Parents bear the ultimate responsibility for raising their small children -- including such important activities as holding, feeding, and talking to them -- but the government can assist these efforts when parents need help making the investments that produce human, social, and economic dividends. Through legislation like the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the government can help provide the opportunity for parents to spend time with their newborn babies. Similarly, the government provides information to pregnant women on the dangers smoking poses to the development of children. More broadly, the government supports basic research in the physical and social sciences (see Box 1), as well as evaluations of specific programs, and the development of new interventions. These efforts turn government resources into knowledge that can be used by parents, educators, and doctors to help children flourish.
Pregnant mothers in poverty and children growing up in poor families may lack the resources needed for appropriate nutrition, medical care, and child care.1 Programs like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provide food, nutrition education, and access to health services for low-income women during and after pregnancy and to their young children. Medicaid now ensures that health insurance is available to pregnant women and young children who live in households with incomes up to 133 percent of the Federal poverty line. As discussed below, these programs make an enormous difference in the future of children and ultimately may save money because investments made during the first three years of life play a particularly important role in promoting subsequent physical health and emotional, social, and cognitive development.
| Box 1. The Human Capital Initiative | 
|---|
| 
 | 
When children are deprived of a stimulating environment early in life, their brains may not develop to their full potential. More specifically, scientists have identified a "window" of time when the brain is more malleable and children are best able to learn. Of course, this window does not open and close abruptly, and improvements are still possible after that time period has passed. Nonetheless, understanding how and when the brain develops helps target resources to children at the most effective times.
To help families meet these challenges, the Federal government provides a variety of services to families with young children. This paper discusses a long, but not exhaustive, list of these programs.10
In 1995, 7 percent of babies born in the United States were considered low birthweight.13 Low birthweight babies often require extensive medical attention early in life and may subsequently suffer from a variety of physical, emotional, and intellectual problems.
Prenatal care plays a key role in the development of healthy children and includes three basic components: early and continuous risk assessment, health promotion, and needed medical and/or psychological intervention. The proportion of women receiving prenatal care in the first trimester rose substantially during the 1970s, leveled off in the 1980s, and then increased again during the early 1990s (from 76 percent in 1990 to 81 percent in 1995).17 Poor women and minorities are significantly less likely to receive early and comprehensive prenatal care.
Ensuring that a baby is born healthy is only the first step. Access to medical care, good nutrition, and a healthy environment are instrumental to a young child's physical health and growth. Conversely, inadequate nutrition during these crucial years increases the likelihood that a child will develop a wide range of physical, mental, and emotional problems. Low vaccination rates may make young children prone to preventable diseases such as measles or mumps, and exposure to lead may impair the development of a child's nervous system. All of these issues are of particular importance during the first years of life.
Pregnant women receive special services under Medicaid including "enhanced" prenatal care in many states.22 Children are eligible for a wide variety of services including inpatient and outpatient hospital services, physician care, x-ray services and many others. In addition, under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program, States provide screening, diagnosis, and treatment services to Medicaid-eligible children (and pay for treatment of conditions identified during EPSDT screens). Since 1993, States receive vaccines free of charge from the Federal government for Medicaid-eligible and some other categories of children.23
The Federal government has two major programs that help to ensure good nutrition for low-income pregnant women and young children: the Food Stamp Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). WIC targets pregnant women, infants, and young children at nutritional risk by providing supplemental foods, nutrition education, and access to health services. An average of 7.2 million women, infants, and children participated in WIC monthly during FY 1996, and the program had a budget of $3.7 billion.28
An important study has highlighted some additional benefits of WIC (see Box 2).
| Box 2. The Effects of Prenatal WIC Participation | 
|---|
| 
 | 
Smoking cessation programs for pregnant women are generally inexpensive and are likely to be cost effective. The cost-savings are most often associated with reductions in the incidence of low birthweight.
![[Figure 1]](figure1.gif) Childhood immunizations
play an important role in preventing
diseases such as polio, measles,
rubella, diphtheria, and mumps.  For
example, the widespread use of
vaccines has reduced the incidence
of some diseases in the United States
by more than 95 percent.38  In
addition to securing the health of
those immunized, vaccines may
represent a particularly appropriate
area for government involvement,
since they indirectly protect those
who are not vaccinated (by lowering
disease risk for all individuals).
     Childhood immunizations
play an important role in preventing
diseases such as polio, measles,
rubella, diphtheria, and mumps.  For
example, the widespread use of
vaccines has reduced the incidence
of some diseases in the United States
by more than 95 percent.38  In
addition to securing the health of
those immunized, vaccines may
represent a particularly appropriate
area for government involvement,
since they indirectly protect those
who are not vaccinated (by lowering
disease risk for all individuals).
In 1993, President Clinton signed the Comprehensive Childhood Immunization Initiative that created the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program to help uninsured, Medicaid-eligible children get vaccinated. The goal of this initiative is to fully vaccinate 90 percent of all two-year-olds by the year 2000. VFC provides all recommended vaccines free of charge to clinics and doctors who provide services to uninsured and Medicaid-covered children. In response to this initiative, the percent of all two-year-olds who were fully immunized increased from 55 percent in 1992 to 75 percent in 1994-1995 (see Figure 1). This increase in immunization rates is correlated with the 35 percent drop in the incidence of preventable diseases in children under 5 from 1993 to 1996.41
