The highest-return years.
Early childhood has the strongest experimental evidence of any period in human development. The Perry Preschool and Abecedarian studies, with 40+ years of follow-up, show returns of $7–13 per dollar invested. The question is no longer whether early intervention works — it is which elements drive the effect.
8
experiments
8
positive results
0
null or negative
2
replicated
Key Findings
01
High-quality intensive preschool programs produce large, durable gains in adult outcomes — but lower-intensity programs often do not.
The Perry Preschool Project randomized 123 Black children in Ypsilanti, Michigan to receive 2.5 hours of daily preschool plus weekly home visits, or no program. At age 40, participants had higher employment (76% vs. 62%), higher earnings, and dramatically lower arrest rates (36% vs. 55% convicted of a felony). The Abecedarian Project — a full-day year-round program from birth to age 5 — found similarly large effects on IQ, education, and health at age 35. Both programs were expensive and intensive. Head Start, which is lower in cost and intensity, produced much smaller effects in the national randomized evaluation — primarily cognitive gains that faded by third grade.
02
Parenting programs that improve caregiver quality produce lasting gains for children — even starting in the prenatal period.
The Nurse-Family Partnership, which pairs low-income first-time mothers with nurse home visitors from pregnancy through age 2, reduced child abuse and neglect by 48% and improved children's academic achievement at age 15. The Jamaica stimulation study found that 24 months of psychosocial stimulation from community health workers for stunted children produced earnings 25% higher than controls at age 22 — one of the largest and longest-run effects ever documented for a low-income country intervention. Both programs work through improving caregiver responsiveness, not direct child instruction.
03
Structured pre-K curricula with teacher coaching produce larger effects than typical public programs.
The Boston Public Pre-K program — using structured curriculum and intensive teacher coaching — produced language gains of 0.32 SD and executive function gains of 0.45 SD, among the largest effects documented in a US public program. The Tulsa pre-K program showed similar large effects. In contrast, the national Head Start randomized evaluation found modest and fading effects. The critical difference appears to be curriculum structure, teacher quality, and coaching intensity — not the existence of pre-K per se.
Important Null & Negative Results
Programs that failed to produce expected outcomes under rigorous evaluation.
Head Start Impact Study
United States (nationally representative) · 2002
Head Start's national randomized evaluation found that most academic gains faded by the end of first grade. The program exists in over 1,600 communities with highly variable quality. The average-quality Head Start program does not replicate the Perry or Abecedarian results — which were unusually intensive and high-quality for their era.
All Experiments in the Registry
Perry Preschool Project
positiveYpsilanti, Michigan, USA · 1962
Nurse-Family Partnership — Elmira Trial
positiveElmira, New York, USA · 1977
Jamaica Stunting Study — Stimulation + Nutrition
positiveKingston, Jamaica · 1986
UK Sure Start Local Programmes
positiveEngland, United Kingdom · 2010
Seattle Preschool Program RCT
positiveSeattle, WA, USA · 2017
Big Brothers Big Sisters — National Impact Study
positiveMultiple US cities · 1992
The Abecedarian Project
positiveChapel Hill, NC, USA · 1972
Boston Public Pre-K Program
positiveBoston, Massachusetts, USA · 2009
What the Evidence Cannot Yet Tell Us
What is the minimum intensity required to produce durable effects? Perry and Abecedarian were expensive and intensive; Head Start is cheaper and less intense. The dose-response relationship for early childhood investment is not well characterized.
Do preschool effects persist into adulthood for more recent cohorts? Perry and Abecedarian are 40+ year old studies; modern programs may have different baselines and counterfactuals.
Which component of the Nurse-Family Partnership drives effects — the nursing expertise, the frequency of visits, or the relationship quality?
How much of the Perry/Abecedarian effect came from the direct program and how much from protecting children from subsequent adverse conditions?