue and Project Preparation. Washington, DC: World Bank.
16. Neidell, M., & Waldfogel, J. (2010). Cognitive and noncognitive peer effects in early education. The Review of Economics and
Statistics, 92(3), 562-576.
17. Nores, M., & Barnett, S. (2010). Benefits of early childhood interventions across the world: (Under) Investing in the very young.
Economics of Education Review, 29, 271-282.
18. Raine, A., Mellingen, K., Liu, J., Venables, P., Mednick, S. A. (2003). Effects of environmental enrichment at ages 3-5 years on
schizotypal personality and antisocial behavior at ages 17 and 23 years. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(9), 1627-1635.
19. Rindermann, H., & Ceci, S.J. (2008). Education policy and country outcomes in international cognitive competence studies. Graz,
Austria: Institute of Psychology, Karl-Franzens-University Graz.
20. Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The High/Scope
Perry Preschool study through age 40 (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 14). Ypsilanti, MI:
High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.
21. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B. (2004). The final report: Effective pre-school education.
Technical paper 12. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
22. Temple, J., & Reynolds, A. (2007). Benefits and costs of investments in preschool education: Evidence from the Child-Parent
Centers and related programs. Economics of Education Review, 26, 126-144.
23. Waldfogel, J., & Zhai, F. (2008). Effects of public preschool expenditures on the test scores of fourth graders: Evidence from
TIMMS. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14, 9–28.
24. Walker S.P., Wachs, T.D., Grantham-McGregor, S. et al. (2011). Inequality in early childhood: risk and protective factors for early
child development. The Lancet, 378, 1325-35.