More than 4,500 home visiting programs in the United States provide health, social, or educational services to families, sometimes in conjunction with organized child care programs. A variety of Federal government Departments (such as Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services) fund home visiting programs for families with young children. The Head Start program (discussed below) administers one of the largest home-based programs, mostly to children in rural areas who would have difficulty participating in center-based care. In 1990, 24 States used Medicaid funds to provide prenatal or postnatal care through home visiting programs.43
Studies have linked many home visiting programs to a variety of favorable child outcomes. The analyses differ widely in their assessments of these programs, in part due to immense heterogeneity in the intensity, scope, and focus of the interventions. An understanding of the specific differences among programs can help guide policy.
| Box 3. The Elmira, NY, Home Visitation Program | 
|---|
| 
 | 
Restrictions on lead in gasoline, food canning, and other uses have reduced blood lead levels by over 80 percent during the last 20 years.53 Today, the risk of lead poisoning is highest for low-income households, inner city residents, and persons living in older homes. Current efforts focus on reducing exposure to lead-based paint and lead-contaminated dust.
Even when employed, most new parents typically take some time off work to care for their babies.59 However, this often creates tensions between the demands of the workplace and those of the home. To support families in their efforts to strike a workable balance between these competing demands, President Clinton signed into law in 1993 the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The FMLA grants 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave to new parents with qualifying employment histories working for covered employers.60 This legislation provides employed parents with the time to nurture their newborns and to develop their parenting skills.
Accompanying this trend is the increased use of professional child-care. In 1993, about 30 percent of children under 5 in families with employed mothers were cared for in centers, compared with only 13 percent in 1977 (see Figure 2). However, children in poor families with employed mothers were one-third less likely to receive care in centers as were children in non-poor families. Another option for care outside the home is family day care -- care by nonrelatives in another home -- which accounted for an additional 17 percent of the care received by children under 5 with working mothers.63 Among child care arrangements, a bewildering array of options exist with respect to environment, cost, hours spent per week and per day, and services provided. Parents also often face considerable uncertainty regarding the quality of child care provided. Moreover, as is to be expected, the quality of the care received matters greatly.64
![[Figure 
2]](figure2.gif)
The care received by many children is inadequate. For example, the child development environment in more than one-third of classrooms surveyed in the National Child Care Staffing study was rated less than "minimally adequate", and only 12 percent of the classrooms received a score which met or exceeded the standard associated with "good" practices.68 Evidence from several studies suggests that economically disadvantaged and psychologically stressed families are more likely to enroll their children in child care arrangements that are of relatively low quality.69 Cost is often a substantial barrier to obtaining quality child care.70 The Federal government plays an important role in alleviating this financial burden. Since 1980, Federal support has doubled and has almost tripled for low-income families.71
![[Figure 
3]](figure3.gif)
Some of the literature finds that compensatory preschool programs initially increase IQ scores but that the effect fades over time.76 Consequently, it is frequently asserted that preschool has no permanent effect on cognitive skill. However, research examining other outcomes, such as educational attainment, behavior, and health status finds continued benefits to preschool. These long-term benefits are believed to result from children entering elementary school with more experiences and advantages. School learning is viewed by many as a "cumulative process" where early advantages improve later performance.77
The Perry Preschool Study, which randomly assigned 3- and 4-year-old children into the preschool program, has provided noteworthy evidence of favorable outcomes over a variety of dimensions (see Box 4).
| Box 4. The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project | 
|---|
| 
 | 
As with child care for infants and toddlers, financial constraints make it difficult for many families to send their children to preschool. In 1990, only 24 percent of children from families in the bottom fifth of the income distribution attended preschool versus 52 percent of children in the top fifth of families.83 Through the Head Start program, the Federal government plays a key role in assuring that low-income children between the ages of 3 and 5 can receive preschool education and access to social services.
Since Head Start's formation, the program has served over 16 million children and their families; over 750,000 children were enrolled in FY 1996.84 Most programs are center-based but may vary in terms of the number of days per week and hours per day. However, Head Start currently has slots for only about 40 percent of eligible children. The restricted availability represents a lost opportunity to invest in our children and, as a result, the President has proclaimed the goal of serving one million children by 2002.
The 1994 expansions to Head Start established Early Head Start, which is targeted to low-income pregnant women and children under age 3. Early Head Start employs a "two-generation" approach that is designed to serve parents and children simultaneously by providing intensive health and nutrition services during the prenatal period and the first three years of the child's life.
Parents play the largest role in meeting the needs of children. However, the government can assist in a variety of important ways. Families, communities, and the government are making considerable investments in young children. These investments are important because our youngest children are, in a very real sense, the future of America.
2 A diverse set of techniques has been 
developed for evaluating the gains from interventions targeted to children. 
ideally, experimental designs are used, whereby individuals willing to 
participate in the intervention are randomly assigned to the 
"treatment" group, which participate in the program, and the "control" 
group, which does not. The two groups are then carefully monitored to see 
if individuals receiving the treatment have superior outcomes. Random 
assignment can be done by the toss of a coin or using computerized 
randomization procedures. A key advantage of random assignment is that the 
treatment and control groups are likely to have similar characteristics, 
increasing the confidence that any observed difference in outcomes is due 
to the intervention. In the absence of such an experimental design, 
participants typically choose to enroll in the program while 
nonparticipants choose not to, often resulting in difficult-to-observe 
differences between participants and nonparticipants.
 
