Program Profile: Child-Parent Center Program (Chicago, Ill.)

This is a school- and family-based early intervention program that provides comprehensive educational and family support services to economically disadvantaged children. The program is rated Promising. The treatment group showed statistically significant declines in substance use, incarceration rates, and felony arrest rates at age 24, compared with the comparison group. However, there was no statistically significant effects on conviction rates or depressive symptoms.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Program Theory

Child–Parent Center (CPC) is a school- and family-based early intervention program that provides comprehensive educational and family support services to economically and educationally disadvantaged children. The CPC program was established in Chicago, Ill., in 1967 and was funded through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It is the second-oldest publicly funded preschool (after Head Start). The ultimate goal of the CPC program is to enhance school success, social competence, economic self-sufficiency, and general health.

The theoretical foundation of the program emphasizes three main points: 1) a stable learning environment with systematic language learning activities will promote scholastic development; 2) parent involvement in a child’s education will enhance parent–child interactions and attachment to school; and 3) early efforts designed to prevent delinquency are more effective than programs targeting teenagers.

Program Components

The CPC preschool program is 3 hours daily, for 5 days a week. The program also provides support during the transition to school with a ½-day or all-day kindergarten, and some services in elementary school. Centers are located in or close to an elementary school and follow the 9-month school year calendar, with the addition of a summer program. Classrooms are small and include low child-to-staff ratios (17:2 in preschool, 25:2 in kindergarten and elementary school). The program includes 1) activities designed to promote academic and social success, 2) a parent program to promote involvement in school, 3) outreach activities including home visitation, and 4) a comprehensive program to aid in the transition into elementary school.

The classroom teacher runs all classes and family services. Most of the family services are focused on increasing involvement in the child’s education at home and in school. Throughout the program, three central features are emphasized: 1) the provision of comprehensive services, 2) parental involvement in school to enhance parent–child interactions and attachment to school, and 3) a child-centered, basic reading and math skills concentration characterized by small class sizes and a high number of adult supervisors to promote individualized attention.

Parental involvement is an underpinning of the program; each parent is required to spend at least a ½-day per week in the center during preschool and kindergarten. Parental involvement can be in the form of acting as a classroom aide, accompanying field trips, using the parent-resource room, participating in reading groups with other parents, or taking trips to the library with teachers or children. The parent program also includes parenting training, home visits, health and nutrition services, and sponsors continuing education courses for parents.

Key Personnel

All classroom teachers have bachelor’s degrees and are certified in early childhood education. In addition to the classroom teacher, each center has a head teacher who acts as a principal, two coordinators, a Parent–Resources Teacher who supervises the parent program, a Curriculum–Parent Resource Teacher who organizes the activities of the parent program, and a School–Community Representative who coordinates the outreach activities.

Study

Reynolds and Ou (2011) conducted a quasi-experimental study to examine the effects of the Child–Parent Center (CPC) early educational intervention. The evaluation used participants from the ongoing Chicago (Ill.) Longitudinal Study, which follows 1,539 predominantly African American children born in 1979 or 1980 who grew up in a high-poverty area of Chicago.

The study used the five-hypothesis model of intervention (5HM), which suggests that outcome effects can be attributed to five general paths of influence: cognitive advantage, motivational advantage, social adjustment, family support behavior, and school support behavior. In the 2011 study, evaluators looked at the extent to which the 5HM accounted for the effect that CPC had on three indicators of adult well-being: occupational prestige, felony arrest, and depressive symptoms.

Treatment participants were all children (n = 989) who entered the CPC in preschool and completed kindergarten in 1986. Comparison participants were children (n = 550) who attended alternative kindergarten programs without the CPC in preschool. The comparison group schools were randomly selected out of 27 schools. At time of program entry, participants of both groups had similar numbers of family socioeconomic risk factors, similar rates of child abuse and neglect, teen parenthood, financial problems, and other family characteristics. However, the treatment group was more likely to have parents who were high school graduates and were female. They were also more likely to live in poorer areas.