Since randomized experiments are often expensive and have small sample 
sizes, social scientists have developed a variety of alternative 
evaluation methods. Most importantly, statistical techniques are 
used to account for observable differences between participants and 
nonparticipants in characteristics such as income, education, and family 
status. Researchers are also increasingly attempting to obtain 
information from natural experiments, where participation in the 
intervention is largely unrelated to individual characteristics or 
preferences.
 
3 An excellent survey of the effects of 
investments in children, including those made after the first three 
years, is provided by Robert Haveman and Barbara Wolfe, "The 
Determination of Children's Attainment: A Review of Methods and 
Findings," Journal of Economic Literature 33, no. 4, December 
1995: 1829-78.
 
4 Tabulations from the Annual Demographic 
Survey of the Current Population Survey (March), U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, various years.
 
5 Ibid.
 
6 Ibid.
 
7 Children's Defense Fund, The State of 
America's Children Yearbook, 1997. Washington, D.C.: Children's 
Defense Fund, 1997.
 
8  Ibid.
 
9 Tabulations from the Annual Demographic 
Survey of the Current Population Survey (March), U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, various years.
 
10   For instance, we do not discuss 
safety/injury prevention programs (such as those promoting the use of car 
safety seats) or screening programs testing for newborn metabolic disorders.
 
11  The Future of Children Staff, 
"Analysis," The Future of Children 2, no. 2, Winter 1992: 7-24.
 
12  J. Kleinman and J.H. Madans, "The 
Effects of Maternal Smoking, Physical Stature, and Educational 
Attainment on the Incidence of Low Birth Weight," American Journal of 
Epidemiology 121, no. 6, June 1985:
843-55; E.M. Ouellette, et al., "Adverse Effects on Offspring of 
Maternal Alcohol Abuse During Pregnancy," New England Journal of 
Medicine 297, no. 10, 1977: 528-30. 
 