By 2004, participants were about 24½ years old. The primary outcomes of interest were criminal behavior, socioeconomic status, depressive symptoms, and substance use. Criminal behavior was measured through participants’ felony arrest rates, conviction rates, and incarceration rates at age 24. Socioeconomic status was measured as completion of high school, occupational prestige, and whether participants had health insurance at age 24. Depressive symptoms and substance use were assessed through the Brief Symptom Inventory. Data were collected using adult surveys responses from participants ages 22 to 24, criminal records, employment records, college records, as well as other county, state, and federal administrative sources. Of the original sample, evaluators were able to get valid data on criminal behavior from 92 percent, data on educational attainment from 89.2 percent, data on health status from 87 percent, and data for depressive symptoms from 74 percent. There was no evidence of selective attrition. The 5HM was analyzed with the structural equation modeling program LISREL. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

Reynolds, Temple, and colleagues (2011) conducted a cost–benefit analysis of the Child–Parent Center with the participants from the ongoing Chicago (Ill.) Longitudinal Study. Evaluators looked at the preschool program, the school age program, and the extended preschool and school program. Benefits to society were the sum of benefits to program participants and the general public. Benefits to the general public included the reduced costs of education and child welfare, the reduced costs to crime victims, the reduced costs for mental health and substance abuse treatment, and increased earnings.<br><br> They found that the average cost of the preschool program was $8,512 per participant. The program was associated with an average societal benefit of $92,220 (or a savings of $10.83 for every $1.00 spent per participant) as well as an average public benefit of $61,246 (or a savings of $7.20 for every $1.00 spent per participant).<br><br> They also found that the school age program cost an average of $3,792 per participant. The program was associated with an average societal benefit of $15,064 (or a savings of $3.97 for every $1.00 spent per participant) as well as an average public benefit of $8,000 (or a savings of $2.11 for every $1.00 spent per participant).<br>,br> For the extended preschool and school age programs they found that the average cost was $5,163 per participant. The extended program was associated with an average societal benefit of $42,520 (or a savings of $8.24 for every $1.00 spent per participant) as well as an average public benefit of $26, 884 per participant (or a savings of $5.21 for every $1.00 spent per participant).

Information on the curriculum and other resources is available on the Child-Parent Center website.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Reynolds, Arthur J. 1994. “Effects of a Preschool Plus Follow-On Intervention for Children at Risk.” Developmental Psychology 30(6):787–804.

Reynolds, Arthur J., Heesuk Chang, and Judy A. Temple. 1998. “Early Childhood Intervention and Juvenile Delinquency: An Exploratory Analysis of the Chicago Child–Parent Centers.” Evaluation Review 22(3):341–72.

Reynolds, Arthur J., and Dylan L. Robertson. 2003. “School-Based Early Intervention and Later Child Maltreatment in the Chicago Longitudinal Study.” Child Development 74(1):3–26.

Reynolds, Arthur J., Judy A. Temple, and Suh–Ruu Ou. 2010. “Impacts and Implications of the Child–Parent Center Preschool Program.” Paper presented at the National Invitational Conference of the Early Childhood Research Collaborative on “Critical Issues in Cost-Effectiveness in Children’s First Decade.” Minneapolis, Minn., Dec. 7–8, 2007.

Reynolds, Arthur J., Judy A. Temple, Suh–Ruu Ou, Dylan L. Robertson, Joshua P. Mersky, James W. Topitzes, and Michael D. Niles. 2007. “Effects of a School-Based, Early Childhood Intervention on Adult Health and Well-Being.” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 161(8):730–739.

Reynolds, Arthur J., Judy A. Temple, Barry A.B. White, Suh–Ruu Ou, and Dylan L. Robertson. 2011. “Age 26 Cost–Benefit Analysis of the Child–Parent Center Early Education Program.” Child Development 82(1):379–404.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Early Developmental Prevention Programs for At-Risk Youths

This practice consists of early developmental programs that focus on enhancing child, parent–child, or family well-being to prevent social deviance and criminal justice involvement among at-risk children under age 5. The practice is rated Effective for reducing deviance and criminal justice involvement in youths who participated in early developmental prevention programs, compared with youths in the control group who did not participate.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Crime & Delinquency - Criminal justice involvement

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?