13  Harry M. Rosenberg, et al. "Births and 
Deaths: United States, 1995," Monthly Vital Statistics Report 45, 
no. 3 (S)2, October 4, 1996: 1-40.
 
14 Eugene M. Lewitt, et al., "The Direct 
Cost of Low Birth Weight," The Future of Children Vol. 5, no. 1, 
Spring 1995: 35-56.
 
15  S. Nigel Paneth, "The Problem of Low 
Birth Rate," The Future of Children 5, no. 1, Spring 1995: 19-34. 
 
16 Ibid.
 
17  Harry M. Rosenberg, et al., "Births 
and Deaths: United States, 1995"; National Center for Health Statistics, 
Health, United States, 1995.  Hyattsville, MD:  Public Health 
Service, 1996. 
 
18  Institute of Medicine, Preventing Low 
Birthweight.  Washington D.C.:  National Academy Press, 1985: 132-49.
 
19  T.J. Joyce, et al., "A Cost-Benefit 
Analysis of Strategies to Reduce Infant Mortality," Medical Care 26, 
no. 4, April 1988: 348-60.  Although not a full benefit-cost analysis, this 
research finds that the costs of providing prenatal care are more than 
offset by reductions in first-year hospital and medical expenses 
resulting from averting low birthweights.  
 
20 Institute of Medicine, Preventing Low 
Birthweight; Greg R. Alexander, and Carol C. Korenbrot, "The Role of 
Prenatal Care in Preventing Low Birth Weight," The Future of 
Children 5, no. 1, Spring 1995: 103-20.
 
21  Tabulations from the Annual 
Demographic Survey of the Current Population Survey (March), U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1996.
  
22  Christopher Trenholm, "The Impact of 
Prenatal Medicaid Programs on the Health of Newborns," unpublished, 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, November 1996.
 
23  The Federal government funds a variety 
of programs that promote the health of children and their families.  The 
Title V Federal-State Partnership Block Grant provides funding for 
programs that build state and community health care systems and 
provide health care to children and their families.  The Maternal and 
Child Health Block Grant (MCHB), and all other programs under Title V, 
employ a three part strategy of health promotion, prevention, and 
protection.  MCHB serves more than 17 million women and children.  
Other federal support includes funds provided to community and migrant 
health centers under the Community and Migrant Health Center 
Program.  
For a review of these programs see Ian T. Hill, "The Role of Medicaid 
and Other Government Programs in Providing Medical Care for Children 
and Pregnant Women," The Future of Children 2, no. 2, Winter 1992: 
134-53.
  
24 Janet Currie and Jonathan Gruber, 
"Saving Babies: The Efficacy and Cost of Recent Changes in the Medicaid 
Eligibility of Pregnant Women," Journal of Political Economy 104, no. 6, 
December 1996: 1263-96; Janet Currie and Jonathan Gruber, "Health 
Insurance Eligibility, Utilization of Medical Care and Child Health," 
Quarterly Journal of Economics 111, no. 2, May 1996: 431-66. 
Studies of Medicaid expansions in Tennessee and Massachusetts failed to 
uncover improvements in prenatal care, birthweight, or neonatal mortality 
(J.S. Haas, et al., "The Effects of Providing Health Coverage to Poor 
Uninsured Pregnant Women in Massachusetts" Journal of the American 
Medical Association 269, no. 1, January 1993:87-91 and J.M. Piper, et 
al., "Effects of Medicaid Eligibility Expansion on Prenatal Care and 
Pregnancy Outcome in Tennessee," Journal of the American Medical 
Association 264, no. 17, November 1990:2219-23).
  
25 Children's Defense Fund, Wasting 
America's Future. 
 
26 Ibid.
 
27 Ibid.
 
28 Tabulations provided by the Office of 
Management and Budget. Another Federal program that provides food to 
children and adults is the Child and Adult Food Care Program. This 
program generally operates in child day care centers, family day care 
homes, and some day care centers for functionally impaired adults. The 
program provided meals to more than 2 million children and 45,000 adults 
in June of 1996 and has a budget of $1.7 billion for FY 1997.
  
29 Anne Gordon and Lyle Nelson, 
"Characteristics and Outcomes of WIC Participants and Nonparticipants: 
Analysis of the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey," 
unpublished, Mathematica Inc., March 1995. 
  
30 Barbara Devaney, et al., "Programs that 
Mitigate the Effects of Poverty On Children," The Future of 
Children 7, no. 2, Summer/Fall 1997, forthcoming. 
  
31 Anne Gordon and Lyle Nelson, 
"Characteristics and Outcomes of WIC Participants and Nonparticipants: 
Analysis of the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey." 
However, not all nutritional outcomes are favorable. In particular, WIC 
participants are less likely to breast-feed their babies. This may occur 
partly because infant formula is provided to WIC participants. The 
reduction in breast-feeding rates may be reversible, however, with some 
evidence that WIC participants who are given advice to breast-feed do so 
more frequently than income-eligible non-participants (J. Brad Schwartz 
et al., "The WIC Breast-Feeding Report: The Relationship of WIC Program 
Participation to the Initiation and Duration of Breast-Feeding," 
unpublished, Research Triangle Institute, September 1992). 
  
32 National Center for Health Statistics, 
Health, United States, 1995. 
  
33 Barbara Devaney and Allen Schirm, 
"Infant Mortality Among Medicaid Newborns in Five States: The Effects of 
Prenatal WIC Participation," unpublished, Mathematica Inc., May 1993.
  
34 Select Committee on Children, Youth, 
and Family, Opportunities for Success: Cost-Effective Programs for 
Children, Update, 1990, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990. This review summarizes a 
variety of studies evaluating programs targeted towards children.
  
35 Ibid.
  
36 Jeffrey Mayer, et al, "Health Promotion 
in Maternity Care," in A Pound of Prevention: The Case for Universal 
Maternity Care in the U.S., edited by Jonathan B. Kotch, et al., 
Washington, D.C.: American Public Health Association, 1992, cited in 
Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Family, Opportunities for 
Success: Cost-Effective Programs for Children, Update, 1990.
 
37 R.A. Windsor, et al., "A Cost-Effective 
Analysis of Self-Help Smoking Cessation Methods for Pregnant Women," 
Public Health Reports 103, no. 1, January/February 1988:83-88.
 
38 Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "CDC 
Immunization Information," unpublished, March 1995.
  
39 Tabulations provided by Martin Landry, 
National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
 
40 Ibid.
 
41 Children's Defense Fund, The State 
of America's Children Yearbook, 1997.
 
42 U.S. General Accounting Office, Home 
Visiting, (HRD-90-83). Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting 
Office, July 1990. 
  
43 Ibid.
 
44 David Olds and Harriet Kitzman, "Review 
of Research on Home Visiting for Pregnant Women and Parents of Young 
Children," The Future of Children 3, no. 3, Winter 1993: 53-92.
  
45 Jeffrey Mayer, et al., "Health 
Promotion in Maternity Care," cited in Select Committee on Children, 
Youth, and Family, Opportunities for Success: Cost-Effective 
Programs for Children, Update, 1990.
  
46 Henry C. Heins, "Social Support in 
Improving Perinatal Outcome: The Resource Mothers Program," 
Obstetrics and Gynecology 70, no. 2, August 1987: 263-66.
   
47 The Infant Health and Development 
Program, "Enhancing the Outcomes of Low Birth Weight, Premature Infants," 
Journal of the American Medical Association 263, no. 22, June 1990.
 
48 Jeffrey Mayer, et al., "Health 
Promotion in Maternity Care," cited in Select Committee on Children, 
Youth, and Family, Opportunities for Success: Cost-Effective 
Programs for Children, Update, 1990.
  
49 David L. Olds, et al., "Effect of 
Prenatal and Infancy Nurse Home Visitation on Government Spending," 
Medical Care 31, no. 2, February 1993: 155-74. Preliminary 
analysis of a 15-year follow-up of the Elmira intervention indicates 
additional benefits for low-income participants, including reductions 
in childbearing, substances abuse, and crime for the mothers, lower 
rates of child abuse, and decreased overall arrests rates for the 
children (David Olds, et al., "Long-Term Effects of Home Visitation on 
Maternal Life Course, child Abuse and Neglect, and Children's Arrests: 
A 15-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial," unpublished, University of 
Colorado, 1997). A recent replication of the intervention to primarily 
African-American women in Memphis, Tennessee, indicates that home 
visiting leads to fewer complications in pregnancy and fewer health 
problems for the children during the first two years of the child's life 
(Harriet Kitzman, et al. "Randomized Trial of Prenatal and Infancy Home 
Visitation by Nurses on the Outcomes of Pregnancy, Dysfunctional Care 
giving, Childhood Injuries, and Repeated Childbearing Among Low-Income 
Women with No Previous Live Births," unpublished, University of Colorado 
Health Sciences Center, 1997).
  
50 David L. Olds, et al., "Effect of 
Prenatal and Infancy Home Visitation on Government Spending."
  
51 Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Morbidity 
and Mortality Weekly Report 46, no. 7., February 21, 1997.
  
52 H.L. Needleman, et al.,"Bone Lead 
Levels and Delinquent Behavior," Journal of the American Medical 
Association 275, no. 5, February 7, 1996: 363-9.
 
53 Office of Lead Hazard Control, U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Moving Towards a 
Lead-Safe America: A Report to the Congress of the United States. 
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
February 1997.
 
54 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, "Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Rule on 
Lead-Based Paint," unpublished, June 1996.
 
55 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Requirements for 
Disclosure of Known Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards in 
Housing: Final Rule," unpublished, March 1996.
 
56 Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the 
Needs of Young Children," Starting Points: Meeting the Needs of Our 
Youngest Children. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 
1994.
 
57 Ibid.
  
58 E.F. Zigler and M. Frank (eds.), The 
Parental Leave Crisis: Toward A National Policy. New Haven: Yale 
University Press, 1988.
  
59 Jacob A. Klerman and Arleen Leibowitz, 
"The Work-Employment Decision Among New Mothers," Journal of Human 
Resources 29, no. 2, Spring 1994: 277-303, show that 73 percent of 
employed women with one-month-old infants and 41 percent of employed 
women with two-month-old infants were on leave from their jobs, rather 
than working, during the 1986-1988 period.
  
60 For further details on the FMLA, see 
Christopher J. Ruhm, "Policy Watch: The Family and Medical Leave Act," 
Journal of Economic Perspectives, Spring 1997, forthcoming. 
  
61 Commission on Family and Medical 
Leave,A Workable Balance: Report to Congress on Family and Medical 
Leave Policies, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor 1996.
 
62 David Cantor, et al., "The Impact of 
the Family and Medical Leave Act: A Survey of Employers," unpublished, 
Westat Inc., October 1995.
  
63 Tabulations from the Survey of Income 
and Program Participation, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.
 
64 Quality care is best measured by the 
warmth and interaction between the provider and the child, but assessing 
these dimensions is necessarily a subjective, timely, and expensive 
exercise. As a result, researchers and regulators tend to focus on 
more easily observable specific structural measures, such as 
child-teacher ratios, group sizes, and staff training. The available 
evidence suggests that changes in these structural factors have the 
potential to improve the quality of child care, if they are 
accompanied by broader changes in the way child care is delivered, 
although there are smaller benefits if they occur in isolation (e.g. 
David M. Blau, "The Production of Quality in Child Care Centers," 
Journal of Human Resources 32, no. 2, Spring 1997: 354-87.)
 
65 John M. Love, et al., "Are They In Any 
Real Danger? What Research Does -- And Doesn't -- Tell Us About Child 
Care Quality and Children's Well-Being," unpublished, Mathematica Inc., 
May 1996; Suzanne W. Helburn and Carollee Howes, "Child Care Cost and 
Quality," The Future of Children 6, no. 6, Summer/Fall 1996: 
62-82; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, "Mother-Child Interaction 
and Cognitive Outcomes Associated With Early Child Care: Results of the 
NICHD Study," unpublished materials for the Poster Symposium of the 
Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, 
Washington D.C., April 1997.
66 Hirokazu Yoshikawa, "Long-Term Effects 
of Early Childhood Programs on Social Outcomes and Delinquency," The 
Future of Children 5, no. 3, Winter 1995.
 
67 Donna Bryant and Kelly Maxwell, "The 
Effectiveness of Early Intervention for Disadvantaged Children," in 
The Effectiveness of Early Intervention, edited by Michael 
Guralnick. Baltimore MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 1997: 23-46.
  
68 Marcy Whitebook, et al., Who Cares? 
Child Care Teachers and the Quality of Care in America: A Final Report: 
National Child Care Staffing Study. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee 
Project, 1989. 
  
69 John M. Lowe, et al., "Are They In Any 
Real Danger? What Research Does -- And Doesn't -- Tell Us About Child 
Care Quality and Children's Well-Being."
 
70 Average weekly child care costs were 
$74 in 1993 for families with employed mothers that purchased care (Lynne 
M. Casper, "Waht Does It Cost To Mind Our Preschoolers? Current 
Population Reports, no. P70-52, Washington, D.D.: U.S. Department 
of Commerce, September 1995.)
  
71 D.S. Phillips, ed., Child Care for 
Low-Income Families: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, D.C.: 
National Academy Press, 1995.
  
72 House Committee on Ways and Means, 
The 1996 Green Book, 104th Cong., 2nd sess. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Government Printing Office, 1996; Office of Management and Budget, 
Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, 
Fiscal Year 1998.
  
73 Administration for Children and 
Families, Department of Health and Human Services, "Child Care and 
Development Fund," unpublished, December 1996.
  
74 House Committee on Ways and Means, 
The 1996 Green Book.
  
75 House Committee on Ways and Means, 
The 1995 Green Book; Office of Management and Budget, 
Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, 
Fiscal Year 1998.
  
76 For a review of the literature see W. 
Stephen Barnett, "Benefits of Compensatory Preschool Education," 
Journal of Human Resources 27, no. 2, Spring 1992: 279-312.
  
77 Ibid.
  
78 Ibid. The author notes that some of 
these studies may not have sufficient control groups since they were 
self-selected or drawn from different populations.
  
79 Hirokazu Yoshikawa, "Long-Term Effects 
of Early Childhood Programs on Social Outcomes and Delinquency," 
The Future of Children 5, no. 3, Winter 1995: 51-75.
  
80 Janet Currie and Duncan Thomas, 
"Does Head Start Make A Difference?" American Economic Review, 
85, no. 3, June 1995: 341-64.
  
81 Lawrence Schweinhart, et al., 
Significant Benefits. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press, 1993. 
However, the results of the Perry Preschool study may not be 
generalizable to other preschool programs that may provide higher or 
lower levels of services or monetary investment.
  
82 Lawrence Schweinhart, et al., 
Significant Benefits.
  
83 Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Trends in the Well-Being of Children and Youth: 1995. 
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.
  
84 Head Start Bureau, U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services, "Head Start Statistical Fact Sheet," 
unpublished, February 1997.
  
85 Barbara Devaney, et al.,"Programs That 
Mitigate the Effects of Poverty on Children."
  
86 Abt Associates Inc., "The Effects of 
Head Start Health Services: Report of the Head Start Health Evaluation," 
unpublished, Cambridge, MA, 1984.
  
87 R.L. McKey, H. Ganson Condelli, et 
al., The Impact of Head Start on Children, Families, and Communities: 
Final Report of the Head Start Evaluation, Synthesis and Utilization 
Project. Washington, D.C.: CSR, Inc., June 1985.
  
88 Janet Currie and Duncan Thomas, "Does 
Head Start Make A Difference?" American Economic Review; Janet 
Currie and Duncan Thomas, "Can Early Childhood Education Lead to Long 
Term Gains in Cognition?" Policy Options, forthcoming.
  
89 Head Start Bureau, U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, Improving Head Start: A Success Story," 
unpublished, November 1996; additional tabulations provided by the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services. 
 
 
White Papers